Last week the UAPD Bargaining Team met with the State for three consecutive negotiation sessions and passed a number of the outstanding non-economic proposals.This will allow us to begin bargaining on economic matters, including salaries, this week.
Here are some of the key proposals that UAPD made:
For Article 12.2 Investigations, UAPD proposed language to guarantee that both the doctor and the union will be notified if there is an open investigation. Doctors in several departments have had the experience of receiving an adverse action without even knowing that they were under investigation. Under 12.3 Progressive Discipline, we also proposed a tighter timeline between when an incident occurs and when a discipline can be issued regarding that incident.
UAPD proposed that the State must disclose its methodology for any productivity criteria at the Department of Social Services (DSS) and the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) where the issue of quotas has been raised. In addition, UAPD proposed creating a Medical Consultant (MC) II specialist position in DSS to assist MCs with difficult cases and conduct evaluations of employees.
Two doctors from the Department of State Hospitals described how their professional judgement is undermined, which compromises patient care. UAPD proposed adding language to improve Article 12.6 Professional Judgment.
Under Article 12.5, UAPD proposed that managers doing performance appraisals hold the same degree as the people being evaluated (M.D., D.D.S, etc.). This will ensure that managers have the correct expertise to judge the work of the BU 16 employees.
Regarding working conditions, UAPD proposed that a doctor can file a grievance rather than a complaint if resources needed for work are lacking. The UAPD maintains that “resources” include appropriate doctor to patient staffing levels.