Bargaining for the 2025-27 labor agreement between the state and MGEC kicked off Tuesday, September 9th with the exchange of proposals from both parties. The state came to the table with a list of 41 proposals and MGEC presented 34 proposals. Our proposals are each designed to expand MGEC members’ compensations and benefits; the state’s generally attempt to restrict or lessen them.
Subsequent rounds of bargaining, held Thursday the 19th of September and October 6th, were more about either eliminating proposals or finding agreement on obvious topics like revising the dates of the contract. There are many styles of negotiating contracts, some direct and some that seem performative; the state tends to come to the table with a long list of non-starters that we spend significant time pushing away. Once that happens, the real topics of negotiation come to the fore.
We know that MAPE and AFSCME settled their contracts with a sub-inflationary wage adjustment that puts MGEC members even further behind with respect to comparable jobs. But they also protected the critical balance in our healthcare spending split between the employer and our members. Recall that this spring, the employer attempted to shift ALL the massive increases in healthcare spending to employees instead of absorbing them. This represented many millions of new dollars that were on top of the expected increases. Had the state prevailed, premiums as well as out-of-pocket costs would have soared immediately and, more importantly, would have established a new pattern of cost sharing that would affect state employees for decades to come. As we have seen from other employers made that choice after the healthcare pricing shocks after the Great Recession, it’s a genie that can’t be put back in the bottle. Those employees now pay far more for healthcare than SEGIP members.
With respect to regular contract bargaining, MGEC’s proposals focus on items the employer is more prone to say “yes” to. Language items like bringing transparency to the reallocation process, achieving language parity on telework, clearing up language on overtime issues as mentioned above, are just a couple of examples. We will be far more specific as negotiations continue – we expect to see a comprehensive economic proposal at the end of October.
External factors demand the security of a labor agreement. As of this writing, the federal government is shut down and we have seen significant federal budgetary recissions that have resulted in the layoff of a number of state employees – none, so far, with MGEC. In other words, federal money that has been promised to state agencies that pays for programs that pay our members has been suddenly halted. There are examples of the funding stopping before the agencies even know about it. The security of having a contract should not be taken for granted.
Returning to the MGEC bargaining team this year is our attorney, Jim Michels. Jim brings 35 years’ experience bargaining contracts with other unions that closely resemble MGEC. And he has prosecuted interest arbitrations for our members that have strengthened our economic positions, combining salary data and an encyclopedic understanding of the law that governs how arbitrators arrive at their decisions. There are few labor attorneys in the State of Minnesota who have more experience of advancing the interests of our members at the bargaining table and in arbitrations. That is particularly useful in a year where the state itself faces economic challenges.
As mentioned, we expect to see the state’s economic proposal at the end of the month. We anticipate that, in light of pattern bargaining, we may see a package that we will then put in front of the MGEC membership for a vote. Stay tuned!