Bargaining Update – July 22, 2025

Bargaining Update #23

Glossary

MCSO: Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office

CCL: Current Contract Language

PLO: Paid Leave Oregon

ADA: Americans with Disabilities Act

KSA: Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities

MAT: Member Action Team

Union Proposals

  • Addendum G: Department of Community Justice
    • On both sides, Addendum G has maintained current contract language aside from section five (5), regarding “Recognizance Unit”.
      • Recognizance Unit
        • The County proposed memorializing the majority of hours method for “determining an employee’s first (1st), second (2nd), and third (3rd) days of rest for purposes of overtime and double time”. We accepted their proposed language but added a line specifying that no employee can be scheduled to work on their first (1st) day of rest.
  • Addendum I: Office of the Sheriff (MCSO)
    • Overtime and Double Time
      • The County proposed memorializing the majority of hours method for “determining an employee’s first (1st), second (2nd), and third (3rd) days of rest for purposes of overtime and double time”. We accepted their proposed language but added a line in Section VII (7) specifying that no employee can be scheduled to work on their first (1st) day of rest.
    • Off Duty Time
      • We maintained our proposed language that “no employee will be disciplined for failing to answer their phone outside work hours” and acknowledge that On-Call employees would not be held to the same expectation based on their job description.

County Proposals

Heads up: The County presented us with a compensation package of 18 articles and addendums. We are still not seeing our members’ needs being met or even understood by the County in many of these counter-proposals. We’ve broken it down counter-proposal by counter-proposal, but it was a packed day at the table and we acknowledge that this is a lot to go over.

  • Addendum B: Lead Worker Assignment and Pay
    • Assignment, Selection, Modification, and Termination
      • In our initial proposal for Lead Worker Assignment and Pay, we added language that would allow an employee that is assigned duties associated with lead responsibilities that is in a work team with no current Lead the ability to request a Lead position and the ability to grieve a denial. The County rejected our proposed language and presented CCL.
      • We had also proposed that when a Lead position is eliminated, the County notify the Union and that any job duty changes to a work team that result from loss of a Lead be subject to impact bargaining. The County rejected our proposed language and presented CCL.
      • Our Bargaining Team understands that workload, insufficient staffing, and scope-creep all contribute to burnout and negative impacts to our members’ wellbeing. We continue to see the County refuse accountability or any proposed metrics to track and address negative impacts to employees related to insufficient staffing and excessive workload. They refuse to even acknowledge the County’s role.
    • Pay
      • We had proposed that all Leads receive a 12% hourly premium. The County rejected our language and maintained CCL.
    • *The County has maintained CCL in this Addendum aside from adding some new lead positions to the list, which is general housekeeping.  
  • Addendum E: Auto Reimbursements and Transit Subsidies
    • Auto Allowance
      • Thanks in no small part to our huge “Travel Time is Work Time” win, the County has met us on a lot of our proposed language in this article. The County’s proposal matches ours in that miles travelled for work purposes during an employee’s scheduled shift will now include “required travel between an employee’s telework location, County locations, and/or field visits that occur…” after the start of shift and before the end of shift.
    • Payment
      • We had proposed increasing the base reimbursement for an employee who is required to use a personal automobile as a condition of their employment to $100.00 a month for full-time employees and $50.00 a month for part-time employees. The County rejected this proposed increase and maintained CCL.
    • Payment Rules for Alterations in Work Site
      • We had proposed striking-out language that defines an employee’s “regular place of reporting” as a designated County building that doesn’t take into consideration an employee’s routine telework status. The County rejected this strike-out and maintained CCL.
  • Addendum L: On-Call & Temporary Employees
    • We had proposed striking-out any language to “Temporary Employees”. Our intention was to fold-in Temporary Employees so they would receive all the same benefits of an On-Call employee. The County fully rejected this effort.
      • Termination Appeals
        • We had proposed language stating that any termination of an On-Call (temporary employees would have been included here as we wanted to fold them into “On-Call” status) employee would be subject to the grievance procedure. The County disagreed and doesn’t want temporary or on-call employees to have any recourse when terminated other than an appeal to the Department Director.
      • Step Increases
        • We had struck-out language that prevents On-Call (and temporary) employees from receiving a step increase retroactive to them reaching two thousand eighty (2080) hours. The County denied this strike-out and maintains their position that employees will not receive a step increase until the first day of a new fiscal quarter.
        • We had struck-out language stating that any time spent in regular employment status with the County will not count toward the two thousand eighty (2080) hour requirement for On-Call (and temporary) employees to receive their earned step increase. The County rejected this change and refuses to include regular-status as a County employee to count toward accrual of On-Call (and temporary) hours worked for a step increase.
        • We had struck-out language that prevents an On-Call (or temporary) employee who has separated from the County to retain their accrued hours toward step increase upon return to the County. The County rejected this language. If you’re in On-Call status with the County for years and have earned multiple step increases, and you separate from the County and then return, they want those employees to start from zero (0).
        • Premiums
          • We had proposed striking-out language that limits the sorts of Premium Pay that an On-Call (or temporary) employee receives. The County rejected this change.
        • Overtime
          • We had proposed striking-out language that prevents On-Call (and temporary) employees from accruing compensatory time. The County rejected this change.
        • Benefits (as related to Health and Welfare benefits)
          • In our proposed article that incorporated “Temporary Employees” into “On-Call Employees” we added language that would allow On-Call (and Temporary) employees to be treated as half-time employees after working one thousand forty (1040) hours.
            • The County rejected all proposed changes of allowing “Temporary Employees” the same benefits of “On-Call” employees and maintained CCL
          • We proposed that any employee who works less than one thousand forty (1040) hours in a year or who opts out of Article 11 coverage receive a differential of two dollars and fifty cents ($2.50) an hour.
            • The County rejected our proposed changes to Temporary Employees and maintained CCL of a one dollar fifty ($1.50) differential.
        • Settlement of Disputes
          • We had proposed striking-out language that limits On-Call (and temporary) employees to Addendum L.
      • On-call Bridge Operators
        • The County accepted our language that increases the Standby Operator stipend from two-hundred dollars ($200) to three-hundred dollars ($300).  
        • The County accepted our language that increases the Call-Out Duty Operator’s stipend from three-hundred dollars ($300) to four-hundred dollars ($400).
      • Standing Committee Review
        • We proposed that our Employee Relations Committee meet at least quarterly. The County maintained CCL for meeting at least annually.
  • Addendum M: Jail Side Assignment Premium
    • We had proposed that any employee assigned to work the jail side in a correctional facility receive a differential of ten percent (10%). The County rejected this change and maintained CCL. The only change they proposed was updating the list of current positions that are assigned to work the jail side.
  • (new) Addendum N: Shelter Staffing
    • This is a new article proposed by the County that would memorialize the Disaster Resource Center (Shelter) Compensation Memorandum of Agreement.
    • We clarified with Management at the table that a saved holiday earned by an employee for volunteering will not expire within the same year. For example, if you earned a saved holiday on May 2nd, 2025 you would be able to use that holiday until May 2nd, 2026.
  • Article 7: Holidays
    • Recognized and Observed Holidays
      • The County agreed to our language proposing one (1) additional floating holiday in recognition of Indigenous Peoples Day.
      • The County maintained their stance in CCL that for an employee to be eligible for any pay on a County-observed holiday, an employee must be in paid status on the day before the observed holiday and the day after.
    • Hours of Paid Leave on Observed and Floating Holidays
      • We had proposed language that would entitle every employee, including employees on irregular schedules and on-call employees, to leave for the length of their scheduled shift on the observed holiday. The County’s proposal added this fix for limited-duration employees, but not for On-Call, temporary, or part-time employees.
      • Here’s an example of the issue we’re trying to fix: A part-time employee is scheduled to work a couple of 4-hour shifts and one 8-hour shift on the observed holiday. Because the employee is part-time, they would only receive 4 hours of holiday leave that day despite being scheduled to work 8. This is not an equitable practice and we’ve heard our members express concern about this time and time again.
    • Saved Holidays
      • The County accepted our language proposing that an employee be able to carry over two (2) rather than one (1) Saved Holiday(s) per year.
    • Holiday Pay
      • The County accepted our struck-out language, and as a result our contract will no longer limit our bargaining unit employees to a “regular rate of pay” aside from general overtime restrictions during a County observed holiday.
  • Article 8: Vacation Leave
    • Table of Vacation Accrual Rates
      • The County flat-out rejected our proposal for employees who have reached fifteen (15) – twenty (20) or more years of service to accrue vacation at a higher rate.
    • (new) Break in Service – Vacation Accrual Rate Retention
      • We had proposed that an employee who separates from the County and “is subsequently rehired within twenty-four (24) months of their separation date” retain their vacation accrual obtained at the time of separation.
      • The County accepted our language but countered with a shortened timeframe of twelve (12) months.
    • (new) Donation to Catastrophic Leave
      • The County rejected our language proposing a Catastrophic Leave fund separate from the existing model that would receive automatic accruals from unused vacation, compensatory, etc. donatable time and would be available for Multnomah County employees in need regardless of their ability or appeal to receive Catastrophic Leave donations.
    • Employee Wellness
      • We had proposed shortening the two (2) week advance notice requirement for an employee to take Wellness Leave to twenty-four (24) hours; the County countered with a requirement for one (1) weeks notice prior to an employee using Wellness Leave.
    • (new) Cash-Out of Accrued Vacation
      • We had proposed language that would allow employees the option to cash-out any unused vacation accruals once a year; the County fully rejected us on this and chose not to engage with us on the subject.
  • Article 9: Sick Leave, Fitness for Duty, and Disability Insurance
    • Paid Sick Leave
      • The County refuted our every effort to ensure that any unpaid or paid time taken as sick time would be treated as protected time.
    • Specified Others  
      • The County accepted our proposed language that is more inclusive of diverse family dynamics as defined by the employee.
    • Accrual
      • The County denied our proposal to double sick-leave accrual for every paid hour regardless of County-paid status (for example if you’re using PLO which is not directly County-paid).
    • Legitimate Use
      • The County rejected our proposed language that would ensure that any employee using any accrued time as sick time would have that time considered to be in “protected” status.
    • Verification of Use
      • We understand that employees with chronic health conditions or who have family members with chronic health conditions are already navigating life with these challenges, and if the employee requires intermittent leave, providing medical documentation again and again can be really traumatizing. The County rejected all of our proposed language that would challenge the County’s ability to request an updated doctor’s note regardless of whether or not an employee is experiencing a chronic illness or other ongoing matter that requires intermittent leave.
    • Discipline
      • The County fully rejected our language proposing that before a representative manager consider any discipline, members of the bargaining unit be offered the right to a steward, an ADA liaison, and a representative from the Multnomah County benefits team.
    • Excessive Absenteeism
      • We proposed language that would ensure that no paid or unpaid time used as sick time would be subject to consideration as Excessive Absenteeism; the County rejected our language and maintained CCL.
    • Sequencing of Leaves
      • We had proposed language that would allow Multnomah County employees the autonomy to choose when and why they dip into paid or unpaid leave and in whatever order met their needs. The County rejected this language.
    • Continuous Leave
      • The County accepted our language proposing that if after six (6) months of leave without County pay, the employee’s unemployment claim would not be contested.
    • Paid Leave Oregon (PLO)
      • We proposed that before receiving a PLO benefit, the employee has the option of using unpaid time off or being reimbursed for the use of accrued time.
      • The County countered with a proposal for the employee to be able to apply for Catastrophic Leave, but not to receive any reimbursement for accrued time used prior to receiving the PLO benefit.
    • Rules Concerning County Supplemental Benefits
      • The County had originally proposed that employees who are eligible to receive PLO not be eligible for catastrophic leave donations; even if they don’t apply for PLO. We rejected that language and the County has not proposed it again.
    • Fitness for Duty
      • The County offered to engage in the ADA process after a “fit for duty assessment identifies accommodations that may be necessary…” We argued that per the Americans with Disabilities Act, a reasonable accommodation should be sought before assessing an employee’s ability to perform the duties of the job without a reasonable accommodation.
    • Catastrophic Leave Program
      • The County rejected our language proposing that employees be allowed to donate accrued sick leave to the Catastrophic Leave Program.
      • The County accepted our language proposing that Catastrophic Leave donations may be sought for immigration or citizenship matters.  
      • The County rejected our language that would create a Catastrophic Leave Fund available to all employees in addition to the ability for employees to make individual donations to peers requesting Catastrophic Leave donations.
  • Article 10: Other Leaves
    • Unpaid Leaves of Absence
      • We had proposed language that gives employees the autonomy to choose between taking unpaid leave or using their paid leave bank; the County rejected this addition and maintained CCL.
    • Bereavement Leave
      • The County rejected our language proposing an increase of paid bereavement leave from three (3) days to five (5) days.
      • We had proposed that an employee who has experienced a loss of pregnancy qualifies for use of bereavement leave; the County agreed to this addition.
      • We proposed language that would allow employees to use Bereavement Leave when they’ve experienced the loss of a colleague; the County rejected this change.
    • Immigration and Citizenship Leave
      • We had proposed removing the cap on how many hours of accrued time can be used in a given fiscal year to address immigration and citizenship needs; our members earned their accruals and should be able to use them however they need to. The County rejected this change.
      • The County accepted our language proposing that donated catastrophic leave can be used to address matters related to immigration and citizenship.
    • (new) Trauma Leave
      • We proposed a comprehensive Trauma Leave program that would be available to all bargaining unit employees. The County fully rebuffed this attempt to address long-standing and ongoing concerns from our members who experience direct and indirect trauma in the workplace and acute traumatic events in their personal lives.
  • Article 13: Work Schedules
    • Posting of Work Schedules
      • The County declined to increase the amount of notice employees are entitled to when there is a change in work schedule from fifteen (15) days to thirty (30) days.
    • Right to Compensation for Assigned, Scheduled, and Worked Hours
      • We had proposed language that would ensure an employee’s right to compensation for the length of their scheduled shift if they arrive for their shift and are then sent home early. The County rejected this change.
    • Changing Scheduled Days of Work and Days Off
      • The County added language that specifies they may do a Shift Bid anytime there is an operational need; when we asked them to clarify “an operational need” in this instance, they gave the example of vacancies. Per their proposed language, the County would be able to do a shift bid any time there is a vacant position.
      • We had proposed increasing the rate of pay for employees who are scheduled to work more than five (5) days in a row without a day off to double time. The County rejected this change and maintained CCL of time-and-a-half.
    • (new) Staffing and Workload
      • The County added a new section to this article in response to our continued fight for bargaining unit members to have a meaningful ability to provide feedback on the impacts of insufficient staffing and unsustainable workloads.
      • The County did not offer any meaningful changes in their new section, other than including language we previously proposed elsewhere that states “the County shall consider workload factors, including volume and complexity of work, when determining appropriate workloads”.
    • Length of the Meal Period
      • The County is proposing language that would allow them to change the length of an employee’s scheduled lunch break without the employee’s consent if there is an “operational need”.
    • Paid Meal Periods
      • The County accepted our language that an employee may only be assigned to a continuous duty schedule when management “can demonstrate that providing an employee a meal period would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the County”.
      • The County accepted our language asserting that employees on a continuous duty schedule must still be given adequate time to eat, rest, and use the bathroom and that continuous duty employees must be paid for this time.
    • (new) Same Day Reassignment Premium
      • We had proposed a premium of $3.75 per hour for any employee who is required to work at an alternate location without prior notice; the County fully rebuffed a Same-Day Reassignment Premium.
    • Employee Requests for Substitution of Hours Within a Work Week
      • The County agreed to our language stating that an employee “cannot be mandated (to flex their hours) in lieu of overtime or compensatory time…”
    • Review and Approval of Schedule Requests
      • The County agreed to our language stating that when an employee is denied a change to their schedule or has an alternate work schedule rescinded, they must be provided with a written explanation within fifteen (15) days.
      • The County declined to make denials and recissions of alternative work schedules subject to the grievance procedure.
    • Telework Agreements
      • We had proposed that if an employee has extenuating circumstances such a power outage or imminent evacuation that prevents the employee from teleworking a scheduled shift, the employee will be placed on paid Administrative Leave. The County rejected this language and maintained CCL that an employee may use their vacation time or report to an alternative worksite instead.
      • The County agreed to specify “a reasonable period of time” as fifteen (15) days when an employee has had a request to telework denied and is waiting for a written explanation.
      • The County agreed that employees shall have up to thirty (30) days to correct a performance issue before having a telework agreement rescinded.
      • The County rejected our language that would make denials, recissions, and/or modifications to a telework agreement subject to the grievance procedure.
    • Uniform Time Charging Provisions
      • The County is proposing striking-out this entire section and ending use of the Rounding Rule for determining pay for hours worked.
    • County Closures and Curtailments
      • We had proposed language stating that any changes to Multnomah County’s policies regarding inclement weather, natural disasters, or acute community emergencies be subject to impact bargaining. The County has only agreed that changes to Multnomah County’s inclement weather policies will be subject to impact bargaining.
    • Operationally Essential Employees
      • The County agreed to give notice to our Union whenever they make a change to the list of employees designated as Operationally Essential.
  • Article 14: Compensation
    • Wage Adjustments
      • The County proposed a 2.4% increase to employee rates and ranges effective July 1st, 2025.
      • The County proposed an increase between one percent (1%) and four percent (4%) effective July 1st, 2026 and again on July 1st, 2027.
    • Market Adjustments for Selected Job Profiles
      • The County agreed that market adjustment studies will be prioritized for job classifications that haven’t been reviewed within a ten (10) year period.
      • We had proposed language that an employee would “receive the wages at the step where they were before the adjustment” in an attempt to address the long-standing issues of frozen wages. The County rejected this effort and is maintaining the CCL that staggers our wage increase after a market adjustment study.
    • Compensation Plan
      • The County rejected our proposed minimum wage of twenty-seven dollars ($27.00) an hour and is maintaining CCL.
    • (new) Longevity Pay
      • The County rejected our language proposing Longevity Pay for employees who have completed eight (8), fourteen (14), and twenty (20) years of service.
    • Compensatory Time
      • The County accepted our proposal to increase the amount of Compensatory Time an employee can accrue to ninety-six (96) hours. The County added that any accruals over this limit will be paid out as overtime within the same pay period the time was earned.
    • Payments in Error
      • We had proposed that an employee not be liable for repayment of any overpayment that occurs after they have reported the issue. The County suggested language that would still hold the employee liable to repay while the County is doing their investigation.
    • Bilingual Pay
      • The County agreed that an employee will have at least two (2) opportunities to re-take a fluency test.
      • The County agreed that regardless of fluency requirements or standards they set, an employee will receive the bilingual differential if they are required by their supervisor to perform translation or interpretation.
    • Culturally-Specific Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities Positions Compensation
      • The County rejected our language proposing that an employee be able to request a KSA differential if they feel their assigned work duties qualify their position for one.
    • Maintenance of Mandatory Licenses/Certifications
      • We proposed an overhaul of this section to ensure that employees are fully compensated by the County for any training or certifications they are required to have in order to maintain their position. The County rejected all of our proposed changes and presented CCL.
    • (new) Training Pay
      • We had proposed a premium of ten percent (10%) for every hour of training and/or onboarding that an employee is required to provide to co-workers, volunteers, or interns. The County rejected our proposal.
  • Article 26: General Provisions
    • Bed Bugs
      • We had proposed increasing the maximum reimbursement amount for any employee who comes into contact with bed bugs while performing their job duties and has to have them eradicated from their home. The County maintained CCL for reimbursement but did agree that when a manager becomes aware of bed bugs in a location where an employee may enter, the manager will notify staff within two (2) hours.

Action Items & Events

We have a couple upcoming fun social events planned for our employees in the next month.

  • Monday, July 28th, 6:30-7:30pm: Come join our Virtual Member Action Team Meeting as we continue to organize for our worker’s rights and a fair contract. We need you! Our membership is only as strong as our engagement.
  • Sunday, August 3rd, 3-6 pm: Join us for Solidarity Happy Hour at Baerlic Brewing, located at 2239 SE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97214. This event is organized by AFSCME’s OHSU workers in Local 328. These are fun, low-key opportunities to connect at Baerlic Brewery on every first Sunday of the month. The location is family-friendly, serves Ranch Pizza, and has a few arcade games.
  • Thursday, August 7th, 5-7 pm: Local 88 Workers Tap Happy Hour – join us after bargaining for a solidarity hour, hear about our negotiations and learn how you can become involved in advocating for your workplace rights!
  • Save the date and join us on Monday, September 1 for our Labor Day Picnic, formal invitation to follow!
  • We are making a virtual card for the Central Library staff following an incident that occurred on July 3rd near the library that resulted in the loss of a community member. We demand the safety of our members in our workplaces! Add your contributions here: We Appreciate Central Library Staff.

We appreciate you reading, observing our bargaining sessions, and repping your green on Thursdays

Verified by MonsterInsights