Sacramento County social workers, other front-line employees press board for higher pay and protections amid stalled contract talks

Dozens of Sacramento County front-line workers testified July 22 that a proposed 2.8% county offer and related contract language would leave many employees worse off and put vital services at risk.

The comments came during the board’s public-comment period and focused on stalled negotiations between the county and unions representing social workers and other service staff. “The county's proposal removes the guarantee that changes to health insurance plans and co-payments require approval from both the union and the county,” James Starr, chair of the UPE board of directors, told supervisors. “UPE does not oppose the idea of making changes to health care but only if the county clearly demonstrates cost savings for our members and not just cost savings for the county.”

Why it matters: County social workers, eligibility specialists and other human services employees described daily work with vulnerable residents — children in danger, families removed from assistance by fraud, people dependent on life-sustaining medications — and said the current offers would worsen retention and morale. Speakers cited recruitment losses and long caseloads that they said hamstring services the public relies on.

Details and claims cited by employees included: many social work classifications are paid roughly 7% below the median of comparable counties (Sarah Singleton, social worker; UPE 8 vice chair); employees reporting take-home yearly pay figures as low as about $40,916 (Zach Holitz, UPE 8 member); and living-wage figures for Sacramento calculated by MIT referenced in public comment showing a single-person living wage around $55,000 (James Zastrowski, assessor’s office). Several speakers said prior pay increases did not keep up with inflation and that the county executive’s raise exceeded front-line pay.

Workers repeatedly criticized proposed contract language that would allow the county to change offered medical plans without union consent, to substitute unnamed medical plans, and to increase co-pay structures. “It takes away the security that we have for our elected health benefits,” Zach Holitz said. Others emphasized threats to specific benefits: Seth Hogan, an eligibility worker, said changes to health-plan options could affect ongoing fertility care for his family.

Board response and next steps: Supervisors did not deliberate on contract specifics during the public-comment period; Chair Serna reminded speakers that Brown Act rules limit the board’s ability to discuss off-agenda matters at length. Several supervisors expressed appreciation for employees’ service during the meeting. The transcript records no formal board action or vote on the union negotiations during the session; employees and union leaders urged the board to return to bargaining and to preserve existing protections in the legacy contract dating to 2006, a provision several speakers referenced as a prior strike-era achievement.

What was not decided: No ordinance, appropriation, or contract change was adopted at the July 22 meeting. Speakers requested both a larger percentage raise and that any health-plan modifications be subject to mutual agreement; the county’s “best and final” proposal of 2.8% was described repeatedly as inadequate by employees and union leaders.

Ending note: Employees asked the board to weigh the public-service consequences of low pay and reduced protections, warning of further turnover and diminished capacity if negotiations produce the currently proposed terms.