UC - AFT

To: To: UC-AFT Executive Council, Local Presidents and Staff

Fr: Rebecca Rhine, Chief Negotiator UC-AFT

Date: June 2, 2003

Re: Tentative Agreement — Unit 18 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

At this site you will find the text of the tentative agreement reached between your Unit 18 Bargaining Committee and the University of California. The final pieces of the package came together very early on the morning of May 29. This group of articles represents the result of more than three years of bargaining by an unbelievably dedicated bargaining team. In addition to the articles themselves, we have also prepared and included a chart that attempts to clearly articulate the differences between the new contract and the existing MOU.

There is a great deal of material to read and understand which makes it nearly impossible to capture the detail and nuance in a written document. That said, this memo is my attempt to outline the major changes to the MOU and provide my perspective on the process and package.

Although I was not a participant at the outset of this round of negotiations, when I came to UC-AFT in mid 2000, it was clear that the union had undertaken a major challenge and set a high bar. UC-AFT was attempting to do no less than redefine the relationship between non-senate faculty members and the University of California and directly challenge the cultural assumptions that had remained unchanged for decades.

In that context, the Union set out to make significant contractual improvements in five key areas:

1. Job Security
2. Economics (Wages, Benefits, Merit Pay)
3. Professional Concerns
4. Workload
5. Contract Enforceability

For almost three years the Administration resisted most of the Union’s proposals and even when they agreed to certain changes, those changes lacked the requisite underpinning to render them operational. Due to the incredible activism on the campuses, our work in Sacramento and the tireless efforts and dedication of former UC-AFT President Jeremy Elkins and the bargaining team, this attitude seemed to shift late last year and we began to make progress on key elements of the package.

• Contractual protection against post-six avoidance and replacement by less-expensive NSF
• Limitation on University’s ability to avoid offering Continuing Appointments at the sixth year
• One-year recall rights in cases of layoff

• Increased job security and continuous ("career-like") appointments
• Limitation on University’s to discipline, discharge (progressive discipline for "just cause") and layoff (seniority rights)
• Three-year recall rights in cases of layoff

• Full Retroactive Pay back to 2000 for NSF still employed during 2002-2003
• Three significant increases to the minimum salary for pre-six NSF to take place in October 2003, Spring 2004 and July 2005. (Note: This also acts as an additional job protection mechanism)
• Automatic step increase for pre-six NSF after three years (this is in addition to yearly general range adjustments)
• The establishment of, and two increases in, a minimum salary for Continuing Appointees. (July, 2004: $40,200, July, 2005: $41,700)
• Application of salary minimums and prospective general range adjustments to NSF hired on a "By Agreement" basis
• Merit reviews every three years starting at the sixth year (currently only required in years 6 and 9) with automatic two step (approximately 5%) minimum increase attached to successful review (currently no minimum increase required even if deemed meritorious)
• Inclusion of quarter-by-quarter NSF in benefits eligibility
• Benefits reach-back for those NSF who were misclassified as "visiting lecturers"

• Establishment of a Professional Development Fund for all pre-six and Continuing NSF
• Funding of approximately $250,000 per year guaranteed
• Administered by NSF on each campus
• Available for professional seminars, meetings, paid leaves and other teaching related opportunities
• Linkage to Senate Faculty policies in areas such as Distance Education and Ownership of Materials
• Broader ability to participate on Senate Committees

• Establishment of a Committee made up of Senate Faculty, NSF and Administration representatives to examine workload issues in the Writing and Foreign Language departments on each campus and issue a written report on a set timeline (Note: Campuses may substitute another department for one of those two)
• Reopener bargaining on Workload in 2004
• Ability to resolve disputes regarding the appropriate application of equivalencies

• Increased enforceability in almost every area including the ability to seek binding dispute resolution on post-six avoidance claims, improper layoffs and discipline and dismissal actions

There are far too many more changes to the MOU to note here, and it is important that you review the materials carefully as you will likely get questions from NSF on your campuses.

It is also important to acknowledge that we did not succeed in accomplishing all of our goals. In particular, in the area of job protection for pre-six NSF, the University was adamant about retaining fairly broad discretion. While we believe we achieved enforceable language to stop the practice of "churning", we were not able to establish a clear "track" from pre-six to Continuing Appointments. The bargaining team ultimately concluded that this important issue was not achievable during this round of bargaining and therefore would have to be fought another day. In addition, we were forced to agree that "sympathy strikes" will not be permitted by our members during the term of the contract — a difficult decision although it appears that the original bargaining history supports the Administration’s position that we had already agreed to that concept.

From my perspective this contract represents a victory, and we should be proud and encouraged. Bargaining is an inexact science and cultures are changed not by words on a piece of paper but by evolution and action. By taking the University on, and refusing to accept their traditional labor relations’ approach, we began the process of shifting their perspective on bargaining from one of paternalistic tolerance and resistance to one of problem solving and mutual-respect. We still have a long way to go. There will be many struggles and disagreements as we move to enforce the intent of this new MOU. Much of the language is awkward, the result of numerous drafts (and drafters) and the necessary setting of priorities. In my experience, this is the norm when you overhaul an agreement as we did. Over time, it will become apparent where the language works and where we will need to make further adjustments.

This is not the end of the process started back in 2000, but rather the beginning. UC-AFT cannot afford to rest in its efforts at internal and external organizing, legislative activism and contract enforcement. I personally believe — and I think most of the bargaining team agrees with me - that we will be better able to make progress in those critical areas with a signed Unit 18 MOU.

We recommend your support of this package.