Why bargaining team members are voting yes or no to ratify 2024-2026 tentative compensation agreement

On this page:

• Why I'm voting yes: CFPB Pays Up with biggest raises in CFPB history
• Why I'm undecided
• Why I'm voting no: Fair pay delayed - Holding CFPB accountable on equal pay

Why we're voting yes: CFPB Pays Up with biggest raises in CFPB history

Tentative agreement begins the next phase of equal pay for equal work, opportunities to reopen bargaining on pay caps

Perspective #1: Why I'm voting YES

I am voting yes on the compensation agreement primarily because it:

• Stops management from going to impasse, which would have meant many more months before BUEs got a merit or lump sum bonus for 2024. And, the bargaining committee did not have a crystal ball to determine what the outcome at impasse would have been.
• Provides the largest merit and lump sum payments to bargaining unit employees since the Union was implemented at the Bureau.
• Provides for GS locality adjustments for all three years.
• Allows the Union to re-open bargaining on the salary cap in 2025for implementation in 2026. If the Union is not successful in getting management to increase the salary cap, we can go to impasse on this one issue.
• Increases the health insurance subsidy $85 per pay period beginning in 2025.

I’m voting yes because the parties agreed to reopen the issues of the salary cap and two-tier pay system in 2025 and as the sole issue in scope of those negotiations. I envision only a week of bargaining for each topic. I believe and expect our Union to develop a strategic plan to win on these topics and if our proposals are rejected by the Bureau, to proceed to Mediation (schedule one week only) and Impasse in immediately. I believe employees are more willing to rally around one issue.  

Perspective #2: Why I'm voting YES

I’m voting yes for a number of reasons:

1. We’ve gotten a pay increase for most staff that at a minimum will outpace inflation.
2. We’ve gotten CFPB to concede on pay band adjustments which will allow for employee salary growth and will help more experienced staff avoid the pay band max.
3. We got CFPB to increase our healthcare subsidy, and allow for union input in these contracts when they are negotiated, among other benefits.
4. We made some concessions on salary caps and 2 tier pay. Our agreement lays the groundwork to close those gaps:
   1. CFPB agreed to a reopener on Salary caps next year which will allow for single issue bargaining on a core issue.
   2. CFPB agreed to negotiate on 2 tier pay feasibility next July.
   3. For the first time ever, the union has an agreement that begins to address the two-tier gap by offering people who join the bureau in the second half of the calendar year pay setting increases.
5. This was a hard fought battle, and at the moment, there is a need to rethink our discussion on two-tier as a phased approach towards equal pay.  Race and gender biased pay setting was a key win with the pay setting matrix, which I consider phase 1. The negotiated reopener on two tier- is maybe step 1.5, In my opinion pay should consistently move among all grades, and where you live should not impact what you earn if you have the same position as someone else. All of that needs to be considered in pay setting and an experience based increase metric which would be future phases of continuing to close the gap. We need to get CFPB to buy in on experience-based instead of performance-based increases, and that is a strategy shift the union needs more time to explore.
6. At the moment, we have gained so much in the current agreement, I don’t think it's the right decision to accept with all that remains in the balance and the ongoing financial impact these delays are already causing our fellow employees.

One of our goals was to have our raises tied to an inflationary metric so that we don’t end up in a situation where we have shrinking real wages. We won merit increases at or above inflation for all three years. I also think having pay band movement in multiple years is so important to maintain comparability and make sure people aren’t getting bunched at the top of their bands. In terms of overall compensation, we had a goal of using all available funds up to the transfer cap for compensation. Our cost model shows that we are at the cap for all three years–we are getting all the money that is on the table.

Why we’re undecided:

Over 130 employees will hit the salary cap and have their salaries frozen by 2026, unless we make the CFPB fix it

Perspective #3: Why I'm undecided

I am undecided on whether I will support the proposed compensation agreement because there is no increase to the salary cap for bargaining unit (BU) employees and I need a firm commitment from Union leadership on continuing to pursue this issue.  

First, in the Pay Reset agreement signed in December 2022, Management agreed they would negotiate in 2023 for annual pay-band structure adjustments to include changes to the total salary cap.  During bargaining, Management refused to negotiate (in good faith) in violation of the Pay Reset agreement by simply stating they would not accept any change to the salary cap and that they are “engaging” on the issue, but not “substantively.”  Management stated they would not increase the salary cap because:

1. It was modified from $240k to $255k during the Pay Reset (the first time since the CFPB was created);
2. Cost and budgeting issues;
3. The CFPB is a top-heavy agency;
4. The CFPB does not have an issue with retention;
5. They are exploring a return to pay for performance; and
6. Uncertainty due to the impending Supreme Court case.  

Second, by 2026, it is estimated that over 130 BU employees will hit the salary cap.  What does this mean? For some employees, adjustments to the salary cap is the equivalent of an adjustment to the pay band max because these employees hit the salary cap before hitting the pay band max.  This means the locality pay of these employees shrinks every single year thereafter by thousands of dollars which then impacts not only their take home pay, but their retirement and pension as well. This is true despite taking into account that employees receive a lump sum in lieu of merit which only focuses on the base pay they cannot receive because they hit the salary cap.

Third, failing to increase the salary cap negatively impacts employees often with the most years of experience. These employees are also very productive because of their expertise and likely are over 40 years of age. Failing to raise the cap will result in many of these experienced employees leaving the Bureau for the private sector or another financial regulator.

Fourth, we are falling further behind our sister financial regulators in relation to being paid “comparable” to other agencies.  The CFPB is statutorily mandated to provide compensation that is comparable to the compensation and benefits provided by the Federal Reserve Board for its corresponding class of employees.  For instance, the Federal Reserve Board, who we have the most similar benefits with, recently raised its salary cap for non-supervisory employees from $273k to $285k while the Bureau’s salary cap remains at $255k (the FRB number from 2021).  By 2026, there could easily be a $40-50k difference between the salary cap at the FRB and the CFPB. Overall, most other financial regulators increase their salary caps on an annual basis - even if in small increments - except for the CFPB.

Fifth, any agreement with Management should include the locality pay of all BU employees regardless of grade level or perception that the employees impacted by the salary cap are “highly-compensated.” In fact, some of these employees are the primary breadwinners in their family and rely on every single dollar just like all employees at the CFPB. Doesn’t locality pay matter for all employees?!

Sixth, are you familiar with the slogan, “fool me once shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me”? Management’s refusal to negotiate, and our acceptance of this agreement, despite a re-opener in 2025 for 2026, sends a signal to Management that their words and promise to negotiate in the future carries little weight.

Lastly, what I struggle with is whether we are creating a dangerous precedent by accepting a deal that, albeit, largely benefits BU employees, including the largest merit increase percentage ever, adjustments to the pay bands and is progressive with a mix of a percentage and fixed dollar lump sum bonus, BUT isolates a certain group of employees on this issue - mainly economists and attorneys - because of the negative impact on locality pay.

We cannot allow Management to divide us.  The Union must demonstrate it is currently prioritizing the salary cap issue for the re-opener in July 2025 and will represent the interests of all impacted BU employees, irrespective of one’s grade or occupation or if this issue primarily impacts CN-71s.  The Union also must indicate how it will balance this issue while actively pursuing the two-tier pay inequity issue in June 2025. Once I see a firm commitment from the Union on this issue, the uncertainty of my vote would turn to a resounding “YES” in favor of the agreement.

Why we're voting no: Fair pay delayed, until we hold CFPB accountable on equal pay

Director Chopra’s Two-Tier pay is anti-worker and anti-solidarity

Perspective #4: Why I'm voting NO

I am voting “NO” in solidarity with new hires, and employees whose salaries are frozen and will stay frozen under this agreement. This undermines the achievements of the 2023 pay reset which we fought so hard to win and implement, even to the point of taking hundreds of employees to appeals to get us all on equal footing based on our years of experience.

Under Chopra’s Two-Tier pay system, new hires get 0% raises this year, and will be paid less than their peers with the same job title and years of experience who started before the arbitrary July 2023 cutoff date. The terms of this agreement mean they will never catch up to their peers’ salaries.

Chopra’s two-tier is a bait and switch for these workers. These groups are not getting the same 5% raise as the majority, regardless of their performance. Instead, they will receive no raise or only partial raises this yea below that, keeping their salary growth well below inflation.

Two-tier and frozen pay for some hurts everyone, and prevents us from achieving equal and comparable pay. These workers’ lack of salary growth hurts not just their own finances and spending power, it prevents CFPB compensation from achieving full pay equity, and will worsen existing pay gaps over time, weakening the pay equity gains of our 2023 pay reset.

I have full confidence our union will ratify this agreement with a majority of members voting YES. That’s because our members are smart and engaged, and a majority of them will benefit from this agreement, by getting 5% raises this year back to pay period 1. The last three ratification votes in our union passed with overwhelming majorities, with only a few dissenting NO votes (ranging from 2 to 22) in the end results.

The numbers aren’t there to prevent ratification now, but they will be soon. “NO” voters will only grow in future years when new hires in Chopra’s lower tier will number nearly 500 workers, and BUE at the salary cap and whose pay is frozen will exceed another 150+. Leaving hundreds of employees out again in the future will be untenable, when they are no longer a minority of union members.

We need the ratification results to reflect the interests of this union accurately, to show Management these workers cannot be ignored any longer. That means we need those of you left out of this agreement to vote “NO,” and we need some solidarity voters who will join them along with me.