Through the daylong hearing, the two sides made their case for their last best offer.
The two parties turned to the board last month after reaching an impasse in negotiating the next contract for state employees.
Taking the case to the board is the final step in process. After the two sides were unable to reach an agreement, they turned to an independent fact finder in January. The report came back about a month later, but the two sides were still unable to reach consensus.
The crux of the argument between the two sides is the size of the raise the 6,800 state employees represented by the VSEA will get under the next contract.
In documents submitted to the VLRB last month, the state proposed a 1 percent across the board increase in the first year of the contract followed by a 1.25 percent increase in the second year.
On top of the cost of living boost, employees are scheduled for a regular “step increase,” for longevity and experience in state government. Workers will see an increase of 2.7 percent in fiscal year 2017 and 2.95 percent the following year.
The VSEA disputes the administration’s calculation that the step increase will be a 1.7 percent increase and expects it will amount to less than 1 percent this year.
The union’s last best offer proposal would increase the total state expenditure on state worker salaries by 2 percent plus the step increases in FY 2017, and 2.25 percent in addition to step increases in FY 2018.
The administration estimates the union’s proposal would add up to about $11 million more than the state’s proposal, including benefits.
In oral arguments before the board Wednesday, Tim Belcher, the attorney representing the VSEA in the negotiations, said that the union crafted its last best offer based on the fact-finder’s report.
Belcher and the VSEA argued that the across the board raise in the union’s proposal is important to keep state employee salary in line with inflation and in order to be competitive with similar positions in the private sector.
“We don’t just want somebody who can drive a plow truck in the middle of the night,” Belcher said. “We want somebody who’s going to be good at it.”
Belcher said that the fact that the contract dispute had gone to the board at all was an indication that there had been a failure in the process. He said the final offers for across the board salary increases over the next two years show they came close to an agreement.
“Frankly it’s somewhat startling that we’re here at this late stage if we were that close together,” Belcher said. The state and the union “should have been able to reach across that chasm,” he said.
Meanwhile, the state disputed the data the union used to back their arguments for an increase in salary based on inflation and private sector competitiveness.
Joseph McNeil, who represents the state in the negotiations, said in oral arguments that the two parties had not ended up that close together in their final offers.
McNeil said that the state considers there to be “no justification, no compelling reason” to increase state worker salaries to the degree proposed by the union.
He contended that the state does not have difficulty recruiting or retaining people to fill state positions, nor, he said, is there “a great sucking sound” indicating a drain from the public sector to the private sector.
Jeffrey Carr, economist for the Shumlin administration, spoke as part of the state’s argument and questioned the numbers the union presented on inflation and competitive salaries.
The board has 30 days from the date the case was filed (March 21) to respond. The five-member panel must select either the offer from the VSEA or from the Shumlin administration, without making any amendments.
