As noted in prior blog posts, one of the local UAW unions involved in the student worker strike (Local 5810 representing postdocs and researchers) reached a tentative settlement with UC. However, to take effect, that agreement requires a positive vote of the membership. And it is not clear whether a vote to ratify will get a majority.
The local is holding online forums for its members at which the proposed contract is explained and members of the negotiating committee then answer questions. This coming Monday through Friday, the voting will take place. From LAist:
...Now UAW 5810 has the task of convincing its 12,000 members that the agreement it has reached after months of negotiations is the best deal possible. That effort may be complicated by the ongoing negotiations of two other UC workers’ unions whose members are wondering what kind of agreement they’ll receive, and whether they want more than what's in the postdoc union deal...
Full story at https://laist.com/news/education/university-of-california-rank-file-student-workers-bargaining-deal-strike-reactions.
Yours truly listened to one of the online presentations by Local 5810 and to the subsequent questions and answers. It's important to note that individuals who object to the proposed deal are probably going to be overrepresented in such sessions. However, the questions were almost all by persons who were either going to vote "no" or who were dubious about the proposed deal. It appears from the presentation that if the local's majority approves the settlement, the strike will be over as far as those covered by the deal are concerned. (Individuals could, of course, continue to withhold services, but it would not be a union-led strike.) I am not 100% certain on this point but it seemed to be implied. (Union contracts typically have a no-strike clause during the life of the agreement, but the precise wording is important.)
Most of the discontent expressed concerned the pay element which was said to be inadequate and not much above what UC was offering before the strike. It was said that the pay increases were below current inflation levels. A related complaint was that the proposed contract's very long duration - five years - was excessive given uncertainty about future inflation. There were also complaints about the timing of the ratification vote and suggestions that it shouldn't be held until the other local unions also reached tentative settlements. There was a concern about "bridge funding," i.e., funding of pay when research grants have expired and new grants are awaited. Apparently, some campuses have such funding but it is considered a campus issue, not a systemwide issue, and will be addressed by campus-level committees.
The bargaining team generally emphasized non-economic features of the contract, e.g., the grievance procedure, and stressed that a "no" vote by itself would not increase the ability of the union's negotiators to obtain more from UC. There were references to participation rates in the strike of 40% or less; the bargaining team felt that absent more participation, getting more pay from UC was unlikely. It would be better to settle with UC now and concentrate on organizing for the future. (Note that news accounts of the strike, which feature the 48,000 number - or 12,000 covered by the tentative contract - refer to the number of workers covered by the dispute, not the number who are union members or who are actually striking.) The bargaining team noted that UC considers the number of actual participants in the strike in gauging union bargaining power.
===
https://ia601402.us.archive.org/25/items/big-ten/uncertain%20vote.mp3
No comments:
Post a Comment