CUE:   Home    General Info    Contacts    Issues    News    Bargaining    Member Info    Locals    Events / Corresp    Finance    Stewards / Grievances    CUE Supervisors    Local Resources    General Resources    Links    Site Feedback    Contact CUE   Member Info:   Application    Calculate Member Dues    Issues To Vote On    Meeting Schedules    Committees    Reimbursement Forms

Argument for a No Vote on Question #1

April 9, 2003

This is an opinion in favor of a No vote on the mediator's proposal.

This is to encourage you to vote "No" for the following reasons:

The negotiation process is not yet completed. Mediation was a voluntary attempt on both sides to try to come to a resolution. Both sides tried, but CUE did not get what it wanted in a wage proposal. When two sides cannot reach agreement, the law provides for an "impasse" process. This is a 60-90 day process that entails mediation (which we could mutually agree to waive); a factfinding process and report; a required return to the table following factfinding for the purpose of attempting to incorporate the factfinders' recommendation. Evidence and arguments can be made to support CUE’s positions, and the factfinding panel will have to respond. The panel would consist of three members - one selected by CUE, one selected by UC and the third would be a mutually agreed upon “neutral” person, often a labor arbitrator. If CUE and UC were unable to agree on a neutral, then the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) would appoint someone. History is on our side. In the 1980's, UC increased its wage proposals based upon recommendations by the factfinding panel that were favorable to the union. It isn't always done, but we believe that the bargaining unit deserves a fair chance at this process.

We believe that CUE has a reasonable chance to get a favorable factfinding report. Why? Because the factfinding process allows CUE to present evidence to the factfinding panel. We can have Peter Donohue, an economist, present his evidence that due to high turn over in the bargaining unit, the actual cost of merits to the University only slightly impacts UC's bottom line. He can present evidence that UC has 4 BILLION dollars in unrestricted funds. Our lawyers can testify that PERB has encouraged UC to make information about the commitment of these funds available to us - and that UC has steadfastly refused to do so. Our compensation expert can present evidence that we are paid under the market in almost all classifications and geographical areas. Don't forget that part of our proposal is to bring Library Assistants into salary line with the AA series. Library Assistants are grossly underpaid relative to their peers, and relative to other Administrative Assistants.

Further, our wage proposal includes beginning a process to bring into line campuses whose salaries are not equal to the San Francisco's salaries for identical titles. San Francisco currently has the highest salaries, but it is no longer true that the cost of living in San Francisco is the highest in the state. Our bargaining position has been that UC should pay equal pay for equal work. An AAII at Riverside should be compensated at the same level as an AAII at San Francisco.

Remember UC management has quietly celebrated strong financial growth throughout this past year. So strong that in 2001-02, top management received salary raises up to 25%. Moreover, UC Senior Vice President Joseph Mullinix has trumpeted an 11% increase in operating income, increased grant and revenue income, increased state funding, and increased private donations. Subsequently, UC is staying quiet about their finances showing an excess of $4 billion in unrestricted funds.

If UC does not change its position after recommendations by the factfinding panel that are favorable to CUE, and after it has returned, as required by the law, to the bargaining table one last time, it can unilaterally implement its "last, best offer." That offer will, most probably, include a wage proposal of the 1% for 2001, and the 1.5% for 2002, including retroactivity. Why? Because the State has already allocated money to UC for these increases. UC has paid out similar increases to the rest of the work force. It is extremely unlikely that UC would chose to discriminate against us by not giving us our money.

Although UC can implement its last, best offer after the factfinders' report is issued, the University will not be able to impose a contract, which would mean that we would continue to be in the "status-quo." Without a contract, most of the articles remain in effect because they govern the terms and conditions of employment. However articles on management rights, no strikes, and arbitration would not be in effect. UC could not implement new work rules, or changes in work hours, parking, benefits, or other working conditions, to name a few. If UC wants to make a change, it must bargain that change with CUE. We now have more latitude to initiate job actions, such as certain kinds of strikes.

So, there is a possibility that the money will remain the same whether we go to factfinding or take the money now. By going to factfinding, we are giving ourselves an additional chance for a better wage proposal plus, if we receive a favorable report we can use it with the press, the legislature, and with the University in the future. To stop now, we would have to start all over again. Our members only want to be recognized for their years of dedication, determination and tireless devotion to doing the right thing! This is why CUE members will continue to speak out for the funding and fairness that will help our dedicated workers provide the best service and care possible. Vote "No" - the wage proposal is an insult - UC should pay us what we deserve. We should not give up now. Vote "No"! "No!"