If approved, the restraining order would prohibit the two-day strike planned by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees 3299. According to a statement released by the UC Office of the President on Friday, strikes that pose an imminent threat to public health and safety are illegal under state law, and the university believes the strike would improperly withhold health care from the public.

Dianne Klein, a UC spokesperson, said that if the union cared about patient safety, it would not endanger patients by striking.

“This (strike) is one of their tactics to get what they want, which is a special deal for their workers,” Klein said. “That is not only unfair but fiscally irresponsible.”

The strike comes amid ongoing contract negotiations that began in June 2012. The university proposed a pension reform that would increase contributions toward pension benefits from both the university and employees, but AFSCME 3299 rejected these reforms, arguing that the university is prioritizing pensions over patient care.

According to Todd Stenhouse, spokesperson for AFSCME 3299, the university is prioritizing executive pension benefits instead of adequate patient care and staffing.
“We are seeing the university cut corners in ways that are so dangerous for patients,” said Kathryn Lybarger, president of AFSCME 3299.

AFSCME 3299 has established a Patient Protection Task Force to care for patients during the strike, but that it is something in which the university refuses to participate, according to Stenhouse.

During pension reform negotiations, AFSCME 3299 asked for caps on executive pension benefits, which the university would not discuss, according to Lybarger.

“Right now, these executives are going to retire on upwards of $300,000,” Lybarger said. “That’s a lot of money to live on for doing nothing.”

The university filed a similar restraining order in July 2008 in response to a planned AFSCME 3299 strike. The court approved the restraining order, but the union went ahead with the strike.

“If the court says you are prohibited from striking and they go ahead and do it anyway, they are breaking the law,” Klein said. “We hope there is not a strike. We are prepared for one.”

University Professional and Technical Employees, another UC medical workers union, also held a demonstration Wednesday at the five UC medical centers.

AFSCME 3299 also held a sit-down protest at Wednesday’s UC Board of Regents meeting in Sacramento, resulting in the arrest of 13 demonstrators.

“We are in this fight to win real patient protection,” Lybarger said. “It’s not an option to emerge from this fight without having won real gains for our patients.”

Contact Tara Hurley at thurley@dailycal.org.

The post University of California files for restraining order against union planning strike appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees 3299, a union that represents UC workers, joined with University Professional and Technical Employees 9119, a union that represents UC technical workers, to protest recent layoffs at the UCSF Medical Center and the standoff in labor negotiations with the UC Office of the President.

“There’s a fundamental message that this rally is all about today,” said AFSCME 3299 spokesperson Todd Stenhouse. “That’s ‘put patients first.’ We need to send a message to the people of San Francisco that come into this hospital that the administration is not putting their priorities first.”

UCSF Medical Center recently cut 300 positions through layoffs, transfers and elimination of unfilled positions, which comes in the wake of a recent whistleblower report published by AFSCME in March detailing inadequate patient care at UC medical centers due to understaffing.

“Medical centers are going to continue to deteriorate,” said Wendi Felson, a retired UCSF employee and systemwide health care coordinator for UPTE. “All five UC medical centers have been cited for patient care violations.”

Since last November, the UC system and AFSCME have also been at an impasse over creating a new contract for UC workers focusing on pension reform.

Among the protesters were recently laid-off UC workers, including Miguel Herrera, a full-time custodian who was fired three weeks ago, and Connie Salguero, a former patient-care assistant who was fired this week.

“This was my only job here,” Salguero said. “Where will I get my food?”

According to UC spokesperson Dianne Klein, the protest is a tactic used by the union in labor negotiations, and AFSCME refused the contract without offering counter-suggestions.

“Bargaining in the media is not something we support,” Klein said about the protest. “We believe bargaining should take place at the bargaining table.”

State Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, and San Francisco Supervisors John Avalos and Eric Mar also appeared at the protest to support the workers.

“They’re understaffed in terms of things not being properly sanitized, and those are things that put patients at risk,” said Yee’s press secretary, Dan Lieberman. “As far as pensions go, there’s going to be a lot of continued discussions, particularly pensions that are for the executives that are quite substantial.”

The meeting for pension negotiations, which was scheduled for April 3, has been postponed to later this month.

“We hope to reach a multiyear contract that’s fair to employees … and the university that rewards employees for their hard work,” Klein said.

Contact Tara Hurley at thurley@dailycal.org.

The post 10 arrested at UCSF protest against medical center layoffs appeared first on The Daily Californian.

When it issued the layoff notices, campus labor management offered to rehire the custodians if new positions became available. Though the custodians have now been officially rehired, the initial uncertainty of their employment prompted a protest by a workers’ union in September.

“This was a big moment because these layoffs were totally unnecessary — there were open positions in other custodial departments,” said Sarah Leadem, an organizer of the statewide UC service and patient care workers’ union AFSCME Local 3299, which led the protest. “Their rationale was, ‘We’re getting rid of the building, so get rid of workers.’”

Eshleman Hall is being demolished as a part of the Lower Sproul renovation project, which aims to make the plaza more lively for students by improving the area’s functionality, safety and overall appearance.

Positions have now been provided to all five workers, four of them employed through Physical Plant Campus Services and one hired through Residential Services, according to campus spokesperson Janet Gilmore.

AFSCME intern Devonte Jackson speculated that the decision to rehire the custodians was partly a consequence of the protest.

“The protest definitely brought more attention to the case of these five workers, and management made sure this was a priority because we took direct action,” Jackson said. “This is the power of student-worker unity.”

Gilmore said the decision to rehire was not associated with the protest and that the process for rehire was already under way prior to it. According to Gilmore, employees were given preferential rehire rights to be considered for re-employment based on qualification, though there was no guarantee for reinstatement.

“These are valued employees,” Gilmore said. “We are pleased that they were able to retain employment on campus.”
Maricruz Manzanarez, a senior custodian who works with AFSCME, said to expedite the process of finding the laid-off custodians new positions on campus, union activists scoped out open positions and forwarded them to campus management.

“We wouldn’t have known there were openings or not if it weren’t for the union,” said Leroy Thomas, one of the five custodians. “My only other option would have been to retire.”

Contact Virgie Hoban at vhoban@dailycal.org.

The post Eshleman Hall custodians rehired following protest appeared first on The Daily Californian.

A group of about 50 protesters rallied at the intersection of Telegraph Avenue and Bancroft Way, criticizing the campus for plans to lay off the service workers and demanding that the UC support a state Senate bill that would allow graduate student researchers to unionize.

About five UCPD officers were at the scene to monitor the protest.

Students who took part in the protest said they wanted to show solidarity with the workers.

Students are often unaware of workers’ financial situations, said Isaac Kreisman, a UC Berkeley senior and member of Students for a Democratic University.

“It’s important to support them and make connections with students (who face) fee hikes,” he said.

Thursday’s protest was led by members of AFSCME Local 3299, a union representing service and patient care workers at the university, and coincided with protests at other UC campuses and medical centers. The union is currently working with UC officials to renegotiate terms of a contract between the two parties that expires at the end of the month, according to campus spokesperson Janet Gilmore.

Other groups also took part in the protest, including activist group BAMN. Aside from voicing support for the bill that would allow graduate student researchers to unionize, some protesters demanded that UC Berkeley become a “sanctuary campus” for undocumented students and increase the number of underrepresented minority students it enrolls.

According to BAMN organizer Justin Cheong, the organization wants to see UC Berkeley double the number of underrepresented minorities it enrolls.

Still, the protest centered around the five ASUC Auxiliary custodial workers who were notified in late August that they would be laid off from their jobs at Eshleman Hall, effective Nov. 1. All five attended the protest Thursday.

According to Gilmore, their jobs were terminated because Eshleman Hall is scheduled to be demolished as part of the Lower Sproul Redevelopment project. She added that the campus is working with the custodians to find them positions elsewhere on campus but cannot guarantee them another position.

“We were told if they demolish the building, there will not be enough offices to clean, and the Martin Luther King Jr. building will be remodeled too, so (the campus) is not going to need custodians,” said Ruben Reyes, one of the five workers who will be laid off.

Reyes said that because he and the other four custodians had worked at the campus for at least six years, it was unfair for them to be laid off without the guarantee of a replacement job.

Contact Lindsey Lohman at llohman@dailycal.org

The post Students, campus service workers protest layoffs appeared first on The Daily Californian.

AFSCME Local 3299, a union representing service and patient care workers at the university, along with the Student-Worker Coalition at Cal, which includes, among other student groups and unions, Students for a Democratic University and the student-worker union UAW Local 2865, will be holding a picket and rally at the intersection of Telegraph Avenue and Bancroft Way at noon.

After picketing for about an hour, protesters will head to the steps in front of Sproul Hall, where speakers are expected to voice support for the movement’s agenda. Among other demands, the protesters ask that the campus rehire five laid-off workers to work at other campus departments and that the university support a state Senate bill that would allow graduate student researchers to unionize, according to a statement released by Students for a Democratic University.

The university is taking cost-cutting measures that undermine the rights of workers, said Devonte Jackson, a campus junior and mobilizing director of CalSERVE.

Maricruz Manzanarez, senior custodian at Unit 2 and member of AFSCME Local 3299, said she hopes Thursday’s rally will be a chance for her and other campus workers’ voices to be heard.

“(The university) needs to value the hard work we put in,” she said. “It’s like they forgot.”

People attending the rally have been encouraged to wear black in order to show solidarity for the workers, according to a flier publicizing the event. UCPD Capt. Margo Bennett said campus police officers will monitor the event and “will react to any needs that come up.”

Contact Rachel Kang at rkang@dailycal.org.

The post Campus groups, workers’ unions plan rally appeared first on The Daily Californian.

AFSCME is a nationwide union that represents employees in local and state government and in the health care industry, and Local 3299 represents patient care and service employees at all university campuses and buildings.

At the protest, a group of UC Berkeley workers and students held signs, walked in a circle and chanted while others passed out flyers outlining the union’s views.

According to the flyer, the union is pushing for job security, benefit protections, fair wages and workplace rights.

“The reality is that our pensions are dropping,” said Local 3299 Political Director Nicole Rivera. “These service workers deserve more when they retire.”

Rivera said the union wishes to have the service and patient care employees bargain together for a new contract. However, the university is seeking for the two groups to negotiate their contracts at separate times because they do different jobs and combining unions has not worked in the past, according to UC spokesperson Dianne Klein.

“The UC is committed to efficient, good faith bargaining,” Klein continued. “We hope to provide our employees with appropriate rewards for their hard work.”

The Berkeley demonstration was part of statewide AFSCME protests held at the UC Davis, Santa Cruz, San Francisco and Los Angeles campuses.

Luis Bocaletti, a Local 3299 staff organizer who was at the protest, pointed out that the two groups had bargained the last two contracts together.

“We’re one union, and we intend to bargain together,” Bocaletti said.

The union and the university last agreed on a new contract in October 2011. According to the contract, both service and patient care employees will receive a 3 percent pay increase in 2012. The contract will also continue to provide health care benefits and pension payments for all employees.

After the October negotiations, Julian Posadas, then-Local 3299 executive vice president, said the union was happy that the university was willing to commit to what they bargained for but was disappointed over the lack of sustained wage increases.

CalServe senator and UC Berkeley senior Nolan Pack observed Wednesday’s protest and said the union was doing really valuable work at the protest. He pointed out that when budget cuts come, the workers are often the first to be affected, but they are often forgotten by the students and other groups.

“This protest puts a face on this issue and really highlights an important and often overlooked group on campus,” Pack said. “Hopefully, the students and the union can work together to reach our common goal of preserving UC funding.”

Eugene Stokes, a campus senior building maintenance worker, was the chant leader at the protest and stood in the middle of the circling protesters and called out chants that chastised the university and rallied union support.

“We’re trying to get the UCs to see that we want them to stop raising student fees. We want them to stop cutting from the bottom, and start cutting from the top,” Stokes said. “We’ve been doing more with less, and we just can’t provide quality service with all of these cuts.”

The post UC workers protest as negotiations begin with campus appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Senate Constitutional Amendment 22, introduced Tuesday by state Senator Michael Rubio, D-Shafter, would establish a 10 percent cap on out-of-state enrollment in any incoming class — which includes international student enrollment — at each of the 10 UC campuses starting with in 2013-14.

“SCA 22 ensures that California students get a fair shot at attending our University of California system — and not be turned away simply because a wealthy student from the East Coast or abroad shows up with a checkbook in hand,” Rubio said in a press release.

Currently, the university has a policy to limit out-of-state enrollment to 10 percent systemwide and was at a total of about 8.4 percent as of fall 2011. However, at individual campuses like UC Berkeley and UCLA, the proportion exceeds 10 percent.

In fall 2011, out-of-state and international students represented 18 percent of undergraduate student enrollment at UC Berkeley and 14 percent at UCLA.

Chancellor Robert Birgeneau said at a press conference in August that the campus’s long-term goal for out-of-state enrollment was 20 percent, justifying this goal by saying that Californian enrollment has not suffered as a result of increased out-of-state enrollment.

“As long as we’re meeting our obligations to Californians, I think it enriches the education environment for everyone to have a reasonable number of out-of-state and international students,” Birgeneau said at the conference.

At a press conference outside the UC Board of Regents meeting in Sacramento on Wednesday, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 3299 President Kathryn Lybarger said the union supports Rubio’s amendment.

“This would mean my kids stand a chance at a UC education,” Lybarger said.

AFSCME Local 3299 represents more than 17,000 employees throughout the UC system.

Although UC analysts have not yet completed their examination of the legislation, UC spokesperson Dianne Klein said the university plans to oppose the amendment.

“We will likely oppose the bill because setting admissions criteria is within the purview of the university — its faculty and administration — not the Legislature,” Klein said. “This has worked well for UC, and the state of California, for nearly 150 years and has helped to make the University of California the best public university system in the world.”

The amendment can be acted on by the state Senate as early as June 15 and will require a two-thirds majority vote to pass.

Christopher Yee is an assistant news editor.

The post New legislation could limit out-of-state enrollment at UC campuses appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Now, I am following up in an effort to learn which issues have been resolved, which still remain and what sorts of solutions are in progress.

When I first spoke with the employee, he alleged that his supervisors required that he perform his standard duties in a fraction of the regular time, leading him to worry about keeping his job. He also expressed frustration with the hiring of temporary contracted workers, who were meant to fill short-term vacancies but, according to the employee, were in fact used by management as a more lasting response to I-House’s chronic understaffing.

After hearing what the employee had to say, I then spoke with the executive director of I-House, Martin Brennan, to hear an administrative perspective.

Brennan said that while temporary workers are intended to fill transient staffing shortages, some have been used to fill posts that have not been staffed for months. Last semester, I-House managers outlined a plan to fill these vacancies and increase the number of career employees on staff. When I spoke with Brennan last month, several of these positions were still empty.

Here’s what’s new: The employee whom I spoke with said that after he took his case to his union — the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 3299 — his supervisors dropped their demands.

When I spoke with Brennan a second time, he said he was sorry to hear employees were concerned about their job security. He went on to say that in the past month, one of the three empty kitchen positions — posts that were being staffed by temporary workers — had been filled.

While this marks progress in the implementation of last semester’s plan to fill such vacancies with career employees, some current I-House staff would like management to pick up the pace.

On Wednesday afternoon, just over a dozen union members and students gathered on the front steps of I-House, armed with picket signs reading “Stop contracting out our workers’ jobs.” The protest was the latest in a long string of demonstrations against the hiring of temporary employees, but it lacked the zest of protests last spring.

Jake Casillas, an assistant cook who is still finishing the six-month probationary period required of all university employees before they become career staff, described the frustration of working as an assistant to a temporary employee filling the empty chef position: “We’re supposed to train and familiarize the lead and then not take credit for it,” he said. “If we get somebody who has been here a couple times, we’re cool with it. But with every new person, it’s like another job.” He went on to say that when temporary employees drop the ball, career and probationary employees are the ones who have to pick it up.

“We have to compensate for everything, make sure everything gets done in the kitchen. I was working seven days a week, covering every shift I could,” he continued. “I’m here all the time — I work all the time.”

Every employee I spoke with said the I-House kitchen staff was still overextended. Joseph Soberano, a senior food service worker, said his workload is difficult to do on his own when the other employee meant to help him fails to show up for work.

“I only have two hands,” he said.

“All I can do is go as fast as I could.” Rodrigo Aguilar, another senior food service worker, described a similar situation in the dishroom.

Two employees usually cover his shift. However, when the other worker calls in sick, he has to do double the load, Aguilar said.

Both management and staff cited the current economic climate as another source of unease.

“The United States is going towards more of an aggressive capitalism that is less respectful of worker rights,” Brennan said. “I want workers to have those rights.” At the same time, Brennan also said that I-House is trying to innovate in terms of services and staffing to find better ways to meet expectations without raising residents’ rent.

Employees say they have a hard enough time meeting the management’s existing requirements and expressed concern that they might not be able to meet these new expectations, potentially jeopardizing their jobs.

Despite Brennan’s assurances that he did not want anyone to feel pressured, it remains to be seen if employees’ concerns are well-founded.

In the meantime, it seems that while efforts are under way to cut down on contracted staff, according to many the progress is too slow, and the problem of understaffing persists.

The post Following up on I-House appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The newly ratified contract includes a 3 percent merit raise for the 2011-12 academic year for all eligible lecturers — those who did not receive a positive merit review or are on disciplinary probation — and defines the union’s role in negotiations over salaries, health care benefits and the implementation of the pilot for an online course program.

“We’ve got great faculty and great lecturers,” said Dianne Klein, spokesperson for the UC Office of the President.  ”We don’t pay as well as comparable institutions, so were open to poaching. This was a little bump up — it’s not a lot — but it’s something.”

Though it is likely that the 3 percent increase will be repeated in the 2012-13 academic year, the chance of an additional raise in the subsequent year is still unclear, according to Bob Samuels, president of the University Council — American Federation of Teachers.

“We’re in tough financial straits,” Klein said. “We want to be fair. We want to retain our faculty, but the money’s got to come from somewhere. It’s a tough balancing act.”

Other changes to the contract limited the university’s ability to make changes that would impact union members without first consulting the union. For example, the new agreement stipulates that the UC must negotiate with the union to change the benefits members receive, according to Samuels.

Additionally, a newly created section of the contract clarified that the union has a voice in the implementation of an online course program. However, the agreement does not give the union veto power over the program.

“The union does not have the power to stop the online program,” said Klein. “Period. At all.”

However, the new section has helped to assuage union fears that the structure of the online course program would reduce the need for lecturers, according to Samuels.

“If they start a new online program that basically takes work away from lecturers or changes the work of lecturers, they have to negotiate,” Samuels said.

But Klein said that the online program could provide an opportunity for lecturers.

“Why can’t you look at it as a glass half full?” she said. “What if a tenured faculty member says I don’t want do that, that would mean more work for lecturers.”

For the university, part of the goal in this round of negotiations, which began in January, was to equalize the benefits the various unions were receiving.

Only two of 500 union voting lecturers disapproved of the agreement, citing that they wanted to be paid as much as Academic Senate faculty, according to Samuels.

“It’s a pretty straightforward agreement, and we’re certainly happy we’ve reached it. I think the university has a good strong relationship with the lecturers,” said Klein.

The post Contract gives lecturers 3 percent raise, voice in online course implementation appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The recently ratified contract — which was a reopener on a 2008 contract between American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 3299 and the UC — will increase union-affiliated patient care and service employees 3 percent starting Nov. 1. The new contract will also provide continued health care benefits and pension payments for employees, according to an office press release.

Starting Oct. 1, 2012, wages for service employees will increase an additional 3 percent while wages for patient care employees will increase an additional 3 percent beginning Jan. 1, 2012. The minimum wage of $13.70 an hour for service employees, which will go into effect Nov. 1, will jump to $14.42 per hour starting Oct. 1, 2012, according to the press release.

Union members, who reached a tentative agreement on a contract with the university in September, voted to ratify the agreement last week. Julian Posadas, executive vice president of the union, said that 99 percent of patient care workers and 97 percent of service workers in the statewide union voted to ratify the agreement.

“We were happy that the university at the end was willing to commit to what they had bargained with us,” Posadas said.

UC spokesperson Dianne Klein said the university was glad to reach an agreement.

“I think the important thing is that we came out of this with a handshake and good will,” Klein said. “We are looking forward to working with AFSCME not only in regard to union issues like this but also on universitywide issues.”

The reopening of contract negotiations last year was a result of the union taking issue with health and welfare benefits as well as with pension contributions, according to Klein.

Posadas said the UC told union members late last year that they did not have the financial resources to pay for wage increases for service and patient care workers.

“We were okay with the contribution,” Posadas said. “What we weren’t okay with was the lack of commitment to sustain wage increases.”

With the new contract in place, patient care workers will receive a lump sum payment to reflect the 3 percent wage increase back to January, and service workers will receive a lump sum for a 3 percent wage increase representing wages earned in October.

“We think this was a fair compromise,” Klein said. “Our interests are the same — we’re all here for the university.”

The contract ratification announcement comes on the same day the UC announced that it had agreed to merit salary increases for over 350 librarians represented by the American Federation of Teachers.

The post University of California and employee union agree on contract increasing pay appeared first on The Daily Californian.