Workers to Picket UC Hastings Over Labor Dispute

By Rachel Swan

UC Hastings dean and chancellor Frank Wu established himself as a maverick after applying a supply-and-demand economic model to his foundering institution: The best thing he could do for students, he decided, was to have fewer of them.

So, Hastings was among the first law schools to try cutting enrollment in response to a glutted job market. That couldn’t happen without a little collateral damage: 22 staff positions also had to be trimmed to compensate for reduced tuition revenue. In the end, law school observers deemed it a great idea. Wu began reducing his student population in 2011; by 2014, three-quarters of law schools had followed suit.

But workers at UC Hastings say this raw capitalist vision hasn’t served them well. After 15 months of collective bargaining with Hastings, they’ve reached an impasse. Today, they will picket Hastings campus along with members of their union, AFSCME 3299, Supervisors Eric Mar and David Campos, and Labor Council Executive Director Tim Paulson.

The dispute stemmed over 28 issues in the workers’ contract, which eventually boiled down to just a few sticking points regarding wages, layoffs, and sub-contracting. Workers are piqued that Hastings is offering a 3 percent wage increase in January, followed by a 1.5 percent increase in July. That’s what’s allocated to all the other faculty and un-represented staff, Dean Wu says, but it’s far less than the 19.5 percent pay boost that the union requested. AFSCME is also pressing claims that Hastings began taking 3 percent out of everyone’s paychecks and funneling it into the pension system without asking first. Wu demurs, insisting that Hastings has no control over the terms of the UC retirement plan, and says the school has been forced to ratchet up its “employer contribution” as well.

The pension issue has since been resolved. Yet it’s still a sore spot for union spokesman Todd Stenhouse, who insists that Hastings is guilty of bad faith bargaining. He calls it “a law school that’s breaking the law.”

Not surprisingly, Wu takes exception to that.

The two sides also have wildly different views on Hastings’ financial situation. Stenhouse and other union representatives point out that the school got a 13 percent bump in state appropriations last year — more than other institutions in the UC system. While that’s true, the base is so small that the proportional increase is tiny in absolute terms, Hastings spokesman Alex Shapiro says. Not to mention the university suffered so many cuts in the last five years that this year’s boost doesn’t amount to much.

Stenhouse also believes that Hastings will see a budget surplus through 2017, a point that Shapiro also dismisses. In reality, he says, the law school is facing a $1.5 million deficit.

Given the recent spate of press about Hastings and the plight of law schools in general, this labor dispute has become ever-more symbolically fraught. Hastings has long presented itself as a first-class public institution that’s been vitiated by state cuts. Union representatives paint a different picture, saying the school has gotten so caught up in college rankings PR that it’s lost sight of populist sensibility. In trying to retain first-class status, Hastings is treating its workers as second-class, Stenhouse says.

The rally happens at noon today at UC Hastings College of the Law. Here is the union’s complaint:

HastingsPERBComplaint.pdf

[Source]: SF Weekly