CUE NEWSLETTER NO. 2
Spring 1996
UC Clerical Workers to Launch Recertification Drive for a New Union
It will take thousands of signatures from UC clerical employees to start the process of changing the union that represents us on the job. CUE supporters are gearing up for that process. It's called "recertification" the replacement of one union by another union for the purposes of collective bargaining and exclusive representation.
Since 1983, AFSCME has been the exclusive representative of UC's 18,000 clericals systemwide. But the national union has never made organizing a priority, resulting in a small membership, a weak contract, and inadequate staff to represent clericals who have problems on the job.
To remedy this situation, dissatisified AFSCME members and others formed CUE in October 1995. In just three months, CUE has grown to include members on almost every UC campus. Employees now covered by the AFSCME clerical contract --such as office, library and child care workers-- are eligible to join CUE.
"The time is long overdue for the UC clericals to have an effective and democratic union such as CUE," notes Kevin Hayford, an Administrative Assistant at UCSD. With all the layoffs and reorganizations at the San Diego campus, he adds, clericals need a union that will really represent their interests.
Hundreds of UC clerical employees like Kevin will be reaching out to their co-workers during the next year, with the dual goal of building a stronger CUE and setting the stage for a recertification election.
Two huge steps need to taken by clericals if CUE is to replace AFSCME as our representative. First, we must succeed in gathering signatures from 30% of all UC clericals systemwide supporting CUE's petition for a "recertification election" essentially, a new representation election which would be conducted by secret mail ballot by the state Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). Such an election would give every clerical a vote on whether they want CUE, AFSCME or no union to represent them. If no option received 50% of the vote, a runoff would be held between the top vote-getters.
CUE will begin collecting the signatures of supporters in April 1996, and will have a year to gather them. Neither UC nor AFSCME will see these signatures, which will be submitted directly to PERB for verification.
"There's a lot of hard work ahead of us, and we'll need everyone's participation," observes Zoe Sodja, a northern regional vice president of CUE and a clerical employee at UCSC. "But there's also a lot of excitement that what we're doing is what clericals at UC have needed for a long time."
To succeed, CUE needs your support. We welcome your participation at any level--from simply adding your signature to the call for a recertification election, to investing some of your time by becoming a CUE activist. If you have a few minutes each month to distribute the CUE News to your co-workers, please call or email us and say how many copies you'd like to receive. If you'd like to join CUE, or give a one-time donation, please fill out the form at the bottom of the Web Page. Together, we can make a real difference in our UC work lives.
Anyone who wants to be part of this process is urged to contact CUE at (510) 845-3447, email us at clericals@igc.org, or contact one of the local campus CUE representatives listed below.
Go to Table of Contents
Just Business as Usual? CUE Investigation Reveals Conflict of Interest
When top management in the College of Natural Resources (CNR) at UCB decided to reorganize the College as a budget-cutting strategy, it did what is increasingly fashionable among UC managers: it hired an outside consultant. Appying a so-called "zero-based" corporate model, the consultant recommended drastic changes, including eliminating more than 25 full-time staff positions. The report horrified CNR staff and provoked widespread opposition. Suspecting questionable dealings, CUE began to look more carefully at the consultant.
CNR's Dean, Gordon Rausser, is the force behind the reorganization and was responsible for selecting the consultant, Donald Bunch. According to CNR employees, Rausser told them he hired Bunch because other consulting firms were too expensive, costing $80,000-$100,000, and that Bunch would be doing some of the work pro bono. Rausser also described Bunch as impartial and well-qualified--though CNR staff quickly learned that Bunch had no experience providing consulting in an academic environment. For 4 months of Bunch's services, CNR paid $12,000. UC policies require competing bids only for contracts of $15,000 or more, and no other bids were solicited. On the agreement with UC, Bunch identified himself as an independent consultant, and despite CUE's request UC failed to produce any document demonstrating Bunch's qualifications.
Other internal UC documents obtained by CUE reveal that Bunch is the chief operating officer of the Law and Economics Consulting Group, based near Oakland. Dean Rausser is identified in LECG literature as a "prinicipal" in the firm. UC representatives have conceded the appearance of a conflict of interest but have so far denied that any real conflict of interest exists. According to CNR clerical employee Gilda Brock, "There's no question in our minds that this is just back-scratching among business buddies." At a salary of $139,000 per year, Rausser is a member of UCUs exclusive "$100,000 Club". Bunch recently relocated from the east coast, and the CNR contract gives him an entrance to further consulting contracts at UC. As of press time, rumors abounded of an additional $7,000 bill submitted to the Dean's office by Bunch-whose services, CNR employees were told, would be retained for additional months to provide on-going consultation on the reorganization. If true, this would put the total consulting package above the minimum required for competitive bidding. In the meantime, Rausser told the staff that he was scrapping the consultant's original proposals and that the College would start over on its reorganization plans.
CUE is continuing to investigate this story and is working with CNR employees to fight any reorganization that would have a negative impact on staff.
Member's voices from around the State
Child Care Workers Advocate For Better Pay and Services
Many UC child care employees feel it is especially important for us to support a strong, democratic union. We have heard from our managers about the wonders of the market, and this currently fashionable "management-think" is what lies behind their desire to contract out many of the services that we provide.
The free market has, in its infinite wisdom, determined that it makes sense to pay parking lot attendants more to watch our cars than child care teachers to take care of our children. Research done by the National Center for the Early Childhood Workforce has established that the average annual wage for child care teachers is $11,725. (The federal government has set the poverty level for a family of three at $12,187.)
Under the kind of policies that UC's Human Resources Management Initiative (HRMI) promotes, it's only a matter of time before UC cashes in on the very tempting savings that they can realize by contracting out to market-regulated child care.
The fight for decent, livable salaries and benefits is not just about ourselves. It is about the families we serve and the children we care for. Research has clearly linked low pay and benefits with high staff turnover in child care, which dramatically diminishes the quality of care that our children receive.
Affordable, quality child care is a job benefit that we would like to see provided to all UC staff. A strong, effective union can help make this demand a reality--without short-changing the pay and benefits of UC child care workers.
HRMI, or the Amazing Story of the Vanishing Dollar
There are many features of UC's Human Resources Management Initiatives (HRMI) that will be bad for clericals, but among the worst are the proposals concerning pay.HRMI moves away from overall wage raises, to a "merit" system and non-base-building incentive awards, which are one-time "prizes." Supervisors will have much greater power in allocating raises. Unlike base-building increases, incentive awards do not increase the employee's salary base or retirement pension.
UC claims HRMI is not supposed to cover clericals. But last year UC siphoned off .8% of the money allocated by Sacramento for raises and turned it into incentive awards, which most of us did not receive.
For those who don't have time to read through the densely written versions of HRMI, there is a quicker way to discover UC's intentions concerning staff pay--just look at the pay decisions of the last year. Clericals will receive a 1.5% increase. Faculty will get 5%. A recently-hired executive will be paid $325,000, plus expenses. The Regents voted this fall to award executive increases averaging between 3.6% and 6.6%, and some executives have received increases as high as 18%. These facts tell the real story behind HRMI's pay plans.