To Unit 17: What follows is an update on the progress of our reopener bargaining. At the moment, the news is not encouraging. The University team and the Union team have had three formal sessions to date, and we anticipate that a fourth session will take place in mid-September. After that session, if the University holds to its present positions, negotiations may well reach impasse on two issues: salary (Article 12) and alternative arrangements during holiday closures (Article 20). Negotiations Re: Salary – Article 12 of the MOU Per the existing language of our MOU, librarians receive whatever “general” range adjustments are given to non-represented academic employees, including Senate Faculty. We are allowed to bargain over so-called “non-general” range adjustments, which would be salary increases that are additional to the general range adjustments presently guaranteed to us by the MOU. We began this reopener bargaining on salary by proposing a non-general range adjustment that was designed to give larger raises to the lowest-paid librarians, with proposed increases running from 6% at the low end of the scale to 2% at the higher end. The University then informed us that the Unit would be receiving a 2% general range adjustment (“cost of living” adjustment or “COLA”), due to the passage of the higher education “compact” in this year’s state budget. In the new budget, the University received a 3% increase in state funding for employee salaries and related costs. We also learned at that time that the University intended to take 1% of the “compact” money to fund our unit’s merit increases – thus reducing the unit’s COLA to 2%. Soon after, the University responded to our initial proposal by offering to structure the 2% COLA so that the lowest-paid librarians received a higher percentage raise of up to 5%, and higher-paid librarians received an increase of less than 1%. In other words, they accepted the unit’s proposal for an increase weighted toward the lower end of the salary scale, but only agreed to use the funds already coming to the Unit as the 2% COLA. The union team rejected this approach. In our next proposal, we asked for a flat increase of $2100 to each unit member’s salary, in addition to the 2% COLA that will be provided by the University. Our thinking here is that a flat payment to each member of the unit will result in proportionally larger increases for our lower-paid librarians, and this amount is also meant to recapture the 1% of “compact” dollars that the University plans to hold back to fund merit increases. We have not yet heard a formal response from the University to this latest proposal. However, based on informal feedback, we believe that the University’s bottom line at this moment is they is not willing to offer any salary increase beyond the 2% COLA and 1% merit that comes from the state budget “compact” funding. In their view, the provision of merit funding in past years when there was no money for salary increases was an extraordinary step, and now that state money is available for merits, the University can pull its money back and use these state funds. Extended negotiations over salary will probably delay the 2% COLA for the unit, which is scheduled to take effect on October 1, 2005. Our current MOU allows the University to delay salary increases during reopener negotiations, and we believe that the University will not agree to pass through the 2% COLA while we are fighting for an improved and more equitable salary scale. Negotiations re: vacation/holiday closures – Article 20 of the MOU Discussions in this area have centered on the issue of holiday closures. On some campuses, and especially at UCLA, librarians are being denied their rights to make alternative arrangements to perform their work during holiday closures when they have no access to their regular work place. Instead, they are being forced to take vacation or to forego their pay. Article 3.A. of the MOU gives us the right to “reasonable flexibility and reasonable individual discretion for librarians in the use of University time so they may function as academic appointees.” The Unit 17 team thus has proposed new language for Article 20 B.4. that clarifies our position: that librarians are professional academics who must not be required to use vacation or take leave without pay during holiday closures of libraries, when a librarian has professional duties that he or she wishes to perform at an alternative location. The University has responded to our position by proposing a side letter to the MOU that specifies that one campus – UCLA – may set its own policy concerning alternative arrangements during holiday closures. The UCLA policy has been in place for the last two holiday closures. It is very restrictive and forbids librarians from making alternative arrangements in order to complete “routine” work. The Union has rejected this proposal. Unfortunately, we have learned that UCLA continues to insist on their definition of acceptable “alternative arrangements.” The Union team believes it is completely unacceptable to exempt one campus from honoring librarians’ status as academic appointees. We believe we must fight hard to safeguard our rights in this area. At this moment, we therefore are far apart from the University on this question. Negotiations re: Professional Development Funds (PDF) and PI status – Article 3: PDF: The Union began by proposing that campus allocations for professional development be doubled, from roughly $600 per person to $1200. The MOU allocations have never been increased since PDF funding came into the contract in 2000. Some campuses routinely augment the PDF money available to their people, but at least two campuses provide only the minimum level of funds guaranteed to unit members by the MOU. We believed this 100% increase is certainly merited, given the enormous expense of attending conferences – most librarians have to pick up such costs out of their own pocket. This is particularly outrageous since professional activity is evaluated as a component of our merit reviews – and helps to determine our salaries and promotions. The University counter-proposed a two-step increase in funding – up approximately 14% in the first year, and up approximately 20% in the second year. While we are encouraged that the University has made some steps toward recognizing this problem and meeting our demands, we do not believe this offer is sufficient. We hope to bargain towards an increase that goes much further towards helping our members with the professional development costs that they now must bear themselves. PI status: The Union began by proposing that the academic title “librarian” be added to the UCOP list of titles eligible to submit proposals as Principal Investigators. Under the present MOU language, librarians at some campuses, particularly Berkeley, were encountering major obstacles when they sought PI status. We have learned through this round of bargaining that the issues at Berkeley appear to have been resolved. We are still waiting for an explanation from the University as to why librarians simply cannot be added to the list of eligible academic titles. Other issues: The Union and the University have tentatively agreed to add “gender identity” and “pregnancy” to the list of statuses that are protected under the “Non- Discrimination” article of the MOU. This is a technical change that brings the language of the MOU into compliance with existing federal and state law. The University has proposed an extension of the duration of the current MOU for 4 years, through 2009. At the moment, the University’s positions are such that Union team sees no reason to extend the current MOU, which will expire on August 30, 2006. ___________ Please look for another detailed update from your campus bargaining rep and from the Chief Negotiator after the next session of bargaining, which will occur in mid-September. In the meantime, please feel free to direct any questions or comments to the bargaining team, or to post to the Unit 17 bargaining blog: http://www.cft.org/councils/uc/bargaining_lib.html. (list of bargaining team members and e-mail addresses)