Bargaining team members, however, were troubled by management’s proposed change of moving the Social Worker 1- 4’s, DD Outstation Managers, and DD Administrator 1’s into a new class series called Social Service Case Worker 1-5. The management proposed changes are as follows:
- JOB CLASS: 351O
- CURRENT: Social Worker 1 - Range 41
- DRAFT: Social Service Case Worker 1* - Range 41
- JOB CLASS: 351P
- CURRENT: Social Worker 2 - Range 49
- DRAFT: Social Service Case Worker 2* - Range 49
- JOB CLASS: 351P
- CURRENT: Social Worker 2 - Range 49
- DRAFT: Social Service Case Worker 3 - Range 51
- 5% Increase
- 339 FTE's
- JOB CLASS: 351P
- CURRENT: Social Worker 2 - Range 49
- DRAFT: Social Service Case Worker 4 - Range 54
- 12.5% Increase
- 10 FTE's
- JOB CLASS: 351Q
- CURRENT: Social Worker 3 - Range 51
- DRAFT: Social Service Case Worker 4 - Range 54
- 7.5% Increase
- 173 FTE's
- JOB CLASS: 351R
- CURRENT: Social Worker 4 - Range 56
- DRAFT: Social Service Case Worker 5 - Range 57
- 2.5% Increase
- 337 FTE's
- JOB CLASS: 351V
- CURRENT: DD Outstation Manager - Range 52
- DRAFT: Social Service Case Worker 4 - Range 54
- 5% Increase
- 20 FTE's
- JOB CLASS: 351U
- CURRENT: DD Resource Manager - Range 51
- DRAFT: Social Service Case Worker 3 - Range 51
- JOB CLASS: 351X
- CURRENT: Administrator 1 - Range 57
- DRAFT: Social Service Case Worker 5 - Range 57
*All Social Service Case Worker 1 and almost all Social Service Case Worker 2 positions will be in-training with a goal class of Social Service Case Worker 3.
As you can see from the chart some social workers would get wage increases and others would not based on the proposed changes. The "# FTEs" – denotes the number of class members potentially receiving a wage increase.
Because the General Government bargaining team felt that they did not have adequate time during bargaining to fully consider these proposed changes - management proposed these changes late in bargaining - and because the team did not want to lose potential funding for salary increases, decisions regarding whether the parties could agree on these class changes were deferred till after October 1st.
Management agreed to fund these changes if the parties ultimately come to agreement on the substantive class changes. If the parties cannot agree on the changes, any proposed funding will revert to the general fund.
We are now engaged in substantive discussions with the Department of Personnel, the Labor Relations Office, and the Department of Social and Health Services.
The bargaining team members are certainly interested in obtaining higher wages for Social Workers and DD Outstation Managers, but not if the future system gives raises to some members of the class and not others for reasons that are not valid.
The small group of WFSE bargaining team members and social workers who are working with DOP, LRO and DSHS would like to hear as many ideas as possible regarding these proposed changes from the affected class members. The job specifications – both proposed new and old - for the affected classes are linked above for your consideration.
Please leave us your comments. Click on the "comments" link below to read posted comments and to add your own.
**UPDATED** At the beginning of your comments, please include which Job Class you are speaking about and whether you are "in favor" of the proposed changes or "opposed." Thank you.
23 comments:
Test Comments
Although I am all for people getting raises in salary I would like to make everyone aware that the Federation has recently filed and settled two pay parity lawsuits with the State (Shoal @ DD/CRM) in which employees were underpaid to other emeployees doing the same or similiar work. We need to carefully review this proposal or we are going to be back in court again.
I am not in favor of any type of name change away from Social worker. The name Social Worker denotes more than just what we do, but also an association. It also gives DOP and others a class to associate us too. Deviation away from this name will only muddy the waters and make it more difficult to get what it is that we deserve.
I am not in favor of the change to bring others who do not do social work into this classification. This attempt to make us fit a box for DOP or any other group is insulting and unprofessional.
Thirdly, I cannot believe that we are choosing to change the pay of JRA, DOC, DDD to pay parity to SW's. This is not good for the problems that CA is having and will make it even more difficult to retain and hire employees to the SW series. This is seen at CA as an insult and will make things more difficult not easier.
CA employee's do not view WFSE as doing anything to assist them with there plight to make this a doable job. The things that are being done are seen as a direct attack to CA employees and the social worker association.
I have reviewed the proposed changes to the social worker class. There are several issues that catch my eye. I am opposed to any changes of the title of social worker as the latter denotes more clearly, both by quals and title, what the CA field line staff do. The vague proposed descriptions appears to allow CA management to lump others into our classifications that do not do the work. Further, for CFWS workers it blurs the lines of tasks faced day to day with the description of "high risk" "high profile" case. Any CFWS and CPS worker can have these cases day to day and to separate them out would be a costly measure. It would also create an imbalance of caseloads.
Other than the field reps it feels that WFSE has lost sight of the CA workers plight. WFSE Management is looking a lot like DSHS management in that it pays lip service to the "plight" but hasn't got a clue as to what the "plight" actually is. To even consider this change would only go to prove my point.
This is suppose to be a strong Union. I would suggestion that confidence in this idea is slipping and becoming weaker. I would like nothing more than to be proven wrong. I oppose this ridiculous change.
DD Outstation Managers had been 4 pay ranges higher then DD CRM,s in the past and 1 step behind supervisors. Outstation Managers are requesting step 56 and NOT 54 as proposed in this proposal.
Opposed. I'd like to see the Bargaining Unit, rather than management, draft language for proposals to change any job class. We have major, respected Schools of Social Work located in this state. They need to be invited to the discussion. The language proposed by management de-professionalizes and diminishes the role. It describes a case worker, case manager. This is a narrow slice of what a social worker's activities are about.
If you read the history of the Labor movement and the history of Social Work, you will discover it is the same shared story. Why then, would wfse even consider for a moment abandoning the social workers they (we) are supposed to represent. Our new US President recommends we know our history. There is much more at stake here than position descriptions and pay ranges! wfse step up to fight for the social workers of Washington State. You are much too cozy with management.
What's the plan for the 20 case-carrying SHPC2's (Regional Licensors) at CA/DLR?
Yes, the new descriptions are far too generic, and seem focused almost totally on one division, the Children's Administration. I agree wholeheartedly with the suggestion to invite educators from our graduate school programs in Social Work to have input into any revisions of title or function. The move many years ago to retitle the positions from caseworker to social worker was done with the intention of professionalizing the job and setting qualifications. Why move in the other direction?
It would seem this proposal neglects a large class of social workers working in ESA who have been overlooked for some years. With the advent of Work First Program Specialists, I am told that financial workers with GED's having been receiving a pay scale commensurate with SW2's, many of whom have MSW degrees. This has been a terrible oversight by WFSE who has appeared complacent with such a glaring mismatch of salary based on qualifications. Get active union!
I believe the Union as well as management has lost sight of the education and training we as "real" social workers in DSHS go through. We are also so little valued by DSHS. Proposals as you are presenting is why "Real" social workers cannot be retained by the department.
Not only should you leave our title as social worker for those of us that have gone through graduate school, but we should be in a class of our own and properly compensated. Talking about disparity- we ADASA social workers do the same as the RNs and they are paid 3-4 times our pay.
I believe most of our classes are understaffed and underpaid- but we have to look at "wage disparity" across the board. We as MSW social workers have far more education, and training in social work and know the family dynamics, have trained counseling skills, and have the skills and training in mental health and drug & alcohol issues of our clients. More so than those non-social workers moving up the ladder by putting time into the department.
Let's get real WFSE and really work for your members!
Anonymous posted:
'I am not in favor of the change to bring others who do not do social work into this classification. This attempt to make us fit a box for DOP or any other group is insulting and unprofessional.
Thirdly, I cannot believe that we are choosing to change the pay of JRA, DOC, and DDD to pay parity to SW's. This is not good for the problems that CA is having and will make it even more difficult to retain and hire employees to the SW series. This is seen at CA as an insult and will make things more difficult not easier.'
Wow, what a team state employees make. You find it insulting that hard working employees in JRA, DOC, and DDD, may by paid the same as social workers. You say it is an insult? I work for JRA and we too have high turnover. We continue to provide treatment to dangerous offenders that is at the master’s and doctorate levels of required education with the evidence based treatment modalities we use. Besides the education and training that is required just for the treatment aspects, we have the same educational requirements as social workers.
Further, we work in an environment that puts us at danger for lice, MRSA, TB, and other blood borne pathogens, to say nothing of the consistent physical assaults that we encounter. I have worked with many state employees and I can almost guarantee that the average tenure in social work is greater than that of a residential counselor. Many employees just cannot make a career in the institutional setting.
I find it insulting that you are insulted from being 'classified' with other state workers. Aren’t we on the same team?
In the context of the context of the Washington personnel system, Social Worker refers to a job class. In the rest of the world Social Worker refers to a professional education. The state's minimum qualifications for the job do not require a professional social work education...so it gets fuzzy. We need to stand together. Let's not not allow them to divide & conquer us.
I'm not sure why a name change would be a way to get a higher level/pay. It should all be based upon the workers level of education, career training and experience.
I believe the quality of a persons work should also be the judge as to the level for which they are paid. An incentive if you will. The current way this system works is where the longer one works for the Department the more secure her/his position is whether or not they do quality work really does not promote a healthy organization.
In the context of Washington's personnel system Social Worker refers to a job class. In the rest of the world Social Worker refers to a professional education. The 'minimum qualifications' for the job do not require the professional social work degree. Some of us have the job, some the degree, and some have both.
I think the concern about what we are called is a planned diversion by management to pit worker against worker. We already know the means by which management assigns job titles to workers has little relationship with merit or ability or fairness. Why should we expect management to consider how the job title is related to what we do? However, if education specialty and education level were factored into pay scales, a reasonable expectation of initial competence and baseline behavior would follow. This would mitigate some of the injustices inherent in faulty classifications and, over time, those with the credentials and the demonstrated experience would have a better chance to achieve the level they deserve.
Some of us are Social Workers by job title. Some of us are Social Workers by educational degree. Some of us are both.
I am against this proposal because I believe ALL SW3s need a LARGE raise. We are people with advanced degrees and/or years of experience who assess risk and deal with high profile cases every day. This proposal creates "lead workers" underneath supervisors, but above other line workers, which appears to me to be a cost saving proposal on management's part to avoid hiring more supervisors. I work in CA Intake and I can say that this is difficult work which often unexpectantly becomes high profile. All SW3s are underpaid and overworked and dare I say underserved by our union. We are ALL professionals who deserve professional pay and professional treatment by our employer. When the newspaper comes out in morning the worker in the headline is a SW3. We need to be able to hire and retain experienced competent social workers and we need management and a union that will back us up. Another layer of supervision is not the answer.
what does 'comment moderation' mean? what does 'approved by the blog author' mean? why would wfse staff filter the comments of wfse membership???!! why?
As a long-term DDD employee, I am concerned about the proposed changes. Not just the position descriptions, but what is management's intent. Having been a case-carrying Case Mgr for half of my 20 years, and a Resource Mgr the other half, from where I sit there aren't enough good reasons to split out Case carrying staff from Resource Staff. I regularly perform a number of "case management" functions/tasks such as completing DD assessments, making referrals, and others in addition to my "resource management" duties. I think this should be studied very carefully before we (members/the union)sign off on these changes.
Two issues are important to me as a MSW/LICSW and a Psychiatric Social Worker 3 in Washington. Other states, including Utah, have three categories of licensed social workers. They are a social service worker with a bachelor's degree in a variety of fields and a national exam. Next is certified social worker with a MSW and a national exam. Finally, comes the LICSW which requires an MSW and at least two years of clinical supervision. Washington has strict guidelines for LICSW, but I am concerned by the lack of qualifications used to hire entry level "social workers". If the union was part of the move to call DSHS case workers "social workers", I can appreciate their desire to elevate and associate these important workers with the field of social work. But this was a short sighted effort, as now MSW/LICSW personnel in Washington are not recognized for the qualifications that they bring to the job. Not just the qualification of schooling, testing and licensure, but also of the vast experience gained through their internships while earning their MSW's. This would be comparable to Doctors sharing their professional title with PA's or nurses. The Doctors have their own union in several cases to keep this from happening. But it is not the unions responsibility to speak up for any one profession. It is the professional, me and you, who need to educate our union leaders and our elected representatives about our needs and concerns. To that end a group of Social Workers will be lobbying the legislature on February 16, 2009 for title protection. The state chapter of NASW is working with legislators to help draft the title protection legislation. Finally, the pay of MSW/LICSW is significantly lower than that paid by Federal agencies such as the VA. Nationally, it is recognized by hospitals, nursing homes, schools and many other state of the art human service organizations, that the experience and versatility of a licensed Social Worker both improves the productivity and reduces the liability for any agency. That is why we are asking our union to speak with us in discussions with management (DOP and DOL). A novel suggestion. Wouldn't it make sense to have the cost of the license be reflected in the pay provided?
Dan Grey, MSW/LICSW
Re: "Comment Moderation." This was a setting error that has been corrected. It was not set originally, but was reset at some point. I noticed it today and removed it allowing free flow. No comments were removed.
LR
The majority of Social Workers in ESA carry caseloads 4 times or more than what the CA Social Workers carry. ESA social workers provide similar and at times more services. ESA family SWs are called to testify in court, CPT and Family Team meetings. Almost all of CA clients also have an ongoing ESA SW that provides many or all of the "court ordered" services as well as documentation for the CA SW for court purposes. I am not saying ESA SWs provide the exact services as front line CA SW's providing for high risk cases but the reality is that there are many SW 3s in CA that don't provide front line services or do the court work yet they get the same pay as those that do and some of those are SW 2. I am not attacking CA because, bless them, they have a hard enough job. I am just pointing out that there are a number of Social Workers in DSHS that are underpaid. ESA has no limits to the size of caseloads that are usually 100-120. One worker has over 200. There are SW 2's with an MSW in CA and ESA making less than a Workfirst Program Specialist with a GED or high school diploma. We have all heard about the "lawsuit" and clearly those two workers were working out of class however the entire WPS class is not providing that level of skilled services in my opinion. I also do not agree with the title change to case worker. Know your history. This was already addressed in the 80's.
Post a Comment