uc-aft unit 17 negotiations

UC Regents Report on Executive Compensation

2009-05-13T12:26:00.000-07:00

To UC-AFT Librarians --

Below please find the link to the annual report of the Regent's Committee on Compensation on executive-level pay and benefits. This report was presented at the telephonic meeting of the Regents last week. At that meeting, record-setting salaries were approved for new Chancellors at UCSF and UC Davis, while student fees were increased by 9.3%.

Go to the Compensation Committee Report

Note that the $4.85 million in bonus pay detailed in this report on executive compensation is almost exactly the cost of UC-AFT's proposal to the University to bring professional librarians close to salary parity with their counterparts at the CSUs.

Note as well that the Regents' Committee justifies this extra pay and benefits for UC's highest-paid employees on the ground that this expenditure represents only .54% of UC's overall annual payroll of over 9 billion dollars. Why worry about so small a cost, the report implies?

The report states repeatedly that bonuses and competitive pay are necessary to recruit and retain the best professionals. For example:

"In order to compete in these markets for the highest quality individuals, UC must and should reflect the same market practices, or our top quality health sciences professionals, for example, will merely transfer to a hospital that will pay competitively."

Why does UC so readily use this kind of market analysis for senior executives, coaches, and doctors, but fail to see that it also applies to its librarians?

Finally, note that in the "The UCBudget -- Myths and Facts" document (recently produced by President Yudof's brand new $4 million marketing department), the University states the following:

"Markets are a reality. The University needs to be able to pay market wages to attract and retain quality people. Markets are also different for different employment groups, and the University needs to be competitive in the markets that apply to each employment group. All groups deserve respect and a competitive wage, but the University will need to pay more for certain jobs than it does for others, just as all other employers do."

"Myths and Facts" then proudly points to the example of the new $64 million AFSCME contract as an example of efforts to address market gaps "at every level of the University." As the pamphlet notes, "...salaries for UC service workers are now comparable to -- and in some cases higher than -- similar positions at CSU."

(Oh, the irony...haven't we been saying some stuff about CSU salaries for a while now?)

Please do take the time to examine the Regent's report on executive compensation and all of its details, especially in the attachments. Why are extra bonus payments to UC's already highly-compensated executives and coaches a higher priority than a fair salary fix for UC's librarians?

UC has the money to pay out this $4.85 million in bonus pay to 111 individuals who already are very high earners. UC claims to have the concern for market equity and salary fairness across all ranks. Yet it has nothing to offer its badly undercompensated librarians.

I highly recommend that all librarians take a good long look at this report. It's hard to imagine a more clear -- and more troubling -- illustration of UC's priorities.

Karen Sawislak

Executive Director, UC-AFT

April 30 events

2009-05-07T12:19:00.000-07:00

On April 30, UC-AFT organized events at every campus to draw attention to the fact that undergraduate education at UC is under fire. It is a short-sighted "solution" to budget shortfalls to fail to provide adequate resources to the libraries and to UC lecturers, especially when the University's own audited financial statements show that it has over 5 billion dollars in unrestricted net assets. This posting spotlights some of these actions.

This was the scene at UC Santa Cruz last Thursday, where over 350 turned out to a UC-AFT sponsored event to protest UC's apparent budget priorities-- and protect undergraduate education. Unit 17 Chief Negotiator Mike Rotkin was the emcee of the event. As if to prove the point of the rally, Mike received a layoff notice the next day from his job as coordinator of field studies for the Community Studies major at UCSC -- in this position, Mike works with dozens of UCSC undergraduates each year as they complete the field work component of their academic program. Other long-time lecturers who have anchored critical undergraduate programs are facing similar threats. Mike and his Santa Cruz colleagues and students now are engaged in a fight to save the Community Studies major, a signature program of the UCSC campus, and are otherwise mobilizing to protect the instructional program for undergraduates. For more information, see their Facebook page: "Coalition to Save Community Studies."

Librarian Ken Lyons, a member of the Negotiating Team, spoke to the UCSC crowd about the Unit 17 salary fight.

Students and other supporters are fighting the UCSC cuts and systematic under-funding of library services by uniting behind this slogan: "Chop from the Top." A new haircut apparently is soon to appear on campus to dramatize this theme.

Meanwhile, UC-AFT lecturers and librarians held a similarly-themed rally at UCLA. The previous weekend, UCLA librarians had collected hundreds of signatures on our salary petition at the LA Times Festival of Books -- and were a highly visible presence to the thousands of community members who came to this campus event. On April 30, a substantial group came together on the steps of Powell Library to call upon the University to gives students -- and those who educate them -- their due. Among others, Communications and African Studies lecturer Paul Von Blum and UC-AFT President Bob Samuels (a Writing Program lecturer at UCLA) spoke to the crowd.

Finally, "Hug the Library" events happened at UCSB and at UCR. Here, supporters came together and formed a human chain around the campus central libraries.

To get a sense of the impressive energy, size, and enthusiasm of the UCR event, please check out UC-AFT's first-ever appearance on YouTube:

Go to UCR "Hug the Library" Video

Thanks to everyone who worked to organize these events and to everyone who came out to show their support.

Karen Sawislak
UC-AFT Executive Director

Bargaining Update #11: Mediation session on April 17, 2009

2009-04-23T07:57:00.000-07:00

At the mediation session on Friday, April 17, we continued to attempt
to work toward settlement of our salary issues.

There are still significant gaps between the parties and at this point
we do not have another mediation session on calendar.
Nonetheless, the mediator is not convinced that it is impossible to
reach settlement, and she has mandated that we stay with the process
for at least another two weeks. By statute, we cannot move on to
factfinding until the mediator certifies that the mediation has
failed.

As noted in our previous posting, the mediation process is
confidential and we therefore cannot share details of our discussions.
We are continuing to review our options and the full Unit 17
Bargaining Committee will participate in any decisions about next
steps. We expect to have more information for the entire unit in
early May.

In the meantime, librarians are continue to organize across the
campuses. Thanks to all who participated in our button and T-shirt
day on April 17.

This coming weekend, April 25-26, UCLA librarians will be out
petitioning and handing out bookmarks and buttons at the LA Times Festival
of Books, an event that brings thousands of book enthusiasts (who
hopefully appreciate librarians!) to the campus. If you would like to
join them, please contact our UCLA Field Representative Maria Elena
Cortez at 310-330-6906 or via e-mail at cortez.ucaft@gmail.com.

Also, please watch for activities on your campus on Thursday April 30,
when UC-AFT will be calling upon the University to prioritize
undergraduate education. At UCSB, this will take the form of a "Hug
the Library" event, where supporters will encircle the library to
dramatize the need for UC to provide adequate salaries to librarians.

There will be rallies and teach-ins with similar themes at other
campuses -- be sure to watch for announcements from your local
officers and field representatives and to come out on April 30.

Karen Sawislak
Executive Director
UC-AFT
510-740-0145
ksawislak@cft.org

Bargaining Update #10: Mediation session on March 24, 2009

2009-03-30T12:28:00.000-07:00

Nine members of the Unit 17 negotating committee met with the UC team in a mediation session on March 24, 2009. Pursuant to HEERA (the collective bargaining law for higher education), the actual content of the mediation is confidential.

We can say that the session was productive and that the state-appointed mediator helped to move both parties away from the impasse we had reached on salary and professional development funding. We have agreed to a second mediation session, which has tentatively been scheduled for Friday, April 17.

The Unit 17 Bargaining Committee with be meeting on April 4 at the Sheraton Gateway at LAX to consider these latest developments and to move forward with our broader project of organizing.

In addition, please see below for the text of Bargaining Committee member Michael Yonezawa's strong statement to the UC Regents sitting in Committee of the Whole at the Regents' Meeting at UCR on March 18, 2009:

"Good Morning, my name is Michael Yonezawa and I am a UCR Librarian and member of the UC-AFT.

We have been told by UC Administration that, “Librarians [and apparently libraries] are not a priority for UC at the current time.”

At the bargaining table, UC offered us an insulting zero % salary increase. Yet, UC has billions of dollars in unrestricted funds.

After decades of ignoring the need for increases in librarian compensation, UC Librarians are now a minimum of 15% behind comparable pay for librarians in the California State University system and are paid less than most community college librarians and librarians at public libraries for comparable work.

Low salaries for UC Librarians have resulted in serious recruitment and retention problems on virtually every UC campus.

Underfunding of UC Libraries hurts the quality of our collections and services and in turn affects the quality of the research and instructional mission of the University.

The “Open Book” on the UC Seal symbolizes the accumulation and dissemination of knowledge by the University. The UC Libraries and the people who make the Libraries function are critical to the physical embodiment of that symbol.

Regents, show your allegiance and support fair wages for ALL employees who are committed to making UC a world class university.

Thank you."

Karen Sawislak
Executive Director
UC-AFT

Bargaining Update #9-- January 9, 2009

2009-02-03T17:54:00.000-08:00

Library Bargaining Update for January 9, 2009

By Mike Rotkin, Chief Negotiator for Unit 17, UC-AFT

The UC-AFT and UC Administration Negotiating Teams met in Oakland at UCOP on January 9, 2009. The two teams came to tentative agreement on all outstanding language issues, but remain far apart on the remaining compensation issues – primarily salary and professional development funding levels. We were able to get new language in the Professional Activities and Development article (Article 3) that clarifies that concerns about the denial of leaves (such as a request for time to attend a conference), will be addressed via the Leaves article which is grievable and subject to third-party arbitration. Within the professional development article, the amount and timing of professional development funding for individuals will continue as not subject to grievance or arbitration; however, the University agreed for the first time in writing that such decisions will not be “arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.”

On the much larger issue of compensation, the University Administration has responded to the Union’s request for a modest increase in professional development funding (PDF) with only a token 1% increase. Further, the University has responded to our proposal for a new salary scale that would bring UC librarians comparable pay to CSU librarians with an offer of a zero ($0) increase. Needless to say, we were more than a little shocked. We realize that UC is facing some budget problems, particularly in terms of the roughly 19% of its annual budget that comes from the State of California. However, as we have demonstrated at the table with hard evidence:

1) UC has literally billions of dollars in unrestricted funds that could be used to fund the rather modest requests of UC librarians.
2) Other groups of UC employees, including police, nurses and other hospital workers, and various groups of top executives continue to receive pay increases.
3) The University has said that it plans to fund Senate faculty increases in the near future that will cost easily ten times more than what the librarians are requesting.
4) The cost of unreasonably low pay and professional development support falls not only on our members and their families, but on the UC libraries as an institution and on the libraries’ various patrons – the faculty, students, staff, and the citizens of California. There are now serious problems with retention and recruitment of librarians at UC and the resulting workload pressures on the remaining librarians only reinforces the recruitment and retention problems for obvious reasons.

And the University Administration’s Team has not even attempted to deny any of these facts. They made it plain at the table at our last bargaining session in December that librarians are not a priority for UC at the current time. We could be charitable and assume that this was an unfortunate shorthand for: “UC librarian compensation is not a priority for UC at the current time,” but the concept in either form is very telling.

We were particularly shocked at the University’s offer of no compensation increases. We expected that the Administration would not be offering us a large package, but, frankly, an offer of nothing was unanticipated and contrary to earlier informal indications of what we might see from the University.

We had thought that the University would offer at least some increases at the Associate Librarian level to begin to address the severe compression problems created by the increases won for Assistant Librarians last spring. It now seems that even this small step towards salary improvements has been blocked by the University Librarians – apparently (although we don’t know for sure) out of concern for other priorities in their library budgets. Members of the UC-AFT team, and I assume other librarians reading this information, were dismayed to discover that it is not simply general University budget concerns, but a set of skewed priorities on the part of the people running UC libraries, that is responsible for the insulting “zero” offer from UC at the table at our last session.

Despite the general belief that it is unwise for a bargaining team to “bargain against itself” by reducing the cost of a previous proposal unless there is movement on the other side, the UC-AFT Negotiating Team offered new proposals to the Administration on both wages and professional development funding. We reduced our demand for a wage increase to a flat $10,000 a year increase for Librarians at the top end of the scale . Further, we scaled back our demand for per capita annual PDF from $3000 to $2500 (and reduced the demand for an increase in the University Research Fund from $50,000 to $42,000). We did this because we want to signal the Administration that we are prepared to bargain in good faith and that we have not yet offered our last and final proposal to them. Our new proposals reduced the estimated total costs of our economic proposals from roughly $5.85 million a year to $5.15 million a year. (And remember that this cost is in the context of a University budget with billions of dollars in unrestricted funds! As we prepare for continued bargaining and/or possible impasse, we are currently preparing materials that would offer the public information on some of the many, many lower priority activities on which the University currently spends over $5 million annually.)

Beyond our reduced demand, we also made it clear that if we could come to an agreement over salaries and PDF, the UC-AFT was prepared to drop its proposals for child care and tuition waivers that remain on the table. We also explained that we were open to counter proposals on both articles and that such counter proposals could include various ways to reduce the immediate costs to UC for implementing our contract, for example, through “trigger mechanisms” that would only fulfill our goals of at least reaching comparability with CSU compensation over time. (It should be noted that even our initial bargaining proposals would, now, only bring us to comparability with CSU compensation as it stood last spring, since CSU librarians have received pay increases since we developed our initial proposals!)

The UC Administration responded that they would need some time to consult with their principals (ULs and the finance people at UCOP one assumes), before responding to our new proposals. We clarified at the table that neither party is interested in continuing much longer with bargaining if there is not going to be serious movement at the table. We agreed to give the Administration until early February to come to the table with a response to our unprecedented bargaining against ourselves. Myron Okada, the Chief Negotiator for the Administration said that they had heard our concerns, that they did take our proposals seriously, and that they would meet with their principals to see if there would be any movement on their side.

As we wrapped up our bargaining session at the table, as Chief Negotiator for Unit 17 librarians, I said that “as those who have bargained with me before know, I am not into bluster at the bargaining table, but the Administration should not be lulled into a false sense of confidence that UC librarians will respond to insulting offers at the table with the same passivity that they may have experienced in some past bargaining. Librarians at UC are upset and beginning to get mobilized. UC should not be surprised to see librarians showing their displeasure in campus demonstrations or be shocked by articles appearing in newspapers and professional journals that highlight UC librarian concerns."

In the end, as in all bargaining, what we can get in the way of compensation increases at the table depends less on the logic of our proposals or the persuasiveness with which we deliver our proposals, than on the level of organization, mobilization, and militancy of our members on the various campuses. One would wish that this were not the case at a major university (which most of us at one time or another might have believed was ruled by reason), but by now we should know better.

When the Administration tells us at the bargaining table that they have no response to our rational and persuasive arguments, but that librarian compensation is not a UC priority, we have two possibilities: suck it up and accept that response, or organize ways to demonstrate to them that librarians and other constituencies whom they do care about will not accept such a view passively. That is a choice that Chief Negotiators don’t get to make. In the end, the fate of the UC librarians with respect to compensation is in the hands of the librarians themselves. The UC-AFT will provide every resource at our disposal to support whichever direction the librarians choose for themselves.

Bargaining Update #8-- December 10, 2008

2009-02-03T17:48:00.000-08:00

Librarian Bargaining Update for December 10, 2008
By Mike Rotkin, Chief Negotiator, UC-AFT

To say that UC Librarians will find this bargaining update disappointing is a classic understatement. We went to the bargaining table on December 10, with low expectations in terms of what the administration might offer in response to our two biggest economic issues – salaries and funds for professional development. In both areas, UC librarians lag far behind their colleagues with comparable education and experience at the California State Universities and most Community Colleges in California. We have also provided ample evidence that, despite the current world-wide economic crisis and the California budget crisis, that UC has more than sufficient unrestricted funds available to meet the reasonable demands of UC librarians. We also provided the Administration team with a relatively extensive list of other UC employees, including UC legal counsel, UC police, UC hospital workers, and others who have received significant pay increases or generous severance packages after the news of bank failures and the market crash hit. We have spent the last two bargaining sessions demonstrating all of this beyond any reasonable doubt.

Beyond this, we have demonstrated with an abundance of concrete evidence, that the negative impacts of significant under-compensation for UC librarians falls not only on librarians and their families, but on the UC libraries as institutions and on the faculty, students, staff, and public who depend on the UC libraries as users. Serious problems of recruitment and retention have resulted not only in increased workload for librarians working in understaffed departments, but also in the UC libraries falling in their national standing and declining levels of service for library patrons.

Given the current depressed economic mood, and irrespective of the actual ability of UC to meet our reasonable demands, librarians had not been expecting a generous proposal from the University Administration. We were, however, shocked when the Administration offered as a proposal, the current contract language for salary, i.e. absolutely no increase. The University also offered only a laughably small bump in professional development funding: a1% per year increase for the current minimum levels guaranteed at each campus through 2010 (this proposal represents a cost to the University of just a bit more than $8000).

Bargaining protocols prohibit us sharing the comments of individual members of the Administration team, but it was very clear that at least several of them shared our dismay at the lack of authority their team had been given to settle this contract. It has been generally clear that they do not deny the facts of our presentations and that, in general, they have no argument against our position that the UC librarians deserve significant pay increases and increased professional development funding. But they made it clear to us at the table that librarians are not a priority for UC.

It was tempting to simply declare impasse at that point and leave the table, but we have scheduled at least one more bargaining session on January 9, 2009 to test whether or not this is truly the Administration’s last and final offer. We intend to restructure our last offer (without beginning a process of bargaining against ourselves) to see if there is any way we can resolve our differences before declaring impasse.

Also at the bargaining session on December 10, the Administration did bring in two experts to provide us with additional information on the University budget and on the current state of the UC Retirement System (UCRS). Both presentations were well organized and helpful. While there was nothing in the budget presentation to dissuade us from believing that UC has the resources to fund the librarian proposals on the table, the presentation on UCRS did make a rather compelling case that contributions will need to be started up again if the system is going to maintain its ability to cover future retirements without reducing the benefits of the current retirement system. Of course it remains to be seen what those new contributions will be and what relative share will have to be contributed by the employer and the employees. The Administration expert did indicate that he thought the first increase in employee contributions would probably be a redirection of the 2% most employees currently have deducted for the Defined Contribution Plan. He also thought that there would be a match of some kind by the employer, but it was not clear at what percent that would be set. The Regents plan to take action on this matter in January (or perhaps February).

So, in sum, not a happy day at the bargaining table for librarians. We intend to continue and expand our education of our members, the campus community, and the general public about the current outrageous situation in the libraries. A meeting of the Librarian Bargaining Committee (two representatives from each campus) was also set for Saturday, January 10 in Oakland – exact location to be announced. (But if they have not done so, members of the bargaining committee should purchase their plane tickets and make hotel arrangements if they are staying overnight between the Friday bargaining session and the Bargaining Committee meeting on Saturday – contact Karen if you want help finding a place to stay.)

Bargaining Update #7-- November 19, 2008

2008-11-25T11:14:00.000-08:00

Librarian Bargaining Update for November 19, 2008
By Mike Rotkin, Chief Negotiator for Unit 17

On Wednesday, November 19, at the UCOP office in Oakland, the UC-AFT and the University Administration completed the second day of resumed bargaining. On the table are economic issues including salaries, the level of Professional Development Funds (PDF) available to Librarians on the campuses, child care support and tuition waivers. Our focus at the first two meetings has been on salaries and the economic context that affects the discussion over salaries. On the table currently is the UC-AFT’s proposal to bring UC Librarian salaries up to comparability with those at CSU.

The discussion remains cordial, but there has not yet been any significant movement at the table. Most of the time has been spent with the UC-AFT team presenting information that sets the context for bargaining. We have presented graphs, tables, and charts that demonstrate how far UC Librarian salaries lag behind the market and specifically behind Librarian salaries at CSU, most community colleges, and California public libraries. All of the members of the UC-AFT team have also shared information that we have been collecting about the negative impacts of low Librarian salaries on recruitment and retention in the UC Libraries. We have consistently argued that the negative impacts of low salaries is not just felt by the Librarians and their families, but that low salaries are negatively impacting the quality of services being provided by UC libraries to faculty, students, staff, and the general public.

On November 19, Karen Sawislak, UC-AFT Executive Director and Negotiating Team member, presented compelling information that UC has more than enough funds to meet the salary proposal for Librarians presented by the UC-AFT. Using former fact-finding reports issued with respect to other unions in 2005 and 2008 and more current information about the large pool of unrestricted financial assets held by UC, ED Sawislak made a compelling argument that the issue is “not the ability of the UC Administration to fund Librarian proposal, but how they prioritize those needs against other University goals. She also presented an impressive list of groups for whom the University appears to have found funding even after the recent financial “meltdown” in the world market – again reinforcing the point that the issue is not whether UC has money, but how they choose to spend it.

Generally, the response from the University Administration team has been supportive but totally non-committal. A number of times at the table, their chief Negotiator Myron Okada has said that they realize that Librarian salaries lag behind the market and that they would pass on the arguments and information that our team has presented to them to the University officials who provide the Administration team with their parameters for bargaining. It would, however, be misleading to suggest that they have encouraged us to expect a significant salary offer from them in the near future.

We will return to the table for further bargaining on December 10 and we are expecting to see a counter proposal from the University Administration at that time.

Meanwhile, the Negotiating Team appreciates the educational work and actions that increasing numbers of Librarians have been taking on several campuses. We continue to believe that our success at the bargaining table is directly related to the level of activism expressed by the Librarians for whom we are bargaining on each of the UC campuses.

If you have questions about Librarian bargaining, you can contact any member of our Negotiating Team:

Harrison Decker, UCB -- harrison.dekker@gmail.com
Ken Firestein, UCD -- kenfirestein@yahoo.com
Mitchell Brown, UCI -- mcbrown1@gmail.com
Lise Snyder, UCLA -- dlcsnyder@ca.rr.com
Steve Mitchell, UCR -- yellowfinkelp@gmail.com
Chimene Tucker, UCSB -- ladychimene@yahoo.com
Kenneth Lyons, UCSC -- kbplyons@cruzio.com
Dan Suchy, UCSD -- dan.suchy@gmail.com
Karen Sawislak, UC-AFT -- ksawislak@cft.org
Mike Rotkin, UC-AFT -- matlin@cruzio.com
Miki Goral, UC-AFT -- miki@vzavenue.net

Return to the Table for Econonmic Issues -- November 6, 2008

2008-11-25T11:13:00.000-08:00

Bargaining Update for Session on November 6, 2008
By Mike Rotkin, Chief Negotiator

Bargaining between the UC-AFT representing UC Librarians (Unit 17) and the University Administration resumed on November 6, 2008 at the Office of the President in Oakland. Both sides had full teams present. The atmosphere was cordial, but discussions are moving forward slowly.

Most of the time at the bargaining table was spent with the UC-AFT Negotiating Team outlining the arguments we intend to bring to the table. We began the process of passing hard copies of charts and graphs that demonstrate the points we are trying to make. Most of these points raised were summarized in the Talking Points for Librarian Bargaining that we issued earlier:

• UC Librarians seriously lag behind the labor market salaries for librarians as reflected by salaries at CSU, many if not most community colleges, and public libraries.
• UC Librarian wages lag far behind the cost of living over the past decade or two.
• Low wages result in retention and recruitment problems and that are serious at many libraries. Low salaries for Librarians represent an approach that is “penny wide and pound foolish” since training and having many recruitments and failed recruitments are expensive.
• Consequently, many UC libraries have far too many vacancies and this results in workload problems that exacerbate the retention problems as well as reducing the quality of service provided by UC libraries to faculty, students, staff, and the general public.
• In general UC libraries are under-funded and falling in status among research libraries.
• Despite the current financial meltdown, UC has the money to fund a decent salary increase, but unwisely chooses to fund other priorities (primarily new buildings).
• Professional Development is under-funded at UC.
• For the first time in several decades, bad morale is a serious problem at UC libraries and we are seeing Librarians get mobilized and begin to speak out publicly about their issues.

The single largest point we made was that we are not demanding pay increases simply because Librarians deserve them, but because to not increase pay will result in serious harm to the institution of UC libraries. In difficult times, UC still continues to fund pay increases for certain groups. Despite the recent financial meltdown, UC made significant pay increases for hospital workers, attorneys, UC police, and top executives. Institutional needs that we will demonstrate at the table require similar special action for Librarians.

Although no new proposals were put forth by either side, the University Administration made it clear informally that from their perspective there is not a lot of money for a Librarian contract at this point. At the table, they said:

• The Administration recognizes the value of Librarians and the need for pay increases. The UC budget does not allow them to do much to meet this need at the current time, but they will be offering some kind of financial package despite the current financial problems of the University.
• The University has major competing priorities.
• They look forward to the information we promised to share with them (see above), they will take the information seriously, and they will share the information and arguments that we make with “their betters,” i.e. the unnamed group that sets their parameters for bargaining.

Future bargaining dates have now been set for November 19 and December 4.

Tentative Agreement Approved

2008-04-07T08:03:00.000-07:00

To UC librarians:

In the ratification vote held last week, members of UC-AFT approved
the tentative agreement with the University.

The final tally of all ballots was 173 in favor of ratification and 15 opposed.

Campus votes were as follows (# in favor -- # opposed):

Berkeley/UCSF: 36-1
Davis: 20-0
Santa Cruz: 5-13
Santa Barbara: 14-0
UCLA: 46-1
Riverside: 17-0
Irvine: 19-0
San Diego: 16-0

Thanks to all who voted.

The union will now begin the process of organizing for the resumption
of bargaining over salary and other economic issues. We will be in
touch very soon to inform you about opportunities to participate in
this next stage of librarian bargaining.

In solidarity,

Karen Sawislak
Executive Director
UC-AFT

--

Article-by-Article Summary of Unit 17 Tentative Agreement

2008-03-17T15:41:00.000-07:00

To Unit 17 –

Below please find an article-by-article summary of the changes to the librarian contract negotiated in successor bargaining for the Unit 17 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). A ratification vote will be held at all campuses during the week of March 31-April 4. There will also be a mail ballot option for those unable to vote on their campus. Only union MEMBERS can vote.

Please recall that the negotiations in this round of bargaining are not yet concluded. As Chief Negotiator Mike Rotkin explained in his message to the Unit last week, as part of the current Tentative Agreement, negotiations over ECONOMIC issues have been deferred until one month after the settlement of the State budget for 2008. The articles that will be the subject of these deferred negotiations (likely in Fall 2008) are:

Article 3 – Professional Activities and Development
Article 12 – Librarian Compensation (Salary)
Article 13 – University Benefits (Sections D and F only – proposals for childcare subsidy and discounted rates for campus recreational facilities.
Article 14 – Fee Waiver
Appendix A-1 – Librarian Series Salary Scales

What follows is an explanation of the NON-ECONOMIC changes to the Unit 17 contract that are CURRENTLY proposed for ratification by the union membership. You will see both large changes and smaller modifications and clarifications detailed below. Please pay special attention to the new workload language in discussed in the summaries of Article 6 (Assignments, Transfers, and Reassignments) and the new article on “Flexible Work Arrangements.” For an explanation of the terms of the deferral of bargaining over economic issues, please see Article 30.C. (Duration) and the Side Letter on Librarian Compensation.

The revised Articles and new Articles will be posted on the web in PDF format so you can review the exact language proposed for ratification. If you look at these PDF files, which are the original tentative agreements signed by the University and UC-AFT negotiators, please recall that old language is struck through and new language is underlined. We will be sending out the links to these files shortly.

Article 1 – Recognition

1. New language clarifying the process to be followed when the University creates a new unit title/title code, or seeks to move an existing title/title code, position, or individual out of the unit. UC must now give notice to UC-AFT of the proposed action 45 days prior to implementation. If there is a dispute about the proposed action, the parties have a 30-day window to meet and discuss. If there is still no agreement, all cases go to PERB (the state agency that administers higher education collective bargaining) for resolution. (1.D. and E.) In cases where the University proposes to remove a position or indivual from the unit, the position or individual stays in the unit until the parties come to agreement or until the conclusion of the PERB unit modification process.

2. New language requiring the University to notify UC-AFT and meet and discuss when it creates a non-librarian position in a University library and the position requires a MLS or equivalent library degree. (1.F.)

3. Elimination of Hourly Intermittent Librarian title code. (1.H.)

Article 2 – Nondiscrimination

1. Elimination of any restriction on grievance and arbitration rights for complaints brought under this Article. (2.A.)

2. Clarification of University’s duty to comply with all applicable federal and state non-discrimination laws. (2.B.1.)

3. Significant expansion of protections through incorporation of relevant APM-035 language formerly in Appendix E.1. Addition of new language that protects librarians from sexual harassment and retaliation. (2.B.2 and 3.)

Article 4 – Process for Merit Increase, Promotion, and Career Status

1. The current peer review process with existing rank/step system and historical role of LAUC in local campus procedures is maintained.

2. Librarians now can self-initiate accelerated reviews. Addresses problem at some campuses where supervisors refused to honor librarians’ requests for accelerated reviews. If a librarian makes the request, they must receive the accelerated review. (4.C.5.)

3. Clarification that, upon the request of review candidate, request, the UL must provide a written statement of the reasons for the final administrative decision. (4.C.20.)

Article 6 – Assignments, Transfers, and Reassignments

1. Incorporation of new language on workload in new language on “General Principles” and “Assignments.” (6.A. and B.)

2. Statement of the general principle that “Professional librarians should not be subjected to unreasonable or excessive workload demands.” (6.A.)

3. New requirement that University must provide written statements of responsibility to librarians. Statements of responsibility will be reviewed by the librarian and his/her supervisor within 30 days of date of hire and at the commencement of each review period. Librarians must sign off on the document. If significant permanent or interim duties are added to a position during a review period, the new duties must be reduced to writing and added to the existing statement of responsibility and the librarian must sign off on the amended statement of responsibility. (6.B.1, 2,, and 3.)

4. If a librarian thinks that his or her assignments are unreasonable or excessive, he/she should confer with his/her supervisor. If issues still remain, the librarian may appeal to the next level of supervision. A record of the appeal and the outcome shall be included in the librarian’s personnel file. (6.B.4.)

5. In cases of involuntary transfer, the University must offer to meet with the affected librarian prior to the change and the University will consider alternatives to the proposed change. (6.D.2.)

6. The union has full grievance and arbitration rights for alleged violations of this Article.

Article 13 – University Benefits

1. Updates and clarifies the appendix that lists University benefits available to librarians. (13.B.)

Article 16 – Management Rights

1. Clarifies that management rights can be subject to grievance and/or arbitration when the exercise of managerial authority violates a provision of the MOU. (16.D.)

Article 17 – Temporary Appointees

1. Clarifies requirement that temporary appointees on soft money grants must undergo regular reviews for merit and promotion when their appointments are extended for more than two years. (17.A.2.)

Article 18 – Leaves of Absence

1. Adds requirement that University decisions about requests for leave with pay to attend professions meetings shall be timely and communicated to the librarian in writing. If a request for leave with pay to attend a professional meeting is denied, the reason for the denial cannot be arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. (18.E.4.)

Article 20 – Vacation

1. Maintains current language on holiday closures. (20.B.4.) A Side Letter sets up meetings at UCLA between UCOP, UCLA, and UC-AFT to discuss the alternative arrangements available at that campus and the work that counts towards time off during the holiday closure period at UCLA. The first meeting will take place on March 20, 2008.

Article 21 – Holidays

1. New language states that if a librarian required to work on an administrative holiday, he/she shall receive another day off with pay (versus prior language that librarian would receive time off equivalent to time worked.) (21.A.2.)

Article 24 – Grievance Procedure

1. Extension of filing deadline for grievances to 45 days from 30 days from the date of the event or action that gave rise to the complaint. (24.A.4.a.)

2. New avenue for processing grievances that involve systemwide issues at Office of the President. (24.A.4.a.)

3. Grievances now may be filed by fax. (24.A.4.c.)

4. Librarians may be represented at grievance meetings by one other librarian AND a UC-AFT staff member. (24.A.6.b.)

5. Section F. will be modified to account for movement into the MOU of the of alternative dispute resolution process formerly in Appendix E.II.

Article 28 – Waiver

1. Elimination of Section B, because of incorporation of language of Appendix E (relevant sections of APM) into new articles in the MOU (see below for explanation of contents of each new article).

2. Maintenance of historical role of LAUC with respect to local policies and procedures involving peer review, the allocation of Professional Development funds, and other matters not covered by the MOU or subject to negotiations with UC-AFT. (new 28.B.)

Article 29 – Medical Separation

1. Clarifies University’s legal duty to consider reasonable accommodations for librarians with medical conditions or disabilities when the University is considering implementation of the medical separation process. See also New Article, Reasonable Accommodation.

Article 30 -- Duration

1. Sets term of MOU – this MOU will expire on September 30, 2011. (30.A.)

2. Specifies terms of “deferred successor bargaining” – states that bargaining over economic issues will resume one month after final adoption of the state budget and designates which Articles will once again be open. Clarifies that UC-AFT has the right to strike after exhaustion of impasse procedures. (30.C.)

3. Sets up reopener bargaining over salary and one other article for each side one year after settlement of deferred successor bargaining. Sets up second reopener for salary only two years after conclusion of deferred successor bargaining. Clarifies that UC-AFT has right to strike after exhaustion of impasse procedures. (30.D)

4. Sets up process for successor negotiations in 2011. (30.E.)

New Article – Appointment, Merit Increase, Promotion, Career Status Actions

1. Creates a new MOU article from language formerly in Appendix E.III (relevant sections of APM-210). Now, University may only change the instructions to review committees for members of the Librarian Series contained in the article through the regular bargaining process (as opposed to prior right to attempt to effect changes with one month’s notice). Complaints arising from this article may be heard under the Alternative Dispute Resolution process contained in the new ADR article (see below).

New Article – Definition, Criteria and Terms of Service for Appointments and Promotions

1. Creates a new MOU article from language formerly in Appendix E.IV (relevant sections of APM-360). Now, University may only change the definition of the Librarian Series, the criteria for merit increase and promotion, and the terms of service contained in the article through the regular bargaining process (as opposed to prior right to attempt to effect changes with one month’s notice). Complaints arising from this article may be heard under the Alternative Dispute Resolution process contained in the new ADR article (see below).

New Article – Alternative Dispute Resolution Process

1. Creates a new MOU article from language formerly in Appendix E.II (relevant sections of APM-140). Provides the dispute resolution process for complaints that arise from alleged violations of the two new articles described above.

New Article – Flexible Work Arrangements

1. New language that allows librarians to request a flexible work arrangement such as telecommuting. Requests shall be made in accordance with local campus procedures or practices. (Section A )

2. The University will support flexible work arrangements when such arrangements meet the needs of the University and the employee. Denials of requests for flexible work arrangements shall not be arbitrary or capricious. (Sections B and C)

3. This article is not subject to the MOU’s grievance or arbitration process. (Section D)

New Article – Reasonable Accommodation

1. Describes the University’s duty to provide reasonable accommodations to librarians who are disabled or become disabled.

Side Letter – Librarian Compensation

1. Effective April 1, 2008, increases the salaries of the lowest steps on the salary scale as follows:

Assistant Librarian I to $46,164
Assistant Librarian II to $47,087
Assistant Librarian III to $48,029
Associate Librarian I to $48,029

2. The University agrees that it will NOT propose to eliminate the historical rank and step structure for librarian compensation during the term of this MOU.

3. Any general range adjustments negotiated during the resumption of bargaining over salary after adoption of the 2008 state budget will be received at the same time or be retroactive to the date of any 2008-09 general range adjustment given to non-represented academic employees, including out-of-unit Librarians and/or Senate Faculty.

4. Merit increases awarded to librarians undergoing review during 2007-2008 will be effective July 1, 2008.

Meetings are now being scheduled at campuses to discuss the Tentative Agreement. We encourage you to attend those meetings. In addition, please feel free to contact me directly with any questions or concerns.

Karen Sawislak
Executive Director
UC-AFT
510-740-0145
ksawislak@cft.org

Bargaining Update #6-- February 22, 2008

2008-02-28T18:41:00.001-08:00

Library Bargaining Update for February 22, 2008

The teams met in Oakland at the UCOP offices in the Kaiser Building. Both teams had most members present. We began with a long caucus to allow the UC-AFT team to discuss how to handle the impact of the State budget on our economic demands. The UC-AFT does not accept the University’s long-held position that funding for salaries and other economic needs of its employees can only come from the State budget. While clearly the State budget is in trouble, the University’s overall collection of unrestricted funds continues to grow exponentially. They simply choose not to spend all of those funds on their employees (with the exception of the executive class).

However, we may want to agree that at least until the State budget is settled, it will be difficult for the University to make significant proposals with respect to the salary increases and other economic changes necessary to close the gap between UC Librarian salaries and salaries at CSU and even community colleges in California. The two parties will soon be discussing how to handle bargaining our economic issues in the context of the State budget crisis.

Bargaining was cordial and we came to tentative agreement on two articles that commit the University to important duties and processes for dealing with medical disabilities. We also exchanged counter proposals on a number of non-economic and less critical articles. The parties are coming closer together in some of these areas.

There is not a great deal of progress to report, but so far things are slowly moving forward. Our next bargaining session will be on Monday, March 3, 2008 at UC Irvine.

Mike Rotkin

Chief Negotiator for Unit 17

UC-AFT

Bargaining Update #5-- February 1, 2008

2008-02-04T10:57:00.000-08:00

Unit 17 Librarian Bargaining Update for February 1, 2008
By Mike Rotkin, Chief Negotiator UC-AFT

Bargaining remained cordial and moved forward at a slow pace as both parties shared counter-offers on three or four articles each. These were not the most critical articles for either team - not salaries, review processes, or other critical issues. But in each instance the parties moved closer together on final language for the articles involved. Each side will bring counter proposals on five additional of the less-critical articles at our next bargaining session on February 22, 2008, in Oakland.

More significantly, away from formal bargaining at the table, UC's Chief Negotiator has given us an indication of the serious problem the bargainers for both teams will face as a result of the uncertainty concerning the resolution of the State budget crisis. The State budget crisis now makes it likely that the University will not be in a position to make a meaningful offer on salary at least until the State budget is approved. We know that the University as an institution is not having a budget crisis - their unrestricted funds have been increasing exponentially for many years now. However, the University has traditionally paid all salaries not out of its general funds, but only from the money provided by the State of California in its annual budget. They simply choose to spend their other unrestricted funds on capital projects and priorities other than employee salaries, merits, and benefits.

While the UC-AFT is far from accepting a new contract with no money in it for salaries, it is probably realistic to assume that we will not come to an agreement over salaries until the budget is set for the year - and that is unlikely to happen before the end of the summer at the earliest. In the meantime, our MOU expires at the end of March. Consequently, the UC-AFT Negotiating Team (the group that comes to the table for each session) and the larger Bargaining Committee (two librarians from each campus) will be discussing how to respond to the current dilemma.

While the two parties can probably resolve differences on several of the more minor articles under discussion, it is unlikely that we will resolve the salary issue before the expiration of the MOU. Several other non-economic issues under discussion will also be difficult to resolve without a clearer idea of how the salary issues will be resolved. Once the issues we can resolve are completed in the next few meetings, it will make little sense for the two parties to engage in "slow down bargaining" or pretend bargaining until the University is in a position to at least understand what the State budget looks like. It is not clear how simply declaring impasse when the University is unable or unwilling to offer significant salary proposals would serve our members either.

So the UC-AFT team will need to decide how to approach this frustrating and unproductive situation. Options include seeking some kind of delay in bargaining, perhaps with some retroactivity agreement, or perhaps discussing an arrangement for a "trigger mechanism" which would guarantee librarians pay increases when the budget picture improves. We have not ruled out taking a stronger stand in which we would insist on some librarian salary improvements irrespective of the state budget. The University, of course, has not stopped offering dramatic pay increases for top executives despite the budget crisis and budget uncertainty. We would simply turn the Administration's own rhetoric about institutional needs overriding budget concerns against them. Are librarians less important to the institution, the faculty, students, and the citizens of the State than those in the Executive Series?

Taking this approach will be highly confrontational and will nrequire the serious mobilization of significant numbers of the librarians across the system and all of our supporters both inside and outside of the University community. Even some of the solutions that involve a delay in real bargaining over salaries may require significant mobilization and pressure from Unit 17 and our friends before the Administration is prepared to enact them. For example, we cannot assume that agreements about retroactivity, trigger mechanisms, or other arrangements necessary for us to accept postponing desperately needed salary increases would be easily approved by the UC Administration or their bargaining team.

In any case, before we decide exactly how we will respond to the State budget crisis and its impact on our bargaining, we will be consulting widely with first the larger Bargaining Committee and then, through them, with Unit 17 librarians throughout the system.

Bargaining Update #4-- January 23, 2008

2008-01-25T20:23:00.000-08:00

Librarian Bargaining Update 1/24/08

The University and UC-AFT Bargaining Teams met at UCOP in Oakland on Wednesday, January 23rd from 10AM until 5pm. The entire AFT team was present, and most of the UC Administration Team was there as well.

The discussion continues to be cordial and informal. The parties agreed to and signed off on ground rules for discussion, which are best summed up by saying we agree to bargain at the table rather than in the media. We will keep our members (and the Administration team will keep their principles) fully informed on what is going on in bargaining, but unless a party believes that the process is broken and gives the other party notice, we will not discuss the details of what is being discussed at the table with anyone other than the people we represent. We clarified that the ground rules are a public document as are the initial proposals, and will be published on our blog, but the actual written counter offers will not be shared with the public or the media.

Both teams completed the presentation of their initial proposals. We went through each article opened by either one or both parties and had a full presentation of the intent of the proposed changes or additions to the MOU. Each side asked questions to clarify the meaning of proposals and the intent behind them. The University team explained that they are working to get all of the relevant sections of the APM (Academic Personnel Manual) related to Unit 17 librarians into the actual MOU, so everything is in one document. Each side opened several articles but the most important issues are clearly salary (and other forms of compensation and benefits) and review procedures.

There were no real surprises. The Administration said several times that they did "not intend to deprofesionalize Unit 17 librarians or to do away with peer review," but only were seeking expedited reviews in a number of limited cases (for example when they need to respond with a counter offer to Unit 17 members who have been offered jobs with other institutions). We will see how this develops in our discussions.

The two teams agreed that at our next meeting (February 1 in Oakland) that each party will counter-propose on three articles opened by the other side. Each team picked some of the less critical articles to start the real give and take of bargaining.

The UC-AFT negotiating team will meet on Friday night in Oakland after our next bargaining session (February 1, 2008) to develop our position on the review process. We intend to try and address the Administration's desire for an accelerated review process for some limited cases, but to do so in a way that does not undermine the peer review process in any way. This discussion will get us into the issue of the relationship of the UC-AFT to LAUC and we will be working to maximize the fairness of the review process (including maintaining and/or enhancing the participation of Unit 17 librarians in the process) while, at the same time, not undermining the more collegial framework that LAUC has provided at least on some campuses now and in the past. There is a potential tension between these two objectives and we intend to fully consult with the larger Bargaining Committee and UC-AFT members in Unit 17 before putting a specific counter-proposal on the table.

We have every expectation that the University Administration will seek an extension of the current MOU until the State budget picture is at least a little clearer (since that is unlikely to be the case before the end of our MOU in March). And while we certainly do not intend to signal any willingness to abandon our salary demands because the State is having a budget crisis (any more than the UC Administration held back huge salary increases for a number of top administrators AFTER they already knew about the State budget crisis), we MAY be willing to accommodate a bargaining schedule that delays serious bargaining over salaries until it is at least a little clearer where the Administration team will have to go to get the money to fix embarrassingly low, librarian salaries. Of course, the resolution of this question will also depend upon full consultation with our Bargaining Committee (two reps from each campus) and our members.

In sum, things remain on track and slowly moving forward with no surprising news to report from the bargaining table.

Mike Rotkin
Chief Negotiator
Unit 17
UC-AFT

Bargaining Update #3-- January 14, 2008

2008-01-17T12:58:00.000-08:00

BARGAINING UPDATE for 1-14-08:

There is not much new to report from bargaining. The management had a
pretty small team there at UC Irvine last Monday at bargaining. Their
team was mostly very late because of a missed flight, so we got
started after lunch and went to 5pm. The discussions were very
cordial. We countered their proposal for ground rules with the ground
rules which had been accepted and used for the most recent Unit 18
bargaining. They will respond next time, and, I am hoping, simply
accept our counter proposal.

Both teams continued to explain their opening proposals. Both teams
explained their proposals up through Article 20 -- most of the
presentations were from our side (since we had openers on more
articles), and most of our proposals were seeking improvements in
compensation and various benefits, leaves, etc. We also are demanding
a more enforceable contract with respect to a number of the articles
under discussion.

Our team asked some hard questions about how the Administration's
proposal on Salary (which is basically to do away with the step
system and replace it with a range system like the lecturers have and
to establish "pools" out of which range adjustments and merits would
be paid) would work -- they were not really able to adequately answer
a number of good questions put to them by our team -- in particular,
how the pool system works in conjunction with the State Compact for
higher Education and the State's actual appropriations for UC each
year. We will return to this discussion.

Needless to say, unions generally have little interest in replacing
well-structured step systems with range systems which would replace
initial salary decisions and promotion decisions based on merit with
what can become very arbitrary decisions based on who management
likes and doesn't like. The UC-AFT shares the general union
perspective on this issue and, at the very least, it would take a
massive salary increase proposal from their side to make our side
even vaguely interested in abandoning the current step system. I
doubt that the current California budget situation would allow for
that kind of a tempting salary proposal from their side.

The UC-AFT Unit 17 Negotiating Team conceded that there might be some
limited cases where a more abbreviated review system might be ok, for
example when there is a need for the University to offer a counter to
an employee who has been offered more money by another library. But
we also argued that this would happen a lot less if librarians were
paid more competitively to begin with. We also made clear that our
proposals to develop a pay scale closer to what is offered at CSU was
based as much on the institutional need to pay competitive salaries
(to help address recruitment, retention, and workload problems) as
any abstract ideas of justice, fairness, or simply meeting the
personal desires of current UC librarians.

At our next bargaining session, next week in Oakland, we should be
able to complete the explanations of initial proposals from both
sides.

Mike Rotkin
Chief Negotiator
Unit 17, UC-AFT

Bargaining Update #2-- December 19, 2007

2007-12-20T21:38:00.000-08:00

Library Bargaining Update
December 20, 2007

The UC-AFT Library Negotiating Team met for our first bargaining session with the University yesterday, December 19, 2007 at the Office of the President in Oakland. Following introductions of the members of the two teams, the UC-AFT explained why we had taken the extraordinary step of sending a letter of concern about the University Administration's initial proposal to our members, the ALA, UC President Dynes and Vice President Judy Boyette, the Chronicle of Higher Education, and the California media. Making clear that our members may have misinterpreted the intent of the Administration, we voiced the wide-spread dismay among our members over proposals that at least appear to be moving toward a deprofessionalization of Unit 17 Librarians. At the same time, we made it very clear that we are prepared for serious and good faith bargaining with the Administration.

During the rest of the day, each of the two parties at the table presented their initial proposals for changes to Article 1: Recognition, Article 2: Discrimination, and Article 3: Professional Activities and Development. The University Administration presented their proposal for changes to Article 4: Process of Merit Increase, Promotion, and Career Status. After each side presented and explained their proposals, the other side asked questions to clarify the intent of and motivation for each proposed change.

The discussion was relatively informal and cordial. It is clear that many of the Articles are interrelated and it will not be possible to begin the serious give and take of bargaining until both sides understand how the proposals for the various articles relate to each other. It is still too early to have much of a sense of how bargaining will shape up, but the Administration team attempted to make it very clear that they are not intending to "deprofessionalize" Librarians or change the status of Librarians as academic employees. They are attempting to create "an abbreviated" review process for some types of reviews, but were quick to assure the UC-AFT team that even this abbreviated process would include some form of peer review. Whether the proposed changes to the review process indeed represent a threat to the professional status of librarians will only become fully clear with further discussion and the exchange of counter-proposals.

The implications of the University's initial proposal to replace the current step system for salaries with a new range system will also only become clearer with further discussionand when we see how these proposed changes relate to the salary article. Although our work yesterday was confined to clarifying what the proposals mean and how they might work in practice, both sides reserved the right to reject the conceptual approach embodied in the proposed changes once we are clearer on their implications.

The UC-AFT agreed to further clarify what we meant by adding "family status" to the list protected classes in the article on discrimination.

We have many more articles to go through just with the initial presentation from each side and questions for clarification before we begin serious bargaining and the exchange of counter-proposals. We did agree on an impressive list of dates for future bargaining - which signals the serious intent of both parties to work hard until we have an agreement we can present to our members in Unit 17.

The following are our tentative bargaining dates and locations:

Monday, January 14 at UCI 10-5
Wednesday, January 23 at UCOP (in Oakland) 10-5
Friday, February 1 at UCOP 10-4
Monday, February 4 at UCI 10-5
Friday, February 22 at UCOP 10-4
Monday, March 3 at UCI 10-5
Wednesday, March 12 at UCOP 10-5
Thursday, March 20 at either UCI or UCSD
Monday, March 31 at UCOP 10-5 (or whenever we can wrap up the MOU if we are close.

I want to thank the Negotiating Team members for their dedication and a successful first day of bargaining.

The Negotiating Team includes:

Mike Rotkin, Chief Negotiator
Harrison Decker, UCB
Ken Firestein, UCD
Michelle Jacobs, UCLA
Mitchell Brown, UCI
Steve Mitchell, UCR
Chimene Tucker, UCSB
Ken Lyons, UCSC
Karen Sawislak, Exec. Dir, UC-AFT
Miki Goral, Chief Negotiator Emerita

The UC Negotiating Team includes the following individuals:

Deanna Dudley, Chief Negotiator, UCOP Labor Relations
Myron Okada, UCOP Labor Relations
Mark Westlye, UCOP Academic Advancement
Debra Harrington, UCB Labor Relations
Elizabeth Leavitt, UCB Academic Personnel
Kathleen van den Heuvel, Director of UCB (Boalt) Law Library
Kate McGirr, UCSC AUL
David Rios, UCR AUL
Deborah Sunday, UCI AUL
Lori Trofemuk, UCSD Labor Relations

We will issue bargaining updates after each session and consult regularly with the larger Bargaining Committee (two Librarians from each campus) about any major changes from our initial proposals or any movement toward the University's proposals.

UC-AFT response to UC opening proposals

2007-12-14T09:17:00.000-08:00

To Unit 17 librarians:

UC libraries are long-standing centers of excellence that deliver critical support to faculty, students, and the public. UC librarians stand at the core of the research and teaching mission of the University. Yet based on what can be gleaned from its initial proposals in the successor bargaining that has just begun, the University now appears determined to undermine the academic status, economic security, and union protections of its librarians.

One normally expects to see sharp contrasts between an employer’s initial bargaining proposals and those of the union. This is part of the way the bargaining process works. Still, those initial proposals should communicate the respective parties’ general goals and concerns. The administration’s initial proposals for the Unit 17 contract have caused surprise and alarm among librarians across the system. They seem designed to de-professionalize librarians by radically increasing management discretion and reducing or eliminating librarians’ contractual rights to full and fair union representation, shared governance in appointments and reviews, and equitable compensation and professional development support.

Why are librarians concerned?

Violation of right to representation. The administration’s proposal for Article 1 is an illegal subversion of the UC-AFT’s statutory right to represent UC’s professional librarians, and of librarians’ right to be represented. It is extremely troubling to see an initial University initial proposal for Article 1 that violates state law governing the collective bargaining process.

Virtual elimination of peer review. The administration’s proposals for Article 4 and the deletion of most of Article 28 would effectively eliminate the peer review process as such, substituting evaluation procedures that include Unit 17 librarians’ participation but which are almost entirely controlled by management. Note that currently the peer review committee is already advisory, and its decisions can be overturned. But under the proposed new system, review committees would no longer be required to have a majority of represented Unit 17 librarians, they apparently would have no say in ordinary merit decisions that do not involve promotion, career status, or acceleration, and they would receive no notice or opportunity to comment if their recommendations were not followed.

Elimination of the salary scale. The replacement of the salary scale by salary ranges would give nearly total discretion to administrators regarding individual advancement. What is currently a predictable though not certain progress through the steps would be subject to the decisions of management with little or no accountability. Some but not all associate and full librarians would receive a one-time 1.5% raise when they are initially put on the new system. The proposals do not include any other raises, nor do they indicate when librarians would be eligible for promotions.

Raises contingent and discretionary. Even these small raises would be contingent on state funding. Worse yet, any annual COLAs and merit raises would be contingent on state funding each year; 75% of funding for salary increases would be used for merits while leaving only 25% for COLAs; furthermore, the amount of any individual merit raise would be entirely at the discretion of management.

In all areas, management would exercise enormously greater control, and librarians’ rights and opportunities would be radically reduced. The opportunities for management abuse of discretion would increase dramatically.

In response to the University’s posting of their initial proposals on December 4, 2007, the UC-AFT Bargaining Committee has heard from unprecedented numbers of librarians throughout the UC system. These librarians are adamant that the union not even consider moving in the direction that the UC appears to be proposing. UC-AFT intends to represent the will of its members in this regard. It is the union’s hope that by the time face-to-face negotiations begins on December 19, 2007, UC will be ready to discuss a new MOU that has some hope of being ratified by the membership of the librarian unit.

The librarian unit faces serious challenges in regard to salary, workload, and professional support. The union has entered these successor negotiations in good faith and is prepared to work with the University to ensure that work conditions are such that UC can support and retain excellent librarians. Unfortunately, the University’s initial proposals have made us question the good faith of the University. Indeed, to achieve managerial “flexibility,” the Administration appears to be eager to dismantle the professional status and protections that in the past have made the University of California a destination workplace for the very best academic librarians. This is a dangerous path not only for librarians and the library, but for the entire University.

__________

Mike Rotkin
UC-AFT Unit 17 Chief Negotiator

--------

Please review our summary of the administration’s proposals below. Full texts of both the administration’s and the union’s proposals are posted online at

http://atyourservice.ucop.edu/news/general/0712_heera-notice.html

The University’s proposals are as follows:

Article 1D. Eliminate current requirements that they negotiate with the union decisions to move an individual or librarian’s position in or out of the bargaining unit.

Article 4.A.1. Change the way members of review committees are appointed. Currently, on many campuses, CAPA or CAP members are chosen by the local LAUC Executive Board, usually subject to administrative approval. Under the new system proposed by management, an administrator would choose committee members from a list of nominations made by the union.

Article 4.A.1. Reduce the minimum number of Unit 17 members on review committees from the current “majority” to “at least half of the membership.”

Article 4.C.1.a. Replace salary steps with salary ranges and replace the current process for merit reviews that do not involve promotion, career status, or accelerated reviews with an “abbreviated evaluation.” The apparent intention here is to eliminate any peer review from decisions about merit review.

Article 4.C.1.c. Pool together “all salary increase dollars” received from the state “each year and distribute [those dollars] as follows to librarians in the unit: 25% will be used for COLA adjustments every year and 75'% will be used for merit increases. Merit increase amounts will be awarded at the sole discretion of the University.” That is, all COLAs and merit raises would be contingent on state funding; amounts of individual merit raises would be entirely at the discretion of administrators.

Article 4.C.18. Eliminate the requirement that the review committee of receive notice of and an opportunity to comment on a University official’s review decision that goes against the committee’s recommendation.

Article 12. Increase the minimum salary for an assistant librarian to $45,000, for an associate librarian to $50,000, and for a full librarian to $69,000 with a 1.5% increase for former associate librarians IV-VII and for full librarians II-VII. No other salary levels are specified and the existing rank/step table has been stricken. Raises would be contingent on “receipt of full funding in the approved state budget.”

Article 28: Eliminate LAUC’s historic role in peer review.

Bargaining Update #1 -- December 3, 2007

2007-12-04T10:01:00.000-08:00

Librarian Bargaining Update #1
December 3, 2007

The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that governs the working conditions and compensation of Unit 17 librarians at the University of California is about to be re-negotiated. On December 3, 2007, opening proposals were exchanged between the UC Administration and the University Council of the American Federation of Teachers (UC-AFT) on behalf of the librarians. The UC-AFT is proposing to open and seek improvements in about half of the articles in the current MOU; however, of primary concern are librarian salaries, workload, and support for professional activities .

After a number of years in which the librarian unit has had only minimal success at the bargaining table, there is a new militancy among librarians, who are better organized and have a clearer set of bargaining goals than in many years. We have recently held labor-management meetings on the local campuses that have uncovered a common set of concerns among librarians throughout the UC system. Although conditions do vary widely among campuses, there are clear and common concerns about issues of compensation, workload, and professional development opportunities. Librarians across the system have been meeting at the local level to plan our bargaining strategy and clarify our opening proposals to the University.

We have held multi-campus meetings in Berkeley and at UCLA and had conference calls among librarians to make sure that our approach to bargaining this time is unified and supported by the vast majority of librarians in the UC system. In each of these meetings, the local campuses were well represented by their respective librarians. The UC-AFT as an organization, and its leadership and staff, have committed to put its resources behind the effort to make major advances at the bargaining table during the current negotiations.

Below, we discuss in some more detail the following topics: 1) the issues we are raising in this round of bargaining; 2) the structure of our negotiating team and the larger bargaining committee which will guide its work; and 3) where we are going from here.

UC-AFT Opening Proposals

The UC-AFT is seeking significant increases in salaries because UC librarians have fallen far behind their colleagues in the California State University system and even behind many community college librarians in pay. Consequently, the opening salary proposal sets forth a new salary scale based on the minimum of the range in comparable titles for CSU librarians. Under this proposal, the minimum annual salary for Assistant, Associate, and full Librarians would be as follows: $55,944; $61,678; and $82,650.

The issues of salary and workload are intertwined. On many UC campuses, low librarian salaries have resulted in recruitment and retention problems. In addition, budget cuts have led to reductions in the numbers of library assistants and library workers represented by other unions or lower-level management positions. The result is increasing workloads for the remaining Unit 17 librarians who often take on the work previously done by other library workers. The increased workload, in turn, exacerbates the retention problem, as additional librarians seek better paid and less stressful employment elsewhere, leaving even more vacancies to be filled by the overworked librarians who remain.

The current librarian MOU has no workload article, perhaps because in the past librarians believed that their professional status and membership in LAUC would provide them with reasonable solutions to workload problems outside of the MOU and the union bargaining process. However, time has demonstrated that, like other professional units at UC, only a strong, enforceable collective labor agreement can provide librarians with a mechanism to respond to workload abuses when short-staffing and other problems result in librarians taking on additional, uncompensated duties for their missing colleagues. We have drafted an entirely new Workload article to address some of these serious problems.

One of the more common outcomes of staff shortages is that librarians are doing increasing amounts of routine work in the library and have less and less time for activities related to their professional development. In addition to making the work less challenging and satisfying in professional terms, this is then held against librarians when they go up for periodic reviews and consideration for merit increases.

As a result, the UC-AFT is also opening and seeking improvement in several articles related to professional development, the use of temporary workers, and temporary assignments, many of which last for years and involve significant uncompensated or under-compensated work. We are working to create incentives for the University administration to avoid the improper use of temporary and other uncompensated appointments. At the same time, we are working to reduce the hiring or new library employees, for what used to be librarian work, outside of the librarian series because it has been so difficult to recruit within the series given the current low pay of the unit.

The UC-AFT is also seeking significant increases and greater equity in the provision of professional development funds which allow librarians to attend professional conferences, upgrade their education and training, and conduct other professional activities which enhance their value to the faculty, students, and others who use library services. We are also looking for improvements the opportunities for leaves and other mechanisms that will enhance professional development opportunities for librarians.

Ostensibly, UC librarians have a peer review system for advancement in library careers. While certain aspects of the process seem to function well, all too often, individual managers or members of the administration inside and outside of the libraries have inappropriate control of the process of merit reviews and other promotional and career-related decisions. Consequently, in the current bargaining, the UC-AFT is seeking to clarify some of the more ambiguous sections of the MOU as it relates to various kinds of reviews affecting Unit 17.

Some of the other areas where we are seeking improved MOU language include, changes related to involuntary transfers, the right to use telecommuting where appropriate, University pay for library stewards and the recognition of union work as professional work, and better access to University housing, child care, educational, and other resources for librarians and their families.

The UC-AFT is opening several articles in order to increase the enforceability of their provisions. In too many cases, articles have language that provides reasonable guidelines for library practices; however, because the provisions lack the support of full grievance and arbitration arrangements, they are essentially unenforceable. Unfortunately, time has demonstrated that MOU promises that are not backed up by enforcement mechanisms often go unrealized in practice.

In our initial proposal, the UC-AFT is seeking a three year MOU with each side able to open one article each year the agreement is in existence. Of course, our final approach to the duration of the agreement will be directly impacted by the kinds of salary, workload, and other improvements we are able to achieve at the bargaining table.

Structure of the Bargaining Committee and Negotiating Team

In the current round of bargaining, the librarians will be represented by a broadly representative Bargaining Committee consisting of:

Two representatives from each campus
Miki Goral, Chief Negotiator Emerita
Mike Rotkin, Chief Negotiator
Karen Sawislak, Executive Director of the UC-AFT

This group will be fully informed before and after each bargaining session and will have the power to determine the parameters within which the UC-AFT’s Negotiating Team will operate. Decisions will be made by consensus whenever possible, and by majority vote when time constraints make that impossible. In addition to setting the parameters for negotiations, the Bargaining Committee has a primary responsibility to keep the librarians on their respective campuses well informed about the bargaining process and to engage the local members in support actions when they are necessary. Please respond positively when your Bargaining Committee representatives call on you for your active support of the bargaining process. This is the group that any member of the librarian unit can contact, along with your local Field Representatives, for further information about the progress of bargaining.

Here is the roster for the current Bargaining Committee:

Harrison Decker, UCB
Axel Borg, UCD
David Michalski, UCD
Ken Firestein, UCD
Mitchell Brown, UCI
Julia Gelfand, UCI
Brian Williams, UCI
Michelle Jacobs, UCLA
Louise Ratliff, UCLA
Lise Snyder, UCLA
Michael Yonezawa, UCR
Steve Mitchell, UCR
Gary Colmenar, UCSB
Chimene Tucker, UCSB
Sally Weimer, UCSB
Kenneth Lyons, UCSC
Annette Marines, UCSC,
Mike Rotkin, UC-AFT,
Miki Goral, UC-AFT,
Karen Sawislak, UC-AFT,

We are currently working on a process to finalize the Bargaining Committee with two representatives from each campus. As you can see, we still need representatives from a couple of campuses and some campuses have more than two representatives.

From the above group, an initial Negotiating Team has been selected and is composed of the following members:

Mitchell Brown
Harrison Dekker
Ken Firestein
Miki Goral
Michelle Jacobs
Ken Lyons
Steve Mitchell
Mike Rotkin – Chief Negotiator
Karen Sawislak
Chimene Tucker

What’s Next?

We will issue a brief bargaining update after December 3, when we know what issues the UC administration raises in their opening proposals. Our first face-to-face bargaining will take place on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 in Oakland. We will issue a bargaining update after that session and after every session in the future. Future bargaining may take place at either locations in northern or southern California. At times, we may schedule bargaining on one or more of the campuses and ask members of various locals to demonstrate their concerns before the beginning of bargaining that day. We will be producing pubic literature in support of the librarians at UC. As necessary, we will engage the support of our CFT and AFT affiliates and public officials as well as the general public.

We know that we will not get everything we have outlined in our opening bargaining proposals; however, if the locals continue their organizing efforts and we gather the support we expect from our Unit 17 members, from other members of our union, from other unions, from other UC faculty, staff, and students, and from the general public, we know we can make substantial gains during the current round of bargaining.

We are not asking for anything that is unreasonable. We are not asking for anything that the University cannot afford. We asking only for things that will help improve the quality of service that the University libraries provide to the University community. If we stick together, and if we work together, we shall win a contract of which we can all be proud – a contract that the librarians at UC deserve.

In solidarity,

Mike Rotkin
Chief Negotiator
Unit 17

Belated reports from UCLA and UCSB

2007-11-29T18:18:00.000-08:00

Sincere apologies for the delay in posting these summaries. The local labor-management meetings are now finished -- reports from Irvine, Riverside, and Davis will be posted shortly.

In addition, initial proposals for bargaining are due on Monday, December 3. Check back soon for a full description of the union's and the University's opening demands.

Please see below for full accounts of the labor-management meetings at UCLA and UCSB:

UCLA labor-management meeting –
November 7th, 9:30am

The UC Los Angeles local labor – management meeting took place on Wednesday, November 7. Librarians Lise Snyder, Louise Ratliff and Michelle Jacobs presented the concerns of the UCLA librarians. Alan Karras (UC-AFT Vice-President for Grievances), Bob Samuels (UC-AFT President), Miki Goral (UC-AFT Secretary- Treasurer), Bill Quirk and Joseph Mendez (UC-AFT UC Los Angeles Field Representatives) also attended for the union. Management representatives were Deanna Dudley and Myron Okada from UCOP Labor Relations, Pat Hawthorne from Library HR, along with Lynne Thompson and Gloria Robledo from UCLA Labor Relations.

Following introductions, both management and the union expressed their appreciation for the opportunity to come together to discuss Unit 17 issues at UC-Los Angeles.

Pat Hawthorne began the meeting by giving a brief overview of the 2005-06 strategic plan that was implemented for the UCLA libraries with specific goals to create one of the best collections for research of any major institution. One of the primary goals is the full digitization of all UCLA catalogs and holdings. Many of the library buildings at UCLA have been neglected and need to be brought up to date for new technologies. As the UCLA libraries go through new educational technology initiatives, they will provide the opportunity for representation of librarian perspectives on all levels on library committees and decision making.

UCLA is currently utilizing staff to the maximum and recognizes that recruitment and retention is very critical but also difficult. Retaining talent is important. The library is proud that it develops homegrown staff who choose to remain at UCLA. Currently UCLA ranks about 64th out of 100 in beginning Librarian salaries nationwide. UCLA has recently had 29 new appointments in its libraries in order to replace many retirees. Some of its mid-level people have also left to pursue other career opportunities. Some of their positions still remain open.

Next, the UCLA librarians gave an overview of the campus library system. Over the past few years, many major reorganizations have been completed, resulting in changes to job assignments, disruptions, and loss of staff. In a recent move of technical services from the Young Research Library to a building on the south edge of the campus (Kinross), librarians had no input in the planning and coordination.

In general, UCLA librarians believe that the Library is a very top-down organization. Librarian/management relations can be, but are not always, respectful though not especially positive in many cases and librarians do not feel that their concerns are acknowledged, much less actively solicited.

One of the major areas of concern at UCLA is salary. There are significant problems with recruitment and retention. The high cost of living prevents some prospective appointees from accepting offers, especially if they are already homeowners in other parts of the country. To compound this problem, relocation costs are reimbursed at only 50%. (The library claimed that this was a campus requirement. UC-AFT knows that this is not true.) It is especially difficult to recruit and retain people in particular areas of specialization, such as law. (Within the last 18 months, 4 librarians have left the Law Library for higher-paying jobs.) UC librarians earn less than librarians at local CSUs, community colleges, and private universities such as USC and Pepperdine. This salary lag has a major impact in the recruitment of highly qualified candidates.

A second major area of concern is workload. Some library vacancies have remained unfilled for months and even years, with a resulting increase in load for the remaining librarians. These “temporary” extra assignments add new duties to an already stressed workforce. Vacancies also lead to tremendous backlogs of work that simply remains undone, especially in areas that require language expertise.

New technologies and new mediums are continually being introduced. Learning to manage new technologies and digital collections takes time and knowledge of these systems must be continually updated. At the same time, the range of duties in “old” technologies have not gone away. For example, E-learning requires specialized instructional technology expertise, on top of the traditional expertise of teaching informational literacy skills to students. New requirements in UC systemwide technologies create all sorts of new work – for example, managing the transition from Melvyl to WorldCatLocal.

The amount and pace of change is daunting and overwhelming. In combination with staff shortages, it is impossible to see any prospects for adequate support of relief. All of this leads to morale issues.

A third major area of concern is professional development. UCLA provides about $705 to each librarian annually for professional development funding, an amount that is completely inadequate for attendance at national conferences. Yet for merit and promotion, this sort of activity is required. Additional funding from the UL is inconsistent and cannot be counted on or planned for. In addition, some librarians are not allowed by their supervisors to attend conferences or workshops – or they are told what they can and cannot attend. Librarians have the right as academics to decide which areas to pursue in order to develop their professional expertise and should not be prohibited from attending conferences or workshops unless they are needed to staff service points at particular times and/or dates. Finally, librarians who want to pursue Criteria 2-4 activities during holiday closures need to be allowed alternative arrangements, because librarians are academic employees who can perform this work off-site; this has been a consistent problem over the last several years. Because of workload and inadequate financial support, librarians at UCLA do not have enough time or funds to perform research or participate in professional activities.

In closing, UCLA management expressed the willingness of the UCLA Librarian to meet with librarians and discuss their concerns. Management also stated that the University Librarian meets with LAUC regularly and takes their concerns seriously. UCOP was very adamant in stating that they separate LAUC and UC-AFT, because the librarians decided years ago that UC-AFT is their bargaining agent. Librarians closed by stating that a good example of being ignored is that the UCLA UL, along with the library AULs, had all decided not to attend the labor-management meeting.

Special thanks to Michelle, Louise, and Lisa for their presentations on behalf of the unit.

UCSB Labor-Management meeting
November 13, 2007

At UCSB, the University was represented by Deanna Dudley and Myron Okada from UCOP Labor Relations, Leslie Sanchez and Sydney Roberts from UCSB Labor Relations, and three AULs from the UCSB Library: Detrice Bankhead, Patrick Dawson, and Brad Eden.

Gary Colemnar, Elaine McCracken, and David Seubert spoke for Unit 17 at UCSB. Karen Sawislak (UC-AFT Executive Director), Bill Quirk (UC-AFT Field Representative for UCSB) and Katia McClain (UCSB Local President) also attended for the union.

After introductions and expressions of thanks from both sides for the opportunity to share librarian concerns, Detrice Bankhead spoke to the challenges and opportunities at UCSB. Major changes are in the works, as the library is planning for a major renovation and a new UL is arriving very soon.

The library budget is a huge problem at UCSB. Library funding has been stagnant for 5-6 years. UCSB is not a growth campus and the library budget has lost 8% each year to inflation.

Cost-of-living is another huge issue in Santa Barbara. The current salary scale and system for librarians makes it very difficult to recruit librarians. Non-Senate academics do not have access to mortgage assistance programs.

The library wants and expects its librarians to be active and participate in Criteria 2-4 activities. But travel from SB is expensive. There is some augmentation to the professional development funding in the MOU, but more support is needed.

The librarians then made their presentations.

Salary is a critical concern in Santa Barbara. The cost-of-living is extremely high. Housing costs are skyrocketing; almost no one can afford to buy a home and even rents are getting to be out of reach. The only alternative is to commute upwards of a hour.

The UC scales are not competitive with local public libraries and badly lag the CSUs. Lots of librarians, especially those who are early-career, have second jobs. Early-career people are looking elsewhere for employment, solely due to the cost of living. It’s very difficult to recruit qualified candidates once they look at the cost of living.

Workload was the second major area of concern. Some librarians have left or retired and their work has been redistributed to those who remain. Because UCSB is a relatively small research library, librarians have responsibilities in many different areas – and are required to have many different competencies. There are extensive teaching responsibilities and efforts at outreach, which require librarians to offer classes at off-site locations, such as dorms. Collections are now on-line, and reference traffic has increased hugely. The library no longer just services the local campus community.

There is extensive support staff turnover, due to the exceptionally high cost of living. The pay is so low that LA 2s, 3s, and 4s cycle through very quickly. It then falls to librarians to constantly re-train new support staff – or sometimes pick up this work themselves. Also, librarians and department heads constantly have to take time to recruit and interview new library staff. Librarians are expected to be trainers, leaders, and helpers for all library staff, a role that has become more burdensome as new technologies are implemented and changed.

Finally, support for professional development is a major problem. Many UCSB librarians pay 50-75% of the cost of their travel to conferences and meetings out of pocket. This adds up to an average of $3,000 - $5000 per year. This sort of professional activity is expected by library administration, and is necessary for librarians to do their jobs well. People can’t accept committee assignments for major organizations because they can’t afford to travel to the committee meetings. Because the library budget has been so flat, there simply isn’t enough support for administrative travel.

The UCSB librarians made it clear that they are committed to their work and the institution. But they do not have the resources and support they need to get the job done. The UC system loses good people because they are tired and overwhelmed by having to make do with less than they need. Professional librarianship cannot thrive in a resource-starved environment and the campus will suffer from a library that is diminished in quality.

This was a frank and pointed discussion. The librarians represented different areas within the library (public services, technical services, special collections) and thus were able to bring examples from their areas of expertise to the table. Special thanks to Gary, Elaine, and David for their powerful contributions.

UCSD labor-management meeting -- November 2

2007-11-07T11:11:00.000-08:00

The UC San Diego local labor-management meeting took place on Friday,
November 2. Elliot Kanter and Jennifer Reiswig presented the concerns
of the UCSD librarians. Mike Rotkin (Unit 17 Chief Negotiator), Karen
Sawislak (UC-AFT Executive Director) and Maria Tillmanns (UC-AFT UCSD
Field Representative) also attended for the union.

Management representatives were Deanna Dudley and Myron Okada from
UCOP Labor Relations, Kerry Donnell and Lori Trofemuk from UCSD Labor
Relations, Maureen Harden, Director of Library Administrative
Services, and Maria Din, Library HR Manager.

After introductions, both management and the union expressed their
appreciation for the opportunity to come together to discuss Unit 17
issues at UCSD.

Maureen Harden began by observing that UCSD in in the midst of
enormous growth. By 2011, the student load on the campus will be
equal to that of UCB and UCLA. The librarian ranks have gone from 45
FTE to 60 FTE in less than 10 years. In the face of this
kind of rapid growth, the campus struggles to recruit new talent and
to retain and provide adequate professional development opportunities
to current staff.

UCSD works hard to maintain a collaborative relationship with its
librarians. The local CAPA is very busy and works extremely hard to
provide quick turnaround on reviews, so the campus can make
competitive offers. The E-Board of CAPA meets quarterly with the UL
and the AULs and UL regularly attend LAUC meetings.

The Library works constantly to live up to its Statement of Values,
which reads as follows: "the UCSD Libraries value responsiveness to
users, innovation and creativity, and strong teamwork and
communication. The Libraries value a workplace environment that
encourages continuous improvement in the quality of our services and
that fosters the career development and professional growth of our
staff."

Even though Library management works hard to be responsive to the
needs of staff, people do leave for new jobs because they can receive
much higher salaries at other local institutions. Because of the high
cost of living, UCSD struggles to attract new librarians to the area.

The UCSD librarians began by stressing the positive aspects of working
at UCSD. UCSD librarians do not have an adversarial relationship with
management. LAUC works effectively to resolve many important issues.
People at UCSD do not feel micromanaged. Still, significant areas of
concern remain.

The number 1 issue is salary. UC librarians earn less than public
librarians at institutions at all levels in California. UCSD
librarians have lost colleagues to the CSUs and local community
colleges, where the new positions paid upwards of $10,000/year above
the UC salary.

The prestige of being at UC doesn't pay the rent. This salary lag
makes it hard to recruit and retain librarians from elsewhere in the
country. Because of salary problems, UCSD has many failed
recruitments. Vacant positions create more work for the librarians
who remain, who are always taking on extra work on a "temporary"
basis.

Housing assistance programs, childcare assistance programs, or support
for tuition all could help alleviate salary pressures. But at UCSD,
only a very limited childcare subsidy is available to librarians.

The second issue of great concern is workload. It takes time and
enormous effort to be a successful librarian in a time of great
innovation in the delivery of services. People need to keep up their
existing skills and continually (and rapidly) master new technologies.
The constantgrowth at the campus means that there are more people to serve
and more programs to develop. Instruction is a bigger and bigger job.

New positions have been added in the library, but usually these are
matched to new needs -- i.e., a librarian to staff a new school of
pharmacy or a new post for undergraduate services due to a
consolidation of divisions. Despite the growing number of FTE,
many positions remain vacant (which in turn creates more work for those
in a short-staffed library).

The third consensus issue among the UCSD librarians is support for
professional development. While UCSD librarians are funded far better
than most of their UC colleagues (they receive $2200/yr), the level of
support still barely covers two meetings per year.

UCSD increased professional development funding to its librarians as a
result of a LAUC study that showed that previous levels were
inadequate. As of this year, if an individual librarian does not
spend his or her entire allotment of $2200 (about 70% do spend the
entire fund), the remainder will go into a pool and other librarians
can apply for additional funding to defer costs they may have incurred
beyond their own $2200.

Apart from financial support, librarians at UCSD simply do not have
enough time to take on research, writing, activities for professional
organizations, and other academic work. More and more, their
Criterion 1 duties fill up their day, and other activities are pushed
into evenings and weekends.

Some access to sabbatical would help to carve out time for creative
academic work. Some telecommuting is allowed, but this must be worked
out with your supervisor.

Finally, the UCSD librarians touched briefly on a few other areas of
concern. First, they expressed a wish for greater flexibility in
determining alternative work arrangements during holiday closures.
Second, they made a strong statement that librarian jobs should remain
in the library series. Moves into the MSP series have not happened as
yet at UCSD, but some may be imminent -- and this is an area of
concern, because this could erode morale and the sense of fairness and
community that librarians now share as professional colleagues who
work under the same system of rules and expectations. Third, some
librarians would like to see greater rights to challenge the
determinations of management when there are disagreements over work
schedules, alternative work arrangements, attendance at conferences or workshops,
and other issues that concern how librarians choose (or cannot choose) to spend their time.

UCSD does not hire librarians at levels inappropriate to their level of
achievement. Management is concerned to maintain to a sense of equity
and fairness within the librarian ranks. Hiring begins at the Assistant Librarian I
level, if a new MLIS has no previous library work experience. Most new hires
come in with some credit for previous library experience and start at Asst. II. No
new MLIS is appointed at a step above Asst. II. It is especially difficult to bring mid-career
librarians to San Diego, because of the cost of living.

This was an extremely informative and substantive discussion. Special
thanks to Elliot and Jenny for their clear and effective presentations
on behalf of the unit at UCSD.

The next local labor-management meetings are:

UCLA, November 7
UCSB, November 13

Karen Sawislak
UC-AFT Executive Director

UC Berkeley L-M meeting -- October 25

2007-10-30T11:34:00.000-07:00

The Berkeley Unit 17 labor-management meeting took place on Thursday,
October 25.

Rita Evans, Harrison Dekker and Jesse Silva spoke for the librarians
at the campus; UC-AFT also was represented by Karen Sawislak (UC-AFT
Executive Director), Alan Karras (UC-AFT Vice-President and UCB
Grievance Steward) and Michelle Squitieri, the UC-AFT Field
Representative for UCB.

The Berkeley representatives were Susan Wong, Director of Human
Resources for the UCB Library, Elizabeth Leavitt of the UCB Academic
Personnel Office, Debra Harrington, UCB Labor Relations Manager. UCOP
was represented by Deanna Dudley, the Unit 17 Chief Negotiator.

Deanna Dudley, the UCOP Negotiator for Unit 17, explained that UCOP has
requested this series of meetings at each campus to learn about the professional
concerns of librarians. She stated that the University wants to hear from the unit
about their issues --and that she personally is looking to be educated about
the work that librarians do for UC.

Susan Wong began the meeting by observing that there are tremendous
changes happening in libraries and the profession of librarianship.
New skills are needed to meet these challenges. The Berkeley library
has embarked on a year-long dialogue called the "New Directions"
initiatives -- the library is bringing in external experts in global
research libraries to give talks and hold workshops that are meant to
spark input and new ideas about the library of the future. All
library management and librarians are being encouraged to collaborate
in this project.

In terms of staffing, Wong noted that the headcount of Unit 17
librarians at UCB has stayed stable for many years. Traditionally,
Berkeley librarians have stayed on for long careers. Now, due to
retirements and some turnover, the Berkeley libraries are hiring
constantly -- she noted that for the last 1-2 years, she has always
been in the midst of 8-10 searches for librarians. To attract the
best candidate, the library needs to be competitive in the salaries it
can offer -- it is especially difficult to attract top librarians in
particular specialized areas. In addition, to deal with retention
issues, the library wants to be able to be more flexible and
time-sensitive in its ability to make counter-offers.

Next, a librarian explained the unique structure of the UCB library system.
There are at least 30 separate libraries on campus.
Doe/Moffitt/Bancroft and subject speciality libraries (such as
Education/Psychology) are under the University Librarian and are
funded through the Library budget. Affiliated libraries are
organizationally tied to Colleges and Schools, are headed by Deans,
and have separate funding streams. Affiliated libraries handle all of
their own functions, while the other libraries share centralized
technical services.

The first part of the discussion briefly focused on workload, as one
of the librarians explained how he found on his first day of work that
he had been assigned responsibilities for a range of subject areas
that were not part of the description for the job he accepted.
Another was promoted to the position held by her supervisor upon his
retirement -- and her previous job has never again been filled.

The Unit 17 librarians then initiated a discussion that largely
focused on the issues of salary, support for professional activities,
and the practice of appointing librarians in non-librarian titles (in
order to increase their pay).

In general, Berkeley librarians greatly enjoy their work, and the
first-rate academic opportunities available to them. Nonetheless,
about half the librarians at the campus with 5-10 years of experience
say that they are thinking about looking for work elsewhere -- and the
reason is that UC salaries do not come close to matching the
cost-of-living. This is especially true for early-career librarians.

Even though UCB does not hire at the Assistant Librarian level
(because, as management acknowledged, the salaries at this level
simply are too low), other public libraries in the area pay far more
to early-career librarians. For example, the San Francisco Public
Library pays $56,000 to librarians straight out of school and salaries
at CSUs are at similar levels.

In answer to a management observation that, in general, people leave
jobs more frequently these days, the librarians pointed out that there
would be far fewer people thinking about exits from UC if a long
career at UC could be rewarded like a long library career at the CSUs.
They also made the point that Berkeley long has recognized that it
needs to pay its faculty well to attract the best faculty -- so why
hasn't the University recognized that it needs to pay well to attract
(and keep) the best librarians?

The librarians observed that they are expected to be professionally
active on a national or even international level in their areas of
expertise -- yet they are not given the financial support to carry out
these activities. There are no sabbaticals. Funding for travel to
professional conferences is very uneven and mostly inadequate. And
salaries are not sufficient for librarians to absorb costs out of
their own pockets. Finally, it is insulting when librarians are not
listed as course instructors and are not allowed to serve as the PIs
of their own projects -- two situations that occur with some frequency
at UCB.

Finally, a major part of the discussion turned on the question of
out-of-unit classifications. It was noted that 10-15 librarians at
the CDL are in the programmer/ analyst series -- but that when UCB
librarians are "on-loan" to consult with that project, they stay in
Unit 17.

The librarians made the point that they want to be recognized and
supported as members of their profession -- and that to remove
librarians from the Professional Library series solely for the purpose
of paying them higher salaries devalues the profession and Unit 17's
contributions to the University. The real answer is to fix the
librarian salary scale so all academic librarians can be recognized
adequately for their contributions.

In answer to management comments about the need for "flexibility" in
hiring, recruitment, and retention, the librarians agreed that UC
would need to do more to attract and keep librarians with cutting-edge
skills, since there are a lot of new employment opportunities in the
private sector for librarians. But they noted that people always come
to the UCs because they are academics: they want to do research, to
teach, and to work with top faculty and students. It will harm the
integrity of the academic track if UC pushes for a system where
librarians with especially marketable skills could get jumps in salary
that boost them past colleagues who have worked for years to build
their record of achievement as academics.

Finally, it was noted that at UCB, librarians are not able to
communicate in a non-adversarial way with the upper management of the
Library and there is some sense that the UCB libraries maintain very
much of a top-down culture. The librarians expressed their
disappointment that no one from the high levels of management had
attended the L-M meeting. All agreed that more communication within the
organization at all levels is necessary.

This was a very thoughtful give and take. In general, Berkeley has
been a campus where the union has been involved in productive
discussions with labor relations. Managers freely shared their
thoughts in the session -- and often agreed with points raised by the
librarians. It is clear that both sides (at least at UCB) see
problems with the salary structure for the unit.

Special thanks to Harrison, Jesse, and Rita for so ably representing the
Berkeley librarians.

Unfortunately, the UCR labor-management meeting scheduled for Wed. Oct. 24
was cancelled at the last minute due to UCR Labor Relation's mistaken belief
that the campus would be closed that day due to fires in the area. We are working
on rescheduling the UCR meeting in November.

The next local labor-management meeting are:

UCSD -- Friday, November 2
UCLA -- Wednesday, November 7

Karen Sawislak
UC-AFT Executive Director

local Labor-Management meetings begin -- UCSC

2007-10-16T17:22:00.000-07:00

The local labor-management meetings process kicked off on Monday at
UCSC. Ken Lyons, Annette Marines, and Greg Careaga spoke out about
the concerns of librarians on the campus. UC-AFT was also represented
by Mike Rotkin, Unit 17 Chief Negotiator, Karen Sawislak, Executive
Director, and Robert Weil, UC-AFT's UCSC Field Representative.

The UCOP Chief Negotiator, Deanna Dudley, explained that she is new to
handling the librarian unit (although she has worked extensively with
the UC-AFT lecturers and UAW graduate students). UCOP therefore has
requested this series of local meetings in order to gain a better
understanding of the professional issues of UC librarians and a more
complete understanding of the work they do.

Library management (AUL Kate McGirr) spoke first about the
opportunities and challenges for the UCSC library and librarians. She
noted the constant pressure the the Library is under to fundraise and
the challenge of moving forward with providing library services to a
growth campus. She is hopeful that some librarian positions will be
filled and possibly added in the next year. She also noted some of
the ways that that technology is changing the structure and skills
that are needed to deliver library services.

The UC-AFT librarians then took the floor. First, they detailed the
issue of staffing and workload at UCSC, noting that the number of
librarian positions had declined by 20% in the last 6 years as the
number of students enrolled at the campus grew steadily. Moreover,
the number of support staff positions in the library has declined.
Further, due to unfilled positions, some librarians have assumed
long-term "acting" or "interim" assignments that now have lasted for
years (in addition to their regular duties).

The discussion next turned to the implications of new technology --
how librarians now are expected to be proficient in print collections
and an ever-growing, ever-changing number of electronic mediums. The
UCSC librarians explained how they had assumed many new tasks in order
to manage, operate, and instruct users of electronic services. For
example, to operationalize the request of a faculty member that music
be available via the web in a digital archive, a librarian had to
learn new systems, work with IT specialists, train support staff, and
figure out how to mount and run an archive in a user-friendly manner
that would serve the professor's instructional needs. The librarians
also detailed how their workload as instructors has increased
enormously. New databases require new handouts for their
operation, that faculty expect increasingly individualized
instruction, and that students need ever more support in
understanding what the sources are -- and how to use and assess the
information they deliver.

The next topic was salary, recruitment, and retention. It was noted
that librarians at the CSUs, local community colleges, and local large
public libraries all outearn UC librarians, especially at the
assistant and associate levels. It is hard to recruit anyone to
Santa Cruz from any other part of the country, due to the sky-high
cost of living. UC salaries lag the inflation. Librarians do not have equal access
to University programs that subsidize the cost of housing. Librarians leave
because of salary issues -- and a revolving door of colleagues creates
more work for those who stay on, both in terms of extra work to
shoulder and the work of sitting on job searches.

Finally, the conversation turned to the academic work of librarians.
Given the pressures of Criterion 1 workload, it is extremely difficult
to find time for other activities. Yet the librarians get feedback
from management that achievements in Criteria 2-4 are valued in merit
and promotion. In particular, the UCSC librarians are expected to
serve and participate in national organizations -- yet they receive
only $900/year for travel support. Many must pay out of pocket to get
to the conferences and meetings they should attend in their area of
expertise.

The UCSC librarians made it clear throughout that they are deeply
committed to academic librarianship -- that they are proud of their
work and their service to the University. But they are top-tier
librarians who receive second-tier compensation. And the University
systematically undervalues their contribution to the mission of
research and education.

The tone of the exchange was very frank and very respectful. At
times, people asked tough questions. Differences of opinion and/or
areas of uncertainty and complexity were acknowledged.

Thanks to to the UCSC representatives -- Ken, Annette, and Greg -- for
their efforts.

The next local L-M meetings will be on Wed. Oct. 24 at UC-Riverside
and on Thursday, Oct. 25 at UC-Berkeley.

Agenda for Oct. 6 and Oct. 13 meetings

2007-09-28T14:44:00.000-07:00

Members of the Unit 17 Bargaining Committee will be assembling on October 6 and October 13. All other interested members of Unit 17 are also invited to attend these regional meeting in preparation for bargaining.

The times and locations are as follows:

Saturday, October 6
9:30 am to 12 noon (to be followed by UC-AFT Council meeting)
UC Berkeley Faculty Club
http://www.berkeleyfacultyclub.com/directions/

Saturday, October 13
9:30 am to 12 noon
UCLA College Library

Here is the tentative agenda for the meetings:

9:30 Welcome and Introductions

9:45 Review of bargaining process under HEERA/Review of recent
Unit 18 and Unit 17 experiences with UC

10:00 Discussion of structure and process for Unit 17 Bargaining

-- Bargaining Committee with two members from each campus to approve
proposals, convene via conference calls and via e-mail for
decision-making during negotiations, will be charged with
communication back to local)

-- possibility of smaller negotiating team drawn from committee
(explanation of reasons for smaller team based on Unit 18 experiences)

-- need for ground rules for process:

a. communication by negotiating team with bargaining committee (when, how?)
b. decision-making at committee level -- how will this be done?
(votes, consensus?) methods of communication? (via e-mail with
time-limited calls for final decision-making?)
c. commitment expected of Bargaining Committee members?
d. replacement/substitution of members of bargaining committee?
e. process for communication with locals and entire unit (who is
responsible? How often? meetings, e-mail lists, blogs?) Issues of
confidentiality during bargaining.

10:45 -- topical review of bargaining issues

consensus issues:

-- salary
-- support for professional development
-- workload

extension of grievances powers:
-- discretion in choice of activities
-- "alternative arrangements" holiday closures
-- full grievance rights on discrimination claims

other possible issues:
-- process for crediting required weekend/evening reference shifts?
-- MOU dismissal process
-- protection of unit work/language to bar reclassification of
librarian positions

what Unit 17 should have:

-- sabbatical
-- full access to Univ. programs that subsidize housing/childcare

other issues?

11:45 Process for preparation of initial proposals by Bargaining Committee

-- strategic discussion of major issues -- i.e. approaches to salary?
approaches to workload? Should these be scheduled as phone calls?

-- preparation/review of proposals -- process for this?

All represented librarians are welcome to attend. If you are not yet a member of UC-AFT,
you can join at the meeting.

If you have any questions, please contact me at ksawislak@cft.org

Karen Sawislak
UC-AFT Executive Director

Update on status of Unit 17 bargaining

2007-09-04T16:00:00.000-07:00

To Unit 17:

As you may know, the Lecturers (Unit 18) have just completed reopener
bargaining. We are very pleased to report that Unit 18 has secured
substantial gains in the area of salary and workload. Now, the next major
project for UC-AFT is bargaining for a successor contract for the
librarian unit.

As you can see, we have established a blog for formal union
announcements concerning the bargaining process:

http://unit17negotiations.blogspot.com

You will receive messages from UC-AFT staff with links
to the blog whenever it is updated. While we hope that librarians
will continue to make use of the google groups e-mail list, we
recognize that inboxes can get very cluttered. We therefore want to
have a single method and location for formal communication from the
union in regard to the bargaining process. Please bookmark this
location and check it regularly.

We write today to update you on the status of the union's preparations
and advise you of opportunities for participating in this process:

1. Labor-Management meetings in preparation for bargaining will occur
on each campus in October/early November.

In preparation for bargaining, UC-AFT and UCOP have agreed to
labor-management meetings at each campus. These meetings will be a
forum for the broad discussion of the issues and problems that
confront UC libraries and librarians.

UC-AFT will be working with members at each local to determine
the agenda for these meetings. Please watch for opportunities to get
involved in the preparations for your campus meeting.

2. Structure of Bargaining Committee

At the last UC-AFT Council meeting in July, the Council approved a plan for
Unit 17 bargaining. Under this plan, each local will designate two
members as representatives to the Unit 17 Bargaining Committee. The
Bargaining Committee, pursuant to the UC-AFT By-Laws, will have the
responsibility of developing specific bargaining proposals. The
negotiating team (members who attend the negotiating sessions) will be
drawn from the Bargaining Committee.

Locals have been asked to work on selecting their Bargaining Committee
representatives.

3. Appointment of Chief Negotiator

After consultation with the Council and local members, UC-AFT
President Bob Samuels, has asked UCSC Lecturer Mike Rotkin to serve as
the Chief Negotiator for Unit 17. Rotkin has been Chief Negotiator
for Unit 18 for many years and has long years of experience in dealing
with UCOP. Rotkin will convene the Unit 17 Bargaining Committee and
will be designated as the unit's chief spokesperson at the negotiating
table.

4. Dates for Regional meetings: October 6 (UCB) and October 13 (UCLA)

The union will convene regional meetings of Unit 17 members on two
consecutive Saturdays in early October. We expect that the meetings will
last for 2-3hours. Bargaining Committee representatives should
plan to attend at least one of these meetings
and all other interested members are welcome. At these regional meetings,
members will discuss the content of specific bargaining proposals and
will decide on the actual process for further preparations and
negotiations (i.e., methods of communication, number of members who
will serve on the negotiations team, etc.).

5. Issues to Negotiate

Unit 17 members have been meeting throughout the summer at every
campus to discuss possible bargaining proposals. In addition, there
have been some lively discussions over e-mail Below is a partial
list of subjects that have been identified as areas where the union
will submit (or may submit) proposals, per the determination of the
Bargaining Committee:

a. Salary!!! -- need for great improvement of lower end of range;
problems with lack of equity caused by initial hiring to advanced
steps; increases to keep pace with cost of living and higher cost of
benefits.

b. Professional development -- lack of support for professional
development; attempts by management to limit academic freedom of
librarians.

c. Workload -- burdens of inadequate staffing; additional "interim
assignments," inadequate recognition of duties created by new demands
for instruction.

Some possible proposals for workload (there is no current contract
language on this subject): automatic bump in compensation for
duration of interim assignments; required workload
evaluation/adjustment meetings; right to devote specific percentage of
time to academic pursuits; right to work remotely; end to practice of
drafting Statements of Responsibility after additional duties assumed
and completed -- so no credit during review periods for increased
workload; workload study committee process at each campus (following
model of Unit 18 workload study process begun in 2003...?)

d. Protection of the Unit -- must end UC's practice of creating
"librarian-like" positions in MSP series as a way to evade need to
address the salary scale.

e. Sabbatical -- provision of paid leave for support of work required
of librarians as academic appointees. Another possible proposal:
conversion of any above-cap accrued vacation time to sabbatical leave?

f. Vacation -- Higher cap for accrual of vacation time, before it is lost.

g. Campus-sponsored Housing Assistance and Child Care programs --
Parity with Senate Faculty at all locations.

h. Child care assistance program and tuition assistance program --
grants to subsidize cost of child care and tuition at UCs for children
of unit members.

i. Strengthened Grievance Rights -- management decisions re:
librarians' choice of their academic program must be grievable --
i.e., unreasonable denials of permission to attend specific
conferences critical to librarian's academic program. Also, need
grievance rights on unreasonable denials of "alternative arrangements"
during library closures and non-discrimination languauge must be fully
grievable.

j. Introduction of process for dismissal of a career-status librarian
(to track Unit 18 process for dismissal for academic performance --
very, very onerous for management!!)

k. Paid release time for Unit 17 UC-AFT grievance stewards at each campus.

l. Establish process for adequate crediting of time for required shifts
on evening/weekends/hoildays.

m., etc.. plus, whatever else the Bargaining Committee determines to
propose prior to deadline for exchange of proposals.

6. Timetable for Bargaining

through September -- scheduling of and preparations for on-campus
Labor-Management meetings; selection of Bargaining Committee members
at each local; continued discussion of potential proposals; continued
work on communication and outreach re: librarian issues.

through October and early November -- UCOP/UC-AFT Labor-Management
meetings at each campus.

Oct. 6 (at UCB) and Oct. 13 (at UCLA) -- regional meetings of
Bargaining Committee members, and any other interested Unit 17
members.

after October 13 -- conference calls among Bargaining Committee to
continue to develop proposals and bargaining strategies/in-person meetings
as needed.

December 1 -- deadline for exchange of proposals with UC (moved back
one month from Nov. 1 deadline now in MOU to accommodate
Labor-Management meetings).

by Dec. 20 -- first official bargaining session.

January 2008 onwards: on-going bargaining sessions, to be scheduled
in advance to allow for regular meetings at least every two weeks.

March 31, 2008 -- expiration of Unit 17 MOU.

Please feel free to be in touch with any questions or comments. Also,
please remember that you must be a union member to participate in
bargaining -- if you are unsure of your membership status or wish to
join, please contact your local field representative.

Karen Sawislak
UC-AFT Executive Director
ksawislak@cft.org

Bob Samuels
UC-AFT President
bobsamuels_us@yahoo.com