Bargaining Update #23: Aug. 5-7, 2002
BARGAINING BREAKS DOWN -- UC PUTS TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT OFFER ON THE TABLE.
UC Office of the President and Berkeley campus clericals set to
strike on UC's illegal behavior at the bargaining table.
On Wednesday, August 7, 2002, in the midst of bargaining on Layoff, Access
and Health & Safety, UC presented CUE with a take-or-leave offer backed up
by a threat to impose even worse language if we rejected their offer.
This is illegal because it constitutes an explicit intent to abandon
good-faith bargaining.
On Tuesday, August 13, 2002, CUE filed charges against UC on a series of
unfair labor practices, including failure to bargain in good faith.
In response to UC's continuing patterns of unfair labor practices,
clericals at the UC Office of the President and Berkeley campus have set a
date to strike: August 26-28, the first three days of classes. Activities
will be happening on other campuses on those dates as well.
UC'S TWO OFFERS
The take-or-leave offer from UC consisted of two proposals. Each
contained language on all of the outstanding issues (Access, Health &
Safety, Layoff, Wages and Work Rules). Both contain the same wage
offer (1% and 1.5% with no merit raises).
The first package was described as conditional, which means that each
element of the package is conditional on CUE accepting the whole package
(including the wage offer).
The second package is made up of articles UC gave CUE months ago that have
since been improved during bargaining. In most cases, the improvements
that had already been verbally agreed to were not included in the second
package.
UC'S INTENTION
UC told us that the second proposal is their "last, best and final
offer," that no further progress could be made in bargaining, and that
they intended to declare impasse. After impasse is declared, there is
a legally-mandated mediation and fact-finding process. At the end of that
process, the university can either accept the recommendations of the fact
finder or they can ignore the fact-finder's recommendations and legally
impose their "last, best, and final offer." UC is telling us unilaterally
that there can be no further progress at the bargaining table, and letting
us know in advance that they have no intention of abiding by the
recommendations of the fact-finder in the legally-mandated mediation
process.
WHY IS UC DOING THIS NOW?
This rush to impasse on the part of UC is aimed at trying to force CUE to
accept a contract that has some improvements but not enough and that is
tied to a wage proposal which would provide us with 1% in 2001-2002 and
1.5% in 2002-2003 and NO MERITS in either year.
WHY IS THIS ILLEGAL?
This is illegal because impasse cannot be imposed by one party. The
parties have to mutually agree to impasse, or the party seeking impasse
must convince the state agency that oversees collective bargaining at UC
that impasse has in fact been reached. In addition, UC is informing us
that they will not even pretend to participate in the mediation process
in good faith: they have pre-determined the outcome of mediation before
we even start and they intend to force their last, best, and final offer
down our throats.
CUE disagrees that impasse has been reached. We have unresolved
contract articles on the table and are preparing counter proposals
to two of UC's most recent proposals. We are also waiting for outstanding
information from UC before we can continue discussion on another. We are,
of course, unable to make a serious proposal without complete information!
Although future bargaining dates of September 11-13 had been proposed by
UC previously, UC refused to confirm them on August 7, 2002.
CUE's Bargaining Team:
- Margy Wilkinson, Chief Negotiator
- Chris Benoit, Lead Negotiator
- Mark Covington, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
- Becky Croll, Davis
- Deborah Freeman, San Francisco
- Jody Galluzzi, San Diego
- Gerry Gerringer, Santa Cruz
- Elaine Hernandez, Irvine
- Connie McGrath, Riverside
- Zoe Sodja, Santa Cruz
- Anita Windom-Jones, Los Angeles
