UC - AFT NEWS

• UC-AFT Officer Candidate statements
• UCB Extension English Language Program to close
• Lecturers Bargaining archives
• UC Administrators' Compensation Packages
• Spring, 2004 UC-AFT Perspective (1 MB pdf)
• Roddy and Klar meet with Dynes

In December, UC-AFT and the Administration of the University of California met over a two day period in Oakland. These meetings--a continuation of the ongoing, pseudo-mediation process--were scheduled by the Administration after it became clear that their attempt to force UC-AFT into accepting an ultimatum in late October had been unsuccessful.

Both the Union and the Administration presented proposals at these sessions, most notably in the areas of Appointments, Layoff, Professional Concerns and Grievance. Although the parties continue to be far apart on both substance and language in key areas, the Administration's newest proposals appear to acknowledge and attempt to resolve several of UC-AFT's long-standing concerns. Anytime our concerns are acknowledged by virtue of being incorporated into contract language, no matter how inartfully, it is a notable event. Set out below are some of the crucial areas where the Administration modified their proposal:

• Language which limits the Administration's ability to use Grad students to replace post-six NSF.
• Language which guarantees at least one step increase (in addition to range increases) to pre-six NSF.
• Language which both clearly prohibits post-six avoidance and provides an arbitration mechanism to enforce it.
• The promise of a sideletter to articulate that the University has no intention of terminating pre-six NSF after they get pay increases simply to save money by hiring someone less expensive.
• Language which ensures a departmental peer review component for the "eye of the needle" reviews and safeguards against bias.

UC-AFT continues to be disappointed by the Administration's resistance to meaningful dispute resolution mechanisms, providing a reasonable definition of "instructional need" and reinserting the one-year notice of layoff for post-six NSF that exists in the current MOU. In addition, we remain concerned about the University's intent when it uses the term "intellectual diversity" to defend what appears to us to simply be post-six avoidance churning.
In balance, however, conditions can be considered hopeful.

Although these contractual modifications are both insufficient and weakly drafted, they represent a fundamental shift on the part of the Administration in a couple of key areas and, as such, confirm that we must keep up the pressure and continue to make our case to the University community, legislature, and general public. In moving the bargaining process forward we must be both vigilant and flexible in our analysis and approach. Above all, we must place this debate outside of the insular world of collective bargaining and engage our own constituency, other University employees facing similar struggles, and our Senate colleagues; with all of them we must focus on the adverse impact that the Administration's labor relations policies have on the ability of the University of California to fulfill its mission.

by Rebecca Rhine, Chief Negotiator