Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory UPTE members are fighting for a strong contract

On November 5, we made progress during our highly productive meeting with Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. We have significantly strengthened our long-term position as a union by finalizing three crucial articles.

Article 8 – Steward Access: We secured a significant increase, doubling the number of shop stewards eligible for paid release from four to eight. Additionally, each steward will have two monthly hours explicitly allocated for union work.

Article 29 – Grievance Procedure: We defended against management's proposal to shorten the grievance timeline and established three distinct steps in the grievance process. Each step will be reviewed by a different person, providing greater oversight and fairness.

Article 30 – Arbitration: We rejected management's attempt to limit workers' rights and secured an equitable list of Arbitrators. This ensures we have a fair selection process in place should arbitration be necessary.

With these updates, we now have eight completed articles. Additionally, four articles have been withdrawn from negotiations, meaning they will remain unchanged. While there is still much work ahead, we are achieving meaningful advancements.

Mark your calendars for our next bargaining session: Monday, November 18, 2024, at 5 pm at 7575 Southfront Rd, Livermore, CA 94551. Please join us as we continue to advocate for your rights.

With only seven sessions left this year, your active participation is more crucial than ever. Securing a strong union contract isn't just about negotiations at the bargaining table—it's about all of us uniting to show management our unwavering determination to fight for the rights and benefits we deserve.

You can review the proposals here for detailed updates. Please note that the link has been updated.

Also, don’t forget to check out our new Davis–Bacon Appeal Form here. We’ve simplified the process to ensure you receive the pay you deserve.

This week, we made meaningful progress on several non-economic articles in our bargaining discussions. We’re pleased to report that management has retracted their initial arbitration proposal, which would have limited members’ rights to file specific legal claims against Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. This is a significant win and testament to our collective strength.

We’ve also advanced discussions on two other vital areas:

• Shop Stewards’ Time: We are progressing with the number of shop stewards receiving paid time for union work.

• Access for Our Staff Representative: We achieved improved access language, a vital step for effective union representation.

• These wins and a one-hour new hire orientation will be crucial in building a robust and sustainable union for the future.

• Overtime Proposal Discussion: We also addressed management’s proposal to alter the overtime start time. Our proposal prioritizes fairness by ensuring daily overtime after a scheduled shift and any overtime for work on your scheduled days off. Under management’s proposal, however, overtime would not start until after 40 hours, which could reduce weekend work volunteers and complicate scheduling. We believe management has not fully considered the ripple effects of their proposal, which could inadvertently shorten members’ work weeks if overtime isn’t approved.

On Tuesday, October 22, we made continued progress on non-economic proposals and reached tentative agreements on the following articles:

• Article 4: Supervisors in the Bargaining Unit—We successfully established time limits for supervisors to work within the bargaining unit.

• Article 12: Health and Safety—We secured more substantial health and safety provisions to protect bargaining unit employees from hazardous conditions.

• Article 10: Probationary Period—We fought a possible 18-month probationary period and won a more comprehensive review process. New hires will now have two written evaluations before the end of their probationary period, setting them up for success.

We are also progressing on critical issues, such as expanding the number of shop stewards eligible for paid time to support members and improving union staff access. Additionally, we reintroduced the need for a Davis-Bacon Appeals Process to be included in the contract.

A significant win came with management’s withdrawal of their regressive Article 19: Corrective Action proposal, which helps preserve due process in the workplace.

We had two meetings last week on October 15 and 18, hoping to receive answers regarding the wage proposal. Unfortunately, those answers were not provided. Management continues to refer to the KornFerry report as the basis for their wage proposal, which you can review here. However, we strongly disagree with this approach. The KornFerry report offers only a snapshot of the present and does not provide a future-oriented plan. We have also previously stated our disagreement with their methodology. If you want to read their methodology, you can read it here.

On October 15, we submitted a proposal to remove the wage survey side letter from future contracts, as we believe Management violated the market study's spirit. We need your support at the bargaining table to push for a fair wage proposal. You can help by attending on Thursdays in your UPTE T-shirts or black shirts.

Progress on Noneconomic Proposals:

We are making significant headway on noneconomic issues, including:

• We’re close to limiting how long supervisors can work within the bargaining unit.

• We're nearing an agreement to strengthen health and safety language.

• Management has agreed in principle to establish a Labor-Management Committee to improve communication, although details are still being worked out.

• Management has withdrawn several proposals for performance evaluations and successorship, restricting shop steward rights and limiting union staff access.

• They have also agreed to a new hire member orientation, giving us an hour with new hires in their first two weeks to encourage active union membership.

On Tuesday, October 8, we arrived on time, ready to hear management’s justification for proposing a six-year contract with only a 10% wage increase. Instead, management showed up late, dismissed their wage proposal, claimed we had already discussed this matter via email, and attempted to move forward with their counters.

We asked them the following critical questions:

• How does their proposal keep up with the cost of living?

• How does it address the growing number of employees at the top step?

• How does it address recruitment and retention issues?

• Do they plan to use the top step as a starting rate?

They indicated they would get back to us with answers. They need to know we will continue to show up and fight for fair wages. They suggested that their consultant come to talk about their market study. We informed them that they could come, but we wanted to hear about their proposal, not the report.

On October 1st, we met with Management, prepared to present our economic and wage proposals and hear their justifications for theirs. We were proud to have 40 members show up in support!

During our presentation, we highlighted the key concerns of our members:

• Competitive Wages are the number one priority for members.

• The instability of overtime (OT) and Davis-Bacon (DB) is driving quality workers away due to insufficient wages.

• Newly hired employees were placed directly on the top step, while many existing workers remain stuck.

• Improving recruitment and retention is critical to address issues of safety, low morale, turnover, and short staffing.

• We are facing a staffing crisis.

  • In 2023, the total amount of overtime worked was equivalent to the workload of 34 full-time staff.

We have seen a cumulative turnover of 47% since 2020.

On September 17, 2024, our bargaining team met with management to discuss proposals that focus on improving health and safety in our workplace. Our proposals aim to give us:

• A stronger voice on safety issues

• Enhance health benefits and paid time off, 

• Maintain our certifications and licenses,

• Improve scheduling for 24/7 operations. 

We believe these changes are necessary to address the high turnover rate of 47.37% since 2020. Had our health insurance proposal already been in place, members would have saved an average of $2,909 in healthcare costs this year.

On Thursday, September 12, we met with Management to present proposals aimed at strengthening our voice in the workplace. Our proposals focus on:

• Improving availability for union representatives and shop stewards

• Addressing systemic issues with subcontractors

• Enhancing our grievance process by moving it out of Staff Relations and into the hands of decision-makers who can provide more objectivity

David Tanno, High Voltage Electrician, spoke at length about the problems with subcontractors:

"It creates so many problems because subcontractors don’t have the same standards that we have, and often we want and can do the work."

We had our first session with management on August 29. They spent the night trying to justify their wage survey. We knew it would be flawed and won’t let it deter us. But we could not believe it would justify a 10% increase over six years! We received all of management’s proposals. They don’t want to improve retention or recruitment. Instead, they want to continue to limit our voice at the workplace, erode our rights, and keep our wages low. You can read all of our and their proposals here.

Please be sure to join us at bargaining to show management you are disappointed in their initial proposals.

It’s almost the middle of August, and you might be wondering: Aren’t we supposed to be bargaining with Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC by now? Surprise, surprise, management is already acting in bad faith.

It’s a situation that reeks of unfairness. Per our contract, we were supposed to start bargaining at the beginning of the month. Your bargaining team at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory asked for dates to bargain with management all the way back in June. Management kept us in the dark for weeks, claiming they were working on their availability to meet with us. They also refuse to give your bargaining team paid release time, which means we will have to bargain the contract after work hours, spending less time with our families and the ability to rest. Their team gets paid regardless. It’s a clear case of unequal treatment.