Dispute with UC Lingers; Senator Calls For Mediated Settlement

In July, roughly 8,500 University of California (UC) service workers went out on strike in protest of poverty wages. At this point there is no agreement between the workers and the UC Regents. Now, a mediated settlement has been presented to the UC administration. Senator Leland Yee, who joined workers represented by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME 3299) on the picket lines in July, is calling on the University to accept this new proposal.

Last month, the University asked Art Pulaski, Executive Secretary Treasurer of the California Labor Federation, to mediate the collective bargaining between AFSCME 3299 and the UC. He has since put forward a series of recommendations to settle the dispute.

The UC workers have argued that these wages are forcing them to live in near poverty conditions. Despite the economic downturn, the university has the resources to bring these workers up to a living wage and lift them out of poverty. As the Vanguard reported last summer, much of the funding for these workers comes from the privately funded UC hospital system which has ample money to absorb a pay increase. Eighty percent of service worker salaries are not paid by state funds, but are paid under the UC hospital budget or are self-funded.

From last summer:

"At issue are poverty wages as low as $10 per hour. Many work 2-3 jobs and qualify for public assistance to meet their families’ basic needs. UC wages have fallen dramatically behind other hospitals and California’s community colleges where workers are paid family-sustaining wages that are on average of 25% higher. In addition, when workers have stood up for better lives for their families and better working conditions, the University has retaliated by violating labor laws.

96% of service workers are eligible for at least one of the following forms of public assistance: food stamps, WIC, public housing subsidies and subsidized child care, creating a potential burden for CA taxpayers. Increasing wages would not only help lift workers out of poverty, but could positively impact CA and the low- and moderate-income areas where UC workers live as they contribute more to their local economy."

The University of California was able to pay its new president Mark Yudof $800,000, nearly doubling the salary of his predecessor. UC executives have consistently received double digit pay increases and bonuses on already exorbitant salaries. In addition, Regents have significantly increased student fees each year, making the state’s higher education system unaffordable for many students.

In a letter to President Yudof, Senator Yee wrote:

“In light of the University’s commitment to increasing executive compensation, it is an embarrassment that service workers are largely ignored by the UC administration. I strongly urge the University to immediately accept the mediated settlement. Mr. Pulaski has put forward a middle ground proposal that should be accepted by both parties.”

The mediated settlement proposal includes across the board increases of 5%, 3%, 3+1%, 3+1% for four years; year for year service credit steps; and a minimum rate of $14.50/hour by the end of the four year contract term.

“It is unconscionable what the UC administration has done to these workers and their families. The wages of UC service workers are dramatically behind other hospitals and California’s community colleges, where workers average twenty-five percent more for the same work. UC hospitals made over $371 million in profits last year, yet they refuse to provide the workers a fair wage. While UC executives live high on the hog, workers, students, and patients are left in the cold.”

According to the state-appointed, independent fact finder Carol Vendrillo, these low wages are a matter of priorities and not a lack of resources. She noted:

“UC has demonstrated the ability to increase compensation when it fits with certain priorities without any demonstrable link to a state funding source. It is time for UC to take a broader view of its priorities by honoring the important contribution that service workers make to the UC community and compensating them with wages that are in line with the competitive market rate.”

As the holiday season rolls around and people struggle to afford to buy their holiday gifts, it is important to remember those who are trying to get by on just $10 an hour from a system that still rolls in billions and pays its top executives high six-figure salaries.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

PERB Trying to Stop UC Strike

The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) is seeking a court injunction in order to prevent UC service workers from carrying out a five-day strike planned to begin on Monday.

PERB, which is the state agency that oversees collective bargaining for public employees, filed a complaint against AFSCME for allegedly engaging in bad faith bargaining in its negotiations with UC for new contracts for patient care and service workers. According to the complaint, the union failed to give adequate notice of the strike and encourage patient care employees to participate in the service workers' strike despite the fact that their absence presented a danger to public health and safety.

This is just the latest in a string of anti-labor rulings by the board that is filled with Arnold Schwarzenegger appointees. It is composed of five governor-appointed members. PERB acts as a judicial body responsible for administering bargaining statutes for California’s public schools, colleges and universities.

At this time, the union denies the complaint has validity and is moving ahead as though they strike on Monday.

This is the second time that PERB has attempted to stop the UC strike. Back on May 29, 2008, AFSCME rescinded its strike notice after PERB ordered the union to resume negotiations. At that time, the union withdrew its strike notice after PERB announced that it would support UC in seeking a restraining order in the event of a strike. The restraining order would have prevented striking outside UC health centers.

According to AFSCME, these workers receive poverty wages as low as $10 per hour. Many work 2-3 jobs and qualify for public assistance to meet their families’ basic needs. UC wages have fallen dramatically behind other hospitals and California’s community colleges where workers are paid family-sustaining wages that are on average of 25% higher. In addition, when workers have stood up for better lives for their families and better working conditions, the University has retaliated by violating labor laws.

96% of service workers are eligible for at least one of the following forms of public assistance: food stamps, WIC, public housing subsidies and subsidized child care, creating a potential burden for CA taxpayers. Increasing wages would not only help lift workers out of poverty, but could positively impact CA and the low- and moderate-income areas where UC workers live as they contribute more to their local economy.

California State-appointed neutral Factfinder Carol Vendrillo, who independently evaluated the viability of a service workers’ labor agreement, found that the university system has the ability to increase pay to these workers.

“U.C. has demonstrated the ability to increase compensation when it fits with certain priorities without any demonstrable link to a state funding source…It is time for UC to take a broader view of its priorities by honoring the important contribution that service workers make to the U.C. community and compensating them with wages that are in line with the competitive market rate.”

Here is a video, put out by AFSCME that chronicles the conditions that these workers live under.



Follow the Vanguard next week, as we cover the UC Service Workers strike and get exclusive coverage and interviews.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

UC Service Workers To Strike

Last week, 8,500 UC workers announced that they will hold a five-day strike at UC's ten campuses and five medical centers.

According to a release from AFSCME, the union that represents university workers, the strike is for the service workers, however, thousands of medical workers could individually honor the picket lines and not cross it.

"At issue are poverty wages as low as $10 per hour. Many work 2-3 jobs and qualify for public assistance to meet their families’ basic needs. UC wages have fallen dramatically behind other hospitals and California’s community colleges where workers are paid family-sustaining wages that are on average of 25% higher. In addition, when workers have stood up for better lives for their families and better working conditions, the University has retaliated by violating labor laws.

96% of service workers are eligible for at least one of the following forms of public assistance: food stamps, WIC, public housing subsidies and subsidized child care, creating a potential burden for CA taxpayers. Increasing wages would not only help lift workers out of poverty, but could positively impact CA and the low- and moderate-income areas where UC workers live as they contribute more to their local economy."

11,500 patient care workers have also been in negotiations since August of 2007. At this point, they are not calling for a strike although some may decide not to cross the picket line in solidarity.

Last week the Davis Enterprise quoted Nicole Savickas, a UC human resources communications coordinator:

"The university is disappointed that the union has decided to call for a strike of UC service workers at this time... While UC and AFSCME spent the last few weeks of June bargaining for patient care technical employees, the university has not received a response to its last request (from mid-June) to continue discussions for service employees... We hope that the union will reconsider and join us back at the bargaining table to continue negotiations for new contracts for both our service and patient care technical employees."

However, Leticia Garcia-Prado who works as a medical assistant at Cowell Student Health Center told the Enterprise that the university's latest proposal included no substantive changes from the previous offer.

Workers are particularly upset that the well-paid upper management of the university has been receiving pay increases even as the service workers are locked into low wages. Some may question the timing of these strikes and requests for pay increases during times of budget crisis and economic downturn.

It is important to note that 78 percent of the funding that pays for service worker position does not come from the state's general fund. Instead a large portion of the funding comes directly from revenues generated from UC Hospitals. In 2006, UC Hospitals posted $371 million in profits.

Moreover, California State-appointed neutral Factfinder Carol Vendrillo, who independently evaluated the viability of a service workers’ labor agreement, found that the university system has the ability to increase pay to these workers.

“U.C. has demonstrated the ability to increase compensation when it fits with certain priorities without any demonstrable link to a state funding source…It is time for UC to take a broader view of its priorities by honoring the important contribution that service workers make to the U.C. community and compensating them with wages that are in line with the competitive market rate.”

Meanwhile Union officials have said they will not strike before July 12, 2008.

Commentary

It is disappointing that it has come to this. The University of California system is the finest public higher education system in the country. They offer many students a world class education for a very affordable price. Unfortunately, they are paying their lowest level employees wages that require many to receive public assistance.

Leticia Garcia-Prado takes home less than $2000 per month in her position as a patient care worker. She is earning this in a community where the median income is more than twice that.

The university is using the state budget as a means to hold up this process. But most of the money for these wages do not come from the state budget. It is time that we move forward as a community and no longer accept the UC system paying its wage earners meager wages.

It took the Sodexho workers a number of years, but they finally this spring forced UC Davis to transition them to university employees. This was a good step forward, but now we need to take it to the next level and pay all university employees a good and fair wage for the excellent service they provide to the university and the community.

SPECIAL NOTE: This is the Vanguard's 1000th post. The Vanguard was first published on July 30, 2006 and since September of 2006 has been publishing at least once daily except during the Thanksgiving Holiday. The Vanguard wishes to thank all of the readers who have been around since the beginning and welcome those who are just joining us.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

UC Workers to Take Strike Vote Next Week

Food service workers celebrated in Woodland yesterday their victory from last month when the university announced they will become fully employed UC workers. This marked the culmination of over a year long battle by the food service workers that captured much of the imagination of the Davis community.

Meanwhile on a statewide front, the combination of budget cuts but also cost-cutting activites by the UCs statewide has led medical and service workers to take a strike vote in an attempt to resolve differences in their contract battle.

Last week the UC workers declared that they had reached impasse in their ten month old salary talks. According to a press release they will take a strike vote in a vote that runs from May 17, 2008 until May 22, 2008.

These workers are primarily medical and service workers that have been trying to protect quality patient care. They report that the lack of competitive wages are impacting the University's ability to retain its best staff. The 20,000 patient care and service workers do everything from assisting in surgery to cleaning campus dorms.

According to their release:

"UC medical centers are bleeding experienced patient care staff to other hospitals where pay is dramatically higher, and campus service workers live in poverty with wages as low as $10 per hour. Other hospitals and California’s community colleges pay an average of 25% higher for the same work."

Furthermore:

"At UC hospitals, healthcare workers report that lack of competitive pay is contributing to high-turnover, staffing shortages, and over-reliance on temps. They are concerned this is compromising patient care and increasing the risk of complications. For service staff at the campuses and hospitals, wages are low enough for workers to qualify for public assistance. Many live in poverty and are forced to work two jobs, taking time away from their families and communities."

Workers have been negotiating for equal pay for equal work since August, 2007. However, according to the workers, UC Executives fell far short of that, forcing the 20,000 to take a strike vote.

Lakesha Harrison, Licensed Vocational Nurse & President of AFSCME Local 3299:

“This is a matter of priorities. UC Executives need to ensure UC keeps its best staff by paying equal pay for equal work. UC is losing good people to other hospitals where pay is about 25% higher, we are concerned this is causing staffing shortages and over-reliance on temps. That’s not the kind of patient care people expect from UC.”

Per the press the release, the CA State-appointed neutral Factfinder Carol Vendrillo, who independently evaluated the viability of a service workers’ labor agreement, this is a matter of priorities, rather than resources.

“U.C. has demonstrated the ability to increase compensation when it fits with certain priorities without any demonstrable link to a state funding source…It is time for UC to take a broader view of its priorities by honoring the important contribution that service workers make to the U.C. community and compensating them with wages that are in line with the competitive market rate.”

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

JUDGE ORDERS INVESTIGATION OF YOLO D.A. RECORDS TO IDENTIFY COLLUSION & DISCRIMINATORY PROSECUTION OF UNION ACTIVISTS

Order Comes One Year After Arrests and Two Weeks After Food Service Workers' Victory

Special to the Vanguard

On Wednesday April 30, 2007, Judge Basha of the Yolo County Court ordered the Yolo County District Attorney to investigate and turn over the records of all protests of 15 or more people in Yolo County over the last 5 years to identify patterns in the DA's prosecution. In particular, the district attorney must present any and all communications between their office and the UC Davis administration, the Davis City Police Department, and/or the UC Davis Police Department in regards to protests and their prosecution. This order comes as part of a Murgia motion brought by the defendants, which seeks to show that there has been discriminatory prosecution in this case.

The 7 defendants, including a UCD lecturer, a UCD alum, a UCD student, UCD workers, and former Sodexho workers, were arrested on May 1st 2007 during a march in support of contracted out food service workers. Recently, on April 17, 2008, the UC Davis Administration finally announced that, in fact, the contracted out food service workers' demands would be met and all of the workers will be converted to UCD employees with Union membership. UC Davis had been the last of the 10 UC campuses and 5 medical centers to still contract out its dining services.

"This is an important victory in a longer battle," said John Viola, an attorney with the National Lawyers Guild representing some of the May Day 2007 defendants, "since now we will be able to identify the ways in which union organizers and union supporters are being discriminatorily prosecuted as a result of collusion between the UC Administration, the Davis City Police Department, the UC Davis Police Department, and the Yolo County District Attorney."

"This decision really vindicates us in bringing the motion," said Arooj Ahmad, a former Sodexho worker and UCD Alumna who was arrested on May 1st, 2007, "which we think will show that we are being discriminated against for our support of the union. Now that the UC Davis administration has finally listened to the community and done the right thing, we can all see that our actions throughout this whole past year have been justified.”

During the hearing, the attorneys for the defendants exposed other incidents where police and the District Attorney worked together to chill union activity, as well as proved that other protesters who were involved with non-violent protests that were not affiliated with the union were not actually prosecuted.

“We applaud the district attorney's ordinarily lenient practices in cases of non-violent civil disobedience,“ said Viola, “but find it totally improper, unacceptable, not to mention unconstitutional that their decision to prosecute in this case was arguably motivated by an improper relationship with the University and their efforts to stop the campaign.”

The District Attorney has 30 days to turn over the records, and the next court date will be June 11th.

2008 May Day Protests At UC Davis Push for Social Justice

While it paled in comparison to last year's large crowd of 500 to 1000 students, workers, and community members, a solid crowd of more than 150 turned out to mark the commemoration of May Day in honor labor rights and other social justice. Among the variety of issues of concern--Coca-Cola's treatment of workers in Central America, ending the war in Iraq, Immigrant Justice in the US, labor rights on campus and in the city of Davis, among a broad array of social issues brought to the fore.

Unlike last year where a large contingency marched from the Memorial Union down Russell to the corner of Anderson and Russell, where streets were blocked and arrests ensued, this year's protests were mild by comparison. Music, drums, and fiery speeches were about the extent of the excitement.

A few of the highlights included an entertaining clash between the more progressive and liberal elements and College Republicans, who in a small contingency brought their own signs.

This inspired the partisan crowd to attempt to block the conservative messages in what quickly became a cat-and-mouse game.

Among a variety of speakers was Mayor Sue Greenwald who addressed the crowd citing her record of seeking a living wage for the city of Davis. The Mayor told the crowd that only she and Councilmember Lamar Heystek supported living wage and she pledged to support a progressive wage scale for the city of Davis to the applause of the crowd.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Interview with Assemblywoman Lois Wolk--Part I

On Friday, the Vanguard sat down and spoke with Assemblywoman Lois Wolk, candidate for the State Senate, 5th District. In November she will face Republican Assemblyman Greg Aghazarian. This is the first of a three-part interview. In this segment, the Assemblywoman discusses the agreement by the University to make Sodexho Workers full-time employees, the educational crisis in California, the Delta, and transportation.

1. I want to start with yesterday’s news about the UC Davis Food service workers. What is your reaction to the news that the university is going to eventually allow them to become UC employees and also, do you intend to support Senator Leland Yee’s legislation that would make it considerably more difficult for future outsourced contracts by the state universities?

I haven’t read Leland’s bill yet, it will come to me. Bills like that are very much amended on the floor. The process is that they are introduced, then they go through the Senate and the Assembly. They are often amended, so I try not to take positions on bills before I’ve read them and before they come to me.

I am very pleased about the Sodexho agreement. I think that was a win-win situation. It is a positive outcome and I’m glad the Chancellor made that decision. He called me yesterday and told me about it in the morning. I was very pleased. It’s the UC Irvine model I believe.

I asked the Chancellor about [the 9-12 month delay in implementation]. Before I knew it was 9 to 12 months, I asked how long does this take? He said, in his discussions with Irvine, and with administrators there, with the committee that actually made the recommendation, they did all of the research and visited many campuses, they were warned that it takes longer to do than you might want or expect. So I think that’s why he was making the estimate of 9 to 12 months. I’m just pleased at the eventual outcome.

2. As everyone knows the Davis school district now has to make a horrible choice between closing schools and laying off teachers and support staff and cutting programs. While it may be worse in Davis in terms of budget cuts, it is a problem that is playing out statewide and many communities do not have the base of support that Davis has—how does the state do a better job of ensuring that a more consistent flow of money gets to the schools?

There have been over 20,000 pink slips issued throughout the state, and that’s because the law requires that school boards early on have to take the governor’s proposal in January, his budget proposal, and respond to that. The legislature has been pretty consistent about protecting K-12. This year is a terrible budget year. I have never voted to suspend 98, and I hope I will never have to suspend 98. I think our schools in Davis are terrific, both our boys went through the system and had very positive experiences. I know that many people move to Davis precisely for this wonderful system.

When it comes to the reform of the educational finance mechanism, I happen to think it would be a good idea to do that, and one of the reasons that we need to do it is that our demographics are changing—not only Davis’ but the state of California. Over 50 percent of the districts have declining enrollment. Part of Davis’ situation is directly related to the fact that we have declining enrollment. I would say that’s probably half of the four million. What that means is that for each and every student who does not show up in a seat, they lose money and they lose it fairly quickly. So you can’t reduce the overhead, I mean you are not going to immediately get rid of teachers, employees, buildings, etc. You instead have a deficit that you have to deal with—an educational deficit, a program deficit.

I would like to see some basic reform of the education finance system. The problem with that is that that’s not easy to do. It’s a big state, with a lot of different needs, and different interests. Suburban districts, urban districts, and rural districts all have different needs. I have introduced bills that have related to finance, home to schools transportation, declining enrollment, and because there is no money available, it is very difficult to make any kind of structural change in the way schools are financed. But more and more people are talking about it, because more and more districts are suffering from this structural change in the demographics of California. It will start to effect higher education in a few years.

I’ve spent most of my political life trying to get more schools, trying to get communities to pass bonds, trying to reduce the two-thirds requirement to 55 percent, to make it easier for school districts to build. We’re now moving into a very different era. It’s an era of demographic change. There will be fewer students eventually at the University of California, fewer students at CSU, and we’re starting to see the beginning of that in Davis. And it’s not only Davis, it’s communities like Vacaville, communities like Benicia, it’s throughout the district—my district, you will see, flat or declining enrollment. There are very few schools where there’s an increase. Elk Grove which has been the poster child for growth in so many areas is having the opposite effect. It’s a daunting challenge but it’s one that we have to confront.

3. Delta Protection has become your hallmark issue, those of us who went to Congressman Thompson’s fundraiser last weekend, learned a lot about efforts underway to protect the delta—how did you get involved in this issue, what are you looking for the state to do on this effort, and finally what can we as citizens do?

District 8 represents the northern part of the Delta. I have been very much involved in water issues and environmental issues from the time that I entered the Davis City Council. As chair of Water, Parks, and Wildlife, I know that the Delta is the heart and soul of the California water system. It is the core and it is in terrible crisis. That has not only a major environmental impact, but a potentially disastrous economic impact of the entire state.

We’ve asked the Delta to do many things and many of them are incompatible with each other. We want it to supply an unending or increasing supply of water to Southern California and to the Bay Area. We want it to be an extraordinary estuary to breed and facilitate fisheries. We want it to be the repository of agricultural and urban runoff. We want it to, I don’t, but it has become an area of increasing urbanization. We’ve asked it to do far too many things and it is dying, it is absolutely dying. Of course it is surrounded by levies that are basically 19th century piles of dirt, and they are failing. And it is seismically at risk. You can’t imagine an area that is of more significance and at risk.

What can we do? We can do a number of things. The people of the state of California voted for a bond in 2006 to repair the levies and to begin the process of improving the water quality in the Delta, and the fisheries, the habitat, and the agriculture. What we can do is to try to raise the profile of the delta. Most people know where the coast is and know why it’s important to protect it. Most people know about the Sierra Nevada, and they will protect it. They know about Yosemite and they will protect it. They know about their local parks and they want to protect those. But the Delta has very few people in it and very little political clout. So we need to be able to raise the profile of the Delta so that it takes its place as the key water and environmental issue for California.

Then we need to put in place structures that will protect it. It needs are steward. There is no steward—no body, no agency—whose sole purpose is to protect the delta. And if I’m elected to the Senate, that’s what I’ll spend many years trying to accomplish. It won’t be easy, but there has to be a body like the Coastal Commission that focuses exclusively on the Delta and has responsibility for all water decisions and all environmental decisions that affect it. That won’t be easy to do, but I am convinced that has to occur.

The average person needs to educate themselves and speak to their representatives. Here we are very blessed with a delegation that understands all of that—both in the surrounding Assembly Districts and the Senate Districts. And at the Congressional level—Mike Thompson and Doris Matsui have been strong supporters of the Delta—they know where it is, they know how important it is to our region. But we don’t have the same recognition other places. That’s very hard for citizens here to accomplish. We have to educate those in the Bay Area, further in the southern part of the Central Valley, in San Diego, in Los Angeles, to the importance of the Delta to them but to California as a whole. And we’re trying to do that. We’ve been working very carefully with members of my committee who represent those areas, in educating them about the Delta.

Hurricane Katrina had an effect in that area. After Katrina, people were suddenly aware that the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta was in fact at greater risk than New Orleans. And look what happened to New Orleans, so that recognition has helped us with flood protection, it’s helped us with environmental legislation in the Delta; it’s helped us get resources to the Delta. Every cloud has a silver lining, Katrina really the knowledge of how fragile this area is. We have to continue that because we need resources from those who might want to put those resources elsewhere.

4. Transportation is always a major issue—this district really has two major thoroughfares cutting through it, in the northern part we are particularly concerned with the congestion along the I-80 corridor. This is no longer just an issue however about transportation it is also now an issue of the environment, oil supplies, global warming, etc. In your view, what should the state do to address transportation problems in the region?

The state has to take a very active role in addressing these problems. One of the first steps was this extraordinary $18 billion bond that was passed by California. We have worked very hard to assure our fair share of funding. We have roads that are bottlenecks. We have a port; why not use more sea transportation as opposed to truck transportation on the roads? We have achieved funding to dredge the port, to make certain that it can be used increasingly for transportation. We have to fund trains and transit. I’ve been a very strong supporter of all modes of transit and we need resources to do it.

We people seem to be very willing to put money into transportation, into transit. But this remains a very difficult problem because what’s happened is without jobs in the areas where people live, people will commute. That’s what you have between San Joaquin and the Bay Area. That’s what you have between Solano County and the Bay Area. You have people who want to live in these areas because they are pleasant to live in, and housing is a little cheaper, but that means that they have a commute. So we need every form of transportation to be at its best. And to do that we need resources.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

MAJOR VICTORY FOR CAMPUS FOOD WORKERS

Workers Applaud University Decision but Lament Delay in Timeline

It was nearly a year ago last year that the Campus Food Workers launched their most recent campaign to become university employees. On May 1, 2007, joined by hundreds of UC Davis students and community members they marched from the MU to the corner of Russell and Anderson. Three weeks later, they marched on Mrak Hall shutting it down. The actions have been consistent. They have received the support of many public leaders--Lamar Heystek, Lois Wolk, Christopher Cabaldon, the Yolo County Democratic Central Committee, former President Bill Clinton, and most recently Davis Mayor Sue Greenwald.

For the University it was an embarrassment--the only institution in the system to outsource their food service workers. For the workers it was at times a life and death fight, trying to get fair wages, affordable health coverage, and job protection. The lack of affordable health coverage literally put lives at risk.

The University finally pledged to study the issue, but no one had any idea what this would mean or where this would go.

We spoke with many workers over this time. One would tell us about her appendectomy that left her with a $47,000 debt that she would never repay. For another it was the inability to buy heart medicine that put his life on the line.

For these workers, help is on the way, but not as fast as some would like or need. Yesterday, UC Davis announced that they are taking a new approach toward the management of the food service program and its employees.

According to a press release:

"Under this new direction, the campus's food service contractor, Sodexho, will continue to manage residential and retail food operations on campus, but an estimated 175 to 200 nonmanagement Sodexho employees will be eligible to transition to University of California employment.

UC Davis' decision follows an extensive, six-month-long review of food service delivery models at college and university campuses across the country that employ best practices.

Campus and Sodexo officials here say they intend to act as soon as possible to complete the process of transitioning the Sodexho employees to UC-employee status and amending the existing contract. However, they anticipate it will take nine to 12 months to finish the job in a prudent manner that fully addresses the complexity of human resource issues that need to be managed."

According to the Chancellor:

"We arrived at this new direction only after an engaged, thoughtful and collaborative process. We consulted with many key constituents, including representatives from student governance groups. Throughout the entire review process this campus was guided by several key principles to ensure that our final decision would allow us to retain the high quality and diversity of our campus food service program without weakening our commitment to access and affordability for all students."

Sodexho's senior vice president for campus services, Bill Lacey:

"Our desire is to offer the best opportunities for our employees and services to the campus. The university's decision allows us to continue our long-term relationship and commitment to our employees with our continued focus on service to the campus."

State Assemblywoman Lois Wolk applauded the announcement:

"This is a win-win solution to a problem that has divided the campus community for too long. It's a win for the workers and students and it's a win for the entire university family and the greater Davis community. It also provides for the university to benefit from the expertise and high quality food service that Sodexo management provides.

"Chancellor Vanderhoef should be praised for listening to the workers, students and many in the Davis community who supported bringing these workers into direct UC employee status."

The workers themselves were a bit more circumspect about providing praise and in their celebration. The gist of their position is that this is a good thing, they are excited, but to a person no one understands the need to wait another 9 to 12 months.

I spoke with Ashok Kumar who has worked for Sodexho for six months as a part-time employee. He earns $8 per hour and has much uncertainty about the future since he does not know how he can support his family on that wage.

"I am excited about the long term situation, but it is tough in the short term."

He believes nine months is a long time to wait. Moreover, he has been trying to become a full-time employee but they gave that job to someone else.

Kevin Cole is a worker I have spoken with before, in fact he is one of the workers that got a chance to meet President Clinton in mid-January.

"I was really happy that it happened. The only thing I really am not happy about is why we have to wait so long for this to take place. I don’t think it makes any sense to wait another year for this to take place.

They are telling us they are going through a process--I don't understand what kind of process would take 10 to 12 months? Unless you are going to have to move across the country or something, but we’re right here."

Chris Beran has been with the company for three years and have been fighting for the union the entire time.

“I’m happy with the outcome, I’m really just discouraged with the time frame and the fact that they are holding back on us.”

According to the University, this arrangement will cost an additional $2 million per year. Some of this will be passed on to students, but the university also intends to mitigate the impact.

"The transitioning of the food service employees to UC-employee status and the anticipated amendment to the Sodexo 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 a portion of these increased costs will be passed on to students, UC Davis intends to moderate the impact by: gradually passing on the increased costs over time; potentially expanding and modifying retail food services at places such as the Silo Union and the Activities and Recreation Center; using some reserve funds from the capital reserves of Student Housing and the student unions; and negotiating with Sodexho for an appropriate level of financial participation in the new approach."

That seems the least they could have done. The lack of creativity in this process has often been appalling. To use that as justification for keeping low income people in poverty wages never made any sense.

In the end, timeline or no timeline this is a tremendous victory for not only the food service workers who will hopefully by January be getting better wages, access to affordable health care, and protection in the workplace, but to the entire community. The Chancellor may have done the right thing in the end, but throughout the process it was clear that this was not his first choice. The community forced him to do the right thing. This is a victory for the workers, the organizers, the students, and indeed the entire community. The individuals, the leaders, and the people who got behind this movement are the ones that made it possible. It was a tough fight, but in the end, justice prevailed.

Those who questioned their methods, never had to walk in their shoes. The May Day Protests may indeed have inconvenienced students who needed to get to class and take exams, but for the food service workers this was a fight that for some of them was for their very lives. It is one thing to have substandard wages, it is another thing to lack affordable health care. It is a sacrifice that those students who were inconvenienced made, albeit unwittingly, that has now allowed hundreds of workers the chance for better wages and to get themselves and their families the health insurance coverage that many of them so desperately need.

Without the May Day Protests and the subsequent march on Mrak Hall is doubtful that the community would have become energized and mobilized to the extent that it was. It is doubtful that their struggle would have caught the attention of so many public leaders. It is doubtful that the university would have felt the pressure to negotiate that they eventually did without that pressure. And so today, the victory was only possible because a public university that is so insulated from public accountability, a public university that is in many ways so insulated that they are responsible to no one, bowed to the pressure of a community that would not relent. Yesterday was not just a victory for workers, it was a victory for our community and indeed in the democratic process.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Mayor Greenwald Joins Councilmember Heystek in Support of Sodexho Workers

On Monday April 14, 2008, Davis Mayor Sue Greenwald wrote a letter to UC Davis Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef, making public her “support of Sodexho workers’ requests.”

Greenwald has met with Sodexho workers over the past two years and chose to make her support public now as she and City Councilmember Lamar Heystek have begun taking public actions for a Living Wage City Ordinance.

Mayor Sue Greenwald in a letter to Chancellor Vanderhoef wrote:

“I feel strongly that if the University truly believes in its ‘Principals of Community’ ethic it would treat all of its workers with the respect and equity that they are due.”

She goes on to once again point out that:

“UC Davis is the only UC campus which does not include its food workers as part of its community.”

Mayor Greenwald called on the Chancellor to recognize the Sodexho workers’ requests for the “same benefits and wages as the University food services employees, as well as union representation.”

Meanwhile a Senate Committee on Tuesday approved legislation to ensure that the University of California contracts with responsible businesses and that there is a competitive bidding process every three years. In addition, the University of California (UC) Responsible Contracting Act requires the University to maintain a centralized database of contracts that is available for public review at each campus.

Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco/San Mateo) introduced the measure as a result of numerous reports of UC’s deficient and non-transparent contract bidding process. It was recently uncovered that a UC Santa Barbara contractor violated wage and hour laws. For more than a decade, UC Davis has failed to put out to a bid contract for food services. In fact, the same food service company has held the contract for over thirty years.

Senator Yee said:

“SB 1596 will ensure that the University contracts with responsible entities, workers are protected, and the taxpayers’ and students’ dollars are being wisely spent. It is imperative that UC has a competitive environment where bidding is fair, transparency and accountable to the people of California.”

Senator Yee in his comments singled out UC Davis:

“It is unacceptable that UC Davis has contracted with the same campus food service company for decades without putting the contract out to bid. The cost to taxpayers and students as a result of this policy is immeasurable.”

According to a Press Release from AFSCME 3299:

"Recently, UC Santa Barbara awarded a low-bid contract to provide painting services on campus. Unfortunately, the contractor declared bankruptcy and the employees were unable to cash their paychecks for painting services they had already provided the University. Wages owed to workers included approximately $90,000. SB 1596 is expected to prevent such events from happening in the future."

Lakesha Harrison President of AFSCME 3299 said:

“The passage of SB 1596 is crucial to ensuring the fundamental right of the public to have access to information and providing greater oversight of the University. The bill will ensure that questionable practices, like at UC Davis where Sodexo has had the contract with the university for over 3 decades with no competitive bidding in over 10 years, would be put to an end. The bill will also ensure that contractors are responsible so that Californians receive quality services at the best costs.”

While the bill was passed out of committee, it remains a long way from passage into law.

SB 1596 will also ensure competition by requiring all contracts be limited to three years terms and that upon completion of the term, the University shall solicit bids through a competitive bidding process. The would avoid a repeat of what happened with UC Davis in 2004, when the University announced a six year extension with Sodexho at the same time the university announced a multi-million dollar investment in the campus by the same contractor. This despite growing public scrutiny at that time into the food service contract.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

May Day Protesters Head to Court Requesting Government Open Records to Them

On May 1, 2007 hundreds of students, protesters, and food service workers marched from the Memorial Union on the campus of UC Davis, down Russell Blvd and stopping at the corner of Russell and Anderson/ La Rue. At which point 24 of them broke off from the main group and sat in the middle of the street. These students, workers, organizers, and a UC Davis lecturer were all arrested.

17 of the arrested protesters took DAP (diversion) and have had had their cases dispensed. However, the charges of failure to disperse have remained against seven who are still contesting the charges.

In January, attorneys for the protesters filed what is known as Murgia papers, asking the court to open up all the records of messages and communications between the University of California at Davis, UCD Police Department, Davis Police Department, and the Yolo County District Attorney.

According to a release:

"We believe this case may be part of a larger unconstitutional effort to silence the union and its supporters in this campaign."

Furthermore:

"Just as the 7 defendants continue to be prosecuted, Sodexho workers and their families continue to suffer from blatant inequality and discrimination in their contracted out jobs. UCD is still the only UC campus or medical center to deny food service workers direct UC employment and Union membership. The UCD administration has said that they will make an announcement in mid-April about their plan for contracted out food service workers."

Yesterday, the Vanguard sat in on a Murgia hearing. Unfortunately, the court has granted an extension to the end of April. Deputy District Attorney Rob Gorman is handling this case and was nearly a month late filing a response to the Murgia claim. Judge Steven Basha while not happy with either the late filing or the absence of Mr. Gorman agreed to allow it over requests by the defense it be disallowed.

The defense is claiming that these 24 people were being given disparate treatment based on their activities on behalf of the Sodexho workers. That similar protesters who have been arrested in Yolo County have not received the same sort of prosecution. And thus the Yolo County District Attorney's office is using this prosecution for improper political motivates to stop demonstration and action on behalf of the Sodexho Workers.

The defense, which consists of three lawyers representing different clients, with John Viola out of San Francisco representing five of them, is requesting three categories of records be opened up in this Murgia request.

First, they want to know the policy of law enforcement around crowd control and first amendment issues. Second, they want communications between the university and the prosecutors office on AFSCME and union activities--this would be akin to a public records request. Third, they want police reports that show disparate impact in this case from other cases, by looking at previous police reports where prosecutions did not occur.

Judge Basha has held over this hearing until April 30, 2008. He had shown a number of concerns with the defense claim that will need to be sorted out and address. It appears the biggest concerns are that they show that there has indeed been disparate treatment in the handling of this case over past cases. And second that the defense not make an overly broad and burdensome Murgia request.

Is the District Attorney's office in fact prosecuting this case more strongly than past incidents? That remains an open question and I agree one that the defense should be compelled to demonstrate at some point, however, as usual I tend to side with transparency and disclosure. Public records laws if they were strengthened could in fact cover most of what they are requesting here. It does not make a lot of sense that they would be denied these basic informational documents.

The Vanguard will continue to follow the legal proceedings as it has the overall case involving the Sodexho workers and their efforts at becoming full university employees.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

UC Files Unfair Labor Practice Charge Against AFSCME

The California Aggie yesterday reported that UC has filed an unfair labor practice charge against AFSCME 3299 for "violation of agreed-upon reasonable access policies."

According to the spokesperson for UC:

"Leaflet distribution is allowed, however, the union has agreed to abide by UC's access policies, and they violated that agreement."

According to the article, this is in violation of their access policy contract:

The specific clause that the union is being charged with violating is under general provision of Article 1 in the access policies contract which states "AFSCME will abide by the reasonable access rules and regulations promulgated at each campus/laboratory."

Meanwhile the union not surprisingly is questioning those charges and arguing that UC is attempting to violate their first amendment right to free speech.

Leticia Garcia-Prado, a UCD Med Center worker questioned the charge.

"AFSCME began leafleting on Jan. 15 and continued for three weeks with no problems until Feb. 5, when UCSF police told our leafleters that they would be arrested if they did not stop... On the same day, UCLA told our leafleters that they had to move to a location two buildings away from the Medical Center's front doors,"

Moreover she asserted that these actions constituted an infringement of the first amendment right to free speech.

"Our right to leaflet the public is a fundamental free speech right... [The leaflets contained] information regarding staff turnover in some medical center departments, use of temporary staff in some departments, high-stress work environments and low-morale caused by being paid wages that are less than at other area hospitals."

Does UC have a point here or are they merely trying to throw up roadblocks to the union at a time when they are stepping up their efforts to pressure UC on a campus-wide basis. The courts have been pretty consistent about ruling in favor of access for unions as a matter of freedom of speech and they have consistently held that unions have the right to gain access to their members at their place of work. A fundamental protection, without which, would make it extremely difficult for unions to organize workers.

Meanwhile, the impasse continues on UC contracts and yesterday marked a day with large rallies and protests in Sacramento in front of the UC Med Center.

According to a release from AFSCME 3299:

"The contracts for over 20,000 essential healthcare and service workers represented by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 3299 have expired. The members of AFSCME Local 3299 are concerned with the ongoing direction of the University and how it is affecting their ability to provide the highest quality patient care and student services

AFSCME Local 3299 members believe that below-market wages, expensive benefits and the failure to implement a step system have created recruitment and retention problems, which have resulted in a less-expensive workforce, reliance on temporary workers in some departments and heavy workloads for essential patient care workers at UC’s five medical centers. Wages in many classifications are 25% to 30% below workers doing the same jobs at other leading hospitals in the state. On UC’s campuses, low wages and unaffordable benefits have led to service cuts for students and faculty and have created a workforce that struggles to make ends meet for their families."

On the UC Davis campus, roughly 30 workers and supporters rallied with picket signs and began to leaflet at the Memorial Union in an attempt to educate students and faculty on their struggle.

The fliers read:

"You can ensure quality student services and direct UC jobs and a fair contract for workers."

In the meantime it seems clear the university and UC will do whatever it can to throw up roadblocks to the efforts of workers who seek decent wages and affordable health care benefits. The fact that UC is a public agency makes their tactics all the more troubling. The insulation of UC which receives large quantities of public money is troubling. There is a lack of accountability to the taxpayers of California in terms of the policy directions they go.

In the meantime, it is our hope that UC will not continue to try to solve its budget problems on the backs of its lowest paid workers while executives and administrators receive $200,000 to $300,000 per year, sometimes higher.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Councilmember Heystek's Persistence on Living Wage Leads to Future Discussion

Early in Lamar Heystek's tenure as Davis City Councilmember, he pushed for a living wage ordinance. This ordinance would have required large employers within the city of Davis to provide a living wage for their employees. The Council Majority of Councilmembers Don Saylor, Stephen Souza, and Ruth Asmundson rejected that ordinance in a somewhat contentious proceding.

Instead the council majority led by Stephen Souza and Don Saylor suggested that they were working on a project labor agreement on Target. This issue came up prior to the election on Measure K (Target) in November of 2006 and we have not heard about it since.

Meanwhile last spring, Councilmember Heystek continued to push for a living wage, this one in a less contentious venue--city contracts--a venue in which the city council has complete control, as opposed to a city wide venue where the control is more tenuous.

In late May of 2007, Councilmember Heystek asked staff:

“The council had given staff direction to analyze the issue of the living wage vis-à-vis our contracts when we were either renegotiating or updating those contracts, can you tell us whether that is still on track and what the timeline is on that procedure?”

The response by Bill Emlen was that this was on the radar.

"Councilmember Heystek was particularly concerned with outsourced labor by the city, particularly in light of the recent events at UC Davis regarding the Sodexho workers. He asked Parks and Community Development Director Donna Silva whether there were advantages of in-house over contractual workers."

As the councilmember said at that time:

“I don’t want to sound like a hypocrite when I’m asking the chancellor how we can get some of the food workers in the dining commons to become university employees, so this is a very sensitive issue for me. I just hope that we are earnest in looking at how we fulfill our contractual obligations but then really look at whether we are paying a living wage with regard to these contracts. It is a matter of conscience to me..."

As he told the Vanguard at the time:

"We’re talking about writing letters to the university saying that your contracted workers need to be direct employees, well I think that our own contracted out workers should be direct employees. So how many council members are willing to say one thing to the university but say another thing to our city manager?"

Flash forward now to Tuesday night. Once again, on the consent calendar the council was asked to approve not one but two contracts from outside venues, neither one requiring a living wage.

Councilmember Heystek:

"I simply cannot support a contract that whereby employees get $9 per hour, I brought up the issue of the living wage at my very third meeting, here as a member of this body, there was consensus from that point on, from the point of bringing it up of our list of goals in December of 2006 to be to pursue a framework by which the city of Davis hires contract employees with a living wage. This contract does not provide for a living wage for all of its employees, notwithstanding the benefits that you specified in the contract. I will continue to advocate for a living wage ordinance that covers city contracts and in the spirit of that consensus of this council, I hope that we can come up with a contract arrangement that does provide for a truly living wage. If were to were to expect these people to live in Davis, I will not talk about the merits necessarily of a living wage ordinance—we’ve already weighed in on that as a council. I will not wait until the end of my term to see a living wage ordinance passed. I believe that we must pass contracts that allow us to have a living wage whether or not we have an ordinance today or tomorrow. I understand that staff have the need to approve contracts because we have existing contracts that are expiring in June, but that does not change my belief that a living wage ordinance is needed and that a living wage contract needs to be provided for all of our contract employees… And I hope that we can see the end of 2008 with some action in this regard. Until we have a living wage ordinance passed, I will oppose the contract."

Mayor Sue Greenwald agreed with the councilmember.

"This issue is always troubling to me, back when we were doing our labor negotiations, if you recall, I voted against enhanced benefits for the highest paid workers in town, the management… I was also concerned with some of the wages we were giving to the fire department. The reason I gave at the time was that it was unjust that it was going to come out of the lowest wage workers—one way or another… I totally agree with Lamar, and I think the problem now is that our budget and our long range forecast and everything we’ve done has factored in giving our highest paid workers these enhanced benefits… factor those in and there’s no wiggle room for the lowest paid workers."

The rest of the council was not unsupportive of the principle but took a more middle ground on this issue, preferring to have a discussion. Mayor Pro Tem Ruth Asmundson expressed concern about the budget. Councilmember Don Saylor expressed concern about methodology for determining how much a living wage contract should be and wanted it to be based on something very real and thus preferred to wait.

Councilmember Lamar Heystek however was not willing to wait. He pressed hard for this to come forth:

"I do not believe that the way we go about approving contracts like these is to put the cart before the horse. In other words, we knew from the year 2006 that this would be a point of discussion. So if it were so important to have a living wage contract before us, then we would have had that discussion, that living wage policy discussion that we’d ask for from the beginning, in it, before these contracts came up. So let’s get that straight, we should have and we did not have a discussion when it was appropriate. We’re having this discussion after we know this is an issue and we are poised to approve not one but two contracts. We’re talking about one right now… You talk about the budgetary issue Madam Mayor Pro, and I think we should be responsible but we should not be balancing our budget on the backs of our lowest paid employees."

Councilmember Heystek's persistence and forcefulness on this issue eventually paid off. Councilmember Stephen Souza found middle ground to which all of the council would eventually agreed to have this contract renegotiated with higher wages for the lowest paid employees along with a future discussion about living wage.

The vendor himself came forward and expressed support in having a living wage and said he was amenable and supportive to whatever contract the council came forward with.

While the council would eventually reach a consensus on this issue, it is clear that the leadership here came from Councilmember Heystek who simply would not take no for an answer on this one. As he expressed to me later, this is not a new issue. He has brought it up numerous times from his third meeting as a councilmember on. The council has said they will take up this issue and yet each year contract extensions have come up, they have delayed and delayed. Finally he would not allow them to delay again.

Will this bring about finally a living wage ordinance to protect those workers who work on outsourced contracts? We shall see. However, the councilmember is clearly correct that if the council is demanding that UC Davis pay its outsourced labor living wage or bring them in house, the city cannot have a moral standing to do that unless they are willing to pay outsourced labor a living wage.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Chancellor's Brown Bag Lunch Brings Renewed Calls for Justice For Sodexho Workers

Yesterday UC Davis Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef had his "brown bag lunch" where he spoke before a group largely made up of his own assistants, provosts, vice-chancellors, and other upper administration.

He spoke at length about a number of his own concerns before turning it over to questions. The biggest concern at this point is a proposed across-the-board cut from the governor due to the budget crisis. A cut that will be as much as 10 percent.

The Chancellor stressed that all options were on the table. Among those options is a higher than the projected 7 percent tuition increase.

Another option is no enrollment growth. He said they were projecting 5000 new students given the enrollment numbers in high schools across the state. The problem with that approach is that for forty years the UC system has taken in the top 12.5 percent of graduating seniors and if they did not do that this year that would be a marked shift in their philosophy and he indicated not a shift they would be comfortable with.

He also put on the table cuts in services to students and cuts in health care coverage to employees. The latter would force employees to dig into their own resources in order to maintain their health coverage.

It is interesting that one item not mentioned as being on the table even though it would not generate a lot of savings would be a roll back of upper administrative salaries. Some may recall the near riots that took place when the UC Board of Regents announced huge tuition hikes while at the same time increased some of their top administrative salaries by $50,000 per year. Symbolic to be sure, but it would be similar to a CEO of a major corporation taking a huge salary increase while at the same they were laying off $10,000 rank and file employees.

Dominating the question and answer period were concerns about worker contracts including Sodexho workers but also university employees who are seeking new contracts amid talks of huge budget cuts.

Don Gibson, a UC Davis student who is VP of the Davis College Democrats and an elected member of the Yolo County Democratic Central Committee. He read from the resolution passed on January 7, 2008 that called for a university contract for food service employees.

The Chancellor asked Janet Gong to speak to this issue.

"In October, the end of the month, we signed what's called a memorandum of understanding between the university and Sodexho. Sodexho is the vendor that supplies contracted out food service for both our vendor halls as well as our retail operations such as you see in this building downstairs.

That MOU provides for increases in wages at classification levels for campus food service workers that are equal between what Sodexho is paying and what campus workers would be making on campus. The wages are identical in terms of the classification wages.

It also spoke to health insurance and we did find that there were disparities in health insurance between what benefits the university would provide employees and what the vendor was providing. So we arranged with Sodexho to go from a 60-40 employer-employee pay plan to an 80-20 plan. And we supplemented that with $100.10 per month as a stipend that could also go to employees for insurance.

Wages were increased in September, insurance increases were effective in January, since that time there has been a 47 percent increase in the number of Sodexho employees who are now receiving health insurance."

Ms. Gong further suggested that:

"We've agreed to undertake a process to look at all options... certainly the option of bringing food service employees in house is one of the options that we're looking at. To do that we are mining all kinds of operational and financial data."

The goal according to Janet Gong was to have preliminary recommendations by April as to whether they should bring food service employees in house. It seems obvious on two levels first that conditions for employees have improved since October both on the wages front and the health care front. However, it also seems obvious that the university would not continue its relationship with Sodexho unless there remained strong financial incentive to do so, which necessarily means that the workers are receiving less in terms of wages and benefits than they would under a university contract. And while the budget crunch is a concern, UC Davis has less excuse on this issue than on others since it is really the only UC outsourcing labor.

Max Alper of AFSCME 3299 disagreed with Janet Gong on some of the points that she raised.

"I just wanted to make sure that everybody saw that there was a report put out by a progressive faculty group for UC Davis that found many interesting things including that Sodexho wages are still even with these changes 5 to 9 percent below UC Davis wages that are paid at the UC Davis medical center. And more disturbing is that health care for families is still 41 percent more expensive including the 100 dollar stipend. And when you ask people to wait until April for preliminary results there are some workers right here who can tell you why they can't wait."

Janet Gong responded that food service workers at the UC Davis medical center are not comparable to the food service workers on campus.

"There are very distinct differences between those two which include things like at the medical center food service workers are dealing directly with patients, there is delivery of food to patients, there is compliance with charting restrictions, with regulations, there are different regulatory agencies, it is a 365, 7 day a week, 24 hour a day operation. Those kind of responsibilities in the job descriptions and classifications are very different than working in a campus food-based operation."

Tarone Bittner unit chair for UAW 2865 at Davis spoke passionately on the issue of outsourced workers and disputed notions by university staff and administration that they were working to bring UC pay inline with market wages.

"I have been here for three years, I have seen no movement on this. Yet we have you sitting here saying that you want to pay market wages. Well do it, what else needs to be done. The Sodexho issue is a sad issue in and of itself because we're talking about out-sourcing which is intolerable... It should be intolerable for every worker on this campus. Because what you're saying is that we're going to take the opportunity to exploit not only the workers that are unionized but the workers in our midst that work for Sodexho. So we're going to pay them even less.

And we all know where this concept comes from, right, outsourcing, downsizing, etc., that happens when a corporation wants to make more money by paying less in labor costs. It makes sense to a certain degree to do that nationally, but to do it in your community is particularly offense because what you're talking about is bringing down your standard of living for everyone in your own community. That doesn't make any sense to me.

There's a social cost here that seems to be missed. So let me reiterate, all of the workers at UC are paid a substandard wage. So let's start right there. Let's fix the thing with Sodexho, we're the last campus in the system that's outsourcing, so we're like the backwater of the UC system.

But we need to fix this so that we can get to the issue of bringing up the wages to market which you said your for. We could deal with that right now. I'm sure all the unions would be happy to meet tomorrow to bring up all the wages to market."

In the end, Sodexho workers Joe Moreno and Esther Juarez tried to talk with the Chancellor about their health situations and the impact of the university's policy on their lives. However, the Chancellor was quickly ushered out the back door and the workers were left frustrated at their lack of ability to express to the Chancellor the impact of the university's policies.

People will look at the improvements and perhaps ask why the workers are continuing their struggle, but it is clear that the university has been forced since October to make concessions they did not want to make and they also are considering more changes. It is difficult to know what will happen in April and it therefore makes sense to continue to press their demands to become UC employees with better wages, better health insurance, and better working conditions.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting