2004-2005: Bargaining Report #2: August 24-25, 2004, Irvine, CA
Contents include:
- CUE & UC discuss various contract articles;
- CUE explains benefits of our proposals and tries to understand UC's
interests;
- UC delays;
- Bonus days and UC's wage proposal;
- Details on some articles Health & Safety, Holidays, Hours of Work, Layoff;
- Next Bargaining September 7 & 8 in San Francisco
The Coalition of University Employees' current bargaining team met with the
team representing the University of California at UC Irvine on August 24 & 25 for
the third session of negotiations for CUE's successor contract. Continuing the
demand/explanation phase of negotiations, CUE and UC discussed proposed
changes to the following contract articles Health & Safety, Holidays, Hours of
Work, Indemnification, and Layoff & Reduction in Time. In addition, the UC
team submitted two offers to CUE about wages and the two days of bonus
leave that have already been offered to some UC employees.
Throughout the sessions, the CUE bargaining team worked toward two goals:
- To articulate why CUE's proposed changes to the contract would be
beneficial, and
- To understand UC's interests in making their proposed changes.
CUE bargaining team members, as well as local CUE members who were guests
at the sessions, shared anecdotes illustrating flaws in the current system and
offered options for improvement. CUE Chief Negotiator Amatullah Alaji-Sabrie
asked the UC team several times to clarify and elaborate on their interests to
help the CUE team to better understand UC's positions.
At the beginning of the negotiating session, Alaji-Sabrie asked UC Chief
Negotiator Peter Chester for UC's offers regarding wages and the two-day
leave, which he had agreed to bring to this session. Chester said the UC
team would present their offers the next day. In the morning of the next day,
when CUE again inquired about the offers, Chester said they would be
available after lunch. In the end, the UC team waited until the final hour of
the two-day bargaining session to submit to CUE these two offers.
UC offered CUE two days of bonus leave (one-time only) intended for use on
December 28 & 29, 2004, contingent not only upon NO wage increase for
2004-05, but also upon final settlement of the contract by later this year --
a seemingly impossible goal when previous contracts each took several years
to negotiate. (CUE does believe it would be possible to accelerate the
negotiation process if UC is willing to accept some of CUE's proposals,
including wage increases.)
CUE countered with a proposal to extend the contract from its current
expiration date of September 30, 2004, to December 31, 2004, in exchange for the two
days of leave. (UC would benefit from this proposal by avoiding the "status
quo" situation that occurs when a contract expires, during which time certain
management rights are revoked.) UC has not yet responded to this counter-offer.
UC's wage offer was impressive only in its meagerness no increases for
2004-05, with 1.5% for 2005-06 and 1.5% for 2006-07 -- and those increases
would be contingent upon the availability of state funds.
UC asserted repeatedly that the two issues were connected -- that the two days
of bonus leave were only available to employees not receiving wage increases
in 2004-05. Early in the session, however, a fact was brought to the attention
of the CUE team, and later confirmed by UC, that called this into question some
employees at UC Davis in the "99" unit recently received a 4% wage increase
as well as the two days of leave. The UC team replied that that increase was
an "equity adjustment" -- a category of salary increase which is not tied to
receipt of the two-day bonus leave.
Here are some important points about the other articles that were discussed:
- Health & Safety--
CUE thinks it's important for stress in the workplace to be treated as a health
issue. Peter Chester asserted that worker's comp was a better system than
standard grievance and arbitration procedures for judging "subjective
conditions like mental and emotional stress."
- Holidays--
CUE wants to ensure that medical center and LBNL employees are treated fairly
in terms of holidays.
- Hours of Work--
CUE shared with UC the fact that 63% of respondents to CUE's recent membership
survey thought flexible work schedules were very important.
- Layoff & Reduction in Time--
CUE and UC both proposed a number of changes to this article about such
issues as how much notice CUE is given about impending layoffs and how
laid-off employees may exercise their "bumping" rights to positions of newer
employees.
In closing, the CUE bargaining team would like to encourage members to attend
bargaining sessions and also to contact their campus representatives with any
questions or comments. The next bargaining sessions will be September 7
and 8 in San Francisco at the UCSF Laurel Heights campus.
Respectfully submitted,
CUE Bargaining Team:
Amatullah Alaji-Sabrie, Chief Negotiator (UC Berkeley)
Nancy Novitski, UC Berkeley/UCOP
Mary Jo Kelly, UC Davis
Cynthia Norman, UC Irvine
Bert Thomas, UC Los Angeles
Maria LaBarrie, UC Riverside
Mary Higgins, UC San Francisco
Melinda Gandara, UC Santa Barbara
Kevin Parks, UC Santa Cruz
Nancy Kabzenell, UC San Diego
