Afterthoughts on the 3% Pay Raise

An email notice went out yesterday to all academic personnel (including faculty) at UCLA announcing a 3% pay general increase this coming July 1.  Two things to note before celebrating.  Pension contributions of employees in Tier 1 went up 1.5% last July 1 and will go up again by 1.5% this coming July 1.  1.5+1.5 = 3.  There is also the statement in the email that although Oakland "approved" the 3%, it did not pay for it so the money will come from UCLA.  It's not clear exactly what UCLA paying for it will mean.  But presumably, there will be less of something else.  New hires?  What?

In short, things are not always what they seem:

Updates on AFSCME hospital contract

We noted in our last post yesterday that UC had come to an agreement with AFSCME covering hospital workers.  A strike that was scheduled today was called off.  Yesterday, little was known about the tentative contract and there was nothing on the AFSCME 3299 website.  Now there is:

http://www.afscme3299.org/bargaining/latest-bargaining-update/latest-bargaining-update-ex/

One thing to note is the one-tier pension plan, a deviation from the two-tier approach covering faculty and other employees.  (Other AFSCME settlements have also obtained one-tier.)

Extra! AFSCME hospital strike at UC/UCLA averted

UC statement on tentative contract agreement with AFSCME

UC Office of the President Sunday, March 23, 2014

Dwaine Duckett, UC vice president for human resources, issued the following statement today (March 23) regarding contract negotiations with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME):

The University of California reached a tentative agreement this morning with AFSCME on a four-year contract for nearly 13,000 patient care technical employees who work at UC medical and student health centers. As a result, there will be no strike at our medical centers March 24-29 and AFSCME will present the tentative agreement to its membership for a vote. There was true compromise by both sides to reach this agreement. This ends nearly two years of very challenging negotiations and serves as a foundation for UC and AFSCME to build on going forward. The agreement also allows our medical centers and student health centers to continue to deliver the quality care our patients and students depend on without any interruptions.

Highlights of the four-year tentative agreement, which is subject to ratification by AFSCME members, include:

• Wages: across-the-board and step increases totaling 24.5%, similar to what UC nurses agreed to, along with a ratification bonus
• Health benefits: rate freezes for lower-salaried employees
• Retirement benefits: The same pension formula as AFSCME service workers and UC nurses
• Job security: Revised language on layoffs and contracting out to protect employee jobs.

Source: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/uc-statement-tentative-contract-agreement-afscme-avert-strike

Note: At the moment, nothing concerning the settlement is on the union's website.

Listen to the Regents: March 19, 2014 afternoon session

We continue our coverage of the most recent set of Regents meetings.  The Committee on Grounds and Buildings approved a seismic replacement of a Berkeley building.  Some of the discussion revolved around the change in financing of state-sponsored capital projects.  Because UC has a better credit rating than the state (even despite recent downgrades), UC now finances (borrows) for such projects and is reimbursed by the state, with a net interest cost saving.  On the other hand, as the UC debt increases, UC's credit rating may deteriorate.  Although concerns were expressed by Regents, in the end (of course) they approved the new building.

A new biological and physical science building was effectively approved.  In principle, the Regents approved only $4.5 million for preliminary work of a building to cost $112 million eventually.  But once preliminary work is approved, the full project inevitably follows.  It is apparent from the discussion that as long as a building is for science and tech, the Regents like it.

As an example, for UCLA the Regents approved an engineering building.  This one relies on $72.7 million in gifts, most of which has yet to be raised.  When Regents asked what happens if the money isn't forthcoming, Chancellor Block assured them that he was confident it would be raised.  No problemo, as a former governor once said in an earlier career.

The Committee on Compliance and Audit heard a report from a new auditor, KPMG.  There was a lengthy discussion with a new VP for IT about IT security and other issues.  He kept pointing to problems that resulted from the fact that each campus had its own systems.  Of course, if you are in the UC headquarters, there is a tendency to want more influence over what goes on at the campus level.  Since total control from on top is not feasible, the call was more for "collaboration" among the campuses rather than centralized control.

Finally, various internal audits were discussed.  There was supposed to be a closed session of the Committee following the open session.  But apparently it was canceled.

The audio is at the link below:

 

And talking about tuition...

Our prior post on tuition brings to mind an article that appeared about a week ago in the Sacramento Bee:

The envelopes have begun arriving at the homes of high school seniors everywhere. The fat ones bring glee, relief, a giddy sense of achievement. The thin ones mean dejection and frequently, tears. At our house, the senior is waiting on 10 envelopes. Which college will open its arms and offer her a life-shaping, four-year embrace remains a mystery. But one thing is certain: None of the envelopes will come from the University of California...

UC fee increases have narrowed the tuition gap, and the generous merit and financial aid packages offered by many private colleges close that distance still further. If you don’t believe me, go online and check out the Net Price Calculator.  When you factor in the reality that graduating in four years is virtually mandatory at most privates – and definitely not a given at UC – it’s almost a wash. None of this is an indictment of the University of California, or a claim that one college path is superior to another. With its groundbreaking research and Nobel laureates, UC remains a powerhouse of higher education, and, as I noted, it’s sad the system held no allure for our daughters...

Full story at http://www.sacbee.com/2014/03/16/6231937/for-parents-and-children-a-uc.html

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/03/16/6231937/for-parents-and-children-a-uc.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/03/16/6231937/for-parents-and-children-a-uc.html#storylink=cpy

LAO Releases Publication on UC Tuition

The Legislative Analyst's Office has released a publication which traces UC (and CSU) tuition history and policy.  You can find the LAO publication at:
http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2014/education/student-fee/Fee-Transparency-Accountability-Act-032114.pdf

Listen to the Regents: March 19, 2014 morning session

As promised, here is the audio of the Regents meeting of the morning of March 19.  We continued to provide indefinite archiving of these meetings since the Regents only "archive" for one year (for non-obvious reasons).

The meeting began with a public comment period.  Some speakers came from the usual anti-Napolitano crowd.  There was a an anti-fossil fuel speaker, warnings of a grad/TA strike in the spring, statements by AFSCME 3299 that there would be a hospital strike next week in part over demands by UC for additional layoff authority, and statements about the campus climate report discussed below (and in a prior recent entry).  See also:
http://centurycity.patch.com/groups/business-news/p/ucla-hospital-employees-plan-to-strike

After a demonstration, UC president Napolitano reported on various initiatives including one involving higher ed institutions in Mexico and another with the City of Oakland.  Various efficiency initiatives were mentioned.  Progress was reported in labor-management relations with unions other than 3299.  Agricultural research will from now on report directly to the UC president.  Finally mention was made of an initiative regarding "food security" without an explanation of what that initiative would entail.  Faculty rep Bill Jacobs noted that articles have been appearing saying that universities were unchanged since the 11th century when they were created.  He noted the silliness of such statements.  And he emphasized the research function including the large amount of contract and grant funds raised by faculty.  The emphasis, he said, cannot just be on undergrad costs.

The Committee on Educational Policy voted to change the level of fundraising in which the Regents would be involved from a trigger of $50 million to $250 million.  Much of the session was devoted to the newly unveiled campus climate report.  We have discussed this report in a recent blog entry.  The issue of low response rates was raised.  Responses by UC reps were not satisfactory.  There were statements that with bigger samples, you get smaller confidence intervals.  While that is true, the issue is response bias when you have a voluntary survey with low response rates. Note that the 27% response rate was below the target of the consultant of 30% (as was mentioned in passing) but that the response rate for individual questions was below 27% as some respondents did not answer all questions. This is a big problem with the survey - which apparently no one from UCOP wanted to discuss.  There was a request from the Regents to compare the proportions of the population with the proportions of respondents in the sample.  Such data are not available for some items, e.g., religion.  But they are available for such items as basic counts of undergrads.  So why were such available comparisons not in the basic UC and campus level reports?

The Committee on Finance discussed the UC budget.  It was noted that the Legislative Analyst wants to go back to a "workload" methodology which contradicts the governor's more-or-less block grant approach.  The Leg Analyst in fact would provide more money than the governor is offering but some would come from a tuition increase (so the state contribution would end up less than the governor's proposal).  That observation, plus a recent downgrade by Moody's of UC's debt ratings led to complaints by some Regents about the extended tuition freeze the governor wants.

A new telescope project was approved.  The Committee had some discussion of the Robinson-Edley report on handling student protests.  It was asked why this topic should come before the Finance Committee and the answer was a mysterious statement that the subject involved "law."  Finally, there was a discussion of a refinancing by UC of certain debt of Oakland Children's Hospital that merged with UC-SF.  Some Regents noted that when they approved the merger, there were assurances that there would be no added risk to UC.  Now it appeared that through the refinancing, in effect there was some risk and more debt at a time that UC debt ratings were being downgraded.  What often happens when Regents are unhappy is that they ultimately go along with whatever the proposal happens to be.  That was the scenario this time; ultimately they approved the refinancing.

Below is a link to the audio of the meeting: