| Coalition of University Employees (CUE) | 2855 Telegraph Ave., Suite #302, Berkeley, CA 94705 Contact CUE (510) 845-2221 (phone), (510) 845-7444 (FAX) |
| Agency Fee: Facts, For, Against |
Senate Bill No. SB 645
Author: Burton (D) & Villaraigosa (D), et al.
A bill is working its way through the state Legislature which would change the labor law governing UC and CSU employees (HEERA, or the Higher Education Employee Relations Act) to allow for agency fees. CUE did not propose or support this legislation, although some UC unions did. It appears likely to pass (if not in this session, then very soon).
What are "Agency Shop" (or "Fair Share") fees? When an employee is required to either join a union or pay the organization a fee as a condition of employment, these fees are known as agency shop fees. Affected employees would include all staff who are included in a collective bargaining unit, that is, all UC and CSU employees who are exclusively represented by unions.
The union must represent every employee within the bargaining unit, whether or not the employee is a member of the union, and agency shop fees are intended to compensate for this work. They are calculated by taking the union's costs of representation -- contract negotiations and other forms of representation -- and dividing those among all employees. They are somewhat less than member dues, and all employees would be required to either join the union and pay dues, or pay the lower "agency fee."
Specifically, this bill provides that:
1. All CSU and UC employees within a bargaining unit pay fair share or agency shop fees for at least four years, from January 1, 2000. The fees would be collected by the employer and transmitted to the employee organization.
2. The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) is required to conduct an onsite election between January 1, 2004 and May 1, 2004 to determine whether the "agency shop fee" required by the bill will be canceled.
3. After the initial period, 30 percent of the employees within the bargaining unit may petition PERB to conduct an election to cancel the fair share fee arrangement. The vote may be taken at any time on or after January 1, 2005. The vote must be by a majority of all of the employees in the unit (as opposed to a majority of those voting).
4. No sooner than one year after a vote to cancel the fair share fee arrangement, a majority of all of the employees in the bargaining unit may request that the arrangement be reinstated, following the submission of a petition containing the signatures of at least 30 percent of the employees in the unit.
5. Any election to cancel and/or reinstate shall be by secret ballot, and the cost of conducting the election shall be paid by the petitioning party. The petitioning party may also choose between a campus work-site or mail ballot election. The vote must be by a majority of all of the employees in the unit (as opposed to a majority of those voting).
6. Employees with religious objections shall not be required to join, maintain membership in, or financially support any employee organization as a condition of employment. However, an employee who holds conscientious objections to such membership shall be required to pay a sum equal to the fair share service fee to a non-religious, non-labor organization, charitable fund chosen from a list of at least three funds agreed to by the higher education employer and the employee organization.
Many private workplaces, and even many public workplaces in California, have fair share or agency fee arrangements. Most municipal government, public utility, state, and public school employees are represented by unions that have fair share situations. UC and the Cal State Universities, where up until now the law has forbidden fair share, are the exception, rather than the rule.
As it stands now, all clerical employees are represented by CUE -- those who are members and pay dues, as well as those who don't. The union is negotiating a contract that will apply to all clericals. CUE's bargaining team has a representative from each campus and LBNL. We have made an effort to bargain at all the campuses so clericals can attend the negotiating sessions. Our team needs to fly to the campus locations around the state to attend the bargaining sessions, at CUE's expense.
CUE has an obligation to represent any clerical employee in grievances, and when there is binding arbitration, CUE will take an employee's case, member or not, to arbitration and CUE will pay the cost of the arbitrator. CUE stewards, all of whom are volunteers and handle grievances in their free time, often spend more than a dozen hours on a single grievance, and significantly more if a case goes to arbitration.
The current situation, in which only members contribute financially to the union, means that some employees will benefit from gains the union makes for all of us, yet make no contribution. It means that employees who need help, and receive it, from the union might be employees who do not contribute to the union.
In order for the union to become powerful enough to bargain a good contract, for CUE stewards to be able to represent our co-workers in grievances and workplace problems, and for CUE to really be a strong advocate for all clerical employees' rights -- everyone needs to pay their fare share.
Agency fee does not require all employees to become members. That is an individual choice. For employees with religious objections, agency fees may be paid to a charitable organization of their choice. But all employees should pay the fees it takes to run the union that represents us all. Fair share fees will make it possible for CUE to do a better job at doing the hard work it takes to represent all employees - a task which is required by law.
The legislation that is currently under discussion by the California legislature mandates agency shop -- without an election by employees. Many of us in CUE object to a process that bypasses a democratic election.
But the basic concept that all represented employees should contribute financially to support the union that educates all employees, represents all employees, bargains a contract for all employees -- that's only fair.
There are two questions we need to deal with concerning agency fees (that is the arrangement whereby people we represent who choose not to become union members must pay a regular fee which is slightly less than dues). The first is: What is our attitude toward the current legislation in Sacramento which was introduced by AFSCME and is supported by several unions; and the second is: What is our attitude toward agency fees in general? I think the first is easy -- the current piece of legislation effects those unions under the HEERA (Higher Education Employer/Employee Relations Act) and would grant agency fees to any exclusive representative currently in place. In four years there will be an opportunity for members of a jurisdiction to vote on whether to continue this arrangement. I think this is a bad bill. It completely eliminates the fundamental requirements of democracy. UC clericals voted to be represented by CUE and at that time it was clear that there was no money attached to that decision.
Now by the sweep of the pen, the state is going to take money out of the pockets of thousands of UC clericals and give it to CUE. If you thought people were annoyed with us for not being able to get the 2%, wait until you see their response to this idea. If people are going to be taxed, then they should at the very least have the right to vote on that question. It is the job of the union to convince folks that they need a union enough to have to pay for it. If people don't want to pay for everything the union does, they can choose to pay for only those activities related to bargaining and contract enforcement. Anything less puts us in the position of being anti-democratic and unfair.
And I think sets us up to be replaced. As for the general question of agency fees -- I am opposed to agency fees in general. I realize this puts me on the very fringe of the labor movement.
And in fact I am sensitive to the argument that those who benefit from our efforts should have to help pay for them. It is a logical and rational position to take. I am nevertheless opposed. I think the union needs to be able to survive by involving the largest number of UC clericals possible. It is not enough to be able to survive on the passive contributions of thousands who may benefit from what we do but feel no real connection to us. That makes our job harder but it is the job that needs to be done. We must be able to convince clericals not that they should pay for services rendered but that in order to really have an impact on our work lives it is absolutely necessary that they, in their thousands, become part of the only effort that can have a real impact -- the union. The union must become an indispensable part of people's lives and members must see that the union is not something they belong to but something that we all are. Anything less and we are constantly vulnerable. How, for example do we organize a strike among a group who are largely "fee payers" and who are waiting to see "what the union can do for them?" CUE has already done the impossible -- we organized an independent union, we beat AFSCME and UC in a representation election and currently we are holding our own in bargaining a new contract. Would it be nice to have more money? Of course. But would it solve our problems? I don't think so. We must continue the hard, back-breaking work of bringing more people into the union. Agency fees would solidify the alienation that many UC clericals feel towards unions and I think in the long run only make our job harder.
Web sites having information regarding the agency shop legislation:
SB 645
History
Status
A very thorough analysis by the Assembly committee (6/29/99) is available at Analysis
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION: As per Assembly committee analysis of 6/29
Support:
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, (AFSCME)
(co-sponsor)
California Faculty Association (co-sponsor)
California Federation of Teachers
California Labor Federation
California State Employees Association
Service Employees International Union
Union of American Physicians and Dentists
State Building and Construction Trades Council
Numerous individuals
Opposition:
California State University
University of California
National Right to Work Committee
Numerous Individuals
Other Support: As registered in writing in Senator Burton’s Office, as of 7/19/99
California Teachers Association
California/Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers
California School Employees Association
Communication Workers of America, (CWA) District 9, (Parent affiliate of UPTE)
Labor International Union of North America
Union of American Physicians and Dentists