Voting for UPTE is a costly investment

Between Feb. 11 and Mar. 3, 12,000 UC employees are going to be
asked to vote on whether to accept or reject union representation
by University Professional and Technical Employees-Communications
Workers of America. UPTE has mounted a massive “vote
yes” campaign that included the submission, “University
employees who want benefits should support UPTE” (Feb. 4).
However, there is another side to the story.

The article stated that many “University of California
employees all voted for union representation.” In reality,
the majority of affected UC employees did not “vote for union
representation.” Rather, a simple majority of those who voted
decided the fate of their colleagues who chose not to vote.

Unfortunately, not voting is not the same as a “no”
vote. If UPTE’s campaign succeeds, it will generate
additional yearly revenue of over $5 million in hard-earned
UC-employee dollars. It is imperative that all UC employees who can
vote in this election do so.

In the article, UPTE promised “better working
conditions” for its members. However, health care and parking
costs at UCLA have skyrocketed for both UPTE workers and non-UPTE
workers alike for the past three years. Given this track record,
and the fact that UPTE is not part of the UC budget negotiations,
why should we believe this situation will change and UPTE will
suddenly become effective in stemming the tide of eroding
benefits?

Worse yet, UPTE’s contract states its members are only
eligible for 24 hours (equivalent to three work days) of paid-leave
time for training. Non-UPTE members have no such limits. Under
UPTE, programmer/analysts, who are frequently required to attend
classes and conferences which can extend for much longer than three
days, will now have to waste valuable vacation hours or,
ironically, will have to “cheat” on their time sheets
in order to conform to the union limitations ““ affecting
their ability for career advancement.

According to the submission, merit increases are merely
“arbitrary,” and a policy of rewarding members equally
represents a better approach. Since when does that characterize a
merit increase? Merit pay is just that ““ money set-aside by
the university to reward employees who go above and beyond the call
of duty to perform their job; in fact, many schools simply
distribute these merit increases equally among their employees who
achieve a satisfactory job review.

Additionally, expect to have all promotions scrutinized by UPTE.
They have a stated policy to review every reclassification into a
non-union position that its members receive. An employee who works
hard for a promotion and elusive pay raise can expect this
accomplishment to be held up for months while a UPTE representative
decides whether or not the promotion was done for the sole purpose
of taking them out of the union.

Since losing dues-paying members does not strengthen the union,
it is not in the union’s best interest to expedite these
reviews. Many former CUE and UPTE union members who were promoted
out of the union have had to wait months for their
re-classifications to be reviewed and approved by a union
representative. There have been cases where deserving workers were
ultimately denied such reclassifications and had no choice but to
look elsewhere for advancement.

UPTE promises better wages and the submission suggested that a
career’s worth of dues payments are justified by the
“promised” wage increases. According to information
posted on UPTE’s Web site, an “UPTE-represented
employee makes $495 more than a non-union-represented
employee.”

However, according to UCOP, once hospital employees are excluded
from the calculations, UPTE represented employees and non-union
employees have received exactly equal pay increases since 1996.
Considering the equal pay increases, employees would be better off
investing their money, rather than paying $2,100 in union dues over
the course of the next five years.

The University of California Office of the President’s Web
site presents an interesting picture. Over the past seven years,
UPTE-represented employees’ salaries increased 21.5 percent,
while non-union employees gained exactly (you guessed it) 21.5
percent. In addition, UPTE members had to wait months longer (two
years longer in one case) than their non-union colleagues to
receive these raises. The only promise UPTE can ultimately deliver
is that you will pay up to $420 in dues every year for the
privilege of receiving the same benefits and salary your
non-dues-paying colleagues are receiving.

It is true that health care benefits and parking on campus have
increased for everyone, including union members. But UPTE will not
find a “pot of gold” that has been overlooked by the
state and the UC in order to solve our woes ““ although they
would be quite happy to spend 1 percent of our salaries trying.

We encourage all affected UC staffers to educate themselves on
this important issue by visiting the “No on UPTE” Web
site. And above all, when the ballot arrives at home, make sure to
vote no on representation.

McGregor is Webmaster for the UCLA School of Theater, Film,
Television and Digital Media. Walley is sales manager for
Conference Services, Housing & Hospitality Services.