Group budgets on rise as UC re-examines existing labor policies

  MINDY ROSS/Daily Bruin Senior Staff Jewel
Edmonds joins other workers in applauding good news about
contract negotiations with the UC at a Sept. 12 demonstration.

By Timothy Kudo
Daily Bruin Senior Staff

After nearly two decades, the turbulent relationship between the
University of California and organized labor is becoming more
volatile, yet at the same time, perhaps closer to a resolution.

Membership at some of the unions representing university
employees tripled since last year in part as a result of
“fair share” fees which increased their budgets by as
much as 1,000 percent in some cases.

But this union renaissance is coming at one of the most
prosperous economic times in recent history, in which the state can
give the UC abundant budgets and more flexibility in dealing with
the unions over wages and benefits.

“One of the things that limits our flexibility is that we
are a state funded institution,” said UC spokesman Brad
Hayward. “In many cases the offer that we can put on the
table is dependent on the money we get from the state.”

  NICOLE MILLER/Daily Bruin UCLA employee Dora
Herrera, stands in front of UPTE organizer Cliff
Fried at a forum on casual employment in July.
Additionally, UC officials recently began an examination of their
labor policies and are showing more willingness to sit down and
talk with the unions about various topics.

“Employees are critical to the quality of the programs we
offer at the UC and as a result, we are placing a great deal of
attention in finding ways to recruit and retain the very best
faculty and staff that we can,” Hayward said.

Both sides are on the cusp of change. The university has yet to
prove its desire for better labor relations to the unions, and
likewise, the unions in some respects feel the need to prove
themselves to their constituency by using their newfound funds
effectively.
 
Union boost by “fair share” fees
In January, state-legislated “fair share” fees came
into effect, causing the drastic increase in union budgets.

The argument for the fees is that they prevent people from
free-riding in the system by gaining all the benefits of collective
bargaining without any of the expenses.

At the time, union membership lagged at around 10-15 percent,
meaning that out of all the employees each union represented, only
one tenth payed dues to the union. As a result of the legislation,
nearly all employees are currently paying dues.

“Up until now we’ve been operating on a shoestring
budget,” said Claudia Horning, president of the Coalition of
University Employees union whose statewide and local budgets
increased from $200,000 to over $1 million since the fee
initiation.

Fair share fees only go to bargaining efforts so they are
slightly less than normal dues, which are anywhere between
.005-1.25 percent of earned wages, or about $25.

“It helped us put the glue of the union together,”
said Cliff Fried, an organizer for the University Professional and
Technical Employees union.

The effect on the union, however, is more than just increased
funds. Membership increased about threefold since the fees were
instituted.

“They say, “˜I’m paying for it anyway, so I
might as well join so I can vote,'” Fried said.

Organizers say increased membership allows the union to
demonstrate its strength to the university in more effective ways
than money can buy.

“The most important thing is your ability to have the
workers organize,” said Jose Hernandez, an organizer for the
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
union.
 
The state changes the UC
Since the state first allowed unions to represent university
employees the two have had a rocky relationship.

“The university has always been very politically
anti-union,” Horning said.

University officials denied union charges but is re-examining
its policies in light of a changing labor environment.

“We are in a different environment by virtue of the number
of employees in unions; that means we have to take a fresh look at
the way we operate in that environment,” he said.

In the past year, state legislators criticized the
university’s labor policies leading to UC President Richard
Atkinson testifying June 8 before the Assembly Higher Education
Committee on UC’s labor policies and its union dealings.

Some, however, criticized that pressure is the result of
political favors given to the unions rather than a genuine belief
in university wrongdoing.

At the September meeting of the UC Board of Regents, Assembly
Speaker Robert Hertzberg, D-San Fernando Valley, a regent by virtue
of his office said in an interview, “I have good friends in
those labor unions.”

Additionally, some regents began to express concern over the UC
Office of the President’s operation of the labor relations,
said Student Regent Justin Fong.

While the regents delegate labor relations to the UC Office of
the President, the university-wide administration, the board still
has final say in all matters.

According to Regent Sue Johnson, the board hasn’t
discussed any items regarding labor relations. But within the past
year Atkinson chartered a task force to examine its labor relations
policies.

In part, the university is responding to legislative pressures,
but it is also able to simply be more responsive to labor as a
result of the economy.

In the early ’90s, a fiscal crisis forced the university
to freeze wages and cut working hours for some workers.

At the time, union leaders criticized the university as acting
more like a private employer in its cost cutting than a public one
with an obligation to public service ““ criticism that
continues today.

Even though times have changed, “They keep the same modus
operandi, they don’t see the difference,” Fried
said.

Even in good economic times, however, the university’s
obligation to use taxpayer money wisely sometimes forces it to be
tight with purse strings.

“We try to run the business parts of the university in
ways that are economic so we get the most value for taxpayer
money,” Chancellor Albert Carnesale said at the regents
meeting.

In recent months, the university has met with labor leaders on
an informal basis to discuss such issues as how best to spend money
allocated for raises, as well as changes regarding the management
of the UC retirement fund.

“The university has been taking a number of steps to
improve relations with its employees and the unions that represent
them,” Hayward said.

But union organizers say such statements are nothing more than
political posturing.

“So far we see nothing to indicate anything more than a
public relations effort though we hope the university is sincere
about trying to change,” said David Johnson, director of the
UC division for the California Nurses Association union.

In mid-September, however, when AFSCME began contract
negotiations, the university came to the bargaining table offering
a 5 percent wage increase, something Hernandez said hasn’t
happened in the past 10 years.
 
Organizing for the next year
AFSCME and one of the groups UPTE represents recently began
negotiations over a new contract.

Also, several contracts UPTE negotiated will be ending this year
and once that happens, union organizers have the ability to
coordinate protests on a grander scale by allying workers pursuing
similar causes.

Once those contracts end the workers will legally be able to
strike if they feel the need.

“It’s all coming together at the same time,”
Fried said.

Similarly, CUE organizers, fed up with the two years it has
taken them to get their first contract are preparing for
action.

“We’re very close, if the university is willing to
meet our latest offer we could have this wrapped up pretty
quickly,” Horning said.

But, if not, “We’ll shut down this goddamn
place,” added Kathy Kasten, a CUE member at UCLA.

Currently, the CUE local at UC Berkeley is preparing for a
strike by collecting signatures. The same thing may soon be
happening at UCLA.

With reports from San Francisco by Benjamin Parke, Daily Bruin
Contributor.