OFS Bargaining Report #17

OFS Bargaining Report – Day 16

Bargaining for Tuesday, May 30, 2006 is not a report that is going to be very encouraging for our Members based on how the day ended.  Though we still have until midnight Wednesday before the contract officially expires, the Union's Bargaining Team has some serious concerns for reaching a TA with the Company.

The whole day wasn't a bust; we did make some progress on some issues and were even able to TA another article.  But, in the end we are still miles apart on the critical issue of Retiree and Active Employee Health Care.

And the Company has yet to make a proposal on wages.

The bargaining opened with intros of Company personnel to Bob Patrician, CWA pension expert.

The Union passed their counter to Company's Pension/Cash Balance Account (CBA); Bob Patrician presented the Union's proposal.  The Union's counter called for a 5% increase to current pension bands; the accrued current benefits to be used for "seed" money for the establishing of individual CBA's; a phasing in of vesting rights rather than vested at 5 years.  The phase-in would be structured as: 2 years of service at 25%, 3 years of service at 50%, 4 years of service at 75% and 5 or more years of service 100% vested.  And an employee leaving the company for any reason would receive their vested amount in a lump sum at time of separation; employees with 15 years or more of service would have the choice of taking a lump sum or a traditional defined pension benefit at the time of retirement.

The Company took the Union's proposal under advisement.

The Company passed their newest counter to Retiree Health Care.  Clem Johnson explained that the Union and Company are at a critical stage in negotiations, and the Company has looked at every possible option available to them on Retiree Health Care, which the Company has attempted to show in their proposal and counters.

Bill asked Clem why the Company is making this assumption that some retirees are working for other employers and are receiving health care through those other employers when it can offer no proof of that assumption.  Clem advised Bill that is true; the Company has no proof of that assumption.

Bill asked the Company if a retiree happens to acquire health insurance on their own, but are not employed, will that retiree also qualify for the Supplemental Premium?  Clem agreed they would; if any retiree acquires health insurance, such insurance would qualify for the proposed Supplemental Premium.  The Supplemental Premium is a proposal that, if a retiree acquires insurance outside the OFS program, the Company will reimburse that retiree up to $250 for an individual policy and up to $500 for a family policy, but the retiree would be removed from the OFS Medical Plan.  The Company counter also included the clause that the "Supplemental Premium would be payable for the life of the Agreement or three (3) years, whichever comes first."

The Company's counter proposes paying for retirees' Medicare B insurance premium for those retirees 65 years and older.  Also, 65 and older retirees would be required to pick up Medicare B and would be eliminated from the OFS Plan.

Bill asked if the Company was able to look into any type of Health Care Trust account.  Clem told him they did a little research, but there isn't a lot of interest from the Company on such a program.

Bill advised the Company the Union would take their latest counter under advisement.

After a break the Company passed their counter to the Union proposal on Pensions/CBA.  The Company rejected the Union's proposal for a 5% increase on pension bands and proposed to lock them at current levels.  The Company cited cost factor in their decision to reject the increase.

The Company proposed that all employees would be converted to a CBA, except for those employees with 15 years or more; the Company claimed that is in an effort to align the Represented Plan more closely to the non-represented plan.

Bill asked the Company if employees with 15 years or more of service leave the company for any reason and are not pension eligible, how would they be treated?  Clem advised Bill they would be allowed to take a lump sum payment.

The Company advised the Union that they have made recent contributions to the pension to stay in check with legal requirements on pension funding.  The Company made a $500K contribution in 2004 and a $200K contribution in April 2006, and will be making a $200K contribution each quarter of 2006.

Bill advised the Company the Union would take their counter under advisement.

The Company wanted to clarify items in Union proposal Article 24 – Shutdowns.  After much discussion, it was agreed that volunteers for partial shutdowns from affected Job Family/Department would be sought for; going out on shutdown, remaining working in affected Job Family/Department, or accepting a work assignment outside the affected Job Family/Department would be offered by senior service first and, if needed, would then go to the junior service force.

After clarifications on intent, the Union and Company were able to TA Article 24 – Shutdowns.

The Company passed their counter to Article 16 – Forced Adjustment Protection.  The Company did increase the amount of time for WPA's for 10 years but less than 15 years to 24 weeks and for 15 years or more to 36 weeks.  The Company still falls seriously short of fair and reasonable considering that three years ago the Membership agreed to eliminate the highest paying WPA's at the Company's demand.

The Company did agree to the Union proposal to increase Short-Time payments at 85% for employees with 15 years or more.

But the Company is seriously flawed when they refuse to agree that the Union has the right to arbitrate violations committed against Article 16 by their managers.  The Union cannot agree to not being able to arbitrate violations against the contract – if the Company commits a crime against our Members, they must be held accountable.  The only logical reason any company would demand a "No Arbitration" clause in a contract is if they are already planning to commit crimes against the contract.  Such a proposal is totally unacceptable.  As a note, the Company didn't mention that condition of their counter when presenting their counter changes; rather, the Union had to pick up on it after their presentation.  We fear the Company is now trying to sneak language past the Union.

Bill advised the Company the Union would take their counter under advisement.

The Union advised the Company they were rejecting the Company's latest counter on Retiree Health and are putting back on the table the Union's last proposal for Retiree Health Care.

The Union passed their counter on Active Employee Health Care.  The Union proposal included reductions in co-pays, deductibles, Rx co-pays and deductibles, and dental deductibles and co-insurance from the Company's proposal.  The Union rejected the entirety of the Company proposal page two.  Page two was the Company's proposal for premiums, dependent health care, and the ability of the Company to evaluate and make cost adjustments to the Plan on an annual basis.

The Company will take the Union's counter under advisement.

Clem advised the Union he was disappointed in the Union's position on health care and suggested that we remain miles apart on agreement on the health care issue.  He suggested the Company has gone as far as they can in their proposals and doubts they will be able to meet the Union's needs.

Bill advised Clem the Company cannot make proposals that force the Union to reject.  He asked Clem how they can expect the Union to accept a proposal that will force our retirees to become homeless or drop their health care coverage.  How can the Company in good conscience offer a proposal that forces people on fixed incomes to pay $1,000 or more a month for health care coverage?  Bill advised the Company that their proposal to increase active employee healthcare costs from $5 a month to as much as or more than $400 a month is unacceptable.  Bill advised Clem that, when the Company gets ready to make real fair and reasonable proposals, then maybe we can start to make progress, but until then we will remain miles apart.  Bill advised the Company that the Union is indeed moving forward in good faith with our proposals; we are not rejecting outright the Company's proposals but rather are making what we believe are reasonable and fair counter proposals.  And the Union intends to continue to do so through the completion, one way or another, of the bargaining process.

The Union Bargaining Team would highly advise all our Members to take all their personal belongs with them when they leave at the end of their shift today, Wednesday, May 31, 2006.

UNITED WE BARGAIN – DIVIDED WE BEG!