2004-2005: Bargaining Report #8: July 11-12, 2005
Bargaining Report, Sacramento-UC Davis Medical Center, July 11-12, 2005
Bargaining sessions were held in Sacramento at the UC Davis Medical Center
campus July 11-12. During the initial session UC chief negotiator Peter Chester
attempted to engage the CUE bargaining team in discussion around release time
for bargainers, an issue dealt with in the Access article. This is a matter
that will be dealt with at an arbitration to be held on July 22 in Oakland. CUE
bargainers spent the day in caucus developing counter proposals to submit to
UC. Those proposals were for the following articles: Access; Labor Management
meetings; Rehabilitation/Reasonable Accommodation; University Benefits; and
Wages.
The wage article was an article on which the team engaged in a great deal of
discussion as it attempted to craft the language for a proposal that met
parameters received from the statewide executive board and also a viable
counter to the university's June offer. News of the budget signing and the recent
newsletter article from university president Dynes should have had a positive
impact on the negotiations. At least that was the expectation of the CUE team.
However, when Peter Chester dismissed and derided the CUE wage proposal tempers
began to flare.
The impact of the UC proposal confirmed for CUE bargainers the reality that we
are dealing with an employer more interested in punitive offers on the table
than fair and equitable proposals. Many of the CUE bargainers observed that the
university seems more committed to trying to make CUE toe the line rather than
providing the best terms and conditions of employment for CX unit employees.
Despite the governor's compact budget allocation that UC has received, the
university is not willing to make that allocation for clerical salaries
effective July 1, 2005. Instead the counter proposal that Chester offered would
not make salary increases effective until October 1, 2005, and the equity
increase to be utilized for library assistants has been diminished in the last
UC proposal from a .5% to a .25% equity increase. CUE's proposal also called
for a signing bonus effective January 1, 2005, which was also dismissed, out of
hand, by Chester.
The UC negotiator reacted to our proposal for the AAIV series with disdain and
disgust and was unwilling to look at an alternative way of delaying "wage
compression" while boosting the morale of every ___AA. The quick turnaround of
UC's counterproposal did not appear to be 'on-the-spot' work, but rather
suggested that it was a proposal that UC had already come prepared to put on
the table without any careful consideration of any proposal that CUE may have put
forward.
UC also refused to consider the CUE proposal of crediting the 2 curtailment
days to CX employees' vacation accrual and indicated that the university will take
its chances with the PERB hearing on this matter. A settlement conference at
PERB is scheduled for July 18 on this matter. If no agreement is reached the
matter will advance to trial.
During the discussion of University Benefits, UC negotiator Chester and
compensation manager Susan Wright were vehement in their position that those
employees in rural locations without HMO options were not entitled to similar
health care as those in urban settings if it meant that the University would
bear increased costs.
In previous negotiations in Santa Cruz UC's position was that the labor-
management meetings might well serve as the venue for resolving problems at a
lower level than grievances, particularly for issues regarding the Respectful
Fair Treatment article. Peter Chester advocated that this would serve as a
mechanism to reduce the number of grievances filed. However, in Sacramento
Peter wasn't receptive to the CUE proposal and stated that he believed 12 Labor
Management meetings per year was excessive. This was quite puzzling to the CUE
team since UC adamantly challenged the reasonableness of CUE's use of the
Respectful Fair Treatment Article in its reference in the total number of
grievances filed per year. According to UC, it ranks at the top of the
grievances filed chart. Why the flip in the UC position, you may ask?
This appears to be part of the ongoing pattern of UC negotiations. Consistently
UC has put forward positions and once the CUE bargainers have crafted language
for proposals that are designed to meet the mutual interests of both parties,
there is a change in UC's position.
This is not a change to bring the parties closer together but rather a change
that serves to heighten the tension between the two parties.
Close to the conclusion of the Tuesday session, Mr. Chester uttered his often
repeated refrain and that ever present threat, "well, it would appear that we
are at impasse." He said it routinely. Impasse is UC's method to impose bad
contract terms on CUE members, an alternative for UC to get its way. The CUE
team reaffirmed that we do not agree with this and would vigorously oppose any
declaration of impasse that UC would take to PERB. Unlike Bill Elkins and the
Berkeley Lab negotiation team, Peter Chester and the OP team seem unwilling or
lack the ability to negotiate a fair contract. The Lab negotiators were able to
reach an agreement on wages and issues of equity with CUE negotiators on June
17, 2005. This success keeps the CUE negotiators optimistic that the same
outcome is possible in the statewide negotiations.
The CUE team suggested additional bargaining session dates of July 25-27 or
August 2-4 in San Diego. The details are to be confirmed within the upcoming
week.
CUE Bargaining Team:
Norine Shima, UC Berkeley
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
