Counseling Center Employees Take Grievances to Island Public

By MANDY LOCKE

Island Counseling Center employees, locked in a labor dispute at
Martha's Vineyard Community Services, will take their grievances
to the public Monday night in a forum at the Oak Bluffs School library.

"Employees of Martha's Vineyard Community Services
invite the community and all those interested in health care issues on
the Island to attend a forum on their efforts to win a stronger voice,
more respect and living wages," says an advertisement for the
forum in today's Gazette.

ICC petitioners to form a union said they invited the Community
Services board of directors and executive director Ned Robinson-Lynch to
the public forum. But in a statement released Wednesday, Mr.
Robinson-Lynch said he and the board will not attend Monday
night's discussion.

"We have no intention of attending such a one-sided
‘forum.' We would consider attending only if the rules were
the same for both sides. If the union produced a signed statement from
the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) making it clear that the same
rules applied to union statements as to agency statements, we would
reconsider our involvement in a true open forum," said Mr.
Robinson-Lynch.

Mr. Robinson-Lynch said the Community Services administration is
limited by the NLRB in communications with Community Services employees
and the public.

"For example, the union can make all sorts of promises while
the agency legally cannot make any promises at all," Mr.
Robinson-Lynch said.

Nineteen employees from the Island Counseling Center filed a
petition with the National Labor Relations Board March 15 to form a
bargaining unit with the Hospital Workers Union, local 767 of the
Service Employees International Union. Community Services administration
argued that employees from all five programs of the agency should be
allowed to vote. After four days of NLRB hearings, management and union
representatives agreed to extend voting rights to all professional
employees, which include a number of professionals from both the Island
Counseling Center and Visiting Nurse Service. The NLRB has yet to decide
whether ICC clinical supervisors and graduate interns will be allowed to
vote to form a union in a June election.

Language remained sharp this week, as management and ICC petitioners
hardened positions in the labor dispute.

From the onset, petitioners cited low wages, concern for consistent
client care and a need for an articulated pay scale as reasons to
unionize.

The impetus for the current labor dispute surfaced two years ago
during an ICC staff retreat. Employees formed a salary committee to
study the agency's compensation for mental health employees
compared to similar agencies across the state. They also surveyed ICC
staff to learn what each employee earned.

"There was no rhyme or reason for wages. People with 18 years
more experience than me in the same type of field earned 50 cents more
an hour," said ICC petitioner Amy Lilavois.

"We found there was no equality of distribution. Staff was
making at the lower end of the spectrum; management was making at the
higher end," ICC employee Jane Dreeben said, explaining that the
committee requested forms the agency is required to file with the state
attorney general. Nonprofit corporations are required to file with the
attorney general about details of the agency's budget and the
salaries of the top five ranking managers.

ICC petitioners argue that staff within the counseling program do
not earn a living wage. The employees explain that they are not paid for
hours not directly spent with clients. Employees earn 60 per cent of
their full hourly rate when working on other projects. They earn no
wages for time required to file paperwork. All ICC staff receives three
weeks paid vacation, 12 sick days and insurance benefits. Staff must
contribute to health insurance payments. For example, Ms. Dreeben said,
a part-time employee taking a family health insurance plan will pay $400
a month.

Earnings and expenditures do not match up, petitioners argue.

"We're at the low end of the pay scale, and the
Vineyard's at the high end of the cost of living," said ICC
employee Heidi Spruce, who said she can barely juggle rent, car payments
and other living expenses on her $550 weekly paycheck.

Petitioners said that management did not respond adequately to their
compensation concerns.

"We've been told over and over again the agency could
not afford to pay a living wage," Ms. Dreeben said.

The administration said it commissioned a compensation review aimed
to compare the wages of Community Service employees with employees at
peer institutions across the state.

"The fact is that for many months, completely unrelated to
this union activity, an outside professional compensation consultant,
David J. Wudyka of Westminster Associates, has been reviewing the
agency's compensation levels. In fact, in July of last year, Mr.
Wudyka worked closely with the MVCS board of directors on setting the
executive director's pay," Mr. Robinson-Lynch said.

The overall compensation review is not yet complete, but the
administration told staff this week in a memorandum dated April 22 that
the study would be released "shortly."

Mr. Wudyka said he has completed the section devoted to wages for
top management at Community Services.

"The management salaries at MVCS are very comparable with
labor market data. In fact, for example, Ned Robinson-Lynch's
salary is close to the mid-point for salaries paid for comparable
positions at other nonprofit agencies in Massachusetts," Mr.
Wudyka said.

But ICC petitioners said they feel there is a much greater disparity
between management's comparable wages and that of counselors in
ICC.

"It's all about how an agency prioritizes
resources," Ms. Dreeben said.

"You don't build a new facility if you can't pay
employees a living wage," ICC petitioner Jane Cleare added,
referring to Community Services' plans to build a new campus
because of space constraints.

Beyond addressing equitable wages, several petitioners also said
they believe a union will better define working relationships between
management and staff.

"Disciplinary action is arbitrary. There's no set
process for discipline. The process becomes clarified with a
union," Ms. Cleare said.

"Right now, it's an archaic form of management.
It's a ‘my way or the highway' approach," ICC
employee Rob Doyle said.

"You always get the sense that there's someone else
ready to take your place if you leave," Ms. Spruce said.

Many of the petitioners agreed that staff devotion and the flexible
approach to mental health entice them to remain with ICC despite their
grievances.

"I've never worked with a group of people more
clinically dedicated. That hasn't gotten lost. I don't think
client care has been compromised. But [management] needs to take as good
a care of us as we do our clients," Ms. Dreeben said.

"It's rewarding to work with people who can't
afford private care," Ms. Spruce added.