After six bargaining sessions, one thing has become painfully clear. This round of negotiations isn’t just about wages, promotions, or contract language. It’s about whether the State believes the people who actually do the work deserve to have a meaningful voice in the decisions that affect their lives. So far, the answer we’ve received from the Office of Financial Management has been disappointing.
Before compensation bargaining even began, OFM acknowledged the economic reality facing Washington. In June 2026 budget instructions sent to agency directors, OFM wrote that inflation had increased by 39% over the past decade and that rising costs for utilities, fuel, materials, and other necessities were weakening the State’s purchasing power. We agree. Inflation weakens purchasing power. The only question is whose purchasing power counts. If inflation weakens the State’s purchasing power, it also weakens the purchasing power of the employees who buy the same groceries, pay the same utility bills, and fill the same gas tanks. Yet despite acknowledging those economic realities, the State’s opening wage proposal in bargaining was 0% over the life of the agreement.
Let’s be honest about what that means. Any cost-of-living adjustment that fails to keep pace with inflation is a pay cut. When your paycheck grows more slowly than the cost of living, you lose purchasing power. Classified employees have already seen their purchasing power erode over time because wage increases have repeatedly failed to keep pace with inflation. Instead of recognizing that reality at the bargaining table, the State began negotiations by proposing more of the same.
We then turned to one of WPEA’s highest priorities for Department of Natural Resources employees: fixing unpaid Rest and Recuperation Days. Our proposal is simple. If management directs an employee to rest, that time should be paid. We’ve discussed this issue with DNR management and OFM for four years. Employees have lived under this language, experienced its impact, and carefully documented unpaid R&R Days. OFM’s response was that our proposal was ‘premature.’ We explained that our members don’t need another year to understand what an unpaid day off costs because they’re the ones living with it. We were told we were not ‘persuasive.’ Apparently, four years of employee experience still wasn’t enough.
Recognizing that OFM claimed there wasn’t money available for meaningful wage increases, our bargaining team also pursued meaningful non-economic improvements. We proposed giving qualified bargaining unit employees the opportunity to compete for promotional vacancies before positions are opened to outside candidates. If the State can’t pay employees more for the work they’re doing today, the least it can do is improve opportunities to advance. OFM rejected the proposal because they claimed employees don’t actually want it. Shelley Withee, WPEA’s Second Chair at the bargaining table, asked, ‘If I can get 5,300 people to send me a statement saying this is important to them, would that change your position?’ OFM’s lead negotiator, James Dannen, replied, ‘No, because they would be wrong.’ Even if thousands of classified employees spoke with one voice about what they wanted in their own contract, OFM’s position was that they would simply be ‘wrong’ about the benefits of the change.
WPEA also proposed removing the strike article from the collective bargaining agreement. This was a serious proposal intended to address the message the language sends to employees. The current language largely mirrors existing law, so removing it would not change the State’s ability to rely on the law if it believed it applied. Our concern is that employees often read the article and conclude they have no rights beyond what the contract appears to say. Rather than discussing the proposal on its merits, OFM refused to engage. They first said it was not a serious proposal and later stated in open bargaining that they would not respond because the idea was ‘ridiculous.’ Whether someone agrees with the proposal or not, bargaining requires discussion. Simply refusing to engage is not meaningful bargaining.
Now step back and look at the pattern. Employees say wages aren’t keeping up with inflation. The State says 0%. Employees say unpaid R&R Days are hurting them. The State says it’s premature. Employees say they want better promotional opportunities. The State says employees are wrong. The Union brings forward a proposal for discussion. The State says it’s ridiculous. These aren’t isolated disagreements. They all send the same message: we don’t believe you. We don’t believe you about your wages. We don’t believe you about your working conditions. We don’t believe you about your careers. We don’t believe you about your own contract.
Here’s the good news. The State doesn’t get the last word. WPEA is the only union bargaining with OFM that opens bargaining sessions to members. Every member is welcome to attend because bargaining belongs to the membership, not just the bargaining team. When members attend bargaining, management notices. When members wear union gear, talk to coworkers, and participate in workplace actions, management notices. The State is making assumptions about how engaged employees will be. That’s the calculation we have the power to change. History has shown that meaningful improvements happen when workers stand together and make their voices impossible to ignore. Your bargaining team will continue showing up prepared and ready to fight for the priorities you’ve identified. But bargaining teams don’t create leverage. Members do. The contract we achieve will be shaped not only by what happens across the bargaining table, but also by what happens in workplaces across Washington. We hope you’ll stand with us, stay engaged, and help show the State that the people who keep Washington running deserve to be heard.