UP Contract Action Watch
TE
reporting on tech & researcher bargaining at the University of California systemwide ★ January 2010
n
Susanne Paradis, photo
C W A
A F L
9 1 1 9
C I O
Labor board issues
complaint against UC
U
C refused to meet
its legal obligation
to bargain for 22
months, and then bypassed
the bargaining process when
it wanted to make workplace
changes to meet budget
goals. Because these actions
are against the law, UPTECWA filed an unfair labor
practice charge with PERB
- the state Public Employment Relations Board which
oversees collective bargaining
agreements with public-sector
workers. PERB reviewed the
charges and determined that
UPTE-CWA presented credible evidence that the law was
broken. UC spent months coercing UPTE-CWA members into
accepting pay cuts, furloughs,
voluntary reductions in
time and temporary layoffs.
Meanwhile, at the bargaining
table, UC refused to discuss
UPTE-CWA’s suggestion for
furloughs in return for job
security, that is those who
were furloughed would not
be laid off. In response to our
bargainers’ refusal to give UC
a blank check on furloughs,
UC has illegally implemented
temporary layoffs on some
campuses.
During the preceding year
and a half UC cancelled bargaining sessions and refused
to make any wage proposals for nearly a year. When
its bargainers finally made
one, they withdrew it shortly
afterwards. This refusal to
participate in negotiations in
a substantive manner violates
UC’s obligation to bargain in
good faith.
PERB’s complaint, besides substantiating UPTECWA’s allegations of illegal
behavior, will encourage legislators to step in and make
sure that the law is upheld.
PERB is a neutral third party
and has the power to enforce
the labor law that UC violates.
The complaint will now
go to a settlement conference
and a hearing. While this legal
process may take some time,
PERB has the authority to order UC to pay for lost wages
for employees who are temporarily laid off—and perhaps
even those who are coerced
into taking START (voluntary
reduction in time).
This new complaint adds
to the earlier complaint PERB
issued about illegal increases
in vanpool and daily parking
rates. UPTE-CWA hopes that
PERB will also issue a third
complaint against the illegal
increase in health benefits
premiums for hundreds of
UPTE-CWA members.
UPTE members, students and faculty at the UCLA regents meeting demonstration on November 18, 2009
UC brings in record research funds but refuses to
distribute money allocated for raises to workers
Let’s talk money
U
C’s research income has increased by more than 4% every year for the last four years.
This trend is expected to continue, as UC was already awarded $671 million in additional research money from the stimulus bill.
UC’s income at the medical centers has increased by about 9% every year for the last four
years. The pension plan has increased 1.5% on average for the last four years. Last year UC
set up a new trust for retiree health benefits, which jumped from $0 to $51 million between July
2008 and July 2009.
All the while, growth in staff has been about 2% per year. The one blemish in this sterling
financial portfolio is revenue from the state, which dropped by 18% last year.
UC Financial Facts in Brief
2006
2007
2008
2009
Annual % increase in UC revenues sources
Research Student Medical
State
fee
center
4.2%
4.1%
4.6%
4.3%
6.7%
4.5%
10.6%
9.1%
8.3%
9.1%
9.2%
9.2%
6.0%
10.3%
8.9%
-18.2%
# of FTE
Employees
1.9%
2.7%
3.3%
2.5%
Pension fund
Net
Actuarial
asset
value
7.5%
9.8%
3.8%
-4.0%
-0.7%
2.1%
3.5%
0.9%
Note: Taken from UC summary audited statements at http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/finreports/index.
php?file=08-09/pdf/fullreport_09.pdf
Let’s talk quality research
Excerpt from Unfair Labor Practice Charge
Case Number: SF-CE-877-H
During the period of time, Respondent engaged in the following conduct: (1) made itself unavailable and cancelled
bargaining sessions with the Charging Party on April 2,
2008, April 3, 2008, May 21, 2008, May 22, 2008, May 23,
2008, June 18, 2008, June 19, 2008 and June 20, 2008;
(2) failed to make economic proposals until December,
2008; (3) made its economic proposal contingent upon the
outcome of the State budget process; and (4) withdrew
its May 20, 2009 offer prior to a self imposed deadline of
June 30, 2009.
By the acts and conduct described in, but not limited to,
paragraph 4, Respondent failed and refused to meet and
confer in good faith in violation of Government Code section 3571(c).
The conduct described in, but not limited to, paragraph 4
also interfered with the rights of bargaining unit employees to be represented by Charging Party in violation of
Government Code section 3571(a).
Government Code section 3571(a).
UC admits in its own wage survey that staff are paid 20% under market rates. (<www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/compensation/total_rem_report_nov2009.pdf>and <www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/compensation/total_comp_facts_nov2009.pdf>)
UC selected comparisons in the survey that have a lower cost of living so the actual disparity is even greater. In the current economic climate, research staff do not see UC employment
as a long-term career choice and turnover remains high—21% of research and technical staff
have been hired in the last 12 months. The lack of raises and degradation of the benefits package have created a cycle of revolving-door employment. The quality staff required as the backbone for the research progress, healthcare, and public service UC is known for will not stay.
Many of our newer colleagues who have not yet qualified for pension and retirement benefits
decide not to stay and leave as soon as they find a more lucrative job or an opportunity with
promise of career growth.
A solution that works for both staff and UC is readily available. NIH and other granting
agencies include money for staff raises into all grants. They understand that research projects
must provide fair raises to retain qualified staff to carry out the work. When UC does not distribute the money allocated for raises, it is “re-budgeted” to other research-related expenses, such
as supplies or additional student workers.
Excerpt from NIH Fiscal Policy for Grant Awards
FY 2009, Notice Number: NOT-OD-09-066
[...] the FY 2009 average cost of competing grants is allowed to
increase by 3 percent over FY 2008 when compared to similar
policies.
The complete text is available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/noticefiles/NOT-OD-09-066.html
The complete text is available at www.upte.org/ulp877complaint.pdf
CONTINUED ON BACK PAGE
Published by UPTE- CWA Local 9119, AFL-CIO ★ PO Box 4443, Berkeley, CA 94704 ★ (510) 704-UPTE ★ [email protected] ★ www.upte.org
Prohibiting raises for research or medical
center staff does not help the state-funded
portions of UC in the least. The holiday closure of research facilities, in some cases for
more than two weeks, does nothing to solve
UC’s budget woes. These measures disrupt
the important work researchers perform, and
have critically harmed the morale of staff and
faculty alike. Many staff lack accrued vacation
and will “owe” vacation days. Many part-time
staff will not get paid at all. Union-represented
staff at least do not have a monthly pay cut,
like many of their non-union counterparts.
A solution that makes sense
UC could have proposed targeted solutions to the specific portions of the university’s budget impacted by the state instead of
harming the entire university. Targeted solutions relying on attrition, cutting executive pay,
slowing expansion and leveraging reserves
make more sense than unnecessarily making the entire University a collateral damage
zone. Inflicting the budget pain on the entire
University when it does nothing to resolve
the state budget shortfall only undermines
morale further. Employees on research and
health care funds might be willing to tighten
their belts if it made any difference for student fees or quality education, but it doesn’t.
Instead we are outraged by corporate
executive packages and cuts to our benefits.
Why?
Good question! President Yudof may
have provided the best answer in his New
York Times interview where he reminisces
that he got into education by “accident.”
(<www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/magazine/
27fob-q4-t.html>)
Perhaps Yudof and many of the corporate executives on the board of Regents
and those making decisions at the Office
of the President do not understand how a
university works. They want to run it the way
the chair of the board of Regents, Russell
Gould, ran Wachovia Bank, like a profit center to be hacked and squeezed to maximize
financial outcomes for investors and executives.
Carolan Buckmaster, photo
UC hiding behind state
budget crisis
UPTE-CWA members in action on
two fronts
W
inning a fair TX/RX contract works
as a first step in our larger campaign
against the corporatization of the
University. A fair contract will distribute raises
and protect our benefits and pension. In it we
will also settle all issues of temporary layoffs
and other cuts. We will mobilize first to achieve a
contract that our members can vote on to ratify.
The broader political campaign of preserving UC’s public mission will require a prolonged
legislative, media and coalition effort to restore
adequate state funding for the University with
real accountability. UC’s portion of the state budget has dropped to 3.1%, less than half the 1970
level which was 7% of the state budget. This
trend needs to be reversed. Unfortunately, at
the same time the number of top administrators
has increased dramatically, along with fantastic
raises.
There used to be 2 faculty for every administrator. Now the numbers are nearly equal.
UPTE will work to ensure that state funds will be
used for the educational and research mission of
the university.
UPTE President, Jelger Kalmijn, makes his voice heard.
Health and safety now!
S
herri Sangji died nearly a year ago from injuries sustained
in a UCLA lab fire. UPTE-CWA’s proposals for preventative
safety measures and training will help ensure that what happened to Sangji will never happen again.
Summary of UC and UPTE contract proposal
U
C is demanding pay cuts for all despite the record research income. UPTE-CWA has
proposed to work out special arrangements for the few areas where our members’ pay is
dependent on UC’s state budget allocation.
We informed UC that we understand the possible need to make pension contributions, but that
we need raises to compensate for them. Without raises, we cannot afford pay cuts to contribute to
the pension plan. Without a contract or proceeding through the prolonged impasse procedure, UC
cannot impose the retirement savings take-away or pay cuts.
UPTE-CWA will settle a contract that fixes what our pay will be
for the duration of the contract. We will not ask members to vote
for a contract with waivers that allow UC to cut our pay for pension
or benefits in ways that weren’t bargained.
proposals for a 5-year contract
Issue
UPTE proposal
UC proposal
MONTHLY
DIFFERENCE
Pay
Accross-the board increases and
longevity steps commensurate
with escalators in grants for most
years, 2%-4%.
0%
$350
Contributions okay if we get raises
to compensate and UC makes
contributions at least twice as
large.
Forfeit 2% retirement savings 4/15/10,
additional 1% pay cut on 7/1/11 and
7/1/12. No commitment for employer
contribution.
$0
Benefits
Cap of 6% increase for premiums.
Ability to impose whatever increases
they deem fit (has been about 10% last
4 years).
$20
Retiree
benefits
No low-quality, low-ball plans.
Ability to impose whatever UC deems
fit. Currently proposing a 50% increase
in monthly premium for retiree benefits
and disconnecting them from employee
premium rates.
$150 for retirees
Temporary
layoffs
Illegally imposed and those affected need to be compensated.
Can impose without bargaining despite
contract expiration.
5% of UPTE
members are
affected
Pension
How to contact your
bargaining team
Berkeley
Davis
Job
security
Real preferential rehire and training programs so that when layoffs
do occur, workers can keep a UC
job.
No change. Employees who have
worked for decades can be laid off and
passed over for job openings to new
hires.
Health and
safety
Access to all publicly releasable
reports. Health and safety stewards with release time from work
to assist in preventative measures
and training.
Access to some information.
Slightly less release time for health and
safety stewards, slightly less than what
UPTE has proposed.
Irvine
LBNL
Los Angeles
MERCED
RIVERSIDE
San Diego
San Francisco
Santa Barbara
Santa Cruz
$0
Tanya Smith, Editor (TX), tanyagays@
yahoo.com, 510-325-6381
Edgardo Vasquez, Sr. Animal Technician
(TX), [email protected],
530-574-4705
Ling Morgan (alternate), Staff Research
Associate III (RX), [email protected],
310-443-5484
Victor Dorsett, Research Assistant (RX),
[email protected], 925-296-5684
Ron Greene (primary), Sr. Scene Technician (TX), [email protected], 310-4435484
Rita Kern (alternate), Staff Research
Assistant III (RX), [email protected],
310-443-5484
Bargainer needed for this campus.
Bargainer needed for this campus.
Arlene Schlosser (alternate), Staff
Research Associate III (RX), arlene.
[email protected], 619-756-2548
Kevin Rooney, Sr. Environmental Health
& Safety Tech (TX), krooney11@gmail.
com, 415-412-8547
Bob Stevenson, Sr. Electronics Technician (TX), [email protected],
805-455-9237
Dieskau Reed, Computer Resource
Specialist (TX), [email protected],
831-840-2128