Zoey Freedman: Rhetoric halts real progress in AFSCME 3299 strike
University of California workers in the AFSCME union protested a contract imposed by the UC. Both the UC and the AFSCME want to revise the current contract, but no agreement has been reached between the union and the University. The UC imposed a contract on the union just before the protest, after several attempts to negotiate a new agreement were unsuccessful.
By Daily Bruin Staff
Aug. 4, 2013 11:57 p.m.
Between walkouts and sit-ins in the middle of busy intersections, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Workers 3299 has made it clear that it is still not satisfied with its negotiations with the UC.
The most recent demonstration by the patient care workers’ union, a protest that brought traffic on Wilshire Boulevard to a halt and led to 25 arrests, came after months of ineffective deliberations with the UC .
Both the union and the UC name pension reform as the central issue, but when it comes to making an agreement, neither party can settle on what to sacrifice. As a result, on July 24 the UC notified AFSCME 3299 that it will be imposing a contract without an official agreement with the union.
The UC and the union are both being unclear when it comes to vocalizing what aspects of the UC pension program need to be adjusted in order for both employees and employers to prosper. The lack of clarity acts as a barrier in finding a satisfying end to the negotiations.
The union’s current focus is on drastically reducing UC executives’ pensions. The UC, however, did not want to give AFSCME a special and more beneficial offer than it gave to eight other unions that accepted the contract.
The union has articulated their concern with the inflated pension of high-paid UC executives, as well as the extensive severance packages that these executives are said to receive. The UC responded to these concerns by saying extensive pension packages are necessary to find and retain talented administrators.
Instead of targeting UC executives’ pensions, it would be more beneficial for the union to focus on proving the importance of better pensions for employees.
The union represents patient care and custodial workers who are vital to the prestigious level at which the UC functions. The union’s focus on executive pay detracts from the conversation on why workers deserve better pensions.
The shift in focus from executive pensions to worker pensions would be difficult to refute because it’s obvious that these employees are needed for the UC to function.
The union has stated that they support Brown’s state pension reform as it serves as a standard for all state employees.
Brown’s pension reform addresses issues of pension abuse, including instances where special bonuses and excessive overtime are used to inflate employees’ pensions directly preceding retirement.
But focusing on this aspect of Brown’s pension reform distracts from the union’s core argument of bettering the workplace for workers, not executives.
Brown’s plan has other valuable points that should be the focus of the union’s dialog on pension reform.
Brown’s pension law takes an additional step by eliminating issues such as pension spikes and contribution holidays, periods of time where employees and employers temporarily cease their contributions to the pension payment plans.
The patient care workers union believes that Brown’s pension reform would guarantee UC employees have the same pension benefits as other public employees of California, said Kathryn Lybarger, AFSCME 3299 president.
The core of the negotiations between the union and the UC should shift from scrutinizing executive pensions to a conversation on the importance of the dedication of the employees who help the UC thrive.
The union and the UC’s failure to find a solution only increases the need for more drastic pension reform as time ticks on. The union’s actions, such as the strike that stopped traffic in a major intersection in Westwood, are negatively affecting the work environment for people involved with the UC. It’s time for an agreement to be made before either party chooses to take more drastic steps.
