Twenty-five UCLA employees gathered Thursday in front of Murphy
Hall to present Chancellor Albert Carnesale with a letter
requesting his support to oppose a potential wage decrease.
On the one-year anniversary of a protest that helped win the
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union
an incremental pay increase of 12 percent over three years, AFSCME
members decided to pay the chancellor a visit to present their
concerns to the chancellor’s office before taking more
drastic action.
Representing workers from facilities maintenance, food service
and patient care, AFSCME represents 18,000 workers statewide,
according to an AFSCME press release.
With demonstrations at UC campuses across the state Thursday,
AFSCME workers protested a potential wage decrease over the next
few years designed to help fund the University of
California’s retirement plan.
Available to most employees, the pension plan has had a surplus
over the past 15 years due to good investments and management.
There have been no employee contributions to the pension plan
since 1990, when the surplus began, according to the UC Office of
the President Web site.
But the surplus is declining and, given the current status of
the plan, will drop below 100 percent funding by the year 2009,
according to the UCOP Web site.
In order to compensate, the UC Board of Regents is considering a
plan to decrease employee wages incrementally, as well as increase
the university’s contributions to the plan, said Noel Van
Nyhuis, a UC spokesman.
Though UCOP deems the wage decreases necessary, union workers
are opposed.
“We need to send a strong message to the chancellor and to
the regents,” said Lakesha Harrison, the local AFSCME
president and a registered nurse. “We are here because we
want the chancellor’s support getting across our
message.”
In addition to union workers, state Assemblywoman Cindy
Montañez, D-San Fernando Valley, showed up to support
competitive UC wages.
“You can’t have administrators getting $100,000
perks when the workers are facing cuts,” Montañez
said.
Demonstrations coincided with the first discussion by the
regents of the results of the UC’s internal audit, ordered in
the wake of concerns over executive compensation.
According to Van Nyhuis, there is no correlation between
executive compensation issues and retirement plan funding.
“Because there have been no contributions, the surplus has
been declining,” the spokesman said. “This is to keep
the plan solvent, and so that everyone can have access to the
plan.”
As the afternoon progressed, the group of workers walked up to
the chancellor’s office and presented Assistant Vice
Chancellor of Campus Human Resources Lubbe Levin with a letter to
the chancellor outlining their concerns.
“I need to feed my family right now,” said Lucy
Roman, a campus facilities worker. “My children need books
for school. I collect cans for money, and it’s hard, but
I’m not ashamed because it’s what I have to
do.”
Some in the chancellor’s office were supportive of the
workers’ concerns.
“We feel the same way,” Levin said. “We want
(union workers’) compensation to increase while we gradually
increase contributions to the retirement plan.”
UCOP maintains its compensation packages are competitive with
other institutions.
“In terms of total compensation, we are at comparable
wages ““ in terms of cash salary, health benefits and
retirement,” Van Nyhuis said.
Though AFSCME workers appreciate the UC benefit package, they
would still like more competitive wages.
“Patient care would drastically suffer if UC makes these
changes to its benefits,” Harrison said. “UC already
has a hard time with recruitment and retention, and our staffing
levels are right on the edge.”