Two unions involved in lengthy labor negotiations with the University of California rejected UC’s most recent offers this week.
Both the clerical workers’ and lecturers’ unions felt that the most recent UC offers didn’t adequately address contentious issues, including job security and wage increases.
The Coalition of University Employees, the clericals’ union, informed university administration Thursday – the deadline for acceptance of the proposal – that they would not accept the UC’s settlement offer.
Lecturers, represented by the University Council of the American Federation of Teachers formally rejected the university’s terms on Wednesday. The UC had asked them to respond by Oct. 25.
Both unions want to make their own counter offers to the university soon.
The UC is willing to meet with each union and is currently discussing plans for a meeting with UC-AFT, UC press aide Paul Schwartz said in a statement.
The university and CUE have not had a contract since the end of last September. A major obstacle to an accord is disagreement over pay increases. The union seeks a 15 percent pay hike over two years, but UC officials have consistently said there is not enough in the university’s budget.
Though the university is willing to continue talks with clericals, UC negotiators will stick to salary terms contained in the offer CUE rejected.
The university offered clericals a 2 percent raise, followed by a 1.5 percent cost of living adjustment. The UC proposed a percent increase equivalent to raises planned for university staff in other classifications.
CUE president Claudia Horning said that the pay raise offered is “chump change,” adding that while the union has continued to negotiate, the UC has been unwilling to work with them.
“They don’t refute the facts of our argument; they just say no, we won’t give you that,” she added.
The UC is in a similar place with the lecturers’ union, Schwartz said.
Though lecturers and UC officials have been in collective bargaining talks for over two years, they have failed to produce a contract. Neither party has agreed on pay rates, job security or arbitration mechanisms.
Though lecturers were dissatisfied with the UC’s most recent offer, contract language was not the only reason they rejected the deal.
Kevin Roddy, president of UC-AFT, said the union objected to the UC submitting both a conditional offer along with terms the UC would adopt if lecturers rejected the first deal. The union interpreted the university’s action as a move toward a final bargaining position.
“We don’t really agree that things are at impasse ... we think there is lots more room for negotiation,” Roddy said.
However, the university is less optimistic.
Schwartz said though the next step depends on the substance of UC-AFT’s response, everything seems to be moving toward impasse, a declaration that one or both parties can’t move any more at the table.
Rob Hennig, a UC-AFT bargaining team member and UCLA lecturer, disagreed, saying that the outcome depends on whether the UC decides to continue bargaining or go to impasse, where the university would impose a contract.
If the UC files impasse proceedings with the State Labor Relations Board, the next step is to go to “fact-finding,” or non-binding arbitration.
In non-binding arbitration, the State appoints a mediator to review the facts of both sides and offer a solution. Neither side is obligated to accept the mediator’s proposal.
Both unions have gone on strike multiple times, and the threat of a future work stoppage at UCLA looms large. On more than one occasion, Hennig has said lecturers will strike on campus.