Month: June 2017

TMSA Contract Negotiation Primer

The first contract between the TMSA and the Metropolitan Council went into effect on October 1, 1996. Since that time the TMSA has had a specific way of handling contract negotiations. The process we follow is:

1. We solicit proposals from our members. Members can submit anything they feel should be guaranteed in the contract. The members submit those proposals in writing to the TMSA Board.
2. The head of the negotiating committee (the TMSA President) collects the proposals. I organize them by the area of the contract that they apply to and give a copy of each proposal to the TMSA Board. In a meeting, the TMSA Board reviews every single proposal. We talk about each and every proposal. The proposals are then voted on by the Board as to whether they should go forward as a proposal, not go forward or be tabled until we can get clarification on the proposal or determine its legality.
3. After the Board completes the process above, the Negotiation Committee is assembled. This year’s Negotiation Committee consists of the TMSA Board, Zaidee Martin and Joel Button who are partners in the law firm Rollins, Martin and Button.
   1. The Negotiation Committee first reviews the proposals the Board chose not to move forward. This is done to ensure that the Committee agrees with the previous decision. There have been situations when a proposal that the Board chose not to move forward was put back into the active proposals because the Negotiation Committee had a different opinion.
   2. The Negotiation Committee then reviews the proposals the TMSA Board chose to move forward or table. This list of proposals is then culled to the group that will be our final proposals.
   3. After the final decision has been made on what proposals will be submitted to the Metropolitan Council, the head of the Negotiating Committee meets with Rollins, Martin and Button to rewrite the proposals into their final language. This is not done to change the proposals agreed to by the Committee but rather so that they are all uniform in language and presentation.
4. On the first day of negotiations with the Metropolitan Council, TMSA presents our proposals and the employers presents theirs. We discuss why each side is making the proposals. We then come back together several times over the next few months to negotiate each other’s’ concerns.
5. The Negotiating Committee does not share specifics of proposals or what is being negotiated during the process. Negotiations are fluid. What at one time may be a good idea is changed to allow for something better to take its place. When you cannot get your full proposal, you may be able to get part of it, so you compromise along the way.

 

Why a proposal is moved forward or not moved forward:

There are several reasons why a specific proposal may or may not be moved forward. These could include:

1. Under state or federal law, they are not legal. This link is the Minnesota Statute that covers public employee relations. An example of such a proposal that falls under this category is one that would propose that the employer must have one supervisor for every twenty operators on the road.
2. The proposal is not within the power of the Metropolitan Council and would require an act of legislation to bring about the change. An example of this is a request to reestablish the “rule of 90” for MSRS retirement.
3. The proposal does not meet the guiding principles or beliefs of what the Board feels are those of a professional supervisor/manager association. Such a proposal would be to restrict the amount of money an incoming supervisor/manger could be paid when they start their job.
4. Two proposals deal with the same topic but do not work together. An example of this would be a proposal that everyone receives a 5% pay raise and one that everyone move to the top of scale. If both are chosen to move forward, we would eliminate the 5% pay raise proposal because it is moot if the other proposal is agreed to by the Council. However, we would also hold that proposal in our “pocket” with the counter that if the Council would not agree to move everyone up to top of scale they may agree to a 5% pay raise.
5. The proposal as written is not chosen but the principle is moved forward as a different proposal. An example of this is a proposal that everyone be reimbursed $500 a year for professional training. This may be a good proposal, but because different training costs different amounts, we may propose that everyone by reimbursed for twenty hours of professional training.
6. The proposal is brand new and no one on the Board or the Committee has heard of it being a problem before. We would table the proposal and a Board member would research the issue. They will then report back to the Committee and then a decision will be made as to whether it should be a proposal.
   1. An example of a proposal not chosen to move forward is that if a TMSA member must appear on behalf of the employer at a grievance, the TMSA member will be paid for their time. The TMSA Board knew of no situation when this had not happened. We went back to several managers and asked about it. They all said they would never require a TMSA member to be at a grievance/arbitration on the employer’s behalf and not pay them for their time. So, the proposal was dropped.
   2. An example of a proposal that would move forward is that all members should be given equal and equitable opportunity to professional training. This came up in proposals for our current contract. We followed the same method as above and confirmed that there appeared to be issues with the process. We moved forward a proposal which then led to a discussion and work toward more equitable professional development.

 

It is my intent during the 3^rd Quarter General Membership meeting to present what we hope to gain with our proposals.