CUE NEWSLETTER NO. 11
December 2005
- Bargaining Update
- UC’s New Motto: Fiat Bux?
- UC Clericals Applaud as State Senator Scolds
- Unions Score (Temporary) Victory over UC's Top Brass
- Pay Equity Now For Library Assistants
- Comments From the Library Pay Equity Petition
- Favoritism Scandal Rocks UCOP
- Nov. 7-9: Library Pay Equity Forum
- CUE Wants To Know...
- CUE Welcomes UC Merced
- Puppet Activists
- Clash Over Reclassifications
- Newsletter Committee
|
||||
| Bargaining Update | ||||
|
CUE and UC are now in mediation trying to solve the final outstanding issues relative to getting a successor contract to the one that expired in September of 2004. Wages and benefits are two major sticking points in the process, though there are thirteen other articles that we are still working on. Amatullah Alaji-Sabrie, chief negotiator for CUE, said she remains "cautiously optimistic that the CUE and UC bargaining teams, with the state-appointed mediator, can work together to get a contract this time." The bargaining process transitioned to mediation when the University petitioned the State of California's Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to declare that bargaining was at an Impasse and, in late August, PERB agreed. According to law, the Impasse process begins with mediation, and PERB appointed Paul Roose, from the State Conciliation and Mediation Services, to serve as mediator for the CUE/UC process. Both sides have accepted in concept the mediator's request to maintain confidentiality during this process. CUE's latest proposals are posted on our web site at http://www.cueunion.org/bargaining.php Mediation began on October 11 and further sessions are scheduled for November 2-3 and 20-21, and (if needed) Dec. 13-14. Other days will be added if the mediator believes we are making progress. |
Given UC's refusal to abide by the neutral fact-finder's report issued
earlier this year (that UC could and should increase our pay), and
given UC's refusal to date to make 2005 increases effective July, which is when the money was first available, we share with all
other UC clericals some concern and impatience regarding the outcome of mediation.
Only union members (not fair-share fee payers) will have a chance to vote on the results of
bargaining. Fair-share payers may join the union now if they want to be able to vote on a
contract. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Reporters at the San Francisco Chronicle have discovered that at the same time UC administrators are blaming state budget cuts for freezing the salaries of low-paid employees and raising student fees, they have been quietly paying many top administrators and faculty far more than they report publicly. In addition, the number of high-paid UC positions has increased, not decreased, while they have cut student services and let pay for most staff stagnate. In the last fiscal year, UC’s favored employees have received a total of $871 million in bonuses and other “extra” compensation, over and above money earned in salaries and overtime pay. To put that amount in perspective, a 1% increase in salary for the entire clerical bargaining unit would cost UC approximately $5 million. In addition, $871 million would have been more than enough to cover the 79% increase in student fees over the past few years.
|
Senior UC employees receive other “fringe benefits,” in addition to their cash compensation. UC has issued thousands of low-interest mortgages to administrators and faculty, in addition to providing free housing for Chancellors. Many Chancellors have creatively leveraged their free housing into another form of income, by moving into the free Chancellor residences and renting out the homes they already own in the area. UC Davis Chancellor Vanderhoef and UCLA Chancellor Carnesale both disclosed earnings of between $10,000 and $100,000 a year in rental income from this kind of “perk.” Administrators also bill UC for meals and other entertainment: UCLA Chancellor Albert Carnesale charged his Hollywood Bowl season tickets at a cost of $11,000, and UCSF Chancellor Michael Bishop was reimbursed for a $435 dinner with a potential job candidate. Administrators even bill UC for the cost of gifts. In 2003, then-UC President Richard Atkinson used UC funds to give Senior VP Bruce Darling a $106 bottle of champagne, a $92 bouquet of flowers, and an $85 plant. Patrick Callan, president of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, is quoted in the article asking, “Is there a pattern here of very well-paid people having inappropriate perks?” Callan also goes on to point out that even private donations to UC should be considered public money, as they could have been spent for other purposes (like scholarships) instead of gifts, season tickets, and the like. The number of UC employees earning more than $200,000/year increased 30 percent over the last 2 years, while the number of employees making at least $300,000 annually increased 54% last year. “This is not something you want the Legislature to learn about,” says former UC Regent Velma Montoya in the SF Chronicle. UC has tried to justify these salaries by pointing to a study conducted by the Mercer Human Resource Consulting group which claimed that UC administrator pay was 15% below market. However, the Mercer study went on to say that UC’s compensation was roughly equal to other universities when retirement and health benefits are factored in -- and the Mercer study did not factor in the “extra” forms of compensation uncovered by the SF Chronicle. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
The hearing, one of a series being sponsored by Speier's committee, focused on UC's labor relations. UC's chief witness was Judith Boyette, Associate Vice President of Human Resources and Benefits. The workers were represented by speakers from each of 6 unions - AFSCME (service workers), AFT (lecturers and librarians), CNA (nurses), CUE (clericals), UAW (academically employed students), and UPTE (professionals and technicals). Administrative Assistant Stephanie Dorton, who works at Berkeley's Boalt Law School, spoke for CUE.
Before the unions' testimony began, Speier treated Boyette to a dramatic
dressing down, based on the fact that in February 2005, a neutral fact-finder
released a report showing that UC could and should increase clerical pay
– a report which UC ignored. Speier, who had been given the report by CUE members at an earlier
hearing, had isolated several long and damning passages from the report,
which she read aloud for Boyette's comments. Speier ended that part of
the hearing by telling Boyette "I don’t think there is any
more to be said. How you deal with this situation is something I don't
want to be engaged in. Just fix it." She added "I absolutely
commit to you that this subcommittee will continue to hold hearings until
it is fixed." Speier was clearly moved, and angry, that UC still had
not provided her committee with information it has promised at an earlier
hearing. At one point, Speier said that her committee was determined that
UC should not become the Walmart of higher education.
|
When Speier, breaking into Boyette's long presentation, gave Boyette a chance to summarize, Boyette raised the issue of sympathy strikes, and UC's determination to get every union to sign off on contract language prohibiting sympathy strikes. As of the time of the hearing, UC unions are being asked to agree to language that would allow UC to fire an individual employee for honoring a picket line of another union, no matter if that strike were legal or not. Boyette described this dramatic attack on the unions and the rights of individual employees as a mere effort to "clarify" existing rights. The union witnesses made clear that this was not the case. Finally, unable to come up with a better argument, Boyette attempted to deflect attention from the issue by claiming that for some employees, facing picket lines is not an issue. When consulted, CUE members could think of no UC workers for whom this was true.
The next hearing in the series was at Merced and focused on parking issues. Following that, in late November, the committee held a hearing at Berkeley that focused on UC's contributions to the state's economy. In summing up her experience of the Riverside hearing, CUE’s presenter Stephanie Dorton said, “There is a light at the end of the tunnel. Those who could not attend missed a wonderful meeting, and I hope to see them all in Merced … and then here on the Berkeley campus.” |
|||
|
|
||||
In a stunning reversal, UC President Dynes announced on November 9 that the Regents' vote on the controversial "Part C" of the Regents' new proposals for wage adjustments has been postponed. "Part C" provided for the University to solicit private donations to augment the salaries of the 42 UC executives who are paid $350,000 yearly, or more. CUE and other unions have protested this proposal since it was revealed to the public at the Regents' September meeting and scheduled for a vote at their November meeting. Regent Judith Hopkinson, who supported the proposals, was cited by Dynes as being concerned that Part C had "overshadowed" the rest of the report. "You can say that again," commented CUE Interim President Jen Smith, noting the broad public protest of the proposal, "historically the Regents prefer to do this kind of thing when no one is paying attention." The bulk of the rest of the report deals with salary adjustments for the 770 UC employees who are paid in the $168,000 - 350,000 range. The proposal makes it possible for most of these salary increases to simply go into effect without review or approval by the Regents and therefore without notice to the public. |
Much of the report, like Dynes' letter, talks about the need for UC to be competitive, to make "strategic investments to attract and regain the best people." What UC clericals know, and as Dynes made clear in testimony at a recent Senate hearing in Merced, is that "competitive" refers to competition only at the top of the pay scale. Union activists have pointed out that many of their salaries lag as much as 20% and 33% below market, a problem that UC generally acknowledges but does nothing to fix. Testifying before Senator Jackie Speier on November 9 on the topic of the costs of attending UC, Dynes referred frequently to the need to increase top faculty and executive salaries as the way to be competitive. For the thousands of UC employees earning wages of $20,000, $30,000, and $40,000, the report projects a series of gradual increases which, if realized, might just match expected increases in benefit costs and increased pension contributions and other increases. |
|||
|
|
||||
The 776 library assistants (LAs) in the University of California system perform highly specialized work requiring technical skills in the fields of acquisitions, cataloguing, reference and preservation. In spite of their skills, LAs are paid lower wages than other assistants and 33% less than their counterparts on California State University campuses. Twenty years ago LAs earned more than other campus assistants. However, not only has LA compensation declined since then, but LAs on many campuses have taken on higher level duties and greater workloads in the wake of understaffing, especially of librarians. Support for Parity February 28, 2005 – UC President Robert Dynes has recognized the need
to bring staff salaries up to market levels, making it one of his three
“critical issues” for the future of UC. September 21, 2005 – Norah Foster, an LA
and member of the Statewide CUE Executive Board, presented and read a
petition asking for parity for LAs at the Regents Meeting in San Francisco. |
October 5, 2005 – Jackie Speier headed up a hearing on UC Labor Relations that also dealt with library pay issues, in Riverside. (see UC Clericals Applaud...above). Costs What You Can Do |
|||
|
Comments From the Library Pay Equity Petition
|
||||
|
TOP
|
||||
|
||||
|
TOP
|
||||
An investigation started by two reporters at the San Francisco Chronicle has led to the abrupt resignation of UC's second-in-command over allegations of favoritism in hiring. UC Provost M.R.C. Greenwood quit her administrative post on November 4 after the University opened a conflict-of-interest investigation looking into Greenwood's promotion of her friend, UCSC Vice Provost Lynda Goff, to a UCOP position with an annual salary of $192,100. In addition to being friends, Goff and Greenwood own property together. UC President Robert Dynes issued a written statement saying, "It appears that Provost Greenwood may have been involved in Dr. Goff's hiring to a greater extent than was appropriate, given her business relationship with Dr. Goff." The other issue being investigated is whether or not one of Greenwood's subordinates, Winston Doby, played an improper role in helping Greenwood's son, James Greenwood, get a $45,000/year position as an intern at UC Merced. Doby has been placed on investigative leave. Greenwood is being allowed to return to her teaching post, with its full salary and benefits. Greenwood has been no stranger to controversy in her short tenure as Provost. Some Regents objected when she was hired at $380,000/year -- a salary almost $100,000 higher than her predecessor earned. The SF Chronicle investigation revealed that her total compensation was even higher than what was made public by the University. UC also gave Greenwood:
|
At Regents meetings, in Sacramento, and at hearings such as the ones held by Sen. Jackie Speier in Riverside and Merced CUE activists have long spoken out about the disparities between how UC treats its highest-paid staff and those of us in the trenches. At the November Regents meeting in Berkeley, CUE demonstrated and spoke against the motion to allow fundraising to increase executive salaries above $350,000 as well as extravagant executive salaries and perks.
| |||
|
TOP
|
||||
|
An early November series of library pay equity panels was offered by a group of UC Berkeley Library Assistants/CUE activists and the UC Berkeley Labor Coalition.
|
Dr. Freedman also discussed his agenda as past President of ALA, including initiatives such as the Campaign for America's Librarians and the Better Salaries and Pay Equity Task Force. Dr. Freedman's past positions include Associate Professor of library services at Columbia University, and technical services coordinator for New York Public Library branches.
|
|||
|
TOP
|
||||
|
As reported elsewhere, on November 9, the Regents decided to postpone their vote on a proposal to solicit private donations to supplement the salaries of those 42 UC executives who are paid $350,000/year or more. The Regents have NOT turned down the plan, they have only put off making the decision. We asked clericals at a number of campuses what they thought. Here are some responses. "I always believe in equality. If the Regents
believe that UC Executives deserve additional funding (private donations)
to add to their exorbitant salaries, then the Regents BETTER find funding
to compensate staff salaries (particularly the Union represented employees).
They cannot underfund us by not providing adequate and fair salary considering
the rising healthcare costs and parking fees, which they have been successfully
doing for years. The whole idea in discussion is bogus." |
"Library Assistants earn 33% below
market. I know, I did the research. How absurd to collect private funds
to top off executive salaries when the same funds applied to the salaries
of overworked and underpaid LAs could bring over a dozen up to market.
It's just a better value to pay all hard-working clerical staff their
due. What good is an administrator without clerical staff support anyway?"
"I think if the Execs can't live on what they're being paid,
they should look for work elsewhere. Hmmmm… where have I heard that
before? Oh, that's right, that's what they keep telling clericals!!!" "I think we as a people should do all we can
to assist our friends in need. No contribution is too small. With the
gas prices rising so high first-class tickets aboard commercial airliners
and private jet rentals will also be going up. Can we really live with
this on our conscience? I don't think so. My slogan: Help those with six-figures
in '06!" |
|||
|
TOP
|
||||
Cue Welcomes UC Merced |
||||
|
Merced, UC’s newest campus, officially opened on September 5, 2005. The campus, which has been planned for 25,000 students, now has about 900 students — 700 freshmen, 150 community college transfer students and 50 graduate students. Although the UCM is still largely under construction, clerical staff, who now number about 75, have been moved from a number of locations in the city of Merced to the campus, about 2 miles away.
|
FIRST GRIEVANCE: A WIN
|
|||
|
TOP
|
||||
|
A giant pig puppet joined strikers in front of the UC
Office of the President in Oakland during the CUE strike in July 2005.
The dollar bills glued to his tongue and the glittering dollar sign on
his tie emphasized UC’s greed. The pig was made out of recycled
materials – cardboard, newspaper, PVC pipe, etc. Total cost, under
$50: payoff, priceless. |
Mr. Peanut is a regular at CUE events on the campus at
UC Berkeley. The message on his hat band changes to fit the theme of the
day – for instance, “Layoffs are nuts!” or “UC
pay = peanuts.” He is made of papier maché over chicken wire. For
those who want to make their own puppets, easy instructions can be found
at: http://www.gis.net/~puppetco/ |
|||
|
|
||||
| Clash Over Reclassifications | ||||
|
For several years, CUE and UC have disagreed over the issue of reclassifications out of the bargaining unit. This issue first came to a head during bargaining on our second contract when Craig Alderson, CUE statewide database manager, noticed that a group of child care workers at UCLA had suddenly disappeared off the list of CUE-represented clericals. CUE soon discovered that these child care workers had been moved out of the clerical bargaining unit without any notification to CUE. The union immediately filed an unfair labor practice charge. As a result, UC agreed to add new language to the CUE/UC contract. Now, UC must notify CUE when it proposes to move individual positions or groups of positions out of the clerical bargaining unit, and these positions can be removed only if CUE agrees. If CUE does not agree, UC may appeal to the State Public Employee Relations Board for a final decision. Even with this new language in effect, CUE and UC have clashed over a large number of proposed reclassifications. CUE reviews reclassification proposals very carefully and often finds that the positions UC proposes to remove from the unit are clearly clerical in nature. We believe that managers and supervisors do this for a number of reasons – for instance to retain staff and to reward favorites. It is the union’s position, and UC’s official claim, that reclassifications should be based only on the duties assigned to the position, and in the case of reclassification of positions out of the unit, should happen only when the work is really work that belongs outside of the clerical unit, such as when the employee supervises more than two full time employees (or the equivalent) or when the nature of her/his work is professional or requires skills which are not clerical in nature. On several campuses, UC has used this situation to try to turn employees against the union. Supervisors or Human Resources staff have characterized CUE’s efforts to exercise its contractual rights as “delaying” tactics, when CUE is merely using the time allotted to us in the contract to review the proposals. In some cases, UC has accused the union of simply wanting to keep the greatest number of people in the clerical unit, when in actuality CUE is only trying to ensure that people are correctly classified. NEW CUE WIN |
According to the agreement, “When a reclassification is being discussed by CUE and UC, if an employee asks the status of the pending reclass, University managers will say: pursuant to the procedures under the collective bargaining agreement, CUE and the University are discussing the proposed reclassification and are attempting to resolve any areas of concern.” The University further agreed that managers “will not make any statement other than the foregoing, nor blame one party or the other for any delay in the processing of the reclassification nor threaten or state to either the employee or the Union that the union’s decision to challenge a proposed reclassification could result in the removal of employee’s job duties/responsibilities. The parties also agree that managers shall not blame one party or the other for delays in reclassification in those cases where the reclassification has not yet been proposed to CUE.”
__ Asst IV Title Needed
|
|||
|
||||
