Joint Select Committee hears status updates on state bargaining; no votes taken
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
State negotiators and union representatives told a joint committee that most contract articles have been settled but wages, hours and safety provisions remain at impasse for several bargaining units; the meeting was informational and included requests for higher pay, staffing and safety measures.
At a public hearing of the Joint Select Committee on Collective Bargaining, the Department of Management Services and multiple bargaining-unit representatives summarized the status of full-book contract negotiations, with the parties reporting broad agreement on many contract articles but persistent impasses over wages, hours and safety.
Michael Matimore, representing the Department of Management Services, told the committee that negotiations with several units have resolved the majority of contract articles but that Article 25 (wages) remains at impasse in multiple units. For special agents at the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Matimore said the state offered a 2% competitive pay increase plus a 3% special pay — a 5% total wage increase — while Article 23 (workday/workweek/overtime) is contested because the union proposes a 7-day, 40-hour work period and the agency maintains a 28-day, 160-hour work period.
Matimore outlined similar patterns across other units. For the security-services unit (correctional officers and probation officers), the state proposed a 2% competitive pay increase and a minimum hourly rate of $28 effective July 1, 2026, plus recruitment and retention funds and hiring bonuses the department proposed at $1,000 and $5,000 for high-vacancy facilities. He said the Florida Highway Patrol trooper bargaining unit negotiated most articles but that Article 25 wages remains unresolved and that a sworn-officer career-development plan has been funded at $11,576,190, as described in the state’s presentation.
Matimore also said the parties are seeking ‘‘housekeeping’’ changes to grievance language after the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service ceased providing mediation services in some contract language, and he characterized many non-economic disagreements as clarifications to align contracts with current rules and practices.
Committee members asked a brief question about overtime for correctional officers; Matimore confirmed correctional officers receive overtime pay. The chair emphasized the hearing was informational and that the committee would not vote on any item at the session.
The hearing included multiple union presentations that followed Matimore’s summary. Committee staff confirmed that at least one remote presenter should resubmit an online appearance form to ensure their remarks are included in the record. The committee received no public testimony and adjourned after the scheduled presentations.
What happens next: the committee did not take formal action. Matimore said the state remains committed to continued bargaining and to returning to answer committee questions if needed.