CUE NEWSLETTER NO. 8
Spring-Summer 1998
The Campaign For A Contract
Since CUE's election in November 1997, CUE's member representatives have been busy advising and representing clerical workers with on-the-job problems. CUE's second arena for representing clericals is at the bargaining table, where a new contract will be negotiated.
What can clericals expect when CUE bargains for its first contract? "That depends on our co-workers," said CUE president Elinor Levine, an administrative assistant on the Berkeley campus. "It's clear that UC clericals want a strong contract. In the fall election, 62 percent of the vote was for CUE, and if you add in those who voted for the other union, some 83% of the voters were calling for union representation. What we have to do, in CUE, is convince 83% of the clericals that each one of them has a role to play in the campaign for a strong contract - individual clericals need to take the simple step of becoming members. Our bargainers can present all the good ideas in the world, but UC isn't going to agree to anything unless we have the visible support of a large membership."
The first step in the campaign for a contract is to develop proposals to bring to the table. CUE is soliciting opinions and priorities from clericals throughout the system by mailing a contract survey to every clerical (members of CUE and nonmembers), asking for them to be returned by June 1. CUE will analyze the surveys to determine what CUE's proposals should be and what the union's response should be to UC's proposals. (For a discussion of UC's positions, see separate story in this issue, "UC's Big Plans for Smaller Paychecks.") Anyone who has not received a bargaining survey should get in touch with CUE and get a copy.
Next, CUE members on each campus will elect someone to serve on the bargaining committee. These clericals will conduct the actual bargaining with UC's systemwide committee. The selection process is well underway on most campuses.
The third, perhaps most important step, is to meet CUE's goal of having at least one person from every department in the UC system to be part of CUE's contract support network. The network members will be in touch with CUE's negotiating committee and will keep their co-workers advised about bargaining progress and problems. The bargaining unit is huge - 19,000 - so CUE needs many volunteers to keep communications active and accurate and, most important, to show support for the bargaining committee. If you would be willing to join the network, let CUE know. (You can reach CUE through your campus contact, or 510-845-3447, or clericals@igc.org
CUE, a union made up entirely of UC clerical staff, has come a very long way in two short years. While many experts predicted that we could not succeed in our effort to build a new union at UC, CUE won the election in late 1997 with over 62% of the vote. So far, we have succeeded because so many clericals on every campus have been part of the effort. If you want to help with the next important step, the campaign for a fair contract, please do as many of these three things as you can:
- Fill out a survey.
- Become a member (and set your own dues rate!)
- Volunteer to be on the Contract Support Network.
Go to Table of Contents
CUE Turns Back Management Assault on Basic Rights
CUE activist Teresa Lass shows off the settlement agreement signed by Lass and her CUE representative, Susan Stanton, as well as representatives from UCSD Labor Relations Department. (The picture is in the newsletter, not available on the Web) The agreement brought to an end UCSD Labor Relations' move to discipline Lass for her use of email. In a patently flimsy case, the UCSD Labor Relations Office had claimed that Lass violated the UC email policy, and Lass was given a letter of warning. CUE rep Stanton pointed out that Lass' use of email was well within UC's policies, and that Lass' activities were additionally protected by the collective bargaining law. Lass and Stanton filed an unfair labor practice charge with the State of California - to which UC responded by withdrawing the letter of warning.
While UCSD Labor Relations Office was moving against Lass, her own department was put in the position of uncomfortable on-looker. Once the settlement was signed, one of the supervisors in her unit said "This is great news. Teresa is a valuable asset to our team and I wouldn't want anything to taint that fact." For her part, Lass has nominated her department for a gold star in recognition of the fact that they know how to treat employees with respect and support.
UC's Big Plans for Smaller Paychecks
What proposals and demands will UC bring to the bargaining table for CUE's first contract talks? There are clues everywhere. For starters, we can look at the policies UC has implemented for employees who are not represented by a union. These policies, written unilaterally by UC, are contained in Personnel Policies for Staff Members (PPSM), and many of them come from another set of UC documents, the Human Resources Management Initiative (HRMI).
The worst parts of the initiatives deal with salary plans. These initiatives call for an end to statewide salary range adjustments, and they would replace the step increase system with an arbitrary and unregulated "pay for performance" plan.
Some clerical employees, especially those at the top of their range, wonder if this system might be a way to avoid being "topped out." But this is not UC's intention. Under HRMI, increases in any given unit must average to a "control figure." The control figure is set by management, and even if all the employees are doing a superior job, the raises may not exceed the average. The HRMI specify that a satisfactory performance deserves no merit increase, and while the pay ranges are broad, the goal is for an employee who does satisfactory work to remain in the mid-point of the range for his or her entire career.
Under HRMI, incentive bonuses would constitute 20-30% of an employee's pay. Unlike cost of living increases, "incentive" pay does not increase the base salary level or disability or retirement pay. In fact, a union economist has calculated that an employee with a salary of $25,000 who works for 25 years would lose over $170,000 under this plan, not including diminished retirement earnings.
Some clericals feel that if they work hard and do a good job, pay for performance might benefit them. But we can see how "pay for performance" is working in the limited area of incentive awards, a part of the HRMI that already applies to clerical staff. The overall impression of inequality, favoritism, and arbitrary selection have caused many clericals to describe the incentive award program as divisive and destructive. Everything that is unfair about "incentive awards" would be amplified under "pay for performance."
With "pay for performance" the supervisor's feelings about each employee would be allowed to translate directly into raises of any size, limited only by a ceiling and the need to conform to the unit's "control figure." Without any annual range adjustments, all raises would be based on the supervisor's evaluation. This gives supervisors a new tool to punish and reward. Even with fair supervisors, this pay system allows for huge inequities between departments. Even the automatic six-month raises would be ended.
These pay proposals were proposed by UC to UPTE, the union that represents technical staff, but UPTE rejected them. Based on what CUE has heard from clericals to date, we should take the same position. CUE is, however, asking clericals to speak up on this matter and has sent a survey to all 19,000 clericals, soliciting their opinions on pay questions.
The AFSCME Contract . . . to be or not to be, even temporarily
As this issue goes to press, CUE is having discussions with UC about what, if any, language should be agreed on by UC and CUE to govern labor relations and working conditions for some or all of the interim period between now and when a new clerical contract is bargained. One option for CUE is to accept the old AFSCME contract on a temporary basis for this period. In an effort to notify the entire clerical workforce of the matter and encourage broad participation in the discussion, CUE sent a letter about this to all 19,000 UC clericals (though, as CUE recently learned, the notice did not get past the mailrooms on some campuses.) The notice invited all clericals to tell the union what they think on this matter. The final decision will be made by CUE members. All clericals will be notified of the result.
Won Once, Won Twice . . . Domestic Partner Benefits
CUE's first appearance at a meeting of the UC Regents was last year, when CUE's Janice Kimball urged the Regents to extend health insurance benefits to employees' domestic partners. Scores of individual UC employees, as well as other unions, joined in the call for this broader coverage. In November, the Regents approved the extension of benefits, joining more than 75 other colleges and universities which offer similar benefits.
Soon after this win, California state senator William Knight, of Palmdale, introduced a bill which would have prohibited the use of any state funds for medical benefits for domestic partners of UC or CSU employees. CUE joined the protest of this cynical piece of legislation, and Senator Knight withdrew the bill.
Slugs at Work: Report From CUE at UCSC - - -
Unions on the Santa Cruz campus, where the slug reigns as the campus' official animal, have formed a coalition called "Slugworks." Through Slugworks, we keep each other informed on issues that affect us all and coordinate solidarity actions for each other's work. The coalition consists of CUE, ASE/UAW (for employed students), UC-AFT (for librarians and other non-Senate academics), UPTE/CWA (for professional and technical employees), and AFSCME (for service and skilled craft employees).
Some of Slugworks' concerns, as reflected in Slugworks' newsletter, are these: getting word out on the reasons to oppose Proposition 226; providing information about the UCSC Catastrophic Leave Program; learning our rights and developing effective grievance techniques; supporting the ASE in seeking collective bargaining rights; dealing with disability and worker's compensation problems; and fighting for better staffing in the Firefighters' unit, where present understaffing means a dangerous lack of campus coverage.
Did Somebody Say "Dress Code"?
When UC's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) Chief Financial Officer proposed revised departmental work rules--including a new dress code--many of the staff were perplexed. Especially mystified were clericals whose duties included no public contact and only rare visits by VIP's. After CUE inquired about the business necessity for these dress codes, which clearly had nothing to do with safety or the job performed, LBNL decided not to implement the new rules.
After CUE won the election in November 1997, and until CUE and UC bargain (or temporarily adopt) a new contract, the "status quo" is supposed to remain in place. That means that UC is required to bargain ANY change to terms and conditions of employment. Thanks to this requirement and to CUE's timely letter, you will not be seeing LBNL clericals desperately shopping for new wardrobes any time soon.
All this could change, of course, if CUE and the University agree to adopt the AFSCME contract on a temporary basis. This is because that contract, like so many contracts at UC, includes "management rights" language and "work rules" language that grants management a fairly free hand in implementing such rules. Such language is one of the main reasons cited by those CUE members who do not want CUE to adopt the AFSCME contract on a temporary basis. For a brief history of the issues for and against accepting the AFSCME contract temporarily, see Contract Bargaining, old information page.
Clericals Score Landmark Court Victory
By pursuing their suit against management of UC's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), a group of UC clericals, including CUE member Mark Covington (shown here at a recent CUE meeting) has scored a huge victory for worker privacy rights. Last year, CUE members at LBNL brought the attention of the national media, including U.S. News and World Report and the New York Times, to the fact that Lab management had been conducting
tests for syphilis, sickle cell trait, and pregnancy on African-American employees without the employees' knowledge or permission. Employees had been given a general pre-test questionnaire that did not make clear the extent or purposes of the test. The employees filed a suit against the Lab, but the Lab argued that the employees' case should not be allowed to proceed to trial, partly on grounds that harm done to the employees was not serious enough.
After one court ruling that supported the Lab, the employees appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, where it was ruled that the kind of invasion into the employees' privacy that the employees alleged would in fact violate fundamental constitutional protections against invasion of privacy. According to the Washington Post, "the unanimous decision by a panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California, hailed by advocates for genetic privacy, is the first to propose constitutional limits on how employers may use genetic information and is the first by such a high-ranking court to address the controversial issue of genetic privacy generally."
The ruling was written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt of Los Angeles, who wrote: "One can think of few subject areas more personal and more likely to implicate privacy interests than that of one's health or genetic makeup." The opinion also said that unauthorized collection of sensitive medical information on the basis of race or sex would be an injury in itself under Title VII of the federal civil rights law. The court ruled that employers may not perform such tests if the conditions are unrelated to job performance.
Lab management must now decide whether or not to appeal this case to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the meantime, the employees are free to take their case to a jury trial.
CUE Takes Clerical Concerns to Sacramento
Almost as soon as CUE was elected in November, the union began to make its voice heard in Sacramento. CUE activists have met with key legislators and appeared at legislative hearings to talk about specific issues and more general matters, such as pay raises for UC staff. "UC only listens to publicity and political pressure," said Paul Hessinger of UCSF, shown here with Berkeley UPTE (University Professional and Technical Employees) president Jennifer Lawrence at an April press conference on the capitol steps. (Picture in the newsletter. Not available on the Web.) Hessinger explained "We need to get the legislature to make UC accountable for the state funds it receives."
In Sacramento, CUE reps have also raised the concern that UC might not pass on to clericals the 1998 pay raise money allocated by the legislature. Hessinger explained "While UPTE bargained its first contract for technical staff, UC withheld these pay raises for the techs, and even though the University's action was eventually ruled to be illegal, we think it likely that they plan to withhold ours as well. We would like the legislature to insist that UC stop these illegal activities."
CUE members are urged to participate in lobbying activities being organized by CUE. Activities will include office visits to legislators' home district offices and letter-writing and mail campaigns.
From the CUE Mailbag
"I have worked at the University for 9 years, and for the first time in that time period I recently needed to consult with the union to deal with a problem at work. My problems actually started when AFSCME was in office, but I was reluctant to call them because I had heard that they were often unsupportive of employees and often sided with management.
In October I voted for the Coalition of University Employees (CUE) and hoped that because they were new, they would bring a new and cooperative approach to helping employees grieve disputes. I contacted CUE activists Teresa Lass and Jennifer Roth, and they met with me immediately; they were genuinely concerned that my rights should not be violated. They were very knowledgeable of university rules and regulations as well as
labor law. They worked hard on my case--as if it were their own job in jeopardy. I do not feel I would have been able to grieve this matter or pursue a remedy to the extent that I have without their support.
I am sure there are many employees who are afraid to step forward to grieve unfair treatment in their departments because they feel they will not be supported. I want to encourage them to give CUE a chance to help them attain some satisfaction. I cannot thank Jennifer and Teresa enough for all of their diligent support and advice regarding my grievance. Thanks for everything."
We received the following from AA II Alice Cummings: "I'm writing to thank UC clericals for voting for CUE, and to thank CUE for helping to save my job! After 13 months of employment at UC, I was fired -- with no warning, no cause, no explanation. I was not sure what, if anything, could be done about my situation, especially since this happened in November, and CUE had only just won the representational election. Still, I called a CUE rep for guidance, and we decided to file a grievance.
As a matter of course, when an employee is fired, he or she is entitled to meet with a UC-appointed officer to appeal the firing. We were not optimistic about this step, since we knew that the officers who are appointed to review cases at this level usually view their function to be rubber-stamping the department's decision. But we made an appointment to meet with the officer and presented the best case we knew how to make.
The officer took my case very seriously and did a thorough investigation. He then concluded that I was to be returned to my former position, with full salary and benefits for the time I was off work.
I am confident that this would not have been how the story ended if CUE had not been elected, so I'm grateful to every clerical who voted for our new union. Thanks!
In January, Maria Calderon, UC Berkeley Senior Clerk in Medical Records, was facing the imminent loss of her job due to vision problems. As a result of CUE representation and advice about her rights under the Americans With Disabilities Act, Maria received 2 more months of full pay during her transition to medical separation. She is using this time to take subsidized classes and prepare herself for a higher skilled job.
Calderon sent this note to the CUE News: "I've worked here for 24 years in the same department. I thought I would never need the union. I thought I would be protected by the University - not be discriminated against and treated unfairly. But really there is no security here. CUE protected my rights as an employee. Sometimes only the union can strengthen your ability to go forward to deal with an unfair situation. I strongly encourage others to join CUE because unity is power. I've seen it happen with me."