UC - AFT NEWS

• UC-AFT Officer Candidate statements
• UCB Extension English Language Program to close
• Lecturers Bargaining archives
• UC Administrators' Compensation Packages
• Spring, 2004 UC-AFT Perspective (1 MB pdf)
• Roddy and Klar meet with Dynes

March 27, 2003
By Mike Rotkin

Chief Negotiator Rebecca Rhine and I met on Thursday, March 20, 2003, with a small team from the Administration, including the Chair of the English Department at UCLA; Peter Chester (sitting in for Chief Negotiator Gail Cieszkiewicz who was ill), and Karen Ernst, both of Labor Relations. Rebecca and I continued to present our proposals on the Appointment series (Articles 7.1, pre-six; 7.2, the transition to post-six; and 7.3, post-six). There was a good exchange concerning what we are trying to accomplish and their concerns about our proposals.

We continue to approach each issue as a problem that both sides should have an interest in solving creatively. While it seems that we are moving closer together on many issues -- at least in this conversational setting -- the University small team remains adamant that they do not believe that "the University" will accept any required contractual process for evaluating pre-six lecturers for re-appointment. We reiterated how crucial it is to make enforceable the Universityûs abstract commitment to "not engage in post-six avoidance." They reiterated their commitment to try to find a way to respond to our concerns, while continuing to assert their refusal to provide due process provisions covering the pre-six-year appointment process. In the other areas of appointments there seemed to be more room for agreement; but, as always, the only true measure of progress comes in the form of their written responses.

Because we were unable to review our recently presented proposals on Layoff (Article 18) or Discipline and Dismissal (Article 31), both sides agreed to schedule an additional small group meeting within the next two weeks for that purpose. The meeting ended with a review of the current status of each outstanding issue. Although approval of some of the less critical articles appears imminent, there remain significant differences in many of the areas most important to the bargaining unit.

Both teams are preparing for a full-team meeting in Los Angeles on April 15 and 16 and in Oakland on May 7 and 8. The University has committed to providing a written counter-proposal to the proposals submitted by the UC-AFT at the April sessions. We are also awaiting written responses to our proposals on Professional Concerns and Release Time. We appear to be very close to agreement on those two articles, as our language is very similar. In the area of Merit, the only significant difference between the two sides is our insistence on a required two-step merit increase every three years versus their proposal for one step. Most campuses currently give at least a two-step increase when they award merit increases, so this should not be an issue of cost to the University.

In summary, I would say that things are moving in a positive direction but at a painfully slow pace. We are hopeful we will know a great deal more when we see the Administrationûs written response to our proposals on April 15-16 in Los Angeles. We are cognizant of the calendar and the economic climate and continue to press for closure in the form of an acceptable package.