Sage Illustration

Wednesday, May 8, 1996

Nonrecognition backed only by poor excusesBy Bob Lee

On his way from his Neuropsychiatric Institute lab to Murphy
Hall, Dr. Robin Fisher suspended his quest for new scintigraphic
methods applications and assumed the persona of the union-busting
administrator, Associate Dean Robin Fisher.

To enter Murphy Hall he had to abandon both scientific
methodology and faith in reason. The product of this journey was
appropriately entitled by Bruin editors, "Go status quo" (April
18). This opinion piece takes five of the administrator’s claims as
discussion points.

* Administrator Fisher wants to "ask the leadership of Student
Association of Graduate Employees what it truly wants to accomplish
… " He goes on to add, "Graduate students have not come to the
administration with any major grievances. Their main desire is to
be recognized as a union."

The association contacted the administration and identified the
"major" issues over which it wants to bargain. Last fall, for
example, they asked the chancellor to bargain over health care
issues. The union later published a letter in the Daily Bruin
detailing its concerns.

The Student Association of Graduate Employees’ membership —
UCLA academic student employees — receive medical benefits that
are inferior to 1) other UCLA employees and 2) their peers at both
the unionized universities of Wisconsin and Michigan. The latter
institution is particularly relevant because UCLA uses it as a
reference for determining faculty salaries.

Union members identified the administration’s changed cost of
living adjustments policy as a unilateral pay cut. Other unionized
employees who have a contract with the administration, notably the
librarians and lecturers, are now negotiating with the
administration to prevent this cut. Academic student employees
(ASEs) ­ without a recognized union ­ cannot
negotiate.

The Student Association of Graduate Employees (SAGE) has
identified other major problems: inadequate protection for victims
of sexual harassment; an unfair, asymmetric grievance procedure;
the administration’s unilateral imposition of the Defined
Contributions Plan; and the ongoing threat to academic student
employee fee waivers in the face of pending state budget
shortfalls. These important issues pertain directly to
ASE-administration relations and not ASE-faculty relations, as the
administrator would have us believe.

If these are not "major" issues by Administrator Fisher’s
standards, then there will never be anything "major." Nonetheless,
the administrator is at least partially correct: SAGE wants
recognition.

* The administrator raises concerns about the Student
Association of Graduate Employees’ commitment to the legal case:
"Do SAGE leaders want the issue settled in a fair and orderly
manner based on its legal merits?" Further, "UCLA will take no
action until that judge makes a decision."

Administrator Fisher carefully avoids stating what the legal
case is to decide. The case ­ and the administrators’
expensive lawyers will accept this ­ is to decide whether the
university is compelled to recognize the union. The Public
Employment Relations Board has already stated in a May 1994 letter
to UCLA from its regional director, Anita Martinez, that the
administration may voluntarily recognize the union and that such
recognition is well within the framework of the pertinent
legislation.

Not only is it possible for the administration to voluntarily
recognize the Student Association of Graduate Employees/United Auto
Workers (UAW), but there are also recent precedents. The University
of Massachusetts recognized its United Auto Workers-affiliated
academic student employee union voluntarily and without legal
compulsion to do so. UC Berkeley voluntarily recognized teaching
assistants and research assistants from 1989 to 1992.

Today, instead of recognizing SAGE’s independently verified
majority show of support, the administration has spent over $1.5
million in legal costs in the last year alone to delay the
recognition of the unions at UC San Diego and UCLA. Make no mistake
about the legal case: It will only determine whether the
administration is legally forced to do what it can already do
voluntarily.

Notice, also, that Administrator Fisher avoids stating that the
university will accept Judge Tamm’s decision. He tells the union,
"I’d suggest they await the judge’s ruling." Has he then committed
the administration to accepting the judge’s ruling? No, because he
writes further on, "UCLA will take no action until that judge makes
a decision" (emphasis added). This is disingenuous. "Action" here
could mean acceptance, partial acceptance or rejection and appeal.
The last round of legal hearings for Berkeley lasted nearly 10
years.

Here, Administrator Fisher violates every ethic that Dr. Fisher
accepts about honesty: He has misled the union’s supporters, the
campus community and the taxpayers of California by encouraging
them to wait for a ruling in a very costly process the
administration did not have to enter and for which there may be no
end in sight.

* The administrator asserts that the "special relationship
between faculty and academic apprentices would be harmed by a union
such as SAGE’s chosen United Auto Workers." He continues later,
"Academic apprentices work closely with their faculty mentors …
"

This assertion is presented without any evidence. There is good
reason for the absence of evidence: Fisher has no evidence. In
fact, during the San Diego case, the administration called an
expert from the University of Wisconsin, Madison to testify to the
supposed negative effects of the academic student employees union
there. She could not cite any evidence that the university had been
harmed by unionization. This glaring lack of evidence was remarked
upon by Judge Tamm who went on to rule against the administration
and in favor of collective bargaining rights. The university
responded by appealing that decision.

SAGE/UAW does not introduce a third party to decide on the
issues affecting academic student employees at UCLA. Only UCLA
academic student employees will elect a bargaining team to bargain
over issues affecting them. Only UCLA academic student employees
will be polled regarding their positions on the issues to be
bargained over. Only UCLA academic student employees will vote to
accept or reject a contract negotiated by their elected
representatives at the bargaining table. Collective bargaining will
introduce people who have not been consulted on their work
conditions to the process of determining them.

The United Auto Workers has assisted the academic student
employees in organizing. As a union, the United Auto Workers has an
intrinsic interest in protecting the living standards of all
employees everywhere, knowing that this in turn will strengthen
itself.

The United Auto Worker’s Technical, Office and Professional
workers department is organizing Los Angeles public defenders and
district attorneys and has organized New York public defenders.
United Auto Workers also organized freelance writers at the L.A.
Weekly and the New York Village Voice. Academic student employees
at several universities, including, Cornell University, the
University of Massachusetts, and six UC campuses have all benefited
from United Auto Workers’ organizational support.

A majority of Administrator Fisher’s "cream of the crop," i.e.
UCLA teaching assistants, research assistants, tutors and readers,
have the United Auto Workers for help in unionizing. Surely this
union solidarity sought by the employees themselves has much more a
place on campus than the many real estate developers who govern the
UC system through their bought positions on the Board of
Regents.

Many at UCLA are themselves, or have relatives who are, union
members. Fisher’s attack on the United Auto Workers’ assistance to
academic student employees is an insult to them and an ugly,
unwelcome strain of chauvinism invoked. It is a vile anti-worker
chauvinism that his predecessor, Administrator Komar, would easily
identify ­ and disdain ­ if it were to wend its way into
Central European literature.

The administrator’s anti-union, upper-class chauvinism is not
accidental. His fellow administrators ­ call it "peer
pressure," if you will ­ have always opposed unions. This
earned them public rebuke in the case of their crusade against the
University Professional and Technical Employees when a judge
awarded $7 million to union members in the form of back wages and
interest.

Administrator Fisher raised a fourth issue.

* "SAGE," he writes colorfully, "followed Chancellor Young home
(and thereby) … crossed the line of appropriate, professional
behavior … Taking it to the chancellor’s home improperly and
unfairly personalizes a matter of disagreement of principle …
"

Our retiring chancellor has the power to voluntarily recognize
SAGE/UAW. He does not require any court decision to do so. In fact,
the University of Massachusetts opted to voluntarily recognize
their UAW-affiliated union of academic student employees.
Chancellor Young, however, has played a central role in preventing
UCLA and all other UC administrations from recognizing their
unions.

It is important to note that the chancellor has routinely
blurred his personal and public roles. Here one need not reach back
to the 1970s, but just to the 1990s. The Los Angeles Times reports
that as chancellor, Young’s personal home and transportation costs
have been subsidized.

Young also receives a substantial part of his annual income from
his position on Intel Corporation’s Board of Directors. Would the
chancellor have received this personal benefit if he were merely a
professor of political science? Or does he receive this income
because he is also chancellor of UCLA (a public institution)? Is
there a conflict of interest when UCLA researches areas of Intel’s
concern?

Of course UCLA should do that kind of research ­ but should
its chancellor sit on the corporation’s board? It is the
chancellor, and not the union, that has blurred private and public
roles.

There is also a factual matter that Administrator Fisher
overlooks. The union protested outside the ornate gates of Young’s
gated community. Another member of that community also has a stake
in UCLA. It was reported that a neighbor of Chancellor Young used
him to try and gain admission for a relative. Administrator Fisher
has not published any letter to Lake Sherwood residents asking them
not to compromise UCLA’s admissions process. Administrator Fisher,
it seems, directs his fury depending on which side of the gates one
stands.

What were the facts of the union protest? The association
protested peacefully after notifying the Ventura County Sheriff of
its plans for the afternoon. The sheriff also pointed out that
other protests occurred there in the past. Chancellor Young has
certainly gotten our money’s worth of protection from his gated
community ­ the protest site was certainly out of the earshot
of Chancellor Young and his neighbors. However, those entering and
leaving the community learned that something was wrong 40 miles
away at the UCLA campus.

* Does Administrator Fisher actually believe in free speech and
collegiality?

Administrator Fisher writes of the need for "professional and
appropriate behavior," and a collegial environment. He suspends
these standards when it comes to a convention of academic student
employees to be addressed by a Congress member, the California
Lieutenant Governor, Justice for Janitors’ organizers and leaders
of the labor movement. The administrator condones administration
attempts to sabotage SAGE/UAW and its sister unions’ April 14
convention.

First, senior administrators and the chancellor himself tried to
exclude SAGE from the Ackerman Grand Ballroom; then the invited
speakers were contacted to convince them not to attend.

In fact, Congresswoman Maxine Waters opened her speech
condemning the administration’s tactics, saying her appearance
"makes liars of those who said that (she) was not coming … "

The question of integrity has been raised throughout this
opinion piece. The time has come for people like Dr. Fisher to deal
honestly with SAGE/UAW. It simply does not do to mislead the campus
community, nor does it serve future employer-employee
relations.

Earlier in Fisher’s administrative life, it seems he believed
that at least some academic student employees have the right to
unionize and reported this to the Academic Council on at least two
occasions (see the council minutes of May 21, 1993 and June 3,
1993).

Administrator Fisher also stated that teaching assistants "do
not necessarily have personal benefit from the work involved" (see
council minutes, June 3, 1993). If he really believes that
statement to his colleagues, then Fisher must accept that the law
compels the administration to bargain with a teaching assistant
union.

Finally, it must be noted that other unionized academic student
employees enjoy good working relations with their administrations
and contribute to building world class institutions. It is high
time UCLA put its past behind and face the millennium with labor
relations practices that are in keeping with at least this century,
and not the previous.

Lee is a graduate student in history.

OTHER VIEWPOINTS BY:Robin Fisher

The struggle for union recognition and collective bargaining
rights for the Student Association of Graduate Employees/United
Auto Workers at UCLA rages on.

Despite a recent escalation of protests, the administration
continues to refuse recognition of the union pending the outcome of
a legal case. Should they recognize SAGE/UAW?