|
|
|
|
Friday Evening, August 12, 2005 (8pm MDST)
The Union met with the company representatives intermittently throughout the day. The company has refused to move as has the Union.
Formal talks are currently recessed while off-table discussions continue.
In Solidarity, |
Bargaining Report #34 |
Friday Afternoon, August 12, 2005 (5pm MDST)
Bargaining resumed this morning with the parties meeting intermittently up through this point. Again, while some progress was made on various administrative issues, absolutely no progress has been made on the main issues important to the membership.
As expected, benefits for both the active employees and post-90 retirees remain the primary point of disagreement. Qwest continues to hold several provisions of the existing contract hostage until and unless the Union agrees to major shifts in both active and post-90 retiree healthcare.
Bargaining continues.
In Solidarity, |
(The District Office has received many questions regarding medical insurance IF we are forced to go on strike. The following are general guidelines..... Please read....)
|
 |
Bargaining Report #33B |
Thursday Afternoon, August 11, 2005
Bargaining resumed late this morning with discussions focusing on Article 3, Call Out, Article 5 Access (pager duty and pay), Article 12 Sickness Absence and Article 16, the grievance and arbitration procedure. While the discussions were frank and open, no agreements were reached.
Talks were recessed at 3 pm this afternoon and Union committee returned to the District 7 office for a review of the pending issues with our attorney and economist. At this point, the next formal session for our talks is not yet scheduled but talks will resume at the call of either party.
The Union committee is remaining available to meet this evening.
In Solidarity, |
|
Thursday Morning, August 11, 2005
The Bargaining Committee is back at the table this morning and little progress was made at the table yesterday.
A bargaining report will be posted later this afternoon. Please read below, the press release from Headquarters. This press release was sent out late this morning to media outlets.
In Solidarity, |
- News from the Communications Workers of America
- The Union for the Information Age
-
- For Immediate Release
- Aug. 11, 2005
-
CWA Reports Little Progress in Qwest Contract Talks as Deadline Nears
Denver – With just a few days left until this weekend’s contract expiration, the Communications Workers of America wants Qwest Communications (NYSE:Q) to get serious about reaching a new contract. The agreement covering 25,000 CWA represented workers expires effective 12:01 a.m., Sunday, Aug. 14.
On a number of members’ critical issues, particularly their concern about the abusive level of forced overtime hours that Qwest is demanding, there is no resolution in sight, CWA said.
CWA District 7 Vice President Annie Hill stated that “CWA’s goal is to reach a fair and peaceful settlement and to negotiate an agreement by the contract expiration. However, Qwest must approach this process in the same spirit, with the same determination to reach an agreement that recognizes and acknowledges the contributions of workers.”
Hill stressed that Qwest is not addressing workers’ concerns about forced overtime, noting that Qwest management is demanding a 100 percent increase in the number of overtime hours employees could be forced to work in any given week – from 8 to 16 hours.
“This was a huge issue the last time we negotiated with the company in 1998. Then, we reached an agreement that reduced required overtime to 8 hours, to give workers back time with their families and the opportunity to better balance their work and family responsibilities. Before that agreement, thousands of workers were being forced to regularly work 60 hours or more every week.
“It took a two-week strike to reach an agreement on this critical issue. We hope Qwest doesn’t force our members again to make such a choice,” Hill said.
On other key issues, Qwest’s proposals are non-existent or are far short of the fair agreement CWA members deserve. Qwest workers have endured a wage freeze for two years, helping to support the company as it was going through tough financial times. Qwest has made no wage offer at this date to workers. The company also wants to shift even more health care costs to active and retired workers, CWA said.
The parties will continue to bargain and CWA members throughout 13 states will keep up their actions and support for a fair contract.
CWA represents 25,000 Qwest workers in Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Idaho, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyomin |
|
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
The 2 parties met for 2 hours today and discussed company demands for reductions in daily differentials and access allowances with no progress. The company then indicated that if we were unwilling to accept dramatic cut-backs in those areas, then they really had nothing else to discuss.
Talks are recessed until tomorrow morning.
Frankly, it has become very apparent that they don’t like to say much just before our weekly calls with the members and have said so at the table. |
|
|
Bargaining Report #31 |
Tuesday, August 9, 2005
Bargaining resumed this morning. After nine consecutive days of virtually no movement, the tone at the table today was improved when we saw the employer modify several of their proposals. On the CSS title; the Part-time/Part-time Seasonal ‘caps’; Article 12 – illness payments; night differential payments; grievance and arbitration language; and the OSR, and Kiosk language.
Movement in this case does not mean that their proposals meet the needs of our members, only that while their proposals are still bad, they aren’t quite as bad.
The big items that are overshadowing these talks are the costs of health care for the active and post –90 retirees, the retiree health care caps and the long-term implications of Retiree Health Care liability. Our economists and actuaries are still reviewing the costs – both current and projected – of these items. We expect an initial read out of the scope of the dollars at stake sometime tomorrow.
As time has been limited, we want to thank the Locals for the following items:
7500 – the 70% bag cookies, address benefits
7400 – the no “inspirational” plaques
7214 – the shirts
In Solidarity,
Your CWA Bargaining Committee
|
Bargaining Report #30 and Letter from Joan Fitz-Gerald, Colorado State Senator |
Monday, August 8, 2005
Bargaining resumed this morning. We discussed a number of proposals, but made only minimal progress. The Union committee reiterated their concern that the Company has not addressed any economic issues with only five days to go. Our Locals need to tell Qwest to get serious. Tell Qwest: WE WANT A CONTRACT!
We will have our District 7 Attorney Richard Rosenblatt on the call on Wednesday. Please e-mail any questions you might have for Richard to Eileen Green at Egreen@cwa-union.org
In Solidarity, |
|
Bargaining Report #29
Saturday, August 6, 2005
Discussions at the two tables resumed this morning and lasted until 6pm Denver time.
At the benefit table, the Union completed their review of the company’s actual costs and projections of the benefits provided to both the active and post-90 retirees. As you will recall, the company’s proposal projected a 12% increase in healthcare costs in each of the next 3 years and demanded that the employees and retirees absorb half (6%) of those increases. For 2004, healthcare costs were essentially flat due to the changes in the prescription program made in the last negotiations. A shift this large in costs would strip the members of any gain that might be made in base wage compensation and would in fact take the members even further back.
To compound this even further, the impact on retirees who are living on fixed incomes would be severe.
The costs of health care, particularly prescription drugs in this country aren’t “news”, but taking a walk on either the employees or the retirees simply isn’t an option. The outcome of the talks at the other RBOC’s has clearly demonstrated that there are viable alternatives that can minimize costs without doing on the backs of our members.
At the contractual table, some incremental progress was made. The union questioned the networks insistence on having the ability to force a junior employee to another work location in an adjoining RCA and the increase in the number of seasonal-part and incidental positions. In the centers, the focus was on the current daily scheduling process and incidental absences. The Union suggested that the company’s complaints might be better addressed through working with the employees and allowing them the flexibility to meet certain facts of life, whether that was transportation problems, issues with Doctor appointments, childcare issues and the fact that everyone once in awhile, I might be late by 5 or 10 minutes. Instead, rigid adherence to schedule and the somewhat anal application of inflexible attendance policies usually only serve to make things worse.
There was not as much tension at either of the tables. Still, the committee feels that we may be able to take a step back from the bitterness that has characterized the talks up to this point.
Talks are recessed. Both parties are meeting in caucus to prepare for the resumption of formal negotiations on Monday, August 8th. Tomorrow morning the Union’s full committee will meet with LeRoy and Louise to go over the health care discussions. The Union stands with it’s proposals and the company has indicated that they will bring a few new proposals to the table Monday.
Judging by the reaction/statements made by various members of the company’s committee of the activities in the Locals, we can safely say that you’re getting some attention.
The next bargaining report will be posted Monday afternoon |
|
|
|
Letters from the US. Senate and Congress
Friday, August 5, 2005
Dear Members:
Attached are two letters from the United States Senate and The Congress of the United States written to Mr. Richard C. Notebaert, Chairman and CEO of Qwest Communications, in behalf of Communications Workers of America.
You can read them online below or download and read them at your leisure.
In Solidarity,
Your CWA Bargaining Committee:
- MARK DAYTON
- Minnesota
July 29, 2005
- Mr. Richard C. Notebaert
- Chairman and CEO
- Qwest Communications International lnc.
- 1801 California Street
- Denver, Colorado 8002
|
Dear Mr. Notebaert:
I understand that the current contract between Qwest Communications and some 25,000 members of the Communications Workers of America will expire on August 13th. I urge you to work cooperatively with their representatives to reach a new, fair contract settlement.
Members of the Communications Workers of America work hard to deliver quality services every day, for which they deserve good compensation and benefits. Your dedicated employees are keys to your future success, and they deserve to be compensated accordingly.
I am also deeply concerned that Qwest is outsourcing jobs, at the expense of Minnesotans. I ask you to inform me whether those reports are accurate and, if so, how many Minnesota jobs have been outsourced to date, and how many more you plan to outsource during the next five years.
- Mr. Richard Notebaert, Chairman and CEO
- Qwest Communications International Inc.
- 1801 California Street
- Denver, CO 80202
|
Dear Mr. Notebaert:
As you negotiate a new contract with your valued employees, represented by the Communications Workers of America, I encourage you and your management team to reach a settlement that preserves essential health care, pension and overtime benefits.
I understand your responsibilities to ensure Qwest's competitiveness in the communications industry, and I believe that reaching a prompt resolution that secures worker and retiree benefits will enhance Qwest's position in the marketplace.
To recognize the valuable contributions that your employees make every day and to honor the dedicated service of retirees, I recommend that Qwest continue its fully paid health care premium coverage and preserve reasonable mandatory overtime caps. To promote quality worker recruitment and retention, I also encourage you to continue to offer pension benefits to future Qwest employees.
I want to extend my support to you as well as the labor representatives for a successful contract negotiation that will promote workplace fairness and productivity.
Thank you for your consideration.
-
|
|
|
|
|
Membership Meeting from Local 7906, Springfield, Oregon |
Bargaining Report #28
Friday, August 5, 2005
Formal bargaining was recessed Thursday, with the parties meeting to discuss benefits off-record in an effort to close the gap.
Formal bargaining resumed this morning at 2 tables. Union committee chair LeRoy Christensen and Louise Novotny (CWA Research Department) met with the Qwest Health Care group to continue the discussion on benefits while the rest of the Union committee met with the company committee at the main table.
In an effort to move the process along, the Union withdrew a few of the less important proposals. The Company, in turn, withdrew a few of their more onerous proposals and made what they described as incremental improvements to a few others. A bad demand is still a bad demand however. The fact remains that we are still very far way apart on the more important issues such as benefits, Article 19 and Article 20.
Qwest is refusing to back away from their demand that they have the ability to force employees into part-time. Their original proposal was modified in that an employee who refused a part-time job would be eligible for one-half of the current VSPP allowance.
They also modified their proposal to force employees to an adjacent RCA by re-phrasing it to limit that forced move to an area 60 miles or less from their current PRP.
We could go on, but we believe that you get the drift.
Today, we proudly presented a stack of health care petitions to the Company. Congratulations to all of the Locals for stepping up to this challenge and forwarding petitions containing over 12,000 signatures to the committee. As the committee remarked, in response to the employer’s statement that 2 employees they had spoken to stated that they agreed with moving to the management plan, 12,000 others disagreed.
We also want to thank all of the members for their support in terms of the strike vote. With all but 5 Locals reporting in, the vote to authorize a strike was carried by over 91%. From the very beginning of this process, our members took the time to submit thoughtful and important proposals and have stayed engaged throughout the entire process. The strike vote certainly reinforces that commitment.
Bargaining recessed this afternoon for the parties to caucus tonight and will be bargaining through the weekend. With only a week to go, we are still waiting for the employer to get serious.
Reports will be posted on Saturday and Sunday.
In Solidarity,
Your CWA Bargaining Committee:
|
Local 7400, Omaha Nebraska, During the Conference Call Last Night
Report #27, Conference Call Notes
(For your convenience, you may download this report and read offline at your leisure.)  |
Wednesday, August 3, 2005
Notes from call as it was presented:
(LeRoy Christensen) Introductions: We are only 10 days from the expiration of the contract and we have no tentative agreement with Qwest on anything meaningful. They haven’t even made a proposal on wages or pensions, other than to exclude new hires from the Pension Plan and Retiree Health Care.
We have received several complaints on the daily Bargaining Report lacking in content, we’re trying but it’s hard to create content when Qwest is only surface bargaining.
Some good news – we have received about 9,000 signatures on the Health Petition. I’m confident we’ll have over 10,000 on Friday, when the Committee will present then to the Company. Good Job!
More good news – The strike vote tally is 94% yes with 17 Locals reporting. If it stays above 90% on Friday and Qwest reads it in the paper on Saturday, I’m confident we will see a significant change in Negotiations. Right now, Qwest seems to have no fear of a strike and that’s the kind of attitude that leads to one.
Suzie Miller will now give you an update on Article 23 (Treatment of Medically Restricted Employees):
Under Article 23, the Company has proposed language as follows: In Section 23.2 and throughout this Article, the Company Manager incorporated language around performance of ‘essential’ job skills and changed current language that states ‘with reasonable accommodations’ to read ‘with or without reasonable accommodations’.
Also on 23.2, the Company has proposed changes that would allow a medically restricted employee pay for 30 days and unpaid for 150 days, on areas in which the employee was unable to perform ‘essential job functions’.
In Section 23.5 – the Company proposes ‘reasonable time frames’ for IME exams. To date we have no definitions from the Company around either “essential job functions or reasonable time frames”.
In attempts to make their offer more palatable, the Company has offered to increase the number of weeks paid for transition. They have offered to allow three (3) years re-installment and addressed our proposals and changing current language from down graded to accommodated a different position.
The Company Manager advised us that any further discussions concerning non-medically restricted employees are contingent upon our acceptance of their proposals.
We continue to discuss our proposal around the wage increases for Network Technicians doing DSL functions. To date, the Company has offered a change in title to Broadband Technician with no increase in pay. They have no interest in an upgrade. We will continue to fight!
Kathy Reck will now give you an update on Suspension Time Limits.
One of our Proposals from the District was to limit to a maximum of five (5) days, any suspension pending investigation as a result of an allegation that an employee has violated Qwest’s Code of Conduct or other polices or procedures.
Their response was to not suspend without pay for longer than 45 days.
However if the employee has been charged with a violation of any Municipal, State or Federal law an additional 90-days no pay suspension may apply.
In regard to our Customer Service Specialists, Management’s proposal is to eliminate the current technical carrier ladder pay scale and move these members to Wage Scale 1.
Early on in Bargaining we presented our proposal to eliminate Addendum 9 and fold our BRI member into the main body of the contract and to also bring their titles into the Addendum 7 wage scales.
Per Management “There is no interest on the Company’s side to do this. BRI is a support service to the core company and given Qwest’s financial status this should NOT HAPPEN!!”
I myself wonder how quickly he or she would find a dire need for these support people to respond when they have no heat or air conditioning in their cushy management offices. Or how they will feel when a support person may not be available to unplug the plumbing when plugged up by their CRAP.
They also have presented a new LoA that would allow Network Operation to exceed the15% part-time, part-time seasonal caps in the States of Minnesota, North and South Dakotas, Iowa, Oregon, and Colorado. After their stand last week that this is only an issue in the old Northwestern Bell area, one can only conclude that the other Vice President’s have decided to throw that area VP a token show of support.
Speaking of support I want to thank my Local in St. Paul and all of Minnesota for their continued support to all of us.
Malachy Sreenan will now give you an update on Compensation Plans:
There have been discussions around the Compensation Plans for Consumer and Small Business in Addendums 11 and 12. Since the Leveraged Compensation Plan in Addendum 11 is no longer in place, the Company has proposed replacing that with three (3) plans; one for Sales Consultants in the Consumer Sales Centers: one, for the CSA and CSSA titles in consumer Sales, Sales and Service and Wireless Centers of Excellence; and one, for the CSSA title in the Sioux Falls Consumer Loyalty Center.
In addition to some administrative changes, it appears from their proposals that the Company has no interest in continuing the Senior and Premier titles in Consumer, or the Premier title in Small Business.
There has been discussion around the Union’s expectations with regard to the inclusion for the RSA, RSSA and OSR titles into the main agreement, however the Company has not yet submitted any formal proposals to the Union with regard to these titles.
Pensions: The Company’s original proposal was that all new hires after August 13, 2005 would participate in the 401(k) plan, but would not be eligible to participate in the Pension Plan or receive retiree Health Care or retiree Life Insurance or benefits.
Claiming they were responding to the concerns and argument raised by the Bargaining Committee with regard to retirement security, the Company has since modified their proposal.
Their newest proposal would allow new employees access to a cash-balance pension benefit, but would not have employer-paid retiree Health Care benefits. They just don’t get it.
Pathways: There has been a lot of discussion around administrative changes to the Pathways benefit. The Company is looking for ways to reduce administrative costs, which today represent a considerable portion of the overall benefit. As was stated on yesterday’s bargaining report, however, the dollar value of the benefit should not be affected.
We are still waiting for the Company’s response to the Union proposal to have all those currently excluded from the Pathways Program to be included.
Scott Hogue will now give you an update on Specific Articles:
Article 4.6 – The Company countered on their own proposal regarding Overtime Administration. The first proposal was to increase overtime to 16 hours a week. Of course the CWA Committee came back with a big fat NO! We told them that this was a huge strike item in 1998. the Company came back with a 2nd proposal on overtime, this time to change it to a max of 48 hours a month. We gave them the same answer of NO. The Company then came back with a 3rd proposal regarding overtime – this was to change it to a max of 35 hours a month. We again, said NO and encouraged them to consider our overtime proposal, which isn’t regressive.
Article 7.3 – Another Regressive Proposal was to change the differential language in this section. Currently the way it reads now is: “An employee shall receive a daily differential in accordance with the chart if they work any portion of the day at the assigned higher rate”. The Company wants to change the language to read: “Employee shall receive a daily differential in accordance with the chart if he or she performs the work at a higher wage scale for 50% or more of his/her actual work hours. As you can tell this is regressive and we have no intention of back peddling.
Article 11.28 – The Company proposed a change to this Article to add language. The way it currently reads is: “Employee’s who are entitled to personal days shall be eligible to take two (2) personal days as priority personal days by notifying and/or requesting prior to the start of their tour.” The Company wants to add additional language that reads: “Priority personal days can be taken for all hours of the schedule tour or in four (4) hour increments. The Company may establish daily caps to minimize negative impact on customers, Holidays and other certain days may be blocked upon review with Local Union.” Now this addresses our proposal to break up the demand time in four (4) hour increments. The daily caps are regressive. Along with the change in 11.28, the Company also proposed to strike out all of Section 11.30. This section is what gives the Local’s the ability to negotiate more demand time. We told them we’re not interested in moving backwards.
Article 13.1 – In response to the Unions proposal to add in Grandparent-in-law, Brother-in-law, Sister-in-law, Aunts, and Uncles to this section for death in the family, the Company agreed to add as we requested for three (3) days of unpaid time subject to needs of the business. SO! We don’t have an agreement on this but it’s likely we will come to one.
I want to send out a ‘Hello!’ to my home Local, Local 7102. I miss you all!
Reed Roberts will move to the questions we’ve received in the past week
Local 7102
Q: In the Letter of Agreement creating the CSA and CSSA titles, a written commitment was included guaranteeing that the existing Consumer Sales Centers would remain open through December 31, 2005. Are we bargaining to extend that date?
A: Yes, we are proposing that the date be extended through the term of the new contract.
Q: Are we addressing the outsourcing of other work such as the DSL and other centers?
A: Yes
Q: Is the issue of the way shifts are being scheduled in the Centers — meaning the ability to bid consistent days and hours being addressed?
A: Yes. Qwest acknowledges that they know this is a huge issue for the employees.
Q: If we are on strike, is it a violation of the Qwest code of conduct to work for a competitor while we are on strike?
A: According to our attorneys, it is not a violation.
Q: Since Agent Services is under a different contract than the rest of Qwest; can the Company make them scab and do strike work?
A: No, unless they wanted to expand the strike to include Agent Services.
Q: Seasonal Part Time employees: will the Company pro-rate the time spent on strike toward the 1150-hour cap?
A: They haven’t before, but that would be part of any back to work settlement that they don’t.
Q: Can we picket the Kiosks in the malls?
A: Yes, if you don’t mind getting arrested. The strike guide sent out to the Locals, goes into some detail on how to deal with malls. We strongly urge the Locals to review this.
Local 7303
Q: Do you need to be on vacation on Friday August 12th in order to be paid for the week of August 15th?
A: We do not believe that Qwest will honor any vacation during the period of a strike. That question has been asked, but not formally responded to.
Local 7777
Q: Has there been any progress on the mandatory overtime proposals?
A: Qwest has presented a number of proposals on this. Currently, their proposal is that the cap be changed to an aggregate 35 hours per month in lieu of the weekly caps.
Q: Has there been any progress in eliminating the incidental overtime language?
A: NO
Q: Has there been any progress on improving Successorship language?
A: None
Q: Has there been any progress on the job security issues?
A: NO
Local 7601
Q: Is the Qwest proposal to pay health care premiums slated for the retired post 90 managers also? Has anyone told them?
A: They don’t want to leave anyone behind on their proposal. We don’t know if they’ve told them, or even frankly, if Qwest cares.
Local 7800
Q: If we have 401k loans, will we be expected to make payments if we are on strike?
A: Great question. It’s never come up before since we’ve never been out for more than 30 days before. We believe the answer is yes.
Q: What happens to grievances? Should we get extensions?
A: We don’t believe that’s a problem and would be addressed as part of any back to work agreement, but if we’re on strike, there is no contract then, no grievance procedure.
Q: Has there been any discussion about changes to the flexible spending accounts to help offset any increased costs for medical benefits?
A: We are so far apart on active and retiree benefits, it hasn’t been discussed.
Q: Will we be getting picket signs from the national Union?
A: Arrangements have already been made to ship picket signs to each Local.
Local 7818
Q: In 2003 the Company was on the verge of bankruptcy yet they were able to keep Health Care costs in check with co-pay increases. In addition, while we didn’t get base wage increases, we did get 2% bonuses. Now two (2) years later they are in better shape and they have more cash on hand, yet they are crying poor. We know healthcare costs are rising but according to the information the Company presented to the Health and Wellness Committee, those increases are projected to slow down plus the Company is estimating that their dependent audit will drop up to 90/0 of dependents in the first phase and an additional 5% in the second phase, so other than greed, why are they being so difficult?
A: Just because the money is there, does not mean they want to share it with us. They want to reduce future costs to appease Wall Street. Frankly, they would like to be able to just take a walk on the retirees.
Local 7906
Q: From a retiree: “I receive less than $500 from my pension, how could the Company expect me to pay for additional health care costs?”
A: Unfortunately, they just don’t care brother. The other side of that coin is that we do care. The active employees and retirees are in this together.
Q: In the event of a strike, what happens to our phone concessions and are our checking accounts still accessible by the Company?
A: In the past, the employer has never messed with employee concession. But technically, if there is no contract, there is no concession. As far as their ability to access a striker’s checking account for the bill, unless you cancel that authorization, they could debit your account for the bill.
Local 7906, with a combined Qwest membership of 230 members reports that over 100 were at their last membership meeting and that 93% of those 230 members have voted to authorize a strike if necessary.
Madelyn Elder, Local 7901, Suzie Miller, Local 7777 and Patti Glazener Local 7019:
“Hang in there, let your manager and Dick N. know you want a fair contract and hopefully next Wednesday, we’ll have some real good new to report.”
In Solidarity,
Your CWA Bargaining Committee |
