California state workers share mixed feelings on SEIU 1000 deal. Will the agreement pass?

California’s largest state worker union this week announced what union leaders characterized as a historic win for workers after a tough, months-long fight at the bargaining table.

But instead of eliciting a resounding celebration, SEIU Local 1000’s tentative agreement with the state spurred an array of reactions ranging from relative enthusiasm to outright indignation.

More than 185 people responded to a survey posted by The Sacramento Bee on Monday that asked workers to share feedback on the tentative agreement struck between Local 1000 union and Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration.

The responses included comments that expressed pride and gratitude for the union’s four-month fight. Some tempered their praise with concessions that a small raise was better than nothing and, without union representation, their situation could be even worse.

But respondents also voiced despair and even anger.

Many of the survey respondents said they were frustrated that the bargaining team couldn’t deliver a general salary increase larger than 9% or 10% over three years, especially when the initial ask of 30% set high expectations. They argued that 3% each year for three years fails to make up for historic rates of inflation over the last two years and leaves them at a net loss.

Although the unscientific poll only captures feedback from a small fraction of the 96,000 workers represented by Local 1000, the critical comments bring to light a simmering frustration with what some say is the union’s historic inability to deliver landmark contracts.

Why some members say they’re voting ‘no’

Anthony Ku, an information technology specialist with the Department of Technology, was one of several workers who spoke with The Bee about the tentative agreement.

Ku said he knew almost immediately that he would vote “no” on the contract. The deal failed to include any telework protections or hero pay for workers who came into the office during the COVID-19 pandemic. When he worked for the California Highway Patrol, he was an essential employee who was required to come into the office.

“My initial reaction was pretty angry,“ said Ku, who’s worked with the state full-time for four years and spent another four years as a part-time student assistant. He’s “strongly considering” dropping his union membership once the vote concludes.

“I’m not anti-union — I’m all for unions. But our union isn’t working for us.”

Like other critics, Ku was frustrated that the union delivered raises that were less than a third of their initial ask. It “would’ve been great” if negotiators could have guaranteed 5% raises in the first year, Ku said, and he might’ve considered voting “yes” in that case.

Supporters of the agreement pointed out that the union won a plethora of special salary adjustments for hundreds of job classifications. More than 150 of the lowest-paid classifications will receive additional raises of 4%, including representatives at the Department of Motor Vehicles and teaching assistants at the state’s special schools. And 170 additional classifications will receive special salary adjustments between 2.5% and 15.8% (although most of the raises are 5%).

Still, workers in middle-income jobs felt slighted by the small general salary increase and their exclusion from special salary adjustments.

Associate Governmental Program Analysts and Staff Services Analysts — the most common roles in state government — were notably not given additional raises. Some of The Bee’s survey respondents who identified as analysts said they were supportive of the raises targeted at lower-paid workers, but they were also frustrated that the state didn’t acknowledge the negative impacts of inflation for middle-income workers, too.

“They’re rightfully focusing on the lower paid people,” said Stacy Taylor, an associate governmental program analyst who’s worked with various state agencies over the last 15 years, in an interview with The Bee. “But what about the rest of us who are in the middle? We need that increase also.”

Taylor said she’s planning to vote “no” and hopes others will follow suit — even if it means bargaining through the winter and delaying her raise until next year when the Legislature reconvenes.

“We need better,” she said. “I’m willing to not get that money for a while.”

Storm Browne, a staff services analyst with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s education technology unit, also plans to vote “no’‘ on the agreement. He works nights and weekends as an in-home supportive care provider to make ends meet, he said, and a salary adjustment would’ve helped him close the gap. Still, he expects the agreement will pass anyway since it helps many of the lower-paid classifications.

Ku said he might’ve considered voting “yes” on the agreement if analyst positions were included in the special salary agreements.

“Those are the people who do the bulk of government work for the state, and they got nothing.”

Several critics of the agreement, including Browne and Ku, also said they were troubled that Local 1000 didn’t push for any telework provisions. The ability to work from home spares Browne a 30-mile round-trip drive from Citrus Heights and has saved him what he estimates as thousands of dollars in gas money.

Too big for its own good?

Local 1000 has long argued that its power comes from its sheer size. But a number of workers, particularly middle-to-upper-income earners and those with specialized training, are starting to question whether the union is too big, and whether they could reap better outcomes if their union were smaller and therefore more nimble.

“It’s very obvious that they’re way too big,” Taylor said of Local 1000. She floated the idea that analysts, researchers and information technology professionals could split off from Unit 1 to form their own bargaining unit. “I think we could be better served as a smaller group.”

Green, Local 1000’s lead negotiator, said on Monday that she hadn’t heard concerns from members about the union’s size and its ability to meet the needs of all the job classifications it represents.

“I believe that our strength is actually our membership and our sheer size is what moves that needle,” she said.

For IT specialist Lonnie Shea, state service guaranteed three things that the more lucrative private sector didn’t: access to good work-life balance, solid health and retirement benefits and strong union protection.

But Shea said he doesn’t feel like his union is well-equipped to advocate for the needs of highly specialized IT professionals when they’re lumped into a bargaining unit with a wide variety of other professions, such as business analysts and disability evaluators. The reorganization of IT classifications in 2018 left a “bad taste in a lot of people’s mouths” and he worries that if the state can’t bump up pay for IT classifications, then

“We just get used as a lever. We get these small, tiny little raises for everyone, but we’re lagging significantly,” Shea said. “Why am I going to give these guys 90 bucks when I need that to cover inflation?”

Nurse practitioners in state service have also expressed their frustrations about being overlooked as part of their current bargaining unit. As part of Unit 17, they’re paired for bargaining with registered nurses, who outnumber them 50 to 1 and comprise the entire bargaining committee.

Nurse practitioners say the nurses at the negotiating table don’t fully understand the scope of their work as primary care providers. They perform many of the same duties as physicians — such as diagnosing patients, prescribing medication and pulling on-call shifts – yet their salaries are considerably lower. Nurse practitioners advocated at the bargaining table for special salary adjustments of 30% to 40% to become competitive with similar roles outside state service. The new agreement would give them 5%. (Registered nurses didn’t receive any special salary adjustment.)

“I don’t know who to be more frustrated with — SEIU or CalHR,” said Jenny Sauter, a nurse practitioner at Wasco State Prison. “The union’s slogan of ‘Protect Us, Respect Us and Pay Us’? None of that is happening for us.”

Sauter and her husband, Brock Sheela, are both at the top of their pay ranges as nurse practitioners. The only way to make more money is to take what they characterize as a demotion from a primary care provider role to a nurse supervisor or nurse consultant position.

“CalHR isn’t beholden to anybody to act on anything, no matter how good your argument is for salary correction,” Sheela said. “I don’t know what else to do.”

The couple plans to vote “no” on the agreement, and they’re considering whether now is the right time to leave state service entirely. Sheela still needs five more years of service before he’s eligible for retirement, and he said he has no plans to cancel his union membership. At 55, Sauter could retire and find part-time work. She’s not convinced that waiting for the next round of bargaining would net her any better of a deal.

“Is it worth sticking around another three years just to get another bad deal?” Sauter said.

‘Any little bit helps’

Despite the firestorm of negative comments and criticism, some state employees feel the tentative agreement is good enough to warrant a “yes” vote.

“I was just thankful that they’d come to an agreement,” said Kim Todd, who joined the Secretary of State’s Office as an elections analyst in March shortly before bargaining started. “A higher salary increase would’ve been better, but any little bit helps.”

The negative reactions to the deal contradict what union leaders say they’ve heard from the membership.

“To be quite honest. I have heard nothing but positive results from our members,” said Green in an interview with The Bee on Monday. “Overall, the members are pleased with what the negotiating team has done.”

For Angel Flores, a nurse practitioner at Atascadero State Hospital, her “yes” vote resembles more of a resigned shrug rather than a hearty endorsement. She and another nurse practitioner gave a special presentation to CalHR during bargaining that laid out an argument for why they deserved a double-digit salary adjustment.

“Honestly, when I saw that contract, I felt defeated,” said Flores. “But I’ve tried to look at it from a different angle and feel grateful and count my blessings.”

Flores, who has worked in state service for close to 15 years, supplements her day job with telehealth appointments and additional contract nursing shifts to make ends meet. Unlike Sauter and Sheela though, Flores wants to close the door on this round of bargaining and instead gear up for a bigger battle next time. She might even try to earn a spot on the bargaining committee so she can advocate on behalf of nurses and nurse practitioners alike.

“I threw in my towel,” she said. “I’m done. I did the best that I could. And it’s going to be another fight in three years.”