Thoughtful Editorial By RH/TA On VSEA Grievance
"The workers are pressing their case in a political atmosphere that, at least in other states, has been hostile to labor. They are sensitive to demands that they forgo their rights, and they note that state workers have already given much, including agreed-upon pay cuts, layoffs, and increases in retirement contributions. Union officials say they have an obligation to defend the workers’ interests, even in a situation like that created by Irene."
"But the Shumlin administration, in the spirit of good will and unity, ought to recognize the dedicated service of state workers and, whether or not it is forced to give in on this particular grievance, refrain from stinginess in its dealings with state workers. Vermont must avoid the contemptuous treatment of labor that has become common elsewhere (see post below this story). Irene should have taught us that."
Article published Oct 9, 2011
Preserving good will
Good will and unity following the floods of August are a powerful political force that the Shumlin administration can use to good effect in carrying out its recovery effort, and also to rebuff criticism. But good will and unity are being tested by a snafu involving state workers who were called out to work in the emergency following Tropical Storm Irene.
About 100 workers have filed a grievance because they believe they are entitled to double-time pay according to the terms of the state workers’ contract. The Shumlin administration disputes the workers’ claim. In a sense, both sides are right, creating a clash that threatens to undermine the sense of self-sacrifice that prevailed in the days following the flood.
The question is who must bear the sacrifice of the long hours put in by state workers who responded to the dire circumstances caused by Irene. Should it be the state as a whole, fulfilling an apparent contract obligation by paying state workers double-time for their emergency work? Or should it be the workers themselves by refraining from pressing a case for compensation that they believe they are owed?
Workers from throughout state government were called on to help in the emergency caused by the floods. Their efforts were complicated by the fact that offices where many of them worked were flooded out, and they had to move to other quarters around the state.
The demands on the state workers were not trivial. For example, workers tending to about 50 mentally ill patients at the Vermont State Hospital in Waterbury had to evacuate the residents to diverse sites and then had to take up a new routine traveling to sometimes distant locations to continue essential care. For a health care worker suddenly to have to drive to Brattleboro instead of Waterbury each day entails significant sacrifice.
The extra work required in the period following the storm resulted in an extra $1.9 million in overtime pay for a four-week period, according to state officials. But there was a different category of pay following the flood: double-time emergency pay. The state workers’ contract states that employees who work during “complete emergency closings” are entitled to double-time pay until they receive official notice that they will be working at new locations.
The Shumlin administration says that the “complete emergency closing” occurred only on the day after the flood, Aug. 29, and that employees who were called into work then were entitled to double-time pay. The double pay that went to employees for Aug. 29 totaled about $400,000.
The dispute has arisen because the relocation letters assigning workers to other work sites and ending the double-time pay did not immediately arrive after Aug. 29. State officials say that in many cases they didn’t know where the workers would be assigned and it made no sense to send out relocation letters until they did.
Discussions occurred in those days between the administration and the state workers’ union about the letters, but the Shumlin administration nevertheless declared that the official emergency ended on Aug. 29 and with it the double-time pay.
The state workers’ union argues that the contractual provision on emergency pay is there for a reason: State workers agree to respond in an emergency, knowing they will receive extra compensation. The state has no right to renege on its promised compensation.
State officials counter that the workers’ grievance would result in unfair disparities in pay. Some workers would receive double time and others wouldn’t, even though they worked the same hours and encountered the same emergency.
The workers are pressing their case in a political atmosphere that, at least in other states, has been hostile to labor. They are sensitive to demands that they forgo their rights, and they note that state workers have already given much, including agreed-upon pay cuts, layoffs, and increases in retirement contributions. Union officials say they have an obligation to defend the workers’ interests, even in a situation like that created by Irene.
The grievance about the double-time is taking place in the context of new contract negotiations. The failure of the Shumlin administration to send out relocation letters in a timely manner does not seem to be a grievous error; the administration was in the throes of an emergency at the time. But the Shumlin administration, in the spirit of good will and unity, ought to recognize the dedicated service of state workers and, whether or not it is forced to give in on this particular grievance, refrain from stinginess in its dealings with state workers. Vermont must avoid the contemptuous treatment of labor that has become common elsewhere. Irene should have taught us that.