New Bargaining Proposal from Governor Schwarzenegger
May 18, 2010 

Your CAPS Bargaining Team is scheduled to meet with Governor Schwarzenegger's labor negotiators from the Department of Personnel Administration June 2 in Sacramento. 
 
CAPS agreed to meet with DPA after receiving a NEW proposal from DPA.  You can read it verbatim here:  http://www.capsscientists.org/Bargaining/Governors_May_10_Proposal.pdf
 
This proposal has not yet been explained to CAPS but we view this proposal as a starting point for negotiations.  That is the purpose of the June 2 meeting.  However, we provide some explanation below, based on what we know from a variety of sources.  CAPS is taking this proposal very seriously.  We will make every effort to reach an agreement that is acceptable to a strong majority of CAPS members.
 
Toward this end, in the coming days, the CAPS Bargaining Team will be seeking input from YOU and EVERY state scientist regarding this latest proposal, as well a parameters that might lead the CAPS Team to reach agreement with the Schwarzenegger Administration.  Any such tentative agreement must be ratified first by the CAPS membership, then by the State Legislature before it adjourns for the year.  One thing is certain: this will be the LAST time an agreement with Governor Schwarzenegger is possible.  His term expires this year, the Legislature is scheduled to adjourn later this summer, and any agreement that includes a salary increase MUST be ratified by the State Legislature. 
 
Here are some things to ponder as you review the Governor's proposal:
  • Salary Increase. The governor proposes to broaden each salary range. This would be the first salary range modification in years, but this one won't take effect for two years. Although clearly inadequate, this proposal must be evaluated with an eye towards who is elected to replace Schwarzenegger, and the condition of the budget. Of course we won't know these things until long after this governor is gone.
     
  • Retirement.  The proposed contribution increase for employees would result in an immediate and permanent five percent reduction in your take-home pay.  CAPS opposes this new shift in responsibility for funding CalPERS.  This is apparently the Governor's latest attempt to shift paying for services from management to state scientists.  On the heels of unpaid furloughs, this one is simply unacceptable.
     
    The changes in retirement formula would once again establish a "second tier" retirement program for newly hired state scientists.  An ever growing number of state scientists would be relegated to this "second class" program as older scientists retire and new, younger ones are hired to replace them.  CAPS went through this during the 1990's under the Wilson Administration, and it caused great dissension among state scientists and all state employees.  The problem was "solved" with enactment of SB 400 in 1999.  This bill, as you may recall, made tier one available to all employees and increased retirement formula for each tier.
     
  • Personal Leave. The governor proposes to extend this program for one year, with employees self directing their day off, with supervisory approval, and these credits would have no cash value. This equates to a reduction in take-home pay of 4.6%. The non-partisan Legislative Analyst has evaluated this proposal: http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/budgetlist/PublicSearch.aspx?Section_Number=0&Department_Number=9801&KeyCol=216
     
  • Holidays and Overtime.  The governor wants to limit the number of holidays on which state scientists will get paid time and one-half overtime, when they are required to work.  Most state scientists are never required to work on a holiday, but some are, and this proposal would reduce income.  It has far-reaching and huge financial implications for other groups of state employees who work those days, typically peace officers, firefighters and those in 24-hour facilities.  He further proposes that CAPS agree to the current practice of not counting leave absences when calculating overtime compensation.
     
  • Health Benefits.  Again, the governor wants CAPS to agree to something he already eliminated in the budget process, over CAPS strong objections.  The rural health subsidy program provided desperately needed financial support to state scientists and all state employees living in areas not served by an HMO.  Without this subsidy, many state scientists saw their take-home pay further reduced, some quite substantially.
     
  • Salary Appropriation.  This proposal requires further explanation from DPA.  This year and in every other year, funds for employee salary and benefits are included in the state budget.  The governor could propose a separate appropriation bill outside the state budget process for employee compensation to ensure employees get paid in full and on-time regardless of the status of the state budget.  On the other hand, winning the required 2/3 vote for an employee compensation bill this year or any other year presents challenges of its own.  To date, Republicans have refused to support CAPS' AB 790, our continuous appropriation bill for state employees.  It is an open question whether they would support a separate bill to fund employee compensation.  And if they were to do so, at what price their support would come.
     
  • Contract Term.  A two-year agreement would further lock-in and protect existing pay and benefit programs for state scientists.  It could represent an umbrella during stormy financial conditions during the next two years, but it would also almost certainly prevent CAPS from negotiating more favorable terms should the opportunity somehow present itself.   The terms of any such agreement need to be right!
CAPS represents all rank-and-file state scientists in these negotiations.  That's nearly 3000 state scientists in roughly 250 classifications, 52 scientific disciplines, employed by 36 state departments.  EVERY state scientist is under significant financial pressure due to unpaid furloughs and the lack of salary growth in recent years.  A great many of us are nearing retirement.  There are so many unmet needs among state scientific classifications and programs, it will be impossible to address them all in any agreement.  Our challenge is to negotiate the best terms possible under these very difficult circumstances.  If there is sufficient reason to reach tentative agreement in the judgment of the CAPS Team, it will be subject to YOUR approval in a ratification vote.  The final decision will be YOURS, and that of ALL CAPS members.