Voting will take place in September, once our open contracts have been tentatively agreed upon.
Voting Schedule
Hybrid Voting (In-Person + Online)
Online Only
Tentative Agreements are expected by September 10.
Online voting will run September 11 through September 27 at 11:59 p.m.
Stay Tuned for More Information!
Just wanted to give everyone a quick update in case you weren’t able to attend today’s meeting.
We spent much of the session discussing our Targeted Increase list. Attached is a list of job classes where members indicated they believe an increase is warranted and provided supporting justification. Cells highlighted in yellow identify job classes that are already scheduled to receive an adjustment on July 1, 2026. Classes that received an increase previously does not mean we won’t evaluate it again during this bargaining cycle.
Early next week, (likely Tuesday morning, as I have mediation on Monday) I plan to expand the document to include associated classifications within each series (PS2, PS3, PS4, etc.), recommended increases based on salary surveys and current market data, and additional classifications that may need review due to compression concerns. My hope is that we can finalize the list at our next meeting on Friday.
In the meantime, please continue reaching out to your members to identify any additional classifications we should review. Specifically, we should focus on issues involving recruitment, retention, and significant changes in duties.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Opening Session
Inti stated they expect to receive all proposals soon.
Steve proposed focusing on non-compensation items during this session, with compensation discussions deferred to the next meeting.
Article 4 – Appointment Notifications
4.1 Proposal
Purpose: Maintain an efficient, transparent, and streamlined process
Article 7 – Working Conditions
7.3D – Timeline Extension
7.9B – Flex Time
Goal: Improve flexibility and working conditions, especially for overtime-exempt employees
7.10 – Off-the-Clock Work
7.11 – Closure Period Work
7.12 – Calendar Development
7.13 – Professional Development Days
Goal: Ensure equitable access to professional development
7.14 – Summer Schedule (32-Hour Work Week)
Rationale:
Discussion Highlights:
Break
9:54 a.m. – 10:30 a.m.
Post-Caucus Session
Return from Caucus
Action: Steve to draft updated language
Article 8 – Overtime
8.2 – Overtime Calculation
Note: Federal proposal regarding reduced taxation on overtime was mentioned
Article 9 – Training & Development
9.7B – Orientation Time
9.81 – Professional Development Committee
Key Principle: Training occurs during paid work time
9.83 – Budget
Article 17 – Suspended Operations
Context
17.1 – Notification
17.1 – First-Day Language
17.1D – Overtime
17.1F – Remote & On-Site Work
Lunch Break
11:48 a.m.
Afternoon Session (1:07 p.m.)
Follow-Up
Article 20 – Telework & Commute Trip Reduction
20.51 / 20.52
Telework Proposals
Goal: Improve access and work-life balance
Status: Inti requested further discussion
Article 21 – Health & Safety
Article 28 – Disciplinary Procedures
Investigations
Additional Considerations
Article 39 – Union Activities
39.5 – Communication Tools
Rationale: Replace declining effectiveness of bulletin boards
Afternoon Caucus
2:00 – 2:25 p.m.
Article 50 – Mandatory Subjects
Issue
Proposal
Goal: Improve understanding of mandatory bargaining subjects
Note: Inquiry into PERC training availability
Closing
Overall Summary
Day 1 was productive and collaborative, with strong engagement from both sides.
Multiple proposals were introduced, and several items were identified for follow-up and continued discussion in the next session.
These are the results of the Bargaining Priorities poll conducted earlier this year. We received over 200 responses, reflecting a wide range of perspectives and priorities from across the membership.
Before reviewing the results, a few important notes.
All responses have been manually sanitized to remove personally identifiable information, including dates, employee counts, timelines, locations, and other details that could compromise anonymity. This process was completed by Joey and while it may look like we used a bot, that’s just his “unique” style.
In addition, some priorities raised in the responses are not negotiable within this bargaining process. For example, items such as maximum vacation accrual or sick leave transfer rates are set in Washington state law and cannot be changed through bargaining.
Please keep both of these limitations in mind as you review the results. If you have questions or need clarification, contact your bargaining representative. Download Written Responses
Members were asked to evaluate different cost of living adjustment (COLA) levels over a two-year contract and rank how important each option should be in bargaining.
The results show a clear preference toward higher increases. Both 8% and 10% received the strongest concentration of high-priority rankings, indicating broad alignment around these ranges as acceptable targets. “More than 10%” also received notable support, though responses were more mixed, suggesting less consensus beyond that level.
Lower increases, particularly 5%, were more frequently rated as lower priority. Overall, the results indicate that members expect COLA proposals to be focused on the higher end of the ranges presented.
Members were also asked if they believe that their classification should be reviewed for a classification-specific increase and these are the results.
Finally, here is the distribution of participation in this survey by bargaining unit.
