Editorial: Both UC, AFSCME need to negotiate better for progress

BY EDITORIAL BOARD
The original version of this article contained information that was unclear and has been changed. See the bottom of the article for additional information.

For the last year, University of California and the largest union representing UC employees have been locked in a contentious stalemate over the terms of a new contract.

Last week, the most recent chapter of this fractured relationship was written outside of the University’s hospitals and medical centers, as thousands of UC staff members represented by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 3299 went on strike to protest what they call unsafe staffing levels in the UC’s hospitals, among other issues.

The bitter lead-up to the strike and the deep disagreement that underpin it have eroded the trust between University administration and union leadership to an astonishing degree.

Both groups developed a tit-for-tat style of public relations and negotiations, and seem to be more interested in contradicting one another’s points than necessarily finding common ground.

There are without a doubt some very legitimate grievances on the table. AFSCME’s call for improved hospital staffing and substantive wage increases are important causes.

AFSCME has continuously made itself a moving target, claiming to represent the interests of the entire UC while simultaneously declaring an impassioned focus on only a few core issues for its constituents. In addition, AFSCME’s attempts to shed light on some structural issues in the UC – bloated executive pay, pensions and a rapidly growing bureaucracy – hold credence, but the union has to understand that negotiations over a single bargaining contract will not reverse broad, powerful trends in higher education.

It’s possible to have more than one goal, but on any given day, it’s impossible to know what AFSCME will bring to the table or where its attention will be trained.

But criticism of AFSCME hardly exonerates the UC. The University has acted with a presumptuous moral authority thus far, dismissing many of AFSCME’s complaints as inflamed rhetoric.

The University does this despite a September complaint filed against it by the California Public Employee Relations Board, a body within the state government dedicated to resolving labor disputes, claiming the UC did not negotiate in good faith.

This aloof attitude does nothing to address the issues over which the strike is being waged. Those issues range widely, but no party can claim to have a monopoly on representing the interests of the UC as a whole.

On the topic of pensions, the UC fails to acknowledge the need to reign in costly executive retirement packages as a cost-saving measure.

Meanwhile, on the topic of safe staffing, AFSCME must realize that the 13 percent staffing increase over five years implemented by the UC already pushes the limits of viability in tepid budgetary times.

In the end, the victims here are neither just the University or AFSCME. The strike on Wednesday cost the University millions of dollars, delayed patient care and generated more noise than progress on its way to achieving not much of anything.

In an August summary of the negotiations between the groups, a third-party private mediator said that “each side must move away from its positions in meaningful ways.”

Let’s hope both sides figure out what the rest of us have already.

Clarification: The University of California implemented a 13 percent staffing increase over five years at its hospital systems.

[Source]: Daily Bruin