2004-2005: Bargaining Report #7: June 21-23, 2005
The CUE bargainers met with the UC team in San Francisco June 21-23, 2005.
Topics discussed on the first day included:
- CUE's wage counter proposal
- extension of the START program
- CX unit employees' designation of CTO for the new fiscal year
- clarification and distinction of those non-economic articles of the current
contract language CUE and UC can retain.
UC also indicated the contract articles that they are currently proposing to
change, and gave a brief overview of those proposed changes.
A significant portion of the session on June 22 consisted of discussion
regarding the present range structure of the CX unit classifications, factors
affecting merit funding, distinction between the cost of living and cost of
labor, and the impact of geographic differentials on salary ranges. Significant
discussion was on possible options to broaden the ranges of CX unit
classifications, and also methodologies to bring the current ranges closer to
market levels.
The UC team made no significant changes in their wage proposal from what was
put on the table by the university on 6/2/05, which tied any proposed increases to
compact agreement monies from the state.
For review of this and the rest of the current wage proposals since 6/3/05, go
to the following web URL. We recommend you bookmark the site for future
information: http://www.cueunion.org/bargaining/reports.php.
The negotiations ended with an examination of several elements of a potential
wage proposal that the CUE team will further discuss with the state-wide
executive board at its meeting in Sacramento on July 9-10.
The discussion on salary inequities in the different geographic markets of the
UC campuses highlighted the insensitivity of UC chief negotiator Peter Chester.
When Santa Cruz bargainer Shann Ritchie raised a concern regarding the
significant salary market lag for CX employees on her campus to the extent that
people are unable to afford housing without a significant commute to work, or
are forced to make choices between purchasing food or medication, Chester's
response was that "people should look at getting a position on a different
campus." The talks broke down at that point, with the CUE team calling for a
caucus before continuing discussions.
On Thursday, the final day of negotiations, there was in-depth discussion of
the university's fourth proposal on Benefits, contract Article 42. This proposal
can be viewed at: http://www.cueunion.org/bargaining/contract/art42.php
Peter Chester initiated the conversation referencing CalPers' increase in
benefit costs of 9% as a strong indicator that healthcare benefit premium costs
would be increasing. The university is also approaching negotiations of health
benefits based on the following assumptions:
- UC health plans offer lots of choices (i.e. HMO, PPO, and High Option),
which CX employees prefer.
- These choices are offered at a reasonable cost.
- Health benefit costs are rising.
- Large employee groups strengthen the university's ability to negotiate
advantageous benefit programs.
- A 10% increase in benefit costs is equivalent to approximately a 1% salary
increase.
Benefits have consistently been identified as a crucial article by the
university team. The university is seeking a waiver from CUE that would allow
them to pass-on any increased premium costs during the course of the
negotiations to employees. Because they have been unable to get CUE to agree
to this proposed waiver, they included in the discussions in San Francisco a new
proposal to the University Benefits article: a "composite" rate, which would
be the baseline amount that the university would pay as the employer contribution
for health care premium costs. These rates would apply for all health care
plans.
Additionally, because university negotiations have not yet been finalized with
the insurance carriers, there is a possibility that this proposed "composite"
rate might change. Any change, however, would be an "increase in the amount
the university would pay"; in no circumstance, according to the university's chief
negotiator, would the employer contribution (composite rate), "be decreased".
If the negotiations were to go to impasse, the university's chief negotiator
stated that these proposed composite rates would be the health care premium
employer contribution the university would impose. The difference in the total
premium cost and the employer contribution would be the dollar amount the
employee would have to pay.
We see the use of the proposed offer of the "composite" rate as a mechanism the
university will use in their overall strategy to attempt to force the current
negotiations to impasse.
The next bargaining sessions are scheduled for July 11-12 in Sacramento at the
UCD Medical Center campus in the Marriott Hotel. Consult the CUE web site for
further information and updates.
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
