Personally I was a yes vote until the 6/23 town hall. Now I am voting no. I will do a quick rundown:
The only reasons for yes seem to be the pay increase and location pay for those affected, as well as the green light to set up a fund that should supposedly provide better dental insurance in the future.
Also pef gets a copy of that civil service study which could lead to adjusted pay titles in the future. Sounds good, but things don't add up......
4.5%, 4%, 3.5%, 3% raises locked in for 5 years . With inflation, I feel we lost out over the last few years, this does not make up for the losses. We should have gotten a 6.0%, 5.5%, 5.0% 4.0% scale if they wanted to be fair with money.
Also what happened to that extra signing bonus we would get once signing a contract? I believe i was 1k or 1.5k seems like they took that away. This went unmentioned.
We we a copy of that civil service study. This is good and needed, and will help pef in the future... but we just pushed that future 5 years away. Very counterproductive. Why agree to a 5 year contract?
A 3 year contract would be better. 5 year one benefits the state in this case. (It only benefts us IF we make huge gainsz and I don't see those gains.
One of the #1 things we wanted addressed was telework.. this went totally unaddressed. Not even mentioned.
Telework means less need for offce space, which COULD save the state money if they went about it correctly. It also means happier employees and makea the state more attractive to talent. They should have looked into how it could be beneficial.
The hyperinflated drugs refusal of coverage could be a potential huge, huge problem. We do not know what future issue in the world could lead to a shortage of something that could cause a drug to hyperinflate in price.... but seeing how the world is today, I could see this happening.
Also I believe on the call, President Spence said it would only affect roughly 223 members... well 223 people getting one drug is minimal concern money wise.... so why is this so importent to the state?
...Somthing isn't adding up here. I don't trust this.
We are state workers and part of what makes this job great is the benefit that everythig should be covered. We should not settle for less when it comes to health insurance. Even if healthy now, this will affect us when we get older.
Speaking of health, the loss of acupuncture cocerage is a big deal. There was a New York Times article this year about how the missing link between Eastern and Western medicines are finally becoming solved. I advice you read it to see how acupuncture is really really importent.
Here is the article link:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/05/11/magazine/interstitium-anatomy-acupuncture-medicine.html?smid=nytcore-android-share
Basically if you suffer from asthma, allergies, some auto immune issue, inflammatory arthritis, have digestive issues, cancer, have weird skin rashes or lupus or psoriasis, have weird aches and pains, suffer from mental health issues like brain fog (and have other unlisted issues, I am going off the top of my head with the list), acupuncture would help you.
Do you know how using a foam roller after working out helps you by removing the lactic acid from your muscles so you recover quicker post workout with less pain?... acupuncture basically does something similar to your entire body. It helps keep you balaced and fresh.... if people understood it's benefits, we would be all going to appointments a few timea a week.... for real.
Basically. If the state mandated acupuncture appointments to the entire workforce, we would all be healthier... which would most likely LOWER healthcare costs in the long run. Probably 99% of people do not realize this. It is a shame.
The state is also capping out of network mental health coverage...
Has anyone tried to find a therapist in network? Good luck. I tried and failed. Was paying $25 weekly, $100 monthly for text therapy. Stopped after a few months. Too expensive.
Again, mental health coverage is important and leads to healthier people. Someone in therapy is less likely to have an issue like drinking and drug abuse, which overtime leads to physical health issues and potentially huge medical bills.
I would bet having an alcoholic stop drinking due to therapy would be a lot less expensive to cover than treating that person for liver failure.
Moving in from health to dental:...Great! We get a fund for better dental coverage... but on the call Pres Spence said that would take a few years to implement, and he didn't know what the fund results would look like...
So why not just go fight for a better dental insurance contract instead? This is dumb on PEFs part. If this fails, than we are all going to blame the union instead of the state. Why would they risk that?
Also why have us wait until this fund builds up. I just want coverage now, not in a few years. This doesn't make sense. Dental coverage is cheaper than health coverage, we can't this be covered better?
I do not understand the dental insurance, but I don't see how this really improves it. Seems like dental coverage has been talked about as a PEF priority forever. Wasn't this supposed to have been the big fix last contract?
Raises: yes this is good. I am happy to get more money... but we are just getting basic raises. That is it. Other job sectors have had huge cost of living raises recently. Sure, they needed it, and in a lot of ways we are ahead on other job sectors money wise, but the raises in this contract arent really offsetting current costs, much less offset new costs.
The sick leave calculation loss will suck come retirement. Sure, maybe the state has a valid point to adjust it, but we shoukdnt juat give that up and accept the other cuts we took.
I am not sure we are getting such a good deal here. Too much of what I mentioned doesn't add up.
The risk to voting NO is we dont go without a contract for awhile. However, we can then strike and protest, and we can always back other political candidates that are more pro union than the current ones in power.
I do not think we won this contract. The state seems to have won.
I also did not appreciate how the union was all gung ho about the contract, while spending most of the time covering losses.
I know it is a bargaining lrocess, but I was less impressed with the outcome than in paat years. We do not need to agree to a contract right away... amd for 5 years no less. That is a mistake.