2007 Year in Review--10 Biggest Vanguard Stories of 2007

As the first full year of the People's Vanguard of Davis comes to completion, we will countdown the top 10 stories from year. This is the second year we have done this.

Last year we counted down the 10 Biggest Stories in Davis.

This year we countdown the 10 biggest stories that we followed on the People's Vanguard of Davis.

We continue with the 4th biggest story: Sodexho Foodworkers Organize to Become UC Employees.

On May 1, 2007 protesters seeking university pay and benefits for food service workers held the first of a number of well-organized events. The main issues are ability over over 550 food service workers, custodians, and cooks to get university jobs which would entitle them to higher pay. An outsourced worker gets around $10.35 an hour versus a starting minimum over over $12 hour and a max of up to $15.50 for a university employee. However, even more important are health care benefits. One of the workers told me she was paying over $100 for her health care package where a UC Davis employed worker would only pay about 5% of that.

Police placed the number of protesters at 150, but the number appeared to be at least 400, and possibly more.

They held a rally at the MU for about half an hour. Then marched around the quad, down to Freeborn and held a brief rally there before heading down Howard to Russell and then down Russell to the corner of Russell and Anderson.

"The event was well organized. The police did a good job of blocking traffic, diverting it away from the protest and also did not engage with the protesters.

It was only when the larger group left the street to stand on the sidewalks, then a group of perhaps 24 to 30 people sat down in the middle of the intersection."

"At this point, Lt. Dorothy Pearson gave the order to disperse. When they did not disperse, officers read the protesters their rights and arrested them, one-by-one leading them into a bus.

When this was done, the protesters peacefully dispersed and there appeared to be no incidents. It was well handled by both the police and the organizers to make a point. Although you can see from one of the photos above, the police were ready with riot gear (or two of them were) if the crowd got out of hand."

Three weeks later, there was another large protest this one going directly to Mrak Hallthe main issues are ability over over 550 food service workers, custodians, and cooks to get university jobs which would entitle them to higher pay. An outsourced worker gets around $10.35 an hour versus a starting minimum over over $12 hour and a max of up to $15.50 for a university employee. However, even more important are health care benefits. One of the workers told me she was paying over $100 for her health care package where a UC Davis employed worker would only pay about 5% of that..

"A small contingent of 15 protesters had gotten inside the building prior to the protest and spoke to the crowd from second story windows. According to later reports, 15 of these people were arrested when they refused to leave the building.

The building was eventually locked down out of concern for public safety and the safety of the employees working in the building, although the crowd was largely well organized and did not seem to present a tremendous danger. The doors locked and protesters outside demanding action."

The lockdown of the building appeared to be an overreaction by the police and the university administration. The small but vocal crowd was of no threat to the safety of anyone.

We spoke with labor organizer Bill Camp who is the director of the Sacramento Central Labor Council. He described in detail the organizing efforts, some of the complaints about treatment by the police, and some other interesting details of protesting and being arrested at UC Davis and in Yolo County.

"Last Wednesday Bill Camp, 63, was one of several protesters who entered Mrak Hall, sat down on the first floor and was arrested for failure to disperse. And in fact, the protesters including Camp, were charged with not only failure to disperse but also trespassing.

The protesters went into the building in advance to see how to enter the building. They tried to see Chancellor Vanderhoef, but access to his office was blocked, and he was not there. Camp, wearing a tie and slacks, appeared as though he was some “old professor,” to use his words. The protesters went up to the second floor because they couldn’t get up to the fifth floor where the chancellor’s office is located. So, they went to the fourth floor and were going to walk up to the fifth floor."

The university began to receive pressure from a number of elected officials most notably however, Assemblywoman Lois Wolk.

The response by the university was disappointing. First they attempted to pit the Sodexho workers against the students, by suggesting to the students that they would raise student rates if the workers were granted university status and paid commensurate with what a university employee would get rather than an outsourced contract laborer.

"In an article in Dateline UC Davis, the university said that it wanted to hear from the students "who pay the bills" regarding the demands of food workers efforts to become university employees.

On the one hand, according to the article,

"Sodexho already announced that it has established an independent third-party grievance system, introduced the UC Davis Principles of Community to employees and boosted wages consistent with UC's recent pay increases for its lowest-paid workers."

Furthermore:

In a Sodexho letter dated May 18 and posted online with [Interim Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Janet] Gong's, the company's senior vice president, Bill Lacey, pointed out that the company in 2003 voluntarily elected to follow the Sacramento Living Wage policy, and that the company believes "our compensation is competitive within our industry."

On the other hand,

"The university estimates the cost of providing improved wages and more affordable benefits to Sodexho workers at $2.1 million annually."

Janet Gong, the interim head of Student Affairs suggests the following:

"This is a significant recurring cost that cannot readily be absorbed within the existing university budget."

She added that the burden of paying the extra cost would likely fall on students who rely on Sodexho service in the dining halls and elsewhere on campus. "Being mindful of the additional costs our students would face and consistent with the chancellor's commitment to address these issues, we are exploring a variety of strategies to improve wages and benefits.""

The students and workers decided to use Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef's annual event as a means to protest, particularly since food service workers were being used to serve the guests their meal.

A large number of prominent public officials entered the Chancellor's university residence and ignored the protesters outside.

"More interesting was perhaps the reaction of leaders in this community--some of whom have expressed open support for the food service workers. For instance, Assemblywoman Lois Wolk had sent a letter to the chancellor in March urging him to negotiate with the students in good faith. She was also supposed to be meeting with the Chancellor in hopes of pressuring him to resolve the meeting. Given that, it was surprising to see the Assemblywoman walk right past the protesters, along with her husband Bruce Wolk, and say nary a word.

Davis City Councilmember Don Saylor exchanged pleasantries with me, however, he did not attempt to talk to the students despite his earlier letter of support. Nor did Councilmember Ruth Asmundson. Nor did former Mayor and current Judge Dave Rosenberg. Nor did Congressman Mike Thompson's representative Eli Faircloth."

All but one public official, that would be County Supervisor Mariko Yamada:

"There was but one exception to that list--County Supervisor Mariko Yamada. Ms. Yamada walked up to the protesters, offered words of support and hugs, and made the determination that she should not go in, in light of the protest. The students talked her into going inside, however, it was clear from the student's reaction that her support was very meaningful to them. Nor was the fact that several other leaders in the community had walked right past them without a word lost upon them."

Chancellor Dennis Shimek, whose hardball tactics have at times angered the organizers and workers intentionally showed his disdain for the group.

"Vice Chancellor Dennis Shimek at one point intentionally and deliberately walked right through the marching picketers--and for really no apparent reason as he walked through some grass in some open space and then returned to the Chancellor's residence. I caught up to him at the park, and told him that my mother had taught me never to walk through a picket line.

He asked me, "why is that?"

I responded, "it is the ultimate sign of disrespect."

He said, "they were in the path, I had the right to walk there, so I did."

He could have easily walked around them. He was attempting to intimidate them and bully them, just as he had up in his office during negotiations. This is a university employee's disdain for students who were exercising their lawful right to assembly.

Finally, what perhaps disturbed me the most was the treatment of the protesters by the UC Davis police. There were at least six police officers there for a pretty small protest. But that's understandable given the size of previous protests. What concerned me was that the police were taking pictures of the protesters."

Meanwhile the university has continued with their attempts to break the will of the protesters. In August, announcing that a deal had been made with the workers. In fact, it was a deal deal that was cut with the company itself.

"According to UC Davis Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef in the release:

"We have listened to a wide range of sometimes-conflicting concerns, and I believe we are responding in a principled way to balance the cost of improved benefits and wages for our food service workers with the need to maintain access and affordability for our students... And, very important to me because I believe a contract is one's word, we are doing so without breaking our contract with Sodexho. Sodexho is being responsive to our requests and is committed to strengthening its overall compensation competitiveness and workplace environment."

The release further claims:

"According to the agreement, Sodexho will augment its existing medical benefits plan by increasing the employer contribution level, effective January 1. The specific employer contribution will be determined by Sodexho prior to its employee health plan open-enrollment period in October.

The changes to the Sodexho contract are expected to add additional annual costs of approximately $2 million -- an estimated $1.5 million per year in additional costs to Student Housing and $500,000 per year to the Student Union operating services."

However, the news was met with caution and suspicion by the workers themselves.

"Dan Cole is the lead cook at Segundo and in charge of the station at the Segundo Dining Commons. He has been an employee there for five years. He makes a marginal income and feels he pays a lot for his health care benefits even though they are not great benefits.

According to him, this agreement is a good start.

"Everyone’s initial reaction was kind of to get excited, but they doing it for the wrong reasons, why now? They are doing this to get around the union. I don’t see why if they can get us the two-thirds, why can’t they go the whole way."

That is a point that he kept emphasizing, the University was willing to go two-thirds of the way there in terms of wages and benefits, but that's not the end of the story. There is no reason that they cannot go all the way and give them university employee status.

He views the University's tactic however as a "tactic to get around the union issue. They want to keep us as minimally happy as possible to keep things the way they are."

He described many of the workers now as being more resolved.

"Absolutely, everyone’s reaction is quite excited."

If anything this has made them in even stronger support for the union and their goals of becoming university employees.

"Without the union, this would not happen at all. A lot of people recognize what the union brings us—whether you agree or disagree with the union here, it is clear that this would not have happened if the union weren’t here.""

As the year comes to a close, the student protesters from the May 1 event have charges pending before them and their case will work through the court system. Meanwhile, the organizers are planning more actions in an attempt to gain university status and a livable wage with good and affordable benefits for these workers.

For all this, the Sodexho Food Service organizing is the fourth biggest Vanguard story for 2007.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

UC Davis' Announced Agreement with Sodexho Greeted with Hope and Skepticism

In a surprising announcement yesterday, UC Davis announced that it had reached an agreement with Sodexho with regard to providing increased benefits and wages for the company's food service employees on campus.

According to UC Davis Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef in the release:

"We have listened to a wide range of sometimes-conflicting concerns, and I believe we are responding in a principled way to balance the cost of improved benefits and wages for our food service workers with the need to maintain access and affordability for our students... And, very important to me because I believe a contract is one's word, we are doing so without breaking our contract with Sodexho. Sodexho is being responsive to our requests and is committed to strengthening its overall compensation competitiveness and workplace environment."

The release further claims:

"According to the agreement, Sodexho will augment its existing medical benefits plan by increasing the employer contribution level, effective January 1. The specific employer contribution will be determined by Sodexho prior to its employee health plan open-enrollment period in October.

The changes to the Sodexho contract are expected to add additional annual costs of approximately $2 million -- an estimated $1.5 million per year in additional costs to Student Housing and $500,000 per year to the Student Union operating services."

While the university's motivation here is unclear, one thing that is clear is that this was an agreement between UC Davis and the Sodexho food company.

Dennis Shimek, Associate Vice Chancellor of Human Resources, confirmed for the Vanguard:

"The negotiations relative to the changes were between the UC and the Sodexho."

Mr. Shimek claims that the university according to state law cannot negotiate with these workers. There have been some meetings in the past between the university and representatives from the workers such as the one on May 23, but he "would not characterize those as negotiations." There have never been any negotiations and that they cannot negotiate with the workers employed by Sodexho.

Gary Poirier, a Principle Food Service Worker who works at the university, told us that the workers are not happy with the "offer."

"These employees have no voice at all in the process.

We've been working on this over a year, we want them to hire those workers on as UC workers eventually.

[This is] a plan that they came up with on their own, as far as I know they didn't contact the union or attempt to negotiate about this and they made the move and announced it in a press release"

For him the bottom line is for the university to negotiate with the employees in good faith.

"We just think all of those workers need to have a voice in the process, they don't have a voice, they need a voice."

According Dennis Shimek, this agreement does not preclude Sodexho Employees from becoming university employees, a point he stressed at least four times during our conversation.

The arrangements that we are now making are really interim arrangements with serious considerations toward the cost implications, how this is financed, and the cost to the students. With regards to the future issue with how we do business on campus with employees, all options on table.

The option of Sodexho Employees becoming university employees is on the table.

Phasing in the cost is an important consideration in this matter as well as the cost consideration to the students.

For him and the university, the key consideration was that the University wanted to increase wages and benefits, and felt that these are steps they could take while still being able to manage the impact on student costs.

However, for many involved in this process, Mr. Shimek and the University coming to a deal with Sodexho without discussions with the workers is not leaving all of the options on the table.

A key factor is that this deal pays the workers an additional $2 million. However, it would only take an additional $1.2 million to fully bring in these workers as university employees. That sounds like a lot to the average person but to put this into perspective, this amounts to less than one-quarter of one percent of the operating expenses of the university. That would be like an individual who makes $50,000 having to adjust their budget to include an addition $125 payment. It may not be painless, but it should not break the bank either.

The University has used the issue of balancing student fees with employees wages and yet that is not the only source of money that can be freed up to pay for these expenses. The university continues to give lucrative wages and increases to their upper administration while trying to hold the line on people making very marginal incomes.

Dan Cole is the lead cook at Segundo and in charge of the station at the Segundo Dining Commons. He has been an employee there for five years. He makes a marginal income and feels he pays a lot for his health care benefits even though they are not great benefits.

According to him, this agreement is a good start.

"Everyone’s initial reaction was kind of to get excited, but they doing it for the wrong reasons, why now? They are doing this to get around the union. I don’t see why if they can get us the two-thirds, why can’t they go the whole way."

That is a point that he kept emphasizing, the University was willing to go two-thirds of the way there in terms of wages and benefits, but that's not the end of the story. There is no reason that they cannot go all the way and give them university employee status.

He views the University's tactic however as a "tactic to get around the union issue. They want to keep us as minimally happy as possible to keep things the way they are."

He described many of the workers now as being more resolved.

"Absolutely, everyone’s reaction is quite excited."

If anything this has made them in even stronger support for the union and their goals of becoming university employees.

"Without the union, this would not happen at all. A lot of people recognize what the union brings us—whether you agree or disagree with the union here, it is clear that this would not have happened if the union weren’t here."

And so this complicated process continues. The University has not had any kind of formal or informal talks with the union or the workers since the school year ended in June. It is clear however that the university is starting to give ground on this issue and that this represents a good first step. The university basically gave the workers two-thirds of what they wanted with no concessions from the workers. That seems rather extraordinary. However, if the University was attempting to break the will of the workers with this move, it appears to have only made them more resolved to achieve their ultimate goal of university employment--a goal that at least according to Dennis Shimek, is still on the table.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Police Photography of Protesters Butts up Against the Line

Following up on last week's report on UC Davis police taking photos of the protesters and also this blogger on public property outside of Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef's university owned home, during a function that involved the university marching band as well as involved some of the very food service workers seeking university jobs with higher wages and benefits. I spoke to a number of individuals about the incident and a consensus view grew about the practice.

First I spoke to the area ACLU about the incident, and they said while it is not illegal for them to take photos of protesters, it also depends on what they intend to do with the photos and how they dispose of the photos. Regardless the ACLU intends to send a letter to the UC Davis Police as a means to communicate their discomfort with the overall practice.

I also spoke with the scene commander for the UC Davis Police. The first thing that she told me was that it was legal, that the police have as much right to take a picture of me, as I do of them. I told her that I understood from my discussions that it was perfectly legal for the police to do this and furthermore there is no expectation of privacy in public, but I said that does not necessarily make it the right thing to do. I explained to her that the police represent the lawful power of the government to use force in order to maintain order. It is one thing for the police in their official duties paid for by the state of California and the students at UC Davis, to arrest and photograph individuals participating in lawbreaking, it is another thing for them to merely take photos of people who are otherwise obeying the law. There is a strong differential between me photographing an event in an attempt to tell a story and the police doing so for other reasons.

There is a clear intimidation factor behind that approach. Some of the students at the time said that while there were not overt threats toward them, the implication was that they were being watched very closely.

The scene commander told me that given the history of these particular protesters that she made the call to have the officers under her command photograph them. I found that a very odd explanation. If anything, while some complained about noise and the banging on windows, this particular group of protesters has from what I've seen in several different events been extremely orderly and cooperative. When they have been arrested they have done so in a peaceful and organized manner. I do not see what photographing the protesters will aid in if they were to be arrested for failure to disperse or unlawful assembly. The police will either witness it or not.

I want to be clear that people who know this particular commander understand her to be a good and dedicated officer. However, given past activities by police with regards to protesters and the history of this country, I question the wisdom of photographing protesters.

From what I witnessed, there was not only an attempt to intimidate but a clear tension between those who were protesters and those who were attending the party and in charge of maintaining the peace. First, the protesters attempted to have one individual on each side of the chancellor's house, distribute fliers. The reaction from the party-goers was overwhelmingly negative and at times outright rude and hostile. This was clearly not a group of persuadables most of whom were high administrators and community leaders.

Second, there were the actions of Dennis Shimek, Associate Vice Chancellor of Human Resources. Shimek's actions were called into questions a week prior when he attempted to intimidate and got in the face of a student involved in negotiations. He continued his boorish behavior last week by intentionally walking through the marching protesters. Despite his assertions to the contrary, it was completely unnecessary. First, there was plenty of space to walk around the protesters, he certainly had no reason other than confrontation to walk through them. Second, as the pictures show, he went through looking for a fight. Third, it is not clear why he needed to go through to begin with, he went into an open green space lawn, turned around and came back. He was rude, belligerent, and in my opinion, clearly out to provoke something.

The actions of the police were more mixed. On the one hand, they did not get into a confrontation with the protesters and in fact did much to avoid a confrontation. On the other hand, it seemed more passive aggressive to be out taking photographs of otherwise law abiding citizens.

The scene commander informed me that no laws were broken on this occasion. When I asked what that meant for the photos, she was unsure. If a crime were committed, they were going to be downloaded onto a CD and booked as evidence. Other than a demonstration that the individuals were on the scene, I'm not sure what they would exactly prove. It is not like the individuals if they engaged in civil disobedience are going to deny they were there.

My opinion on this is pretty simple. First, if someone breaks the law, they ought to be arrested and pay the penalty for that crime. Civil disobedience is not performed with the expectation that the worthy cause negates the crime. Thoreau was perfectly willing to pay his price in jail for his failure to pay taxes. Second, the police represent the power of the government here. I have grown concerned that the UC Davis Police are acting on behest of the chancellor as a means to break and discourage the organizers rather than as a means to protect the peace.

As such, I think that photographing of protesters while legal represents an uncomfortable area in the law. It allows the police to attempt to intimidate rather than to enforce the law. It means that the government itself is watching one. And while there is no expectation of privacy, there should be an expectation that the government does not intrude in the lives of private citizens as long as they have not broken the law. This practice butts dangerously close to that principle.

To me this represents an erosion of civil liberties and the right to privacy from government interference in the face of 9/11 and the Patriot Act. Local law enforcement should act from one standpoint--to protect the peace and as long as that peace is protected, they should be passive rather than active participants.

We retain a right to speech, expression, and assembly in this country, rights that put even the notion of failure to disperse in question. Regardless, the question is whether the citizens of Davis wish to live in a community where the police are photographing individuals exercising their constitutional rights to free speech and free assembly? Because to be quite frank, it makes me nervous that people seem so willing to allow the encroachment on such rights and are so quick to excuse and explain it away.

I remain overall very troubled at the state of civil liberties in this country given the Bush administration's strong encroachment. I see this as just another extension of the Bush mentality whereby law enforcement is using their powers to monitor and observe lawful activities of dissenters rather than on people actually involved in law breaking.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Food Service Worker Protest in Front of Vanderhoef's Residence Revealing

Last night in front of Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef's residence, a number of students gathered in support of Sodexho Food Service Worker's campaign to become university employees with full university wages and benefits. So far, the Chancellor has failed to negotiate in good faith and at a meeting last week refused to allow union representatives to come and speak on behalf of the food service workers. Instead Vanderhoef and Vice Chancellor Dennis Shimek, met with two students and a food service worker--two of whom complained about disrespectful treatment and intimidation tactics.

As far as protests go, this one, planned at the last minute and held during finals week was not huge. Certainly not in comparison with some of the recent protests held on May 1 and May 23, 2007. Nevertheless, the twenty-five or so students who gathered on Tuesday evening in front of Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef's residence served an important purpose. The Chancellor was holding his annual Luau and had invited many university folks and community leaders--most of whom ignored or were indifferent to the efforts of the protesters to pass out fliers. Some were downright hostile.

More interesting was perhaps the reaction of leaders in this community--some of whom have expressed open support for the food service workers. For instance, Assemblywoman Lois Wolk had sent a letter to the chancellor in March urging him to negotiate with the students in good faith. She was also supposed to be meeting with the Chancellor in hopes of pressuring him to resolve the meeting. Given that, it was surprising to see the Assemblywoman walk right past the protesters, along with her husband Bruce Wolk, and say nary a word.

Davis City Councilmember Don Saylor exchanged pleasantries with me, however, he did not attempt to talk to the students despite his earlier letter of support. Nor did Councilmember Ruth Asmundson. Nor did former Mayor and current Judge Dave Rosenberg. Nor did Congressman Mike Thompson's representative Eli Faircloth.

There was but one exception to that list--County Supervisor Mariko Yamada. Ms. Yamada walked up to the protesters, offered words of support and hugs, and made the determination that she should not go in, in light of the protest. The students talked her into going inside, however, it was clear from the student's reaction that her support was very meaningful to them. Nor was the fact that several other leaders in the community had walked right past them without a word lost upon them.

Vice Chancellor Dennis Shimek at one point intentionally and deliberately walked right through the marching picketers--and for really no apparent reason as he walked through some grass in some open space and then returned to the Chancellor's residence. I caught up to him at the park, and told him that my mother had taught me never to walk through a picket line.

He asked me, "why is that?"

I responded, "it is the ultimate sign of disrespect."

He said, "they were in the path, I had the right to walk there, so I did."

He could have easily walked around them. He was attempting to intimidate them and bully them, just as he had up in his office during negotiations. This is a university employee's disdain for students who were exercising their lawful right to assembly.

Finally, what perhaps disturbed me the most was the treatment of the protesters by the UC Davis police. There were at least six police officers there for a pretty small protest. But that's understandable given the size of previous protests. What concerned me was that the police were taking pictures of the protesters.

These students were not breaking the law. This hearkened me back to a time before I was born when the FBI would routinely photograph and keep files on protesters for the purpose of intimidation and a whole lot more. These are the tactics used by the university police against their students? What are they going to do with the pictures?

The picture above is an officer taking a picture of me taking a picture of him. Now I don't know exactly what the officer thought he was going to accomplish by taking of a picture of me. But he can tell his bosses, he got a shot of...

---Doug Paul Davis reporting