UCLA Technical workers get union

UCLA Technical workers get union

Subhead 20

20

By Alisa Ulferts

Daily Bruin Senior Staff

The University of California’s battle for bargaining rights over
employee contracts ended last week after technical employees at the
nine campuses voted to unionize — despite allegations that the
university misled and intimidated voters.

By a margin of 1,215 to 992, technical workers chose the
University Professional and Technical Employees Union (UPTE) as
their exclusive representative in collective bargaining with the
university, reported the Public Employment Relations Board, which
oversees govermental agency elections.

The vote reverses employees’ rejection of unionization 11 years
ago.

"This means the end of business as usual at UC," said Libby
Sayre, statewide president of UPTE. "(Technicians) are saying
they’re sick and tired of being at the bottom of UC’s priorities
list. They want respect and a voice in their future," she said.

Union leaders accused the university of spearheading an
agressive anti-union campaign prior to the election — a charge UC
administrators deny.

"It is not the University of California’s official position to
run an anti-union campaign," Gayle Cieszkiewicz, UC’s associate
director of labor relations, told the Bruin earlier this month.

"It is our position to present employees with our view. We have
a long standing (UC) position that exclusive representation by a
union is neither desirable or necessary," Cieszkiewicz added.

That does not excuse the university from intentionally deceiving
technical workers, said labor leaders. Cliff Fried, vice president
for UPTE statewide, said the university sent letters to all
technical workers before the end of the mail in election that said
their already budgeted mid year pay increase was subject to the
results of the election.

"As a member of the Technical Unit, your receipt of this
anticipated salary increase would become dependent on the process
of contract negotiations, if CWA/UPTE wins the election which is
being conducted at htis time," wrote Stanley McKnight, assistant
vice chancellor for campus human resources, in the Nov. 9
letter.

McKnight further explained in the letter that wages for union
employees must be negotiated with their union before they can be
impemented. "Obviously, negotiations over the wage increases would
occur only if CWA/UPTE is elected to be the exclusive bargaining
representative of Technical Employees," the letter continued.

"They’re trying to make it look like the union has stopped the
pay hike when it is the university’s own dirty trick,"Fried
said

McKnight denied that the letter was a scare tactic to discourage
employees from voting for the union. He said only the funds were
budgeted, barring any mid year cuts in state funding, not the
distribution of those funds. The distribution of the pay hikes is
subject to the negotiation process, which should begin about Dec.
1, McNight said.

The tug of war between administration and labor leaders for
control of the bargaining table has caught the attention of several
politicians, including Congressman Ronald Dellums (D) Oakland. In
an Oct. 21 letter to UC President Jack Peltason, Dellums urged
Peltason to intervene in order to stop the anti- union literature
that labor leaders say UCLA and other UC campuses circulated prior
to the election.

"I am deeply concerned by what appears to be a sytematic effort
by management at the various campuses to persuade technical voters
to oppose the election," Dellums wrote."I do not understand why
highly compensated labor relations professionals would tolerate,
let alone condone, a campaign based on distortion and
misinformation. . ." Dellums continued.

One of the charges the union made against the university was
that it hired an outdside consultant at $1600 a day to assist it in
defeating the union elections.

Jim Phillips, UC’s director of labor relations, would not
confirm whether the university hired such a consultant because in
its press release the union did not specify who and where the
consultant was.

"If they’re going to make an allegation they should at least
pinpoint it," Phillips said. "There are nine campuses and five
laboratories at the university. If they would give a name and a
location I would look into it."

Phillips also said the university had reponded to Dellums’
letter, but could not say exactly what the response was. He added
that the university will wait for the Public Employment Relations
Board to certify the results of the election, and then wait for
UPTE to take the initiative.

But Peltason, while cautioning that the university had not yet
drafted an official response, said it would accept the employees’
decision. "We will respect the wishes of our employees," Peltason
told the Bruin at the Regents’ meeting.

Labor analysts say the struggle between labor and management at
the university is not unusual. "In the private sector it’s pretty
standard behavior for companies to oppose unionization even though
there are studies that show there is better productivity with
unions," said Ruth Milkman, an associate professor of sociology who
specializes in labor and unions studies.

Milkman said public sector institutions, such as the University
of California, may also oppose unionization but are more vulnerable
to employee mobilization. Profit is not the public sector’s sole
motivator, Milkman explained, making public institutions less
likely to oppose unions for cost saving reasons. But there are
other reasons for the university not to unionize, such as loss of
control of hiring and inflexible job desrcriptions, Milkman
added.

Daryl Holter, director of the labor center, agreed that the
differences between the private sector and the public sector affect
the ability of workers to mobilize and the willingness of the
institution to oppose them.

While public sector companies may fight against unions, the
private sector would be more likely to hire consultants to
discourage unionization, Holter explained. He did not agree with
the union’s charge that the university has undergone a
"corporatization."

"From (the university’s ) point of view they don’t really want
the employees to increase their bargaining power," Holter said.
"They’d rather have a paternalistic relationship where they say
‘This is your pay’. It’s an older way of doing things."

While Holter would not definitely say whether he thought the
university was guilty of anti-unionism, he said it would have been
a mistake for the university to interfere with union elections.

"If the employees want a union they should be able to get one, "
he said.

Doug Brown, a UC Berkeley technical employee, agreed.

"For the last three years, techs at UC have lived through job
cuts, layoffs, work speed up, benefits and pay cuts," he said. "We
know what we need is a strong union contract that will address
these issues. Now, we can begin negotiating that contract, which
will protect us from UC’s arbitrary treatment."