As always, new claims data are at https://www.dol.gov/ui/data.pdf.
...While our university unequivocally supports the rights of those who are lawfully striking, this past week individual members of our community were deliberately sought out and intimidated by certain protesters. We condemn these actions, which are in direct opposition to UCLA’s Principles of Community — the set of values and commitments agreed upon by our faculty, staff and students...
Comment: Mysteries are fine in movies, books, etc. But is it too much to ask what happened?
===
https://ia601402.us.archive.org/25/items/big-ten/mystery.mp3
The San Francisco Chronicle reports several building occupations at Berkeley and one at UCLA.
Hundreds of student workers in the third week of a massive strike across the University of California system occupied the UC Berkeley chancellor’s office Thursday, disrupted a meeting of undergraduates and administrators and held sit-ins in buildings across campus as part of a series of planned actions up and down the state, union officials said. Shortly after 10 a.m. at UC Berkeley, about 200 “picketers rushed the doors at California Hall,” the campus administration building, said Janet Gilmore, a Cal spokesperson. UC police were standing by, and campus leaders met to “monitor and evaluate” the situation, she said. Chancellor Carol Christ was not in the building and all staff except security left. Several occupiers brought sleeping bags and planned to stay all night, union officials said.
At about 2:30 p.m, another 100 or so student workers burst in on a meeting of the undergraduate student government and administrators in Eshleman Hall, the student union building, and demanded better treatment, the union said. Strikers also staged sit-ins at other classroom buildings across campus, including Stanley Hall, Dwinelle Hall and Wurster Hall.
...On Wednesday, student workers at UCLA occupied the Wilshire Center, an administrative building, for several hours without incident, the union said.
Full story at https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Striking-UC-student-workers-occupy-chancellor-s-17625116.php.
We noted in a prior post that it appeared that UAW Local five eight one oh workers (postdocs and researchers) would remain on strike only until their tentative contract is ratified with voting next week.* (As we also noted, the contract might not be ratified.) That understanding is confirmed in the Daily Cal:
UAW Local 5810 and the UC system reached tentative contract agreements for academic researchers and postdoctoral scholars the night of Nov. 28, 2022. Until union membership ratifies the contract agreements, academic researchers and postdoctoral scholars are on strike “in sympathy” with the units still at the bargaining table: student researchers and academic student employees.
Full article at https://dailycal-projects.netlify.app/2022-11-22-bargaining.
Note the word "until."
===
*http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2022/12/strike-news-it-aint-over-til.html.
===
Yesterday, we posted a screenshot of the Regents' webpage showing the schedule of upcoming meetings.* We noted an odd omission. Although the Regents made a big deal about having a special meeting on December 14th to discuss UCLA's move to the Big Ten, no such meeting was to be found on the website. The meeting shown for December 14th was only for the Health Services Committee, a meeting that had been set long ago. The Big Ten meeting would have to be of the full board and it wasn't there.
Since that posting, however, a meeting was added, this one for December 5th. See the screenshot above. It is a full board meeting, but it is closed and the only topic listed when you click on it is collective bargaining. We can readily assume that the collective bargaining it refers to is that related to the student worker strike.
At their November meeting, apart from public comments, there were only a couple of very brief references to the strike in the open sessions.** Having an off-cycle special full board meeting to discuss collective bargaining is unusual and has to reflect growing concern by the Regents.
===
*http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2022/12/something-missing.html.
**http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2022/11/student-worker-strike-drags-on.html.
===
https://ia601402.us.archive.org/25/items/big-ten/missing%20added.mp3
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
As we have noted in earlier blog postings, not all law schools are going along with the wave of non-participation in the US News and World Report listings. But another UC law school has decided to cease participating. From the Sacramento Bee:
UC Davis School of Law will no longer participate in the influential US News & World Report rankings, a move that follows similar announcements by other top law schools that have criticized the magazine’s methodology as misleading and flawed. Dean Kevin Johnson announced the school’s decision on Monday, saying it followed consultations with faculty, campus leadership, students and alumni...
Johnson said that the failures in the ranking are too many to list, but said the process punishes schools for encouraging public service fellowships, overemphasizes standardized test scores, and fails to take resources at public law schools into consideration...
Full story at https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/education/article269401677.html.
===
The image above is a screenshot of the Regents' website as of this morning - December 1.* We are now two weeks away from December 14th, the date the Regents agreed at their November meeting - or so they said - to have a special meeting to make their Big Decision on UCLA's planned move to the Big Ten. And yet, when you look at the listing of upcoming meetings, the only thing listed for December 14th is a meeting of the Health Services Committee, which has long been on the schedule. That committee alone can't make a decision on the Big Ten. A meeting of the full board would be required.
Is this an accidental omission? Or has there been a change of plans? The policy is to provide a preliminary agenda ten days before a meeting. So, not only should a meeting be listed by this time, but an agenda for it is due to be posted in the next few days, assuming the meeting is still planned.
===
*Source: https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/meetings/.
===
https://ia601402.us.archive.org/25/items/big-ten/missing.mp3
