9/12/02 Wilkinson Reply

September 12, 2002

Sharon Hayden
Labor Relations
Office of the President
300 Lakeside Dr
Oakland, CA 94612

Re: Response to your July 31, 2002 letter

Dear Sharon:

We are disappointed that you prematurely brought bargaining to a close before presenting a package that might satisfy the demands of the clericals we represent. Our attorneys have advised us that your threat to impose worse contract language if CUE does not accept your "conditional offer" is a violation of the law. This threat is evidence that you have no intention of negotiating in good faith, even before the legally mandated mediation and fact-finding process takes place, and has resulted in our legal counsel filing bad-faith bargaining charges against the university.

However, CUE is ready to return to the bargaining table to try to mutually negotiate a contract. We hope you will come back to the table prepared to bargain in good faith as CUE is willing to do.

The University's Current Wage Proposal

The idea that clericals "enjoy" the 1% that appeared in paychecks in September 2001 is an interesting choice of words. As you well know, the 1% was the last payment of the wage package negotiated in the first CUE contract. We reject the notion that the 1% bargained in the previous contract is part of our wage increase for 2001-02. We allowed delayed implementation of the 1% in order to spread out the cost to UC, but never agreed this would limit our 2001-02 wage demand due to the 1% being paid out after July 1, 2001. We are pleased that, based on advice from your attorneys, you have dropped your proposal for a lump sum average retroactive payment. We believe full retroactivity is more equitable.

Regarding the 1% across-the-board wage offer for 2001-02 and 1.5% for 2002-03: As we have said at the table on many occasions, this wage offer is inadequate. It does not begin to keep pace with annual inflation of 4.5%-5%. It does not even cover the increases in our medical plans and your proposed increases in parking fees. It amounts to a wage cut.

We are painfully aware that you are not proposing a merit program for either year. We also know that new hires are still being told they will be able to move up through the steps of a range, yet those steps have been withdrawn. We don't wonder that turnover is 54% among first-year employees.

You tell us that you cannot invade other university funds for long-term permanent salary expenditures, but you admit that this statement simply describes a priority that UC has made for this money. If UC thought that it was important to increase wages of low-paid workers, UC could commit this money to that purpose. As for annual budgetary renewals, we note that your unrestricted reserves have increased on a regular basis year after year, even when UC claimed to be in fiscal crisis. These reserves increased at the same time that staff were asked to take pay cuts.

You claim that university supporters understand that the university is still a good place to work and you cite an increase in qualified applicants for clerical positions as evidence that UC is still an attractive employer. The high rate of turnover in clerical positions tells the real story.

The Economist's Packet

You have stated "permanent salary budget funds have to come from the reliable, regular fund sources, dominated by the State of California." UC receives only about 26% of total funding from the State of California. We want to know where you get the other 74% and why you cannot use any of your legally unrestricted reserve funds to pay clerical salaries. We think it's a policy decision that can, and should, be changed.

You assert that Peter Donohue continues to use an "erroneous" 54% figure for turnover. It is not an erroneous figure. It simply includes categories that UC does not think should be included, such as temporary and limited appointment employees, and those who leave the clerical unit but not university employment. Even if we accept your 28%-32% overall turnover figures, we still have a turnover in the UC clerical unit of more than twice the national average for clerical work.

You assert that a full-step, retroactive merit program for 2001-02 would cost $12,842,000. We are asking you to show us how you arrived at that figure. Heretofore you have been unable to put a dollar figure on your salary proposal and we are keenly interested in knowing how you arrived at this total. With information UC provides at the FTP site there is no way to determine the step of each employee, merely the salary.

You assert that the cost of a merit program would be about the same for 2002-03 and again we ask that you show us how UC arrived at this conclusion. You acknowledge that employees rely on merit increases. You are aware that one member of the CUE bargaining team who works for UC full- time is a single mother living in federally subsidized housing. We can show you this is not unique. It appears that UC's idea of negotiating wages is for you to tell us what you are willing to spend and for CUE to accept whatever that may be.

You refer to "wages for LBNL employees" and assert that CUE has denied the increases for the clericals at LBNL in order to wait for implementation of the entire contract. We would like to set the record straight: LBNL offered a far more reasonable contract yet, out of solidarity with the other 18,000 UC clericals, LBNL clerical employees voluntarily chose to postpone receiving their increases for eight months awaiting UC's fair treatment of CUE.

Finally, when we met with you and Peter Donohue on April 22, 2002, UC's Vice President of Budget & Finance told us he would provide us with copies of indentures and agreements that prevent UC from spending unrestricted reserves as we have suggested. After we requested this in writing, we were told the information was not relevant to bargaining. We disagree. We believe that information concerning UC's billions in unrestricted fund reserves is essential to bargaining. As you know, we have filed an unfair labor practice on UC's failure to provide that information.

Sincerely,

Margy Wilkinson Chief Negotiator, CUE

cc: Claudia Horning, CUE President
CUE Counsel Rosenberg