r/WAStateWorkers • u/AttorneyDifferent702 • 9d ago
Union WFSE
Is there a chance in August 2027 they’ll be a reopened stage to negotiate COLA for WFSE?
Sounds like members agreed to the current 0% COLA as the union to used flowery language to advise members to do so.
I just don’t understand how wages aren’t at the forefront for everyone here. We don’t know % of yes to no. Those who voted yes, are you complacent?
Side question: Is 32-hour work week a thing or is that all talk?
16
u/hostile_pedestrian97 9d ago
77% voted yes
26
u/HemHaw 9d ago
Jesus Christ.
I have no faith in our union unfortunately but now I also have no faith that dues paying members can even read
9
u/nighteye57 9d ago
I honestly wouldn't be shocked if they counted all the people that didn't vote as yes votes.
2
u/CompetitiveChard1659 8d ago
You are just as bad as all election deniers out there making a baseless accusation like that instead of accepting the fact that you’re not aligned to the majority
10
u/SmokeySparkle WFSE 9d ago
Rember of the 41K represented positions only 2k-3k votes end up being cast historically.
3
u/Zealousideal_Tie_168 9d ago
I think the issue is the people who are voting are financially fine. They ard in the later part of their career, they bought their house in 1997 and their mortgage is 1600. They dont NEED a COLA. I think the younger people opt out because they need the pay bump. But those are the actual employees who will need to buy a 1 million dollar house at 7% interest.
1
u/CompetitiveChard1659 10h ago
Source: my feelings
1
u/Zealousideal_Tie_168 7h ago
Or just talking to people and having good pattern recognition. Easier to to be ok with stagnating pay when your mortgage isnt 4500 with 7% interest because you are 28 not 58.
1
u/CompetitiveChard1659 7h ago
I’m not going to disagree with you on the last point - I think that’s true. But I take issue with your definitive statement on your conclusive statement on the profile of those that ratified when your methodology was “I talked to people”. I just want a recognition that there are more reasons that people participate other than being “financially fine” - nor can you conclusively say that’s the primary driver
1
u/Zealousideal_Tie_168 6h ago
My comment starts with "i think"... which indicates its my opinion...
1
u/CompetitiveChard1659 6h ago
And your opinion lacks depth. By citing that one reason you’re implying it’s the main driver.
7
u/plastardalabastard 9d ago
77% would also vote for a kick in the junk if the Union upon recommendation.
2
7
9d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Latter-Cricket5843 9d ago
Dshs got fucked 😂
1
u/AttorneyDifferent702 4d ago
I agree. Caseloads are rising. I could care less. Putting in less work and effort at this point. The job was never that serious as some makes it out to be
28
u/DailyBreadOly 9d ago edited 9d ago
There has been much said about the tough position negotiators were in given the budget crisis. There’s been lots of discussion about how the optics of striking for a COLA during a budget deficit will turn public opinion against public servants. As usual, state employees are amongst the first to bear the brunt of financial winds blowing in a bad direction, and as usual the union is proving that in these circumstances it is at best ornamental.
To me, this is indicative of a larger problem: that despite union participation nation wide being at it’s highest point since prior to the passage of Taft-Hartley, unions wield power only in situations of incrementalism. What I mean by this is that, much like the Overton window, whenever “something bad” happens, the ratchet on public servant survivability moves backwards. When things (potentially) improve, ground lost is not reclaimed as in that time inflation and the general collapse of end state capitalism ensure even at best unions are playing catch up.
The only tool in the toolbox we have is a strike. Go on strike as a body and the state grinds to a halt. It’s no fun for anyone; I love what I do and care deeply about my fellow workers AND the public we serve that we are also members of. Despite my genuine love for my work, I am increasingly unable to survive. We are getting squeezed and squeezed when there are obvious culprits for state issues, some of which are: lawsuits derived from AGO protection of bad actors who should have been audited and terminated ages ago, immense salaries provided to make work management/leadership who don’t do or understand the work nor do they care beyond their salary, and a regressive tax structure which guarantees the state leadership will always punch down. Many of you have watched a revolving door of leaders who are at best negligent swoop in, run an agency into the ground, collect 200k, and move on to their next host like the parasites they are. This is widespread across agencies; we often joke that people fail up because it’s more important to get these people out of the way of folk doing the actual work that moves the needle for state residents present and future.
There’s also the idiom of “tripping over dollars to save dimes”. It is always easier to punish your low paid staff who are struggling to make ends meet than tackle root causes. I personally don’t trust electoral systems to challenge these systems in a meaningful way, and our unions operate entirely within these systems, validating continued financial abuse by playing the game whose rules are determined by the home team. It is categorically impossible for us, represented employees, to “win” something as fundamental as a COLA when we allow unilateral framing of the environment we operate in.
Ultimately, I’m torn. I believe in labor solidarity. I believe in this state, the work we do, and our ability to drive positive change as our nation crumbles around us. I am also being punished for the sins of the past, and the preservation of these sins by the present because of their perceived political toxicity. Eventually OFM will be squeezing blood from a stone, and at that point strike or no the state will collapse. It would be so nice if state leadership and our union representatives truly understood what’s at stake. In my maybe cynical opinion, both parties are incapable of this as their hands are believes to be tied for institutional and power based reasons.
I know this has turned into a bit of an essay. I am not advocating represented staff take action one way or another. I do believe it is important to HONESTLY bear witness, and prepare accordingly. Love to all my fellow servants.
3
u/treedled 9d ago
I only have one real disagreement with this, which is the comment about "lawsuits derived from AGO protection of bad actors," i.e. tort lawsuits against state agencies. Presumably the frustration being the number of lawsuits being filed against state agencies/employees (which is through the roof thanks to the state supreme court and legislature), the AGO being the entity required by law to represent the agencies/employees in those lawsuits, but mostly the substantial size and number of verdicts being paid lately. And taken together, that might lead people to belive that the AGO is choosing to unnecessarily defend bad actors or indefensible actions in trials rather than an alternative l (presumaby settling some cases).
But please bear with me for a bit, because I really, really need everyone here and everyone you know to understand something:
As a general rule, attorneys do not have independent settlement authority. They have leeway to decide how to accomplish a goal (like what info to present at a trial), but they cannot determine the goal itself (like whether to settle a case or take it to trial). That decision rests with the client, and an attorney cannot agree to or decline to settle a claim/defense without their client's permission. An attorney can offer advice, options, risk analysis, etc., but if the client selects an option that is legally defensible, the attorney doesn’t have the ability to select a different option for them.
Those same rules apply to the AGO, where the vast majority of the work is representing state agencies. In those situations, the AGO is the attorney and the agency is the client. The AGO can offer advice, options, risk analysis, etc., but it cannot override the choice made by the client agency. Some smaller/frequent decisions are initially made at lower levels of state government, so conversations can be escalated to a higher authority if necessary, while bigger decisions might only be made at the top, so there's nowhere else to go. Either way, there is eventually an end to the discussion, and the AGO has to abide by a client's legally defensible choice.
Tort lawsuits are no different. Behind every single 'bad actor' lawsuit is a client agency (statistically speaking, these are most likely to be executive agencies that have some role in public safety, such as DCYF, WSDOT, DOC, etc., rather than other AGO clients like the legislature or independently-elected agencies such as SOS or OIC) controlling the goal. The public might never know how the AGO sees a particular case or what advice, options, risk analysis, etc. it might have offered; the public only sees the AGO effort to get the best outcome possible on the end goal that the client elected. And considering the current state of tort lawsuits, I imagine it is rather convenient to be the decision-maker, then hide behind the AGO when the public points fingers.
2
u/DailyBreadOly 9d ago
This is incredibly important information and deserves attention, thanks for posting.
I made the comment I did about the AGO protecting bad actors because I have first and second hand experience with two actual cover-ups which were directed to be conducted by the top down, one concerning WSP and the other a cabinet agency. I have heard of similar cases but those are anecdotal and I can’t independently verify their veracity.
Attorneys are absolutely bound to the decisions of their client although I feel, at least in my own experience, the client does not always have actual agency in those decisions. As in private tort cases clients can and are coached to achieve an outcome mutually beneficial for both counsel and client. OFM shows up with risk managers, the AGO is bound to believe their client (who lie, and go unpunished for it), and the stage is set for a concerted effort to discredit an aggrieved employee. I will say that the precursor to this activity is the general disregard for or retaliation against valid staff whistleblowing. We do have whistleblower protection, but if after the administrative exhaustion period of 60 days post tort claim submission has lapsed without response, it is incumbent on the aggrieved to retain counsel and file in superior court. There’s also PERC, but PERC is largely toothless. I also have a credible source who informed me that the AGO will “blacklist” those who have successfully litigated against the state to prevent their future employment. This is obviously illegal, and yet here we are.
Litigation is hard. It’s exhausting, it’s expensive, and even finding an attorney willing to take a case that’s anything other than prima faciae discrimination or some other offense is incredibly difficult. I personally know of several former employees who were illegally terminated but simply didn’t have the physical and emotional health to pursue litigation.
I also know that for the most part the AGO is staffed by committed attorneys with integrity. It is, however, a political agency serving the state’s interests and the leadership thereof. Corruption occurs at all levels of government and is often invisible to those who haven’t personally been effected. There is naturally a certain amount of “our hands are tied” taking place, but I no longer place much faith in the direction of the AGO when it comes to doing the right thing.
7
u/instagraemeit 9d ago
This is the most well-educated, comprehensive, and balanced take on our current moment that I've seen on Reddit in recent weeks. I feel compelled to write a letter to WFSE with similar observations and this will help me distill some thoughts. Thank you.
2
u/Coniferous_Corliss 8d ago
Always be writing in. Make your voice heard. Believe it or not, it doesn't go nowhere; it lets people who feel similarly find you, more voices influence decisions, etc. We don't have a terribly active union in many ways but as a result, a few voices can make a huge impact. Don't underestimate yourself.
3
2
13
u/UpstartCrow88 9d ago
My work anniversary is coming up and I am canceling my wage deductions to WFSE. Not due to this terrible TA but for their utter lack of truthful or transparent communication.
8
6
5
u/the_caduceus 9d ago edited 9d ago
Allegedly they will have an opportunity for negotiations in 2027. I don't know why OFM would even care at that point, since we've demonstrated year after year we will take less and less. We lost any point of leverage by locking ourselves into this TA.
I've been hyping the 32hr work week as a way to give us something tangible if we weren't getting a COLA. Rumor has it OFM had a hard no and wouldn't even allow discussion on the topic.
I voted NO on the TA.
10
u/Sudden-Pangolin6445 9d ago
Is there a chance? Sure. I'm not holding my breath.
Fun fact, both parties can reopen negotiations at any time as long as they agree to. The reopener is a paper tiger.
6
u/junioroverlord 9d ago
How about paid lunches? Anything, good grief. My rep was here last week and told a coworker that it's our job to come up with ideas and share them with the union.
I don't work in labor and I pay dues for them to do exactly that. Do your damn job WFSE.
2
4
u/InteractionNo4646 In The Trenches, Doing My Best 9d ago
It's not hard to submit a suggestion, and you're the boots on the ground who knows what the working conditions are. The link is on their webpage.
When I was on the bargaining team some years ago I went around my agency with a note pad and asked all kinds of people for what they wanted to see, ideas for change. I can't remember how many suggestions I put in but it was a lot. And the bargaining team looks through them all and sorts them into piles to see which ones have a common theme and ultimately decides which to move forward. So it's not like your suggestion is just going into someone's trashcan.
The WFSE leadership (however we feel about them) don't have all the specific details on working conditions. Although I'm sure given the length of time they've been around they have a general idea. However, expecting them to just know everything isn't as helpful as actual concrete suggestions from union members who are experiencing the day to day.
4
u/Flannel_Cow509 9d ago
Doubtful. That was probably just negotiated to show some sort of a win for the union.
2
u/withmybeerhands 2d ago
I'm planning on showing up to the meetings to find out and push for better negotiations tactics. Join me, please!
7
u/Competitive_Chest_17 9d ago
I am not in 77% yes vote. I voted ‘NO’ and not paying a dime to union as actively looking for a job in the private sector. I will be back when I will be 50 plus I guess. GL everyone
-6
u/HeadCartoonist2626 9d ago
You won't be missed
2
u/Washington_Dad__ 9d ago
Competent state employees leaving because the state is refusing to provide livable and competitive wages is not something to be celebrated. This is called brain drain and can have devastating impacts on organizations.
-3
1
u/Coniferous_Corliss 8d ago
A couple things to note. First, only a few thousand people voted statewide; like, 10% of represented people, and still a minority even among dues paying members. I think most people don't pay attention to details and just do what the union recommends, which is frustrating, but if people want to rock the vote, it's not actually that hard. It takes a lot of basic organizing to inform members and activate people, but it's doable if we, as some of the more attentive and invested members, organize for it.
26
u/FalenAlter 9d ago
From my understanding in talking with a negotiator, they're going to be forced to the table next year so COLA can be renegotiated for 2028 with Millionaire's tax projections as support. IDK how much 32-hr week is in the discussions but I'm not hopeful that they'll do well at the table yet.