Around 50 people marched to the Tang Center at noon Tuesday and later headed to the UC Office of the President in Oakland to demand better labor contracts for UC employees.
The march was part of numerous strikes and protests taking place across the Bay Area as part of the International May 1 Day of Action. During the march, speakers demanded a one-year contract to negotiate wage and retirement benefits with the university instead of a UC-proposed two-tier pension plan under a new five-year contract.
In 2007, about 2,200 members of the University Professional and Technical Employees — a union that represents university pharmacists, social workers, clinical laboratory specialists, dietitians and speech therapists — entered into a five-year contract with the university that expired on June 30, 2011. Most of the other union contracts for service workers, technical employees, nurses and graduate student instructors are set to expire in 2013, according to the current contract’s language.
“The university is trying to force the two-tier pension plan down the throats of our workers,” said Tanya Smith, an editor at the UC Berkeley Archaeological Research Facility and president of the union’s local office, which covers the campus and the UC Office of the President. “We’re not going to take it.”
According to the union’s website, the two-tier pension plan asks UC employees hired on or after July 1, 2013, to pay more to the UC Retirement Plan and pushes retirement age from 50 years to 55 years.
In order to achieve its goal of a one-year contract, workers and union representatives who were gathered at Tuesday’s protests expressed interest in bargaining collectively with the university in 2013.
“We’re in the profession of caring for others — now we’re trying to care for ourselves,” said Maureen Kelly, a counselor for CARE Services at the Tang Center.
Members from the Occupy Cal movement also participated in the march to the Tang Center.
The protesters plan to gather in front of the UC Office of the President in Oakland at 4 p.m. to voice their demands and deliver petitions from union workers.
A mix of students and service workers later began a second rally in front of UCOP at 4 p.m.
The group of around 25 protesters — mostly composed of union workers and Occupy Cal members present at the noon Tang Center rally — were then met by approximately 20 members of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, a union that represents maintenance and custodial workers of the university.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUJ6EOGATFg&w=560&h=308.8]
“Today the (union), which represents 17,000 workers across all UC campuses, are formally opening their contract for bargaining,” said Sarah Leadem, a UC Berkeley senior. “We are unifying with other workers throughout the UCs and California to … support workers and their struggle for better contracts.”
Those gathered also discussed an open letter authored by students, faculty and union representatives to Gov. Jerry Brown and the UC Board of Regents calling for a “transparent process” to fund higher education and rollback tuition increases.
The group then marched to the Wells Fargo branch on Broadway Avenue, where UC Regent Russell Gould was a former executive. Marchers chanted slogans and picketed around the building before dispersing at around 5 p.m.
“Our goal today was to send a clear message to the UC Regents that they need to support fair contracts for the service workers, who are the lowest-paid workers on campus,” said Charlie Eaton, a UC Berkeley graduate student and financial secretary for the United Auto Workers Local 2865. “We’re in this fight together.”
Afsana Afzal covers academics and adminstration.
Comment Policy
Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regard to the readers, writers and contributors of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Click here to read the full comment policy.
To quote Prof. Reich:
Demonizing of public employees is not only based on the lie that they’ve
caused these budget crises, but it’s also premised on a second lie:
that public employees earn more than private-sector workers.
http://robertreich.org/post/3353591266
Again the Occupy protesters are missing the focus they need. They want the governor and the regents to fund the UC, but these two don’t hold the purse strings. They need to actually focus on protesting against the legislature. It is your democrats like Hancock and Skinner in the legislature who control the purse strings to the UC. Occupy should have been protesting their offices. Occupy will never get ahead if they don’t recognize their allies, like the regents, and their adversaries, like Skinner and Hancock.
Exactomente! The 20+ year reign of the Lib infested legislature has put this state down the shitter. The “original” idea Moonbeam comes up with is to raise taxes.
Cal kiddies need to vote for people who know how to create jobs, wealth and growth. Not the pack of pro union, pro illegal, anti business dick wads that now comprise the Lib cabal of morons in SACTO.
fire them
For union activity? Illegal under NRLA (federal) and FEHA (California).
*NLRA
In reality the people who support Occupy are the same age as the average T-Partier and they are in the same income bracket, but for some reason they are smarter and kinder.
“Smarter” and “kinder”? Is that why they vandalize businesses and start fights with the cops, behavior you will NEVER see at a Tea Party rally?
I would disagree. The Tea Party is an organized group with specific demands. Because of their organization, they actually affect elections and have support in Congress. The occupy movement has no organization and no focus. Their lack of focus and message means they will have no impact on the November elections. So who is smarter? The Tea Party. I would also say the Tea Party is kinder, because they have not caused destruction to the property of innocent citizens.
If kinder means more racist, you are right.
You are kidding yourself by saying the Tea Party is more racist. It wouldn’t take long for you to find out that Occupy members are as racist as Tea Party members. They are just racist in a way you like. For example, they are racist in that they like affirmative action instead of a program that helps disadvantaged people without reference to race. And when you look at the Occupy demonstrations, you notice that it is made up of mostly white people just like the Tea Party.
Oh, here come Carlos, who throws around the accusation of “racist” every time he disagrees with something.
Once again, the usual suspects can’t figure out why the state of California is broke, hence they let themselves be used as pawns by the very same state government workers whose unfunded pension mandates are a major contributor to the problem.
Your plan is to pander to the rich. Give them more power. Give them more money. Ease restrictions. Make their lives easier.
Who’s the pawn?
Pander to the rich? FYI the union is an opponent of our university. The union is an adversary of our UC system.
Interesting. What makes you say that?
Apparently you have NO clue as to why the State Of California is in deep financial kimchee. Google “state worker pension liabilities” and you just might learn something.
Thanks for the condescension. I was specifically asking Calipenguin for their views on UC and unions.
(Different “Guest” from the one above. FYI.)
The union is in negotiations with UC’s administration. That is an adversarial relationship. That is why the union is an opponent of our university during the negotiations. You could support every demand of the unions, but you would be taking money away from students and handing it to unions.
Thank you for your reply. What’s too bad is that in an ideal world, it wouldn’t need to be adversarial — both groups would be working to meet each other’s needs. I wish the state could fund the Master Plan the way it has in the past. No one would have to lose out.
You seem to forget that the state workers in California have far better salaries and pensions/benefits packages than their counterparts with similar skills in the private sector – and those private sector people are the ones paying for it all.
>Your plan is to pander to the rich.
And your plan is to chant silly slogans instead of dealing with the reality that the unsustainable pensions and unrealistic demands of these union workers is one of the reasons that California has its current economic problems.
The workers are dealing with the university, so it is not pandering to the rich. It is recognizing that excessive benefits to university workers is being paid by student fees. Worker pay and benefits come from the California budget or student fees or donations. The legislature refuses to fund more for workers’ pay, so you are attacking the students. You are not attacking the rich.
Most UC employees are people just making it, not ever looking to get oppulent retirement the way the few executives here are. I see the attitude of many here, coming out of pure ignorance. After working 30-40 years for UC, an 85% pension of lower middle class wages isn’t so oppulent, when you actually live to start drawing it in the age of hyperinflation. The state budget is overburdened by those who just got here, never worked to put money in the system, have babies for free at the county hospitals that they never pay for, stifle education for natives, with their kids who can’t understand english and demand free breakfast and lunch. There’s more wrong with the system than unions trying to keep workers out of the poor house. You will see after you apply for a job you thought you would never stoop so low to with a degree in your hand, because there isn’t anything else for you. Try to get out of paying off your $100,000 student loan. Join the US Army. That’s your ticket in the future.
I understand that the workers are not wealthy. However, the students are often in a much poorer financial situation. The only real hyperinflation has been in student fees and rents. A student would be hard pressed to actually be able to earn enough to pay for school and living expenses. So they are in debt, while having incomes that are below the poverty level. Some fortunately have parents who can help, but those parents are now often facing increased financial burdens that make things tough on them. You should not be surprised that poor students don’t want to pay for increased worker compensation. Especially when it comes to pension plans that are only partially funded by workers, while most non-government workers have to fully fund their retirement, and they never get a guarantee to receive 85% of their wage during their entire retirement.
I think workers and students would both be much happier if the legislature had some small bit of fiscal intelligence, but they have blown our education dollars and you benefit dollars on non-essentials.