Bitter contract negotiations between the University of California and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 3299 are pushing into their second year.
Little progress has been made since the University and the patient care workers started negotiations last fall.
The University issued a statement last month announcing it had implemented the final offer on contract negotiations with AFSCME 3299. The union responded with a statement announcing a strike vote on Oct. 28 through Oct. 30.
Before turning to specific points of contention between the groups, it bears repeating that the fact that negotiations have been dragged out for more than nine months – a period that included a two-day strike and various demonstrations – is ridiculous. Both sides should take this painful process as a lesson, and come with reasonable proposals and a genuine readiness to compromise in any future bargaining.
Although both the union and the UC are at fault for the fruitless negotiations, the union should not strike in an attempt to pressure the University, as striking can only cast a pall on an already bitter dispute.
The main sticking point of negotiations between the UC and the union is pension reform.
The UC maintains that pension contributions need to increase from 5 percent to 6.5 percent in order to help fund a system with $24 billion in unfunded liabilities.
A number of other unions represented by the University Council – American Federation of Teachers and the UC Student-Workers Union represented by the United Auto Workers have agreed to these reforms, but AFSCME 3299 has not.
In a post last year titled “Why the Librarian Negotiating Committee Should Accept a Pension Deal Now,” Mike Rotkin, a negotiator for the librarians, wrote that pension reform was necessary to create a sustainable pension system at UC.”
The patient care workers can’t expect treatment from the UC that’s not given to other unions, and needs to realize the necessity of the changes being offered by the University.
Though compromise must be mutual, state-appointed mediator Paul D. Roose faulted the union for “swimming upstream against the current of strong trends in public sector labor relations.” Needless to say, that type of attitude is not conducive to compromise.
Although the union’s responsibility is to try and negotiate the best possible contract for its members, it does those same members a disservice by putting forward expectations the University can’t meet.
So negotiations remain at a standstill, and the UC has implemented its best and final offer, an offer that came only after a long process of formal negotiation which included a state-appointed mediator functioning as a fact-finder during the collective bargaining process.
Roose sided with the University and the pension reforms they offered. Despite this, in his official report, he characterized the negotiations as “dysfunctional” and said “each side is vigorously attempting to take away rights traditionally reserved to the other party.”
The UC shares blame for the antagonistic nature of the negotiation process. The Public Employment Relations Board went so far as to file a complaint against the University, a section of the complaint addressed the issue of intimidating employees who took part in the strike in May.
In addition to backing off contentious bargaining practices, the University has to recognize legitimate claims being made by the patient care workers, many of whom work incredibly long hours. For example, the union’s request for a ban on mandatory overtime is a very reasonable one.
But none of this antagonism would have arisen had each side come to the bargaining table with reasonable and fair expectations of the other earlier in the process.
“Negotiations are always a bit of a dance because you can’t start from the bottom line, so both sides start with a little bit more to give,” said Katherine Stone, a UCLA law professor.
The dance between these two partners, however, has been going on for far too long.
Hopefully future contacts will be fairly instituted with agreement from both parties, rather than being unilaterally implemented by the UC. But, for that to happen, both parties need to change their ways.