As the Alaska Legislature continues to debate the operating and capital budgets, the State of Alaska is engaged in ongoing negotiations with the General Government Unit, the largest collective bargaining unit representing over 10,000 state employees.
The GGU has some mega-sized demands that will be cost drivers that the Alaska Legislature will need to fund, if these demands are met even halfway. The total cost for the three major components of union demands is over $800 million.
With the current agreement set to expire on June 30, 2025, the parties have met 20 times since Oct. 30, with the most recent meeting on April 14.
To date, the State and GGU have tentatively agreed on 16 of the 42 contract articles. These agreements largely maintain existing language without changes, aligning with other collective bargaining agreements and incurring no additional costs to the State.
However, big financial demands from the union are still on the table.
The union’s proposed increases to the State’s health insurance contributions alone are estimated at over $234.9 million over three years. The demand is for a 38% increase in year one, 36% in year two, and 42% in year three.
Notably, the State has no representation on the Health Trust Board, which recently approved employee contribution hikes of $50 for Plan A (17% increase), $25 for Plan B (18%), $5 for Plan C (14%), and $5 for Plan D (12.5%).
The union’s three highest-cost proposals include a 12% inflation adjustment that would cost the State $316.7 million, a 10.5% market adjustment at $277.1 million, and cost-of-living increases tied to inflation starting July 1, 2027.
Additionally, the union has put forward over 50 other cost drivers, including additional leave, mandated salary study provisions, daily overtime, premium pay for working on days off, paid leave for new employees to attend union activities, and retention pay.
In contrast, the State has proposed more modest cost-of-living increases based on the Consumer Price Index for Urban Alaska (CPI-U), offering 1.25% in the first year, 2.5% in the second, and an estimated 2.5% in the third. The State also seeks flexibility to supplement the workforce during emergencies and to limit feasibility studies for cost-saving outsourcing initiatives.
All monetary terms in a successor agreement require legislative approval, with the State conducting a “costing out” analysis to compare expenses against the current contract over the proposed three-year term. As negotiations continue, the outcome will have significant implications for state employees and taxpayers alike.
With the deadline approaching, the gap between proposals suggests difficult negotiations in coming weeks.
The Legislature is currently debating both the capital and operating budgets, with legislators adding hundreds of millions of dollars to the already unfunded budget, and cutting Alaskans’ Permanent Fund dividends to pay for the extra spending.
Unions will destroy Alaska same as they did the rust belt states.
And we know this but push forward anyway.
First reaction without research has the the thought of contracting outright or contract bidding with private industry and commercial firms.
Stated on by what contractors often do, contract individual with self licenses and personal insurance coverage. No obligations to the contracting employer.
By taking this route, the state avoids
Insurance cost, retirement obligations, wages, which should reflect huge current obligated or forced cost savings to our State.
Cheers
Johnson-ketchikan
If the State has no representation on the Health Trust Board, which recently approved employee contribution hikes, is the Board’s approval constitutionally binding on taxpayers?
.
Could it be that public employee union officials just want to protect, or increase, their people’s take-home pay before the legilature’s sales and income taxes hit?
.
Maybe this has something to do with SB 256, which strips the rights of public sector workers to join or remain in their unions and bar the automatic deduction of union dues from public employee union members, forcing them to pay their dues separately. Oh, never mind …that was in Florida.
.
Could happen here …when hell freezes over.
There’s nothing unusual about this union contract negotiation. It happens every time a union contract is about to expire. The union asks for everything including the sun and the moon knowing they won’t get everything but hoping they will get enough to encourage people to want to take public employees jobs; it’s up to the legislature to hold the line on outrageous demands but still be fair to public employees who are willing to work for the State. There are always many demands thrown in the mix by the union hoping for as many as possible to be agreed to by the State.
But that having been said—the public often expect public employees—State employees—to donate personal time and work for low wages especially in the support positions. Should a public employee be expected to work on a scheduled day off or a holiday for less than ‘premium pay’? The definition of premium pay is missing from the article, but it’s not unreasonable to expect overtime pay. I work closely with the Division of Retirement & Benefits in a role assisting retired public employees , and here’s what I’ve experienced for these public employees—on weekends and paid holidays, DRB Directors, Deputy Directors and supervisors routinely check their email and respond to problems that need immediate attention, will quickly get immediate emergency approval for specialized inpatient treatment for those dealing with critical suicide and substance abuse issues late at night when others are sleeping, and sometimes do the work of 2 positions because so many positions are unfilled and the work has to get done or retirees will suffer. These public employees go way beyond what is required of their positions and do it often without regard to how much extra they are or aren’t paid. It’s up to the State to make sure all public employees are not taken advantage of.
Our public employees are valuable and necessary so residents can continue to enjoy living in this state.
Meeting halfway is called compromise. Paying educators and public servants a fair wage should be prioritized over giving out checks simply for living here.
In a letter to Mr. Luther C. Steward who was the President, of the National Federation of Federal Employees, noted rightwing conservative Republican…err progressive Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt wrote in part:
“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.”