of respondents answering the workplace-change question raised pay, wages, compensation, bonuses, or incentives.
Our current mandate
What Quality Control Analysts are asking Maximus to negotiate.
Workers have identified what needs to change. Under the draft member-control process, members would decide the bargaining mandate, direct the negotiations, and vote on the result.
A worker-built starting point
This is where bargaining begins—not where member control ends.
These priorities come from worker survey responses, organizing conversations, and the experiences coworkers have shared with one another. They are not finished contract language and do not guarantee a particular result.
Under the draft member-control process, affected members would refine and authorize the principal demands before bargaining begins. The bargaining team would negotiate within that authority, and any tentative agreement would return to members for a ratification vote.
The mandate at a glance
Five priorities workers can evaluate now.
These cards are a quick index, not finished contract language. Select one to jump to its full explanation, or continue below to see the worker evidence first.
The mandate continues belowSee what workers reported, then examine each priority in full.
Continue to the evidence ↓What workers told us
The survey was not subtle.
Pay dominated the responses. Workers also described quotas they could not control, forced overtime and burnout, poor communication, shrinking trust, and fear that jobs could disappear without warning.
of respondents rating confidence in management selected a 1 or 2 out of 5.
This voluntary survey received 75 worker responses—approximately 10% of the estimated current QCA workforce. Although voluntary participation may affect who responded, the results provide meaningful evidence of the experiences and priorities reported by a substantial group of QCAs. They are a listening tool, not a formal bargaining-demand vote. Individual responses remain private. The workforce figure is a committee estimate, not an official NLRB voter list.
Five priorities
Different problems. One demand for a real voice.
These are the major goals workers have put on the table. The detailed proposals will be shaped and authorized through the member-led process.
01
Compensation workers can count on
Our pay should reflect the work we actually perform.
Workers have repeatedly raised shrinking incentives, inadequate base compensation, and classifications that do not reflect the skill and responsibility required of Quality Control Analysts.
What this can mean in bargaining
- Higher and more dependable base compensation
- Transparent and predictable incentive rules
- Regular cost-of-living or wage-review mechanisms
- Classifications that accurately reflect our duties
- Clear explanations of how compensation is calculated
Evidence behind priority 01
Worker pay fell while contract funding grew.
One worker’s compensation per completed DBQ fell 55% from 2021 through July 2026. Separately, public records show approximately $3.7 billion obligated to VES under the earlier contract vehicle and a $13.2 billion ceiling across four vendors under the new contracts, which cover more than nine million exams. These records use different scopes and units; they do not disclose what Maximus charges per ESR or receives per exam. Together, they give workers a concrete reason to seek dependable pay and transparent compensation rules.
This is not an isolated incident. QCAs from every VES region have separately reported substantial reductions in their total compensation under Maximus. The chart below documents one worker’s payroll and production record; reports and compensation records from across the bargaining unit show that the underlying problem reaches far beyond one person.
Compensation per DBQ equals this QA’s total compensation divided by completed DBQs. *2026 covers January through July.
The new contracts cover more than nine million exams and allow the VA to spend up to $13.2 billion across four vendors. If the VA spends the full amount, that works out to no more than about $1,467 per exam. Using the committee’s estimate of 5.89 million ESRs over the same two years, the full contract ceiling would work out to about $2,240 per ESR—more than twice the estimated $960 per ESR under the earlier VES contract. That is the maximum the contracts allow, not a confirmed Maximus billing rate. Even so, the contrast is telling: the VA has made substantially more money available for this work while QCA compensation has stagnated or fallen over the same period.
Less per completed DBQ for the worker. A higher ceiling on the public contract.
Workers do not need to prove the company’s profit on every DBQ before asking for dependable pay, transparent formulas, and classifications that reflect their actual work.
Sources: one QA’s compensation and production records; corroborating worker reports and compensation records from QCAs across every VES region, reviewed by the organizing committee; organizing-committee analysis of VA MDE workload and contract records, including Solicitation 36C10X24Q0341. Individual worker records remain private. Maximus acquired VES in 2021: Maximus acquisition announcement. Contract-ceiling context: Washington Technology, January 6, 2025. Figures are evidence for member review, not final bargaining demands.
02
Work standards grounded in reality
Workers should not be punished for conditions they cannot control.
Performance standards should measure the work an employee can actually perform—not missing work, case complexity, system failures, or delays created elsewhere in the process.
What this can mean in bargaining
- Standards tied to available work and case complexity
- Recognition of system and upstream delays
- Clear definitions of when our work is complete
- Reasonable workload and overtime practices
- A way to challenge inaccurate performance findings
03
Security when work changes
Major changes should not arrive after the decision is already made.
Workers deserve information, time, and enforceable protections when jobs, duties, departments, or bargaining-unit work are moved, restructured, eliminated, or subcontracted.
What this can mean in bargaining
- Meaningful advance notice and information
- A voice in changes and their effects
- Reassignment, transfer, recall, or placement rights
- Severance and continued benefits when displacement occurs
- Protections addressing movement of bargaining-unit work
04
A fair process with teeth
Fair treatment should be enforceable.
Workplace rights should not depend on who happens to be managing that day. Workers need consistent standards and a process that requires the company to answer when those standards are violated.
What this can mean in bargaining
- Just-cause protection for discipline and discharge
- Representation in disciplinary processes
- Clear and consistently applied policies
- Written explanations for material decisions
- A grievance process with enforceable deadlines and neutral review
05
Time, benefits, and sustainable work
A job should leave workers able to plan their lives.
The mandate must remain broad enough for members to raise the full range of quality-of-work concerns—from paid leave and benefits to scheduling, overtime, equipment, and remote-work expectations.
What this can mean in bargaining
- Paid time off, sick leave, and holidays
- Health, retirement, and related benefits
- Predictable scheduling and notice of changes
- Reasonable overtime and break practices
- Clear remote-work, equipment, travel, and expense rules
The proposed member-control process
The bargaining team negotiates. The membership decides.
The draft governance is designed to keep authority with the workers who would live under the agreement. It will be finalized for member adoption as the campaign formally begins.
- 1
Workers identify the priorities
Surveys, conversations, meetings, and confidential submissions reveal where workers’ experiences overlap.
- 2
Members authorize the mandate
Before bargaining, affected members review and vote on the principal demands and the bargaining team’s scope of discretion.
- 3
Accountable representatives negotiate
The member-chosen team handles detailed proposals, protects necessary confidentiality, reports appropriately, and remains within the authority members granted.
- 4
Members decide whether the result is enough
Under the draft member-control process, workers would receive the tentative agreement, have time to review it and ask questions, and vote by secret ballot to ratify or reject it.
What this page does not claim
Credibility requires clear boundaries.
Not a guaranteed result
Collective bargaining creates a process and collective leverage. It does not guarantee that every proposal becomes part of a contract.
Not a final proposal
Members still have the authority to add, refine, rank, and authorize the principal demands before negotiations begin.
Not bargaining strategy
This page does not disclose fallback positions, confidential strategy, private survey comments, or the minimum terms members might accept.
Not the final agreement
Under the proposed member-control process, no collective-bargaining agreement would become the members’ contract unless the membership reviewed and ratified it.
Help shape what comes next
The mandate stays alive because workers stay involved.
Questions, additions, disagreement, and better ideas are part of member control. Contact the organizing committee from a personal account to share a priority or ask how the process works.