santacruz's blog

Check out a recent article posted at http://IsGreaterThan.Net by Chanda, a recent graduate student and organizer at UC Santa Cruz.

Chanda writes about what it means to be a graduate student and a worker at  University.

"I am a graduate student, which means a series of things: I am supposedly the intellectual future of my field, I am perpetually stressed out, I have lots of papers to grade, I am always worried I’m not doing enough work, and my university thinks that I am not working at all.."

Read the rest at their website!

Sociologists Rick Fantasia and Kim Voss write, in reference to part of the reason the labor movement has so dramatically weakened since the 1970s: "In sharp contrast to the radicals who built the CIO, the postwar generation of American labor leaders were schooled in the relentless pragmatism of the social contract, actively discouraging rank-and-file initiative and class solidarity as threats to the ordered, bureaucratic machinery of the grievance process and the labor board..."

Despite rhetoric from our union leadership to the contrary, this quote very aptly describes the structure and politics of our union.

At the early-October Joint Council, the once-quarterly meeting of the union leadership from each UC campus, the Executive Board pushed the same ol' program of our union -- a program amazing in its lack of creativity and its power to disempower the membership. Raise membership levels. Phonebank. File grievances. Nothing that consists of mobilizing members for social justice, or meaningfully working in solidarity with other workers' struggles was considered. Nothing about fighting the budget cuts or increased corporatization of the University. Nothing about fighting job loss, a problem endemic on some campuses. Nothing new. The same proposals are recylced at every single JC by the leadership.

The policy is to avoid rank-and-file empowerment, and any sort of collectivity at the bottom whatsoever. Instead, the union's leadership make the same old decisions and expect people at the bottom to just implement them.

When new ideas are brought to the table at these meetings, the Executive Board and their campus-based allies on the JC, seek to (only about 99.9% of the time) relentlessly crush them. Example: at the last JC, a proposal was made to translate union literature to other languages. One would think that this is a common sense proposal -- why not translate materials, right? Perhaps some of our members would like to have access to literature in their native languages. Those that don't, don't. But at least the literature would be there for those that do, making the union into, hopefully, an ever-so-slightly more inclusive and welcoming organization. But the majority present voted down the proposal. I guess the leadership of UAW 2865 thinks that we should be English-only.

The absursidity of the excessive centralization is seen in a myriad number of ways, so numerous that some enterprising graduate student can dedicate their entire dissertation to the topic. A few examples suffice for now: each campus must go through the local president to send out an email to their membership. We must also get office supplies approved through the president. No flyers can be produced without first being vetted and approved by the president. No grievances can be filed without first vetting them through the Northern Vice President. In other words, the leadership of the union expects all initiative from the campus to be approved by them. And they're not very fond of new ideas, so you can imagine how successful taking any new idea to the leadership would be.

But of course, despite all of the union's shortcomings, it's better to be unionized than not unionized. There's also a tremendous amount of potential in our local, if only it were realized. As Fantasia and Voss write, "As weak and unfit as they are, American unions are nonetheless the most important potential social defense against a dystopian future."

 

Found at: http://HowTheUniversityWorkers.com Higher Education, A Pyramid Scheme, by Marc Bousquet Predatory Employment in Higher Education, by Marc Bousquet Also check out this video on casualization at the GESO, Yale website: http://yaleunions.org/geso/Casual.mov

by Dana Frank, in the SF Chronicle

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/17/EDDO11OSPT.DTL&hw=uc+workers&sn=001&sc=1000
Thursday, July 17, 2008

SF Chronicle

Yet another scandal is erupting at the University of California. Rich UC executives are denying decent, livable wages to the 20,000 workers who clean the university's toilets, serve its food, and clean its bedpans. And when those workers have resorted to a strike to try to use their basic civil rights to do something about the situation, the university has gotten yet another nasty legal injunction to try and stop them.

In the UC system, Local 3299 of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees represents 20,000 service and patient care workers at all 10 campuses, including the UCLA and UCSF Medical Centers. Since bargaining began in August, 2007, the workers have been pleading with UC to pay them decent wages. Current wages are 25 percent below those paid to comparable community college workers.

UC's wages are so low that approximately 96 percent of all UC service workers are eligible for food stamps, WIC, or some form of public assistance. At UC Santa Cruz, I know workers who have been cleaning dormitories in the middle of the night for more than 15 years, and still make only $14 an hour - with no prospect of a raise, despite the stratospheric prices of housing, gas and food. These workers work two, three, or four jobs, moonlighting in gas stations, washing dishes, or
watching other people's children. They rarely see their own.

Yet UC executives still refuse to offer any guaranteed raise at all to most service workers. They won't give them a meaningful merit increase system, either. Just as bad, they're refusing to lock in workers' payments into the health care and pension systems, so that UC is free to let those fees skyrocket in the future whenever and however it wants.

How do these executives sleep at night? Do they think UC's service workers are somehow lesser human beings who don't deserve to go home at night and see their children?

Reluctantly, after months of trying to get UC negotiators to move, after trying every other strategy they can think of, UC's desperate service workers decided to strike throughout the state system, beginning July 14. Patient care workers aren't striking, but many are respecting picket lines.

UC's response, for the second time, was to scurry to a judge and get a legal injunction barring the workers from striking. UC argued that the union didn't give "adequate" notice before its strike; therefore it's acting "in bad faith" and refusing to negotiate. But there's no actual law defining "adequate notice" in the public sector. And the union did - as a courtesy - officially notify UC with five days' warning. The union, though, never even got a chance to present its counter-arguments before the judge.

It's UC that's got the corner on bad faith. Once again, it's spending tens of thousands of dollars getting expensive anti-union law firms to invent the law in UC's favor. By attacking the union with an injunction, UC is reverting to a draconian and long-outdated weapon from the late 19th Century, when employers had judges in their pockets and used them to unilaterally slap down injunctions against striking. UC is trying to deny the American workers' basic First Amendment right to strike - upheld by the Supreme Court's 1939 Thornhill decision, which affirmed that picketing was free speech.

Meanwhile, UC executives, wallowing in their half-a-million-dollar salaries, are using the state budget crisis to mask their own greed. There's plenty of money around for anti-union lawyers and PR spin. And there's enough money to pay the most bloated salary of all: $940,000 in total compensation for new President Mark Yudof. As state-appointed fact-finder Carol Vendrillo put it, "it is not the lack of state funding but the university's priorities" that have put service workers' wages at the bottom.

Let's hope President Yudof is brave enough to end UC's moral
corruption and immediately grant union members a decent wage and lock in their benefits.

One thing's for sure: Union members are being magnificently brave in defying UC's corrupt injunction. Thanks to UC, the workers are so poor and so desperate, they have no choice but to disrupt the university to which they're giving their life's work. That's the real scandal.

Dana Frank is a professor of history at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

This article appeared on page B - 7 of the San Francisco Chronicle

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: William Schlitz 510-701-0810
Lakesha Harrison, President, 310-877-6878
 
University of California Service Workers To Begin STRIKE July 14
 
Gas and food prices exacerbating poverty for workers
 
California – 8,500 University of California workers will begin a strike at UC's ten campuses and five medical centers on Monday, July 14. The workers do everything from cleaning and disinfecting hospitals and dorm rooms, to providing cafeteria service to patients and students, to ensuring hospitals and campuses are secure. They have been negotiating in good faith with UC executives for almost a year, but have remained deadlocked over poverty wages for months. An overwhelming 97.5% voted to authorize a strike in May.
 
UC's poverty wages are as low as $10/hour. With skyrocketing gas and food prices, many are forced to take second jobs or go on public assistance just to meet their families' basic needs. Roughly 96% are eligible for at least one of the following taxpayer-funded program: food stamps, WIC, public housing subsidies, and subsidized child care. In a difficult budget year, UC executives are pushing the costs of paying poverty wages onto California taxpayers.
 
"UC executives don't pay service workers enough to survive, but expect taxpayers to pick up the tab in the form of public assistance. We expect that from Wal-Mart – not from the University of California, a public institution – that's double dipping." – Lakesha Harrison, UC Licensed Vocational Nurse and President of AFSMCE Local 3299
 
Higher gas prices and stagnant wages have created a crisis for thousands of UC families that are already living paycheck to paycheck. Typically, the lowest paid workers at UC can only afford to live in low income communities farther away from campus, forcing a longer commute and higher fuel costs that use a disproportionate portion of their budget.  Increasing wages would not only help lift workers out of poverty, but could positively impact CA and the low- and moderate-income areas where UC workers live as they contribute more to their local economy.
 
"It is always a struggle on UC salary. But now that gas prices are so high, I don't know how my family will survive. From week to week, it's a choice between gas, paying the electric bill, or putting food on the table. I don't want to go on public assistance, but I may have no choice."– Jaron Quetel at UCLA campus
 
UC wages have fallen dramatically behind other hospitals and California's community colleges where workers are paid family-sustaining wages that are on average of 25% higher. Additionally, University executives insist on increasing benefits costs that would drive families deeper into poverty. When workers have stood up for better lives for their families and better working conditions, the University has retaliated by violating labor laws.
 
During the strike, hundreds of medical workers may honor picket lines as a matter of individual conscience and refuse to work, "If UC executives insist on paying poverty wages, I cannot in good conscience cross the service workers' picket line.  This is a public institution, and UC executives have an obligation to serve the public, not keep people in poverty. – Judy McKeever, Respiratory Therapist, UCSF
 
According to California State-appointed neutral Factfinder Carol Vendrillo, who independently evaluated the viability of a service workers' labor agreement, "U.C. has demonstrated the ability to increase compensation when it fits with certain priorities without any demonstrable link to a state funding source…It is time for UC to take a broader view of its priorities by honoring the important contribution that service workers make to the U.C. community and compensating them with wages that are in line with the competitive market rate."  UC continues to reward its Executives with hundreds of thousands of dollars in compensation and lavish benefit packages.
 
The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 3299, AFL-CIO represents 20,000
patient care and service workers at UC including licensed vocational nurses, medical techs and assistants, respiratory therapists, custodians, cafeteria workers, and security officers.
2201 Broadway Ave, Suite 315 Oakland, CA 94612, (510) 844-1160, media@afscme3299.org
###

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.