State's Plan submitted to Coleman Court Still Falls Short
The State submitted their response to the Coleman Court order of May 23, 2007 regarding a pay parity plan to address the Coleman served population in the Department of Mental Health. The plan is NOT an agreement between the union and the State. It is NOT yet known if Judge Karlton will accept this plan and enter it as a court order. The matter is due to be heard in Judge Karlton’s court in the next week. Below is a brief summary of the state’s proposed plan. Follow this link to view State’s plan.(PDF).
Salary
The State’s plan says:
The state will offer parity with the pay scales approved by the court in its December 15, 2006 order (CDCR Salaries) minus 5% for ALL DMH staff in Coleman classes in DMH Institutions.
The State’s response indicates it is not possible to isolate the DMH clinicians that treat only CDCR inmates. This is due to the staffing system which requires the formulation of staffing needs based on overall population, not based upon the census of specific patients or the census of specific units. The physical plant comes into play as well, due to the dorm type environment of nearly all of the units. And the Mall, touted by the Department as a "critical element", does not lend itself to isolating services by unit or patient type.
Identification of Job Titles To Be Included in the Salary Increase
Judge Karlton’s order of May 23, 2007 states:
Defendants shall file a report identifying the job titles and number of staff members required, pursuant to applicable staffing ratios, to provide care to the Coleman patients.
It remains unclear which job titles the state’s plan references. In our bargaining unit, the initial order only included psychologists and social workers. The letter from the States attorney, Lisa Tillman, also only references our psychologists and clinical social workers.
The State’s response identifies the composition of the "treatment team" arising out of the consent judgment which states: it consists of a stable core of members, including at least the individual served, the treating psychiatrist; the treating psychologist; the treating rehabilitation therapist; the treating social worker; the registered nurse and psychiatric technician who know the individual best, one of the individuals teachers ( for school-age individuals) and, as appropriate, the individuals family, guardian, advocates, attorneys, and the pharmacist and other staff.
If this is the case, the state proposes to include rehabilitation therapists, and pharmacists, as well as several other classification not a part of our bargaining unit. Though the plan references the "treatment team" it is not clear if the state also considers these classifications to be the "DMH staff in Coleman classes."
What Happens Now
The entire matter must be heard by the court. Judge Karlton may or may not enter it as a court order. If he does, the State is required to meet with the union which is the procedure required when there is a change to the terms and conditions of employment. The States plan proposes waiving any applicable state statutes consistent with what has been done in the past. This is a reference to the government code that requires the state to ensure equal pay for equal work. If the government code is waived by the court it will apply only to DMH.
What is the Union’s Position
The union position has been consistent since the CDCR raises were ordered by the court. . We believe all of our members in like classification should be paid at the same rate statewide. We fully intend to continue to fight for full salary parity, and to ensure that the classifications that were given salary increases in CDCR will be offered the same salary in all other state departments. This is true not only for the Coleman raises, but for the Plata raises as well.
Read the entire plan the State submitted to the Coleman court.(PDF)