Blogs

There will be a Joint Council Meeting on July 19th in Los Angeles. An email from UAW 2865 has already been sent out (see below).

For those who don't already know, the Joint Council is one of the statewide decision-making bodies within our union, which represents Academic Student Employees at all of the UC campuses except for UC San Francisco. The Joint Council consists of the top leadership from each campus (Unit Chair, Recording Secretary and Head Stewards) who come together four times a year to make decisions that affect every campus.

An agenda for the meeting is created by the President of our union local, and it's open to amendment at the start of the meeting. So I do not have an agenda to share with you unfortunately, but there are a number of topics that are commonly discussed:
(1) Contract Enforcement (enforce our rights and benefits in our contract);
(2) Increasing membership (organizing to increase the number of union members);
(3) and other campaign/organizing ideas brought by the Executive Board or other members of the Joint Council;
(4) various reports, including a financial report, president and vice president reports about what organizing they have been up to and/or where they think we should do as a union, etc. The next round of contract bargaining may also be on the agenda -- the bargaining team will start to meet this upcoming school year because bargaining is a somewhat drawn out process and our contract expires September 30, 2009.
(5) Lastly, you can read below the text of a really important proposed by-laws change that will be discussed and voted on at this meeting. At the last Joint Council it was decided to reduce the number of representatives from each campus (UC Santa Cruz went from 5 positions to 3 positions); since there were pretty intense differences over the proposed change, a somewhat less drastic proposal was proposed that would increase positions slightly at each campus. At UCSC we'd go from 3 to 4 positions. I should note that we representatives at UC Santa Cruz were extremely opposed to the original proposal to reduce representation, seeing it as an unnecessary step toward further centralization within the union, and a particular attack on our campus in particular, which had all five positions filled and has been particularly vocal in trying to get the local to move in a more progressive, creative, and activist direction. The proposal was also created by people at other campuses with no attempt to work with representatives at UCSC. Were were thus blindsighted by a proposal to radically restructure the Joint Council. We are supporting the proposal to increase our representation from 3 to 4, to be voted on at the next Joint Council, though we continue not to see any need whatsover to have decreased representation in the first place.

At UC Santa Cruz there are three representatives that attend these meetings: Sara Smith (Unit Chair), Laura Martin (Recording Secretary), and Adam Hefty (Head Steward). In an election last May we were elected -- two of us (Adam and Sara) had previously been in top positions -- Sara Smith was Unit Chair and Adam Hefty was Recording Secretary.

Though the official representatives are the ones who have the power to vote, ALL members have a voice and the right to be present. If you are interested in learning more or possibly coming to the next Joint Council, please email me! If we carpool your travel expenses will be covered by the Union.

In between these Joint Council meetings, the Executive Board and the President of the local are empowered to make decisions for the whole statewide union.  See http://www.uaw2865.org to see who is on the Executive Board and who the representatives are from the other UC campuses.

-----

The Joint Council meets quarterly in January, April, July, and October.

The July Joint Council meeting will take place Saturday, July 19th at 10 AM in the UAW Region 5 office in Pico Rivera, CA.

NOTICE OF PROPOSED BYLAWS AMENDMENT

At the Joint Council meeting on July 19th, the body will consider the
following proposed amendments to the bylaws of UAW 2865:

In Article 8, Section 2: Replace 300 with 200 and 600 with 400 to read,
"Each Campus Unit will elect one (1) more than one (1) Head Steward for
each two hundred (200)members in good standing in the Campus Unit, or major fraction thereof, with a maximum of the number of Head Stewards to which the Campus Unit would be entitled if all individuals employed in the Campus Bargaining Unit were members in good standing, and a minimum of two (2). Each Campus Unit will elect a Campus Unit Chair and a Campus Recording Secretary, who will serve as Head Stewards for the first four hundred (400) members of the Campus Unit. Head Stewards will be elected by a simple majority of votes cast at the Campus Unit."

In Article 10, Section 3: Replace 300 with 200 and 600 with 400 to read,
"Each Campus Unit will elect one (1) more than (1) Head Steward for each
two hundred (200)members in good standing in the Campus Unit, or major fraction thereof, with a maximum of the number of Head Stewards to which the Campus Unit would be entitled if all individuals employed in theCampus Bargaining Unit were members in good standing, and a minimum of two (2). Head Stewards will serve as Joint Council representatives for the Campus Unit. Each Campus Unit will elect a Campus Unit Chair and a Campus Recording Secretary, who will serve as Head Stewards for the first four hundred (400) members of the Campus Unit. Head Stewards will oversee otherStewards.

This article appeared in the recent issue of Labor Notes.

Too many lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) workers are simply fired if they come out—or are “outed” involuntarily—at work. LGBT workers may be fired outright, or they may be harassed until they quit. In many states, they have no recourse under the law.

Their unions are the only place they can turn to if they run into bias on the job, from discrimination to denial of benefits. Unions can prevent such treatment by negotiating for expanded nondiscrimination language.

Many contracts already bar unfair treatment based on race, sex, religion, national origin, and other categories. These clauses should be expanded to include “sexual orientation,” which would protect gay, lesbian, and bisexual workers, and “gender identity and expression,” which would protect transgender workers.

BUCK UP EXISTING LANGUAGE

If gay, lesbian, and bisexual workers are already covered by your contract language, but not transgender workers, try to add gender identity/expression protections. This may help more people than it might seem at first, because sometimes gay, lesbian, bisexual, and even straight workers, as well as transgender employees, are discriminated against based on gender stereotypes (men who are perceived as effeminate, or women who are perceived as masculine).

Here is the nondiscrimination language from Newspaper Guild/CWA’s contract with the Boston Globe:

The employer agrees that it will not discriminate … by reason of race, creed, color, national origin, political or religious views, union position, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, physical or mental disability, marital status, physical appearance apart from dress beyond bona fide occupational requirements, parenthood or child-bearing capacity.

Corporate human resources policies often include such protections, but unlike contract language, corporate policies usually lack an impartial enforcement procedure. If your contract is not open for re-negotiation, the union and the employer can exchange side letters of agreement stating that nondiscrimination protections will apply to LGBT workers.

When negotiating for nondiscrimination language, it’s important to remember that there is no real cost attached to such protection. So if the employer wants the union to give something in return, tell them that this is a non-economic issue as well as a question of fundamental fairness. Even if you can’t negotiate nondiscrimination language immediately, there are other avenues to pursue.

First, check applicable state and local laws to see if they contain LGBT nondiscrimination language. Twenty states and more than 100 municipalities have legislation prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, while 12 states and over 80 municipalities have laws covering gender identity or expression.

Existing contract language on job security may also be helpful. Many contracts prohibit discharge or discipline without just and sufficient cause (or similar language), and an arbitrator or grievance panel may rule that simply being LGBT is not sufficient cause for being fired, suspended, transferred, or demoted.

EXPANDING BENEFITS

Hundreds of major private sector companies, and many public employers, now have “domestic partner” benefits, which allow LGBT workers to provide health insurance, and sometimes other benefits, to their partners. You can raise the issue when benefits plans are revised at the beginning of each year, as well as at contract expiration.

If your state has constitutional or statutory language prohibiting such benefits for public employees, alternative language can be developed that allows workers to designate an unrelated adult beneficiary for health and other benefits.

Many insurance policies prohibit coverage of any transgender-related condition or treatment, from surgery to hormone therapy and other procedures. If your benefits plan has such restrictions, try to get them removed.

An increasing number of major employers do cover transgender health care or are considering doing so. They include, for example, the city and county of San Francisco and the University of Michigan in the public sector, and Chrysler, Pacific Gas & Electric, and Keyspan Energy in the private sector.

OTHER ISSUES

More strategies include:

• Make sure that pension and life insurance plans allow LGBT workers to designate their partners as beneficiaries.

• Ensure that bereavement leave is interpreted to cover civil unions and domestic partners.

• Encourage employers to train their human resources staffs in LGBT issues, and have plans in place if workers come out on the job. Advance planning beats improvising in a crisis atmosphere.

• Ensure that partners are welcome at company (and union) picnics and holiday parties.

• Arrange for transgender workers to be issued gender-appropriate identification badges, and allow them to make necessary changes to their employment records; provide access to bathrooms based on workers’ self-identification; and provide for reasonable accommodation in locker and shower rooms.

DEMONSTRATE SUPPORT

If you need to demonstrate that there is strong support in your union for LGBT members’ issues, a petition can help. Try to get well-respected people who are known as fair-minded to sign first, and then get a representative group of fellow workers to add their names.

Both management and union officials may be more likely to agree to protect a vulnerable minority if they see that there is widespread support for fairness.

[Donna Cartwright is the communications director for Pride at Work, the AFL-CIO’s LGBT constituency group. Pride at Work provides a five-hour training program on bargaining for LGBT issues. Contact Sandra Telep at 202-487-9171.]

On Friday, June 6, 2008, AFSCME and supporters held actions starting at 10 am and ending after 7pm. The actions coincided with Chancellor Blumenthal's inauguration. At noon, a couple hundred protestors marched to the East Field House to greet the guests at the inauguration. From there protestors marched down Bay Street, stopping occasionally at intersections to hold impromptu picketlines.

When the march arrived at Bay and Mission, one of the busiest intersections in Santa Cruz because Mission makes up Route 1, about 30 people formed a circle and sat down as an act of civil disobedience. In an interesting twist of events, the cops re-routed traffic but refused to arrest all 30 of the people. As a result protestors sat at the intersection, with supporters standing and chanting on the street corners, successfully disrupting traffic and very strongly conveying the message that poverty wages at UC Santa Cruz must end.

ASFSCME and the Student and Worker Coalition for Justice are the two groups responsible for planning and carrying out the day of action. UAW-QUAD outreached to the graduate students, resulting in many joining the various actions throughout the day. Congratulations on a successful day of actions!

(for more images of the day visit http://www.indybay.org/santacruz)

The fences are going up all around East Field at UCSC in order to restore the meadow. We are sure the gophers appreciate the interruption of their view of the festivities for the Inauguration tomorrow. Our bovine comrades have been moved to a different pasture as well, even though their manure would certainly help the fallow meadow. But our gopher sources have let us in on what a waste of resources this is.

But we will not be moved! Let's let the UC Executives know that UC must end poverty wages!

Perhaps the 24-hour guards—believe it or not, they call themselves the California Panthers—and multiple police units are protecting the circus rings where the UC Executives can juggle the $8-9 million to be spent on the UC President's mansion. Meanwhile UCOP is continuing to offer nothing at the bargaining table besides keeping poverty wages at UC.

10AM - Oakes College, Upper Field Snake March

12PM (through the afternoon) - Rally at Bay Tree Plaza and March

Rally & Picket @ Base of Campus all Afternoon

Grad students, let's support our fellow workers this Friday! Wear your green! Tell your colleagues to come on down and demonstrate their continued solidarity for UC workers.

We just learned today that the UCSC administration officially accepted the joint proposal of GSA, UAW and STIHC (Students for Trans-Inclusive Healthcare) for GSHIP (Graduate Student Health Insurance Plan) and USHIP (Undergraduate Student Health Insurance Plan) benefits. Effective this fall, GSHIP and USHIP will include a $75,000 lifetime benefit for transgender healthcare.

This is a significant achievement, since both plans at Santa Cruz will offer a larger benefit than at any other UC or at Stanford or Caltech (at least so far). In the face of major budget cuts, we not only held the line on our health care -- we got a major improvement in coverage. GSHIP coverage will now be more fair and it will help more graduate students.

How did it happen? It took some planning and united action from different constituencies. It started with a push from STIHC, a group that united undergraduates and graduates pushing for inclusive healthcare in our respective university insurance plans. STIHC organized and won support from UAW-QUAD and from the GSA (in particular the GSHIP committee). Those groups did research, prepared proposals, and mobilized students to tell their story to the UCSC administration.

Congratulations to STIHC for making this a great day for all grad students. And let's hope their campaign can be a model to improve USHIPs and GSHIPs throughout UC.

Did you get an email from the UC Administration announcing the postponement of the strike?

Are you a bit confused how this is coming from UC as a "joint" statement to return to the bargaining table right as we have an entire campus movement across the state ready to support AFSCME and stand in solidarity against the messed-up priorities of UC Executives?

Well, hold on to your thoughts about that email from the Executive Vice Chancellor and let's breakdown how all of these rumors and UC announcements are calculated to confuse and divide us.

Who is behind the legal maneuvers of UC Executives to try and halt AFSCME's right to strike?

The infamous anti-union law firm of Littler and Mendelson. According to LexisNexis, they are "the largest law firm in the United States representing management exclusively in the area of employment and labor law."

They boast on their website about how they specialize in avoiding unionization and busting unions. They recently hired Robert Battista, Bush's anti-worker appointment to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), to further bolster their legal team. John Logan of of the London School of Economics called Littler and Mendelson one of the "nation’s first law firms to conduct aggressive union avoidance campaigns." See a recent post of American Rights at Work about Littler and Mendelson, including an anti-union talking point memorandum for managers to use to intimidate workers. David Bacon, the labor photojournalist, has an article here mentioning Littler as the new face of union busting, especially on the West Coast.

Littler and Mendelson's specialty is coordinating anti-union campaigns to bust unions and stop worker movements. (If you can't afford the steep funds to retain them, you can pick up their 2008 second edition guide on how you can retaliate against whistleblowers for a cool $108 here.)

Republican-Dominated PERB

Combine this expensive anti-union law firm that filed for a temporary restraining order earlier this week with PERB, the Public Employee Relations Board, who has the power to take the legal right to strike away from union members. The four Republicans versus one Democrat at PERB were appointed by Governor Schwarzenegger.

Suddenly UC Executives claim that they still have proposals after their "last, best, and final proposal" was announced just last week, which did not come close to ending poverty wages at UC for Service workers and Patient Care Technical workers. The same workers that UC said were not important are now said to be vital to public safety if there was a strike.

This quick, legal move allows PERB to contradict and overturn AFSCME's legal impasse status and ten-day notification of the intent to strike. PERB is the highest governing body and can interpret facts differently despite the legal sanction by the neutral factfinder under the HEERA (Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act) process. It is similar to the way a higher court can overturn a lower court's ruling even with the same facts and evidence.

U.S. Labor Law can be manipulated by the anti-union legal team to force AFSCME back to the table in the guise of cooperation and negotiations. If AFSCME did not return to the table they could have lost the legal right to strike. But what about the timing of all this?

Removing Students from the Struggle

This is excellent timing to attempt to demoralize the power of students immediately before the summer—UC Executives' calculation as well. Again, demonstrating their fear of students and trying to minimize student power to act in solidarity with UC workers.

UCSC is inaugurating its 10th Chancellor on Friday, June 6th at 10AM with all eyes aimed on the illustrious world class institution. They do not want the stain of students standing up for workers who remain in poverty to precede the image of the regala events with an effective strike—the likes that UC has never seen before, UC-wide. By forcing AFSCME back to the table with these legal technicalities UC is depending upon confusion and frustration to deflate our organizing and let the inauguration pomp take place, unheeded and orchestrated to remove any hint of union green clothing from the participants and audience.

Imagine how much this ceremony costs...

20,000 AFSCME workers with students across the state brings out UC's big guns for legal and public relations hirelings exactly at the time students have the most power and when UC is anxious about its public image for its only inauguration statewide.

The Public Relations Professionals

In order to manage the image of UC's anti-union campaign the PR firm Hill & Knowlton (H&K) has been on the job for UC Executives since last summer. They've helped Enron, big tobacco, the nuclear industry, De Beers diamond mining, the Maldives dictatorship, and brought you Gulf War #1. Now UC has joined the client list.

Imagine how all the money that goes to pay the lawyers, spin professionals, and inaugration coordinators, could simply be used in other ways. UC would rather pay top dollar—and continue doling out poverty wages for UC Workers—than do the right thing. UC Executives want to build a different vision of UC.

UCOP Co-Opts Grass Roots Organizing

On the same day UCOP (UC Office of the President) spamed students urging them to write their state legislature to prioritize funding to construct more buildings on campus—using the language of access, recruitment and retention.

This was sent the same day the strike postponement was quickly announced by UC management (Thursday, May 29, 2008)—before you could hear anything from AFSCME workers, student organizers, and the real campus community. If you use the links in the email you are led to the UCOP website, trying to get people to create a bond measure for further construction at UC. This lovely service of "grass roots modules and software package" is provided by Capitol Advantage. The entire campaign has "action alerts" and high-end photography (notice the vintage 1950s vehicles in the foreground) of academic buildings to "protect access to UC" and sustain UC's "contributions to California's economy and society."

Brought to you by UCOP—the same people that ignore the poverty of UC workers at the bargaining table.

So, there you have it, all in one day:

• immediate email sent by the Executive Vice Chancellor announcing the rescinding of the strike by the union
  
• the Union-busting law firm hired by UC Executives threatens to use its filed injunction to force the union back to the table
  
• a Republican-stacked PERB that can take away the legal right to strike if AFSCME does not return to the table
• PR firm that worked for Enron coordinating the UC messaging and timing of email announcements across UC
  
• a calculation to wait for students to leave campus for the summer by forcing the postponement of the strike
  
• a sudden "grass roots" campaign to secure state money to build more buildings at UC through bond measures
  

All of this was well-coordinated and pushed on us at the same time, on the same day with quick emails to announce the love that the strike has been postponed.

The fight has just begun...

We graduate students—with undergrads, faculty, staff, and the wider UC community—will not fall for these divisive tactics attempting to disorient, divide, and confuse our solidarity with AFSCME. We are going to take back UC and prioritize real educational needs and end poverty wages!

Here is the accurate image of UC Executives and their costly hirelings:

So you've debunked how UC Executives are constantly crying wolf about the state budget because you know that only 8.6% of the state budget goes to UC Service Workers. And only 1% of student fees contribute to workers' wages.

But do you know the extent and severity of these poverty wages at UC?

According to AFSCME Local 3299 researchers 96% of UC service workers are income eligible for public assistance programs including: food stamps, WIC, public housing subsidies, and reduced lunch. Some UC service workers make as low as $10 per hour. Other California community colleges and hospitals pay an average of 25% more for the same work.

Speaking of housing subsidies and starvation, UC is going to pay $136,320 to rent a 6,800 square-foot home in Oakland for the first year and $141,000 to rent the house in the second year while the incoming UC President is waiting for the 13,329 square-foot mansion to be renovated at the cost of $8-9 Million.

The incoming UC President's package is valued at $828,000 a year. He smiled at his press conference and joked, "As you can see from my compensation package, I'm not starving to death."

The reality is UC Executives only want to pay themselves and have forced AFSCME to call a strike to get UC Executives to recognize that all UC workers deserve dignified, living wages. UC Executives should not be promoting poverty. Let's offer our solidarity on the picket and make sure the UC Execs know how valuable UC Service Workers and Patient Care Tech workers really are.

Get involved with your cohort and department so we don't fall for the budget crisis ruse. Let's picket together in solidarity. Contact UAW-Quad for help organizing!

Hey Santa Cruzans! The Student Worker Coalition for Justice is organizing a teach-in on the AFSCME strike for Wednesday, May 28.

You can get all the details on The Facebook.

AFSCME just held a press conference here at Santa Cruz and announced the results of their strike vote.

Votes in favor of authorization: service workers 97.5%. Patient care workers: 96.9%. I'd say that's a pretty strong statement of support for a strike!

The strike will be held June 4 - 5. Let's get ready y'all!

Update: AFSCME has issued a press release with more information. Strike notice has been given to the university for June 4 and 5. (The university has to be given 10 days' advance notice to avoid interruptions in patient care at health centers.) AFSCME hopes that the strike can be avoided, but you know how UC administrators are.

You can read the whole press release below -- click on "Read more".

Update 2: Photos from the rally at UCSC have been posted on Indymedia. Check them out here.

've uploaded a few new documents to the site recently. Enjoy (and distribute)!

Support AFSCME flyers: Here's our first literature concerning AFSCME's negotiations with UC. We urge ASEs to support AFSCME in the event of a strike. We have a trifold brochure and small and large posters. They're available in PDF format (suitable for immediate distribution) or MS Word format (in case if you want to tailor the documents to your campus):

• Trifold brochure: Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) | MS Word (.doc)
  
• Small poster (8.5x11): Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) | MS Word (.doc)
  
• Big poster (11x17): Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) | MS Word (.doc)

Later edit: The links for these flyers have been removed, as newer versions of these documents are available. Please use the flyers linked from the solidarity page now.

Narrative history of UAW-QUAD: a recent document discussing the history of this organization, in the context of many years of organizing within and without UAW 2865.

The document is available as a webpage here. You can also get a PDF version here.

More Is Less: This leaflet was written at UCSC a few years ago. It dismisses the idea that there is a "budget crisis" at UC, and argues that the real crisis is one of undemocratic decision-making concerning the extraction and contraction of resources. It's available in PDF format here.