The original version of this article contained information that was unclear and an error and has been changed. See the bottom of the article for additional information.
For the last year, University of California and the largest union representing UC employees have been locked in a contentious stalemate over the terms of a new contract.
Last week, the most recent chapter of this fractured relationship was written outside of the University’s hospitals and medical centers, as thousands of UC staff members represented by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 3299 went on strike to protest what they call unsafe staffing levels in the UC’s hospitals, among other issues.
The bitter lead-up to the strike and the deep disagreement that underpin it have eroded the trust between University administration and union leadership to an astonishing degree.
Both groups developed a tit-for-tat style of public relations and negotiations, and seem to be more interested in contradicting one another’s points than necessarily finding common ground.
There are without a doubt some very legitimate grievances on the table. AFSCME’s call for improved hospital staffing and substantive wage increases are important causes.
AFSCME has continuously made itself a moving target, claiming to represent the interests of the entire UC while simultaneously declaring an impassioned focus on only a few core issues for its constituents. In addition, AFSCME’s attempts to shed light on some structural issues in the UC – bloated executive pay, pensions and a rapidly growing bureaucracy – hold credence, but the union has to understand that negotiations over a single bargaining contract will not reverse broad, powerful trends in higher education.
It’s possible to have more than one goal, but on any given day, it’s impossible to know what AFSCME will bring to the table or where its attention will be trained.
But criticism of AFSCME hardly exonerates the UC. The University has acted with a presumptuous moral authority thus far, dismissing many of AFSCME’s complaints as inflamed rhetoric.
The University does this despite a September complaint filed against it by AFSCME with the California Public Employee Relations Board, a body within the state government dedicated to resolving labor disputes, claiming the UC did not negotiate in good faith.
This aloof attitude does nothing to address the issues over which the strike is being waged. Those issues range widely, but no party can claim to have a monopoly on representing the interests of the UC as a whole.
On the topic of pensions, the UC fails to acknowledge the need to reign in costly executive retirement packages as a cost-saving measure.
Meanwhile, on the topic of safe staffing, AFSCME must realize that the 13 percent staffing increase over five years implemented by the UC already pushes the limits of viability in tepid budgetary times.
In the end, the victims here are neither just the University or AFSCME. The strike on Wednesday cost the University millions of dollars, delayed patient care and generated more noise than progress on its way to achieving not much of anything.
In an August summary of the negotiations between the groups, a third-party private mediator said that “each side must move away from its positions in meaningful ways.”
Let’s hope both sides figure out what the rest of us have already.
Clarification: The University of California implemented a 13 percent staffing increase over five years at its hospital systems. AFSCME filed a complaint against the UC in September with the California Public Employee Relations Board.
As an alumnus from 2008, I remember this union causing issues all the way back then. It became really tangible for me when they picketed my graduation as a student of UCLA. Our graduation speaker and their alternatives cancelled because they refused to cross the “picket line.” I remember reading that this Union would not picket during our ceremony, but sure enough they showed up with picket signs and loud speakers on my graduation day. On this ceremony to celebrate students and the achievements of students, they came out in force because it wasn’t enough to just get our graduation speakers to cancel- they wanted to further leave their impression on us on our way out. Their loudspeakers were able to penetrate our ceremony every time someone opened the gym doors, but they were quickly silenced by the deafening “boos” that resonated the entire gym every time someone brought up the word “union.”
It is a farce that they claim their protests today are for the students and patients. I would have more respect if they were honest. It has nothing to do with students and patients and everything to do with their personal wallets. If they had any iota of common decency, I would be more sympathetic to their cause. They have a family to feed, sure, but for them to superficially disguise their utter disregard for everything and everyone else other than their own selfish desire is an insult. I hope the UC administration stands up to their bullying tactics because I saw this union’s true colors firsthand
ha ha!
Is this a parody of privilege or is this serious? It seems like an attempt to make a joke – writing as if somebody is so insular and selfish that they actually believe being able to hear Bill Clinton tell somebody as a member of a large auditorium how special they are for getting a degree is more important than sacrificing a little bit to support the people who maintained the classrooms and university so that degree is a possibility when their wages are so low that they not only could not send their children to UCLA after years of service but have trouble making rent. If so, ha ha – very funny – it WOULD be ridiculous if somebody actually whined that a picket of poor workers disrupted a celebration of a really privileged and elite moment for somebody who was entirely dependent on those workers.
As a TA, if this were a paper I were grading I would have to give it a very poor grade.
For instance: “Both groups developed a tit-for-tat style of public relations and negotiations, and seem to be more interested in contradicting one another’s points than necessarily finding common ground.” This makes it sound as if the need for facts and the truth of the situation is less important than just having both sides get along. This obviously stems from the common idea in our society that both sides of an argument are equally valid – which is unfortunate because it weighs all view points equally instead of trying to find what the facts are. This is a very unscientific mindset, not what I would expect from a UCLA student.
This, “It’s possible to have more than one goal, but on any given day, it’s impossible to know what AFSCME will bring to the table or where its attention will be trained.” Shows that you don’t quite understand that AFSCME is both working on a longer term project of reforming the university and is currently in the middle of contract negotiations. UC executive pay is not a mandatory subject of bargaining, however that doesn’t mean that this isn’t a great time for AFSCME to bring this up to highlight the hypocrisy of the imposed pay and pension cuts of some of the lowest paid UC workers. UC management continues to say that the money isn’t there, and AFSCME keeps pointing to the fact that the money is there. Its just a matter of priorities. AFSCME was part of a coalition that passed Prop 30 to keep your tuition down, and has been involved with the student movement for years. Anyone who actually takes the time to read up on what they write before hand would actually not find AFSCME’s actions and narrative confusing at all.
This: “Meanwhile, on the topic of safe staffing, AFSCME must realize that the 13 percent staffing increase over five years implemented by the UC already pushes the limits of viability in tepid budgetary times.” doesn’t show any understanding of what safe staffing means. MAYBE its just poor writing. I don’t know. 13% increase in staffing, but what is the expected rise in patients??? Since safe staffing is a RATIO then we would need to know both figures. Also it neglects to say what the current ratio is and what the ratio that AFSCME is fighting for is. It just sound slike you read an article and saw the number 13 and threw it in there because, well, people like numbers and they make you sound like you know what you are talking about. Well it doesn’t. You also totally neglect to mention how many people have suffered preventable deaths or injuries or infections due to the lack of safe staffing levels. That might be nice to know and might persuade the reader a little more than just a number in a contextual vacuum.
This “In the end, the victims here are neither just the University or AFSCME. The strike on Wednesday cost the University millions of dollars, delayed patient care and generated more noise than progress on its way to achieving not much of anything.” reads like 1. you have a crystal ball to see what the result of this will be (of you don’t well then you probably shouldn’t predict what will happen then unless you have a much better grasp of the situation which the above mentioned critiques makes me think you don’t) 2. like a whiny privileged kid who doesn’t care that people’s lives and well being are on the line, because you were minorly inconvenienced for a day. If the fight for safe staffing success then I would say its worth it wouldn’t you? Maybe not. Maybe you think one day of class is worth more than the lives and livelihoods of others? If so I have a great career in mind for you, you could always grow up and run a university healthcare system that makes hundreds of millions in profits per year but slashes workers pay and benefits while bloating executive pay, also cutting staffing levels to squeeze a few more pennies into your pocket – plus who cares, you have a team that tells you that what you’d pay out in law suits is most likely lower than your savings, so just let people die and become injured and infected so you can make another million…. (this is common corporate practice and was popularized in a hit movie, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIdmkETuWeM and: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jltnBOrCB7I)
“The strike on Wednesday cost the University millions of dollars,
delayed patient care and generated more noise than progress on its way
to achieving not much of anything.” This line seems a bit presumptious – where is the any evidence for these claims — both the costs and the sense that it did not accomplish much?? I could see a critical question – did this make a difference? And perhaps, how can we know? But the conclusion without an iota of evidence is a bit weak. One would have to look at the history of strikes, perhaps especailly in the UCs to asses the impact. And just a cursory look shows that strikes and affiliated protests have had massive impact — perhaps these authors don’t support Prop 30, the recent tuition freeze etc.