| Coalition of University Employees (CUE) CUE TEAMSTERS LOCAL 2010 | 2855 Telegraph Ave., Suite #301, Berkeley, CA 94705 Contact CUE (510) 845-2221 (phone), (510) 845-7444 (FAX) |
NOTES FROM THE BARGAINING BUBBLE #16
by Bert Thomas, UCLA Representative, CUE BARGAINING TEAM
(A personal diary, not the Official Report)
UC SAN FRANCISCO, June 21-23, 2005
"WE'RE FORGING ON TO AN AGREEMENT..."
BUT FIRST, THESE INSULTS
For a guy who says he's interested in "labor peace", the University's Chief Negotiator, Peter Chester, certainly has a peculiar gift of gab. I dunno, maybe this is what UC President Bob Dynes wants in his labor negotiator...a guy who makes positive declarations, then chokes the life out of them with remarks that cause his own team members to cast their eyes downward, while our team explodes...to his apparent surprise.
(Help us understand, President Bob...this IS what you want, right?)
THE WAGE PROPOSAL
On June 10th, CUE issued the following Wage Proposal:
EFFECTIVE 10/1/04
1. An additional clerical classification, AA IV, for all campuses, to stem the flow of "Specialist" re-classes out of CUE into unrepresented worker classes, and to give topped-out AA III's room to grow.
2. Library Asst. equity increases to bring LA's up to the level of other ____Asst. wages.
3. CUE represented workers get the "2 Bonus Days" like everyone else already did.
EFFECTIVE 7/1/05
1. Salary range and individual increase of 1.5% plus 0.5% market equity increase for all classifications in the clerical bargaining unit.
2. Shift differential increase, where applicable, of $.15 per hour.
EFFECTIVE 10/1/05
1. Salary range and individual increase of 3% plus 0.5% market equity increase for all classifications in the clerical bargaining unit.
2. Shift differential increase, where applicable, of $.10 per hour.
EFFECTIVE 10/1/06
1. Salary range and individual increase of 3% plus 0.5% market equity increase for all classifications in the clerical bargaining unit.
2. Full Step Merit Increases for all who are merit-eligible.
3. Shift differential increase, where applicable, of $.10 per hour.
It's pretty much what we spent the three days in San Francisco talking about. What astounds me, in retrospect, is how fargin' moderate this proposal was...and how the rich and mighty University STILL whined and stamped its feet.
Early in the day, Irvine CUE Bargainer Cynthia Norman sweetly inquired how the University found it so very easy to grant a 61%, $170,000 pay raise to David Russ, Treasurer of the Regents (bringing him up to $450K)...and so very hard to grant a 4% or 5% increase to clerical workers who've fallen so far behind. "I don't understand," she said, "Help me to understand...I don't get it." CUE's Chief Negotiator Amatullah Alaji-Sabrie inquired, a bit less sweetly, "How come the $20 million cited in the Fact Finders Report as an allocation for increasing clerical workers salaries was diverted? I don't get that. Why don't you answer the question?"
University Negotiator Peter Chester replied: "I have answered the question...I just haven't answered it in the way you want." (He's so right when he says stuff like that.) "Besides, we're confident the state will come through..."
"If you're so confident," said Ms. Norman, "why don't you back it up with guaranteed money? You've got nothing to lose."
GOOD POINT, CYNTHIA...$BILLIONS IN CORPORATE "BLING"
Sitting on a $5-and-a-half BILLION sack of hoarded, unexpended, uncommitted, "unrestricted" funds, the University insists that it needs state taxpayer "help" to pay its lowest-paid workers. At the same time, it grants grotesque pay raises to senior folks without any help at all. Why? How can that be? Could it be a shabby little power trip? A sort of corny effort at union-busting that makes you and me, patients, students, and taxpayers pay the freight while these fine people at the top make a smarmy "corporation" of what once was an enlightened public institution? The bad news, of course, is that they've already done it. The University of California, from a funding standpoint, is more than 80% corporation, less than 20% public institution. It's why student fees go up--not because the institution needs it, but because it's "what the market will bear." It's why workers at the bottom can be abused and underpaid with relative impunity--not because the institution can't afford fairness and equity, but because the corporation is too big, dumb and greedy to pay attention to its own workers. The University exists in this nether-world, wearing its two hats, "corporate" and "public," depending on business convenience. When the press or the legislature comes to call, it puts on its "poor, pitiful public institution" hat...but when it needs to fatten an executive salary or build a mansion for a chancellor, it can stroll up to a bank smoking a cigar. "Have you SEEN our P&L statement? Our annual report?" Bankers can count; reporters and legislators usually can't. So I believe UC when it boasts of its Wall Street standing...and I wish it a bad case of worms when it plays poormouth to the press and taxpayers. Too cynical? It is hard to be cynical enough. This organizational behavior is not innocent.
"WE DON'T WANT...WE'RE NOT WILLING..."
Peter Chester: "We don't want AA IV." (A clerical classification already extant at UC Davis, proposed by CUE to give topped-out AA III's room to grow in a CUE-represented position.)
PC: "The University is not willing to grant any money for the '2 Bonus Days'." (That holiday pass was denied only to CUE.)
PC: "We're not willing to grant equity to Library Assistants." (Handling some of the most complex and useful job assignments in any University system, Library Assistants are still paid worse than the rest of us: roughly 33% off market rates, even when compared to Cal State University. And in case you didn't know, CUE was born in this University's libraries...been a thorn in UC's broad tukus ever since.)
I believe it was after lunch on the first day (6/21) when the University presented its proposals and counters on most--if not all--of the Non-Economic articles. Mr. Chester outlined each of the articles saying where the University had proposed changes, and where the "current contract language" would apply. The CUE team will need to study all of these, line-by-line (they were not clearly marked per bargaining custom), in order to come to an agreement; there was no thought of doing all of it in the San Francisco sessions. The only item agreed to, at least in principle, was an extension and broadening of the START Program which allows specific University departments to grant reduced hours to employees who voluntarily choose them in lieu of layoff.
"PEOPLE SHOULD LOOK AT GETTING A POSITION ON A DIFFERENT CAMPUS."
The following day, Mr. Chester opened wage discussions by saying: "We all agree that our ranges are not at market (level)"...and went on to suggest that the University could move workers' pay upward by reclassifying them to "specialist" positions, for instance. Don't know why it is but the fella just can't resist an opportunity to wreck a promising discussion. He knows that this is EXACTLY why CUE wants AA IV, additional Steps...something!...so that workers doing clerical and administrative work don't have to leave CUE to go to an un-represented position in order to get a piddling raise. He knows this, but he says it anyway. And behold, the wrath of CUE was visited upon him, like ducks on a Junebug. CUE Bargainers Mary Higgins, Shann Ritchie (of UC Santa Cruz), Chief Negotiator Amatullah Alaji-Sabrie, and Kathi Young (visiting from Local 3 Berkeley Executive Board) all expressed...um...strong distaste?...for this "solution." A breathtakingly arrogant and simple-minded shot at the union and its workers...to be bribed away for a few cents an hour? When Ms. Ritchie pointed out that clerical workers in her Local were paid significantly less than those doing the same work at other campuses, Mr. Chester said: "People should look at getting a position on a different campus."
(Hey, Maximum-Bob!) I'm thinking "smug"..."insensitive"..."insulting". Maybe not good qualities in yer dang labor representative. Unless, of course, you sorta like this stuff. 17,000 clerical workers are a little tired of it, though. Puts me in mind of something I heard long ago...named it "Kubiak's Law" after the guy who said it. Goes like this: "Hard work don't make me tired, Bob...bullsh*t makes me tired." We're pretty tired of it, Bob. How about you? My email says the Nurses just voted--in overwhelming numbers--to strike statewide on July 21st. There goes yer moneymakers, Bob, the hospitals. Then the Regents will maybe wake up and start saying behind your back "Bob doesn't seem to have a handle on this President-thing, does he?" And next thing you know, Regents'll be calling you up and saying: "Bob, the neighbors won't even let their kids play in my pool. We need to talk..."
UC: RAISING THE COST OF LIVING ...LOWERING THE COST OF LABOR
It was in this 2nd day of the San Francisco meetings that we first heard a UC bargainer use the words, "Cost of Labor" when we had been discussing the Cost of Living. Susan Wright of San Francisco Labor Relations said: "University pay rates are not based on the cost of living, but rather, the cost of labor." My, my...naughty corporate-speak for "I can get it for you cheaper in China." It's the business model that explains why, when you order a pizza or call for tech support in San Francisco, somebody answers the phone in New Delhi. Cost of Labor. Way cheaper...no health benefits, no retirement, no strikes. (Still think you don't need a union? There are busy little minds in corporate management trying to look good to somebody. Surprise, they're not thinking about you.)
Example? UC's Negotiator Chester in San Francisco on June 22nd: "If we're not able to get a waiver from CUE on benefits increases we'll be forced to take it out of whatever pay increase is finalized."
Another CUE-storm. "Peter, why do you even SAY such stupid things!" was the gist of it...and, I think, the actual words in one case.
(Hey, Bob...you there? Bob?)
Again, both teams retired to their caucus rooms. UC to work on a Benefits proposal, CUE to continue examination of the stacked non-economic Articles.
"GOOD FAITH BARGAINING"...THE MUSICAL
The last day in San Francisco began peacefully enough. The University agreed to see whether the CTO (Comp Time Off) election deadline for employees might be extended to July 30th. The University offered a conference call with administrators of the UCSF / Fresno parking facility to answer CUE's questions about an announced parking increase (discovered and challenged by CUE's Mary Higgins) proposed to rise from $0 to $23 per month.
A discussion of several non-economic proposals led by CUE Santa Cruz Bargainer Shann Ritchie began to get all crispy around the edges when she asked why the University had deleted "extended benefits" from the Work Related Disability Article (#47). Mr. Chester allowed as how they were "too expensive." When asked how expensive, he said he didn't know. "Then how do you know they're too expensive?" demanded Ms. Ritchie. It was another of Mr. Chester's yadda-yadda moments. Presently, there came another...
It was during discussion of Article 20, No Strikes, when CUE Santa Barbara's Melinda Gandara inquired, in her most patient and gentle voice, how it was that the University's press release announcing the union's "rejection" of UC's wage proposal had been issued on JUNE 9th, a day before the deadline--and CUE's counter-proposal, which had been subsequently issued on JUNE 10th. She wondered how this comported with Mr. Chester's understanding of "good faith bargaining."
Yaddayaddayadda, said Mr. Chester, solemnly averring that "the University bargains in good faith!" Yaddayaddayadda, added Susan Wright of Labor Relations in San Francisco. Sort of a duet. Then Mr. Chester went solo on a remark about how CUE was "certainly not killing any trees", by which he meant not reviewing and countering his proposals (on paper?) quick enough. CUE's Amatullah decided it was time for lunch and hoped that Mr. Chester's "attitude" might undergo some nutritive improvement.
WAGES ON THE WALL
Upon the teams' return from lunch, CUE's Amatullah had posted UC's wage proposal and CUE's possible counter, with options, on the wall.
Happily, the "wall proposals" spurred positive exploratory discussions between the sides, and a formal written wage proposal (#4) from CUE will be presented following a meeting of the Statewide Executive Board on July 9th & 10th in Sacramento.
The University still wants an agreement that runs 4 years, through 2008, with provisions for "No Strikes" (nay, not even "sympathy strikes"), with "pass-throughs" on Parking and Benefits increases...and it wants all of it to be fashioned on the AFSCME model where if workers get a pay increase, it's because the taxpayers (state legislature) agree to pay for it (the Governor's Compact)...and the University won't have to spend any of its own money. The $5-and-a-half BILLION unrestricted reserves will remain untouched... except by "executives" with access. And the girls will dance and the birds will sing. All will be happy in Mudville.
We meet with the University next in Sacramento (Davis Medical Center) on July 11th and 12th to present a new CUE Wage Proposal (#4), being developed with the advice and imprimatur of the Statewide Executive Board. Stay tuned.
FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS WORK Un-CUE-ed
You can now JOIN CUE ONLINE at:
http://www.cueunion.org/membership_info/membformweb.pdf
Fill out the form, print, sign and mail it.
There are 17,000 of us from Santa Cruz to San Diego.
Together, we cannot be ignored or treated with the usual
contempt. Need help at Local 4? Visit our website (below) or call our
mighty Organizers:
THE STRIKE FUND...FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS TAKE ALL THE RISK, EITHER
Some of you didn't strike over the 2003-04 Re-Openers last month because you were afraid. It's OK, we understand...you did what you thought you had to do. CUEster Lisa Mohan of UCLA suggests that a win-win way for workers to gain dignity (and salve an injured conscience maybe) is to donate an hour or two's pay to the CUE STRIKE FUND. Everyone disciplined, threatened, or otherwise intimidated is being aggressively represented by CUE attorneys. The ULP's (Unfair Labor Practice charges) are stacking up like chicken bones at the Chancellor's Picnic. It's expensive work, and your help on behalf of co-workers will be noted and appreciated. Send it to:
CUE Bookkeeper
ATTN: Strike Fund
2855 Telegraph Avenue - Ste. 302
Berkeley, CA 94705
Unity is Intelligent. Fun. And Powerful.
--BT (yer laid-off posterboy)
(Bert Thomas, CUE's UCLA Bargaining Representative)
7.9.2005
Or get your Bubbles at the UCLA website.