Fact-finding reports released today concerning the contract dispute between the University of California and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) favored UC proposals 2-to-1, an indication of the University's good-faith negotiations and sincere intent to resolve the contract dispute.
The reports, one for each of AFSCME's two bargaining units, were authored by a neutral factfinder who was selected and approved by both UC and AFSCME and contained 62 recommendations for resolution, more than two-thirds of which favored the University's proposals on key issues, including:
-
Wages: the reports favored UC's wage proposal and found AFSCME's request for retroactive pay untenable, as the contract has already been finalized and ratified; the reports noted AFSCME's demand was 'unprecedented.' "The Employer is making a solid effort to comply with the state law, even implementing its provisions on an accelerated timetable," the reports said. The factfinder favored UC raising the minimum wage to $25 and providing across-the-board increases throughout the contract and recommended increases starting at 5% and 4% for the remaining four years over the five-year contract.
-
Health Care Costs: UC's proposal to provide $75 or $100 monthly premium reductions to lower health care premium costs was favored. "UC's pay banding for health benefit contributions is innovative and equitable. For 20 years, it has acted as a progressive tax on UC's higher-paid employees to subsidize health benefit premium contribution rates for the system's lower-paid workers. It is a model that should be studied and emulated by other employers and their unions," the reports said. It also noted that AFSCME did not present sufficient evidence supporting fixed co-premiums in comparable jurisdictions.
-
Workforce Development: The parties were close to agreeing on a process for developing a joint workforce development program, but the factfinder favored UC's proposal, noting, "The Employer's proposal appears to be a serious commitment to address this core concern of the Union affecting the career mobility of its SX members."
-
Divestment of select entities from UC investments: the factfinder agreed with UC that the topic is outside mandatory bargaining. "This is a political / policy proposal in the guise of a labor contract proposal," the factfinder noted. "The Union clearly has other avenues, outside the confines of the bargaining table, to pursue this agenda."
"We are grateful for the third-party validation of our proposals to AFSCME, which we have offered to recognize the contribution of these UC employees sincerely," said Melissa Matella, Associate Vice President of Systemwide Employee and Labor Relations for the University of California Office of the President. "As the state's third-largest employer, UC is proud to lead the way in innovative and meaningful benefits and compensation that enrich employees' experience at UC."
The reports also contained some findings that both parties disagreed with, such as addressing the nationwide housing crisis through a housing assistance fund in the AFSCME Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The University recognizes that many of its community members, including AFSCME-represented employees, experience challenges related to housing costs. The University is working with partners throughout the state to find ways to support this critical issue for all of its staff, not just a portion of them. The University disagrees, however, that these community-wide challenges can or should be addressed in the context of a specific CBA. Further, the University continues to take the position that housing is not a mandatory subject of bargaining and that its wage proposals include generous increases designed to empower employees to determine how best to allocate their compensation.
The reports also recommend overriding UC's current system of providing equity increases to AFCSME-represented employees through an established, agreed-upon campus-based process that considers market-based wage studies and other talent acquisition and retention factors in favor of an untested, central equity pool. Under the recommendation, unless the parties bargain a mutual agreement on how funds should be disbursed, funds would be disbursed to employees without regard to any market-based or other equity factors, thus limiting UC's ability to address market pressures influencing recruitment and retention of employees in critical AFSCME-represented titles. Both parties disagreed with this recommendation.
Bargaining between the two parties continues; UC is hopeful of a contract resolution soon.
For additional background on the fact-finding process and contract negotiations with AFSCME, visit labor.universityofcalifornia.edu.