2004-2005: Bargaining Report #6: June 8, 2005
UC attempts to lull CUE represented employees to sleep for the next 3 years
June 1-3 bargaining sessions were hosted in Riverside. The agenda consisted of
presentations from Parking and Transportation Directors from the southern
campuses detailing the reasons and justifications for the proposed parking
increases for fiscal year 2005-06. Appearing to be driven by forces external to
the bargaining session, Peter Chester put forth a
package of non-economic
articles which are tied to a wage proposal that he put forward also.
For months Peter Chester and his team did not want to talk wages with the CUE
bargaining team. However, after the AFSCME strike and in the bargaining
sessions in Davis before the UPTE strike, Peter suddenly began to push the CUE
team for a wage proposal, and in typical elitist fashion, demeaned the proposal
that CUE already had on the table.
In Riverside CUE negotiator Amatullah Alaji-Sabrie reminded Peter Chester that,
to date, UC had failed to provide the turnover savings factor that occurs when
an employee leaves UC, retires or is reclassed out of the unit. This turnover
saving is critical in determining what a 1% salary increase actually costs the
university. UC claims that 1% costs the university $4.86 million dollars while
CUE's estimate is that 1% costs $3.9 million dollars; nearly a million dollars
difference. This difference is critical when you cost-out any wage proposal.
The CUE bargainers submitted an information request during the session in an
attempt to get the university to give an accurate accounting of the cost of a
1% salary increase and the turnover savings factor or algorithm for the CX unit.
The CUE team is also crafting a new wage proposal in response to the UC
proposal, based on CUE's estimate of the turnover savings that exists, and CUE
will submit that proposal to the university at the next scheduled bargaining
sessions.
UC's urgent desire to get CUE to settle for a wage proposal like AFSCME's --
contingent on state funding, no merit increases, no strikes till impasse
process is completed -- completely overlooks the University's demonstrated wealth. The
contingency for wage increases seems to apply only to union-represented
employees. Senior management doesn't seem to need to wait for state allocation
We need to carefully evaluate the non-economic counter proposals. Peter Chester
has demanded that we sign a tentative agreement before June 10, at 5 pm to
conclude negotiations. (It is highly unlikely that this will occur.) Hmm,
strike scheduled for the following Monday.
UC presented its song and dance over the parking increases, which was shown in
Fact-Finding to be a cash cow!
Notably, UCLA transportation department has an expense line item called rent on
land--$3.4 million/year. This detail was first discovered at UCLA in local
bargaining by Anita Windham Jones, at the time a member of Local 4's Parking
Bargaining Team (with an accounting background). It was later reconfirmed by
the forensic financial analysis by Dr. Peter Donohue back in 2001-02. What was
astonishing then and still is true today is the undisputed fact that UC owns
the land for which it continues to pay this land rent. This $3.4 million is
routinely shuffled over to the UCLA Chancellor's discretionary fund.
Parking permit income pays for building new parking structures on campuses
throughout the state. Essentially the faculty and staff employees who remain
year after year are the people who are taxed with the increased permit rates to
pour the concrete for new parking structures and subsidize the alternative
transportation programs operated by the campuses. Income from fines and
forfeitures also generate operating funds for the transportation departments.
Although the UC bargainers seemed quite annoyed at the level of detail of the
questions asked by the CUE bargaining team members, it became apparent further
investigation and perhaps an audit of UCOP and the parking and transportation
departments for all campuses is in order. Parking and Transportation is one UC
cash cow that needs to be reformed!
CUE members and supporters from the union coalition and students held a lively
rally and demonstration on Thursday at 12:15 pm. These activities are always a
source of great annoyance to UC Chief Negotiator Peter Chester. Needless to
say, the Riverside supporters were successful in captivating the attention and
informing the public, around the Extension building and the University Village
mall area across from Extension, of our plight in negotiations with the worst
public employer in the state.
Other topics discussed were the START program and UC's plan to extend START
during 2005-06. CUE suggested unrestricted inclusion of new participants into
the START program which Peter Chester said UC was unwilling to do. However, he
did say that anyone who applied and was able to get departmental approval by
June 30, 2005 would be able to participate. We would encourage anyone who has
this interest to aggressively pursue this with your supervisors and department
managers.
There was discussion about the harassing notices, threats and intimidation
tactics directed by UC toward CS unit members before and after both the AFSCME
and UPTE strikes. Peter Chester also referenced the CUE strike which UC was
noticed about concerning 2003-04 Re-opener Bargaining. In characteristic
style, he asserted the university's belief that this strike is illegal.
UC's dismissal of the recommendation of Arbitrator McKay and decision to
implement their offer that gave a 0% increase in 2003-04 to over 16,000 CX unit
members is the basis for the economic strike. This offer gave an increase to
fewer than two dozen workers across the state (UC Irvine dispatchers and UCSD
nutrition workers).
The CUE bargaining team aggressively defended the legality of the strike over
the Re-opener bargaining issues and also noted that UC should not try to tie
the strike to the current successor bargaining.
The bargaining session drew to a close on Friday afternoon with some final
discussion and clarifications of the UC wage proposal. Peter Chester
reiterated that the university's position still included 0% for 2004-05 and stated he was
confident that the state will come up with the compact money for 2005-06. UC
Irvine bargainer Cynthia Norman queried that if UC is so confident regarding
the state funding in 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2007-08 then UC should agree to
guarantee to implement 12% if state money does not come through.
Peter Chester also reiterated that UC would give CUE the right to strike at the
conclusion of impasse only if UC did not receive the increase in salary funding
from the state. Yet the previous discussion at the bargaining table regarding
strikes were discussions of intimidation tactics used by UC towards CUE
represented employees on a daily basis. When questioned further, he stated that
we would begin again bargaining at the table according to the proposed Duration
Article on November 1, 2005 or November 1st of the year when and if the funding
wasn't forthcoming from the state.
Bargaining was somewhat of a disappointment because UC was not willing to
guarantee the 12% offered. If the state does not come up with the money, it is
back to the table (re-opener) as in 2003. We got stiffed with that one, with
no money. Alice Guillory, alternate bargainer from UCSF, noted that CUE members
deserve to be treated better.
UC's proposal also requires that CUE give an unrestricted pass-through on
benefit costs and parking and transportation rate increases for the duration of
the contract. This means that increased health benefit costs and parking costs
will chisel away at the 3% or 4% salary increase to more realistically effect a
salary cut. Peter reaffirmed that health benefit rates for fiscal year 2005-06
will probably increase but that UC will not know how much the increase will be
until August 2005.
On the outside looking in 12% sounds good. But reflecting on what happened in
2003-04 and the 0% UC has on the table for 2004-05, we see that UC is trying to
use the same gimmick it used last year to burn CUE-represented employees.
The university will spin its 12% offer, but the facts speak loud and clear: the
12% is tied to the State Budget Act and the governor's compact, a closed door
deal with NO guarantees. This offer is simply unacceptable given the economic
uncertainty and broken promises we have witnessed to date.
CUE Bargaining Team:
Norine Shima, UC Berkeley*
Joshua Sanderford, UC Berkeley alternate
Mary Jo Kelly, UC Davis*
Brigitte Moon, UC Davis alternate*
Cynthia Norman, UC Irvine
Bert Thomas, UC Los Angeles
Lyn Kelly, UC Los Angeles alternate
Maria LaBarrie, UC Riverside
Stacey Fullwiler, UC Riverside alternate*
Nancy Kabzenell, UC San Diego*
Mary G. Higgins, UC San Francisco
Alice Guillory, UC San Francisco alternate
Melinda Gandara, UC Santa Barbara
Dina Gabriel, UC Santa Barbara alternate*
Kevin Parks, UC Santa Cruz*
Shann Ritchie, UC Santa Cruz alternate*
Amatullah Alaji, UC Berkeley, Chief Negotiator
*not in attendance at the sessions
