Bargaining Update for 5/6/2025
Both teams are working their way through the large number of counters that are in their respective courts.
Major themes for the day:
Our proposals rejected attempts to take away our members’ rights.
OHSU continues to want unilateral control over performance reviews and reclassifications.
OHSU is conflating orientation, training, and precepting when it is to their advantage but breaks them out in differentials to keep from paying them.
AFSCME Counters:
5.17 Limited Duration Employee: We would like to see limited duration employees who work for OHSU for more than one year have layoff rights. OHSU had countered that they would like those rights to not begin until they’ve worked for two years.
5.23 Preceptor: Many supervisors have denied preceptor pay to employees claiming that it wasn’t “assigned,” so we added “assumes the responsibility to” precept so we can capture the times when the work had to be done and someone stepped up to do it. Also brought the language into alignment with other references to precepting by calling out that it covers both acquiring new skills and refreshing existing competencies.
21.2 Class and Reclass Counter: We rejected OHSU’s definition that would require “50% of an employee’s assigned duties are the unique duties of a higher level job class.” We proposed current contract language with an addition to have anyone who works out of class for 1,040 hours over an 18 month period be automatically reclassified.
Tentative Agreement:
17.3 Computation of Seniority: A small change that clarifies that seniority is based on hours paid (including vacation and sick time) rather than hours worked. This is already the way the system works, but the language was previously contradictory.
OHSU Counters:
5.12 Extended Medical Leave: OHSU added “at the Employer’s discretion” back into this proposal and added a reference to “other paid leave (e.g., Paid Leave Oregon).”
5.19 Orientation. They would like to return to current contract language as they claim there are some departments where orientation can take four weeks or longer. We are attempting to separate the definition of orientation versus precepting and this seems to be conflating them.
5.29 Reclassification. They’re willing to accept our cuts defining reclassification as something that only occurs within a job series, but added some clarifications.
5.X Lead Work: They are open to defining lead work but want it to be closer to the definition in 10.5. Lead Work where the differential is determined.
5.x Trainer or Learner: They proposed titling this as “preceptee” instead as they stated that “learner” has a specific definition at OHSU and they want to avoid this.
5.23 Preceptor: Replaced “learner” with “preceptee.”
5.X Intimidation of a Steward: They rejected the idea of defining this within the contract. We wrote this because they requested that it be defined if we wanted language that would start a grievance regarding intimidation of a steward at step two
6.6.3 Failure to Reach Agreement: This is regarding an employee’s attempt to clarify their performance expectations. OHSU rejected the idea of involving a Labor Management Committee or the Market based Wage Committee, leaving it to the supervisor instead. “Employees concerned with the outcome can escalate their concerns to the next level(s) of leadership.”
6.14 Performance Evaluations: We had proposed cutting part of this language to remove last minute feedback from coworkers because all of it should be communicated and weighed equally. OHSU took it a step further and crossed out “It is the shared expectation that all constructive feedback, other than that gathered immediately prior to the evaluation from colleagues, will have been shared with the employee prior to the evaluation.” OHSU referred to this as “aspirational language” and stated it would be clearer if it was not included at all.
7.5.1 Lactation Breaks: OHSU agreed to most of our language but doesn’t want to guarantee that the lactation breaks will happen on paid time.
8.4.1 Annual Review: OHSU proposed current contract language, rejecting our addition that would loop in an appropriate Labor Management Committee.
8.7.3 Written Request for Market-Based Review or New Classification Request: They agreed to the concept, but wanted to to expand the timeline from 14 to 45 days. They also removed some of the teeth from our language and added a provision that would define how management would make the same request.
Our contract calls for us to begin mediation in May, but since we’re still waiting for a lot of the more substantive proposals both teams believe it makes more sense to postpone that step of the process. We’re currently planning on meeting with the state mediator for the first time on June 17th.
Please be sure that any comments follow our blog commenting guidelines