Collective bargaining's pattern

In public employment, there has always been more sway by private interests over pay in public service than public workers have.  Huge gaps separate the public's needs and expectations from acceptable wages to dote taxpayer cash on those foolish enough, or brave enough, for delivering public service.
In the 1980's, PELRA legislation established a way fair contract agreement renewal periods could synchronize with governmental budget cycles, streamlined renewals of agreement would begin by referring to one highly polished and tested master agreement pattern, an initial basic solid core of agreement as a universal opener, or generic template, available to 'downstream' to subsequent/simultaneous negotiations across multiple bargaining units. But sadly, when state budgets busted, whether intentionally or not, raises also busted, and in times of booming budgets? You guessed it, raises were just as rare as during economic recession.
So many kinds of government jobs and employee skill levels exist, this basic agreed core was used as a simple way to 'seed' any other downstream public employee contracts as those employees wished. Sounds good in theory, very simple idea. "We'll have at least what they're having.... maybe add more customized for our pleasure." Basically a soup stock of me-too-ism to cook up contracts to season to taste with starter language that both the employer and members had already agreed tasted delicious.
Efficient, time-saving, but disaster struck!  When asked to vote on the 2023 contract, elite, senior workers painfully beheld raises they felt their long careers and highly honed skills merited had also been given away to lowly new hires, students, temps at minimum wage, the common good me-too became selfish me-me-me, "We don't want them having same as what we have, in fact, we don't mind them because they don't matter as much as we do." 
Worse than that, nothing has yet addressed the most nortorious and ghastly wage and hour labor payroll accounting nightware: irregular and unpredictable seasonal work hours.
U.S. labor law only goes so far, only gives employers so much latitude, vast fines accrue for violations that fail to 'fit' payroll reports, that fail to report regular timecard hours when absolutely no-one knows the schedule.
Federal wage and hour law is black and white: waged versus salaried, exempt versus non-exempt. Litttle or nothing about today's post-COVID teleworkplace, the week is defined, the workplace is defined, all of it hard-edged and solid. All of it except the parts happening in current reality.
Is a desperate band-aid for this to offer individualized but benefitless gigs?  When some time along the way the AFSCME state employee contracts after 1983 quietly sprouted an ugly preamble wart, was it meant to be a poison pill, out in plain view, a door to sneak in unilateral employer-discretion policies? The language lets the employer define wintertime (the entire season) a contract emergency that merits unnegotiated supplement agreement overrides.
Instead, for a very long time policy reaches have masqueraded as part of an agreed contract, phony posing in place of legitimate, when in fact nothing about them was negotiated by union officials or put before membership. 

See in the attached PDF file what has been growing in the public employee agreements garden.