UC Davis Faculty Report Blasts UC Davis for Low Wages and Lack of Benefits for Workers

Yesterday a press conference was held by a newly formed faculty group to demand UC status for UC Davis Foodservice workers after the completion of a lengthy report on the conditions of food service workers at UC Davis as a result of the university's practice of outsourcing their work to Sodexho.

Joining the the faculty group were Sodexho and also Direct UC Davis workers, West Sacramento Mayor Christopher Cabaldon, Community Activists, ASUCD Senator Albert Parnell.

The Progressive Faculty Group at University of California Davis (PFG) released a report entitled yesterday "From the Shadows: How the University of California, Davis Contracting-Out Fosters Workers Poverty" criticizing university administrations' practice of contracting-out food services.

"Most of these Sodexho workers are people of Color with the breakdown being, 39 percent Latina and Latino, 16 percent African American or black, 8 percent Asian or Pacific Islanders. As a result of this institutional relationship between the university and Sodexho, the mostly minority workers belong to a subclass within the UCD community receiving far worse wages and benefits and having worse working conditions than those workers in the same jobs as those workers directly employed by UC across the university system. And UC Davis is the only UC that does not directly employ their food service workers."

According to the report the impact of the university contracting out its labor is multifold. First it leaves employees vulnerable:

"Sodexho’s drive to maximize profit margins has significant impact on the working conditions of contracted-out UCD workers. While UCD workers have union representation these workers are at-will employees and vulnerable to Sodexho’s whims when it comes to changing wages, benefits and working conditions."

As Fred Block, Professor of Sociology in his comments yesterday at the press conference argued:

"It's not just the pay and benefits that makes this a violation of the principles of community, it's the fact that these employees, have no protection against arbitrary management decisions. They are at-will employees, they can be fired for no particular reason. They deserve the same protections that university employees have."

Contracting out also has a severe and negative impact on wages:

"Even with recent changes in wages and health care benefits for contracted-out workers, their compensation is far below that of comparable workers at other UC campuses. Until recently a contracted-out Cook III earned only $10.85 starting wage, which is 36% less than a UCD Medical Center Cook doing the same work. Despite the fact that UCD administration and Sodexho succumbed to worker and community pressure to improve contracted-out worker wages, their wages continue to be 5 to 9% below those of workers doing the same work at the UCD Medical Center in Sacramento."

Furthermore the report shows the relationship between wages for Sodexho workers and the cost of living, what it would take to be able to live on a salary:

"It takes a full time hourly income of $22.03 to support a single parent family in the Sacramento Region, which is 103% more than a contracted-out UCD Food Service worker makes."

West Sacramento Mayor Christopher Cabaldon spoke to this issue during the press conference and its impact on this region:

"There's hard data that proves the case and the impact of the University's employment relationship, wage structure focusing on this campus, for this community living in poverty. I'm here because where are these folks living. Where are the workers who are employed by Sodexho but really working for the university living their daily lives? Many of them are residents of my community, West Sacramento, because it's a more affordable place. And the impacts of poverty, university inspired poverty, on people and families affects the town in which I live in.

I see this every day, folks who have inadequate health care, who don't have the wages in order to make basic needs for their families. So it's not just a question of what happens on the campus but the impacts on neighborhoods and communities throughout this area."

Health care and the affordability of health coverage is devastating to Sodexho workers.

"As the cost of health care has skyrocketed, affordable benefits are essential for workers to maintain a healthy standard of living. The lack of affordable benefits for contracted-out workers in conjunction with their poverty wages has exacerbated the already dire circumstances workers’ families live with daily. Until the first of this year, health care benefits provided to contracted-out UCD workers were 95% more expensive than the benefits directly employed UC workers receive. As UCD administrators and Sodexho were compelled to make changes to contracted-out workers wages, they were also compelled to make recent changes in their health care benefits. Unfortunately the changes have been inadequate to meet the basic needs of
working families - too little too late."

As the faculty group finds, even with the additional stipend of $100, the cost for family coverage is 41 percent greater for Sodexho workers than UC employees and thus remains out of reach for many contracted-out workers.

As the Progressive Faculty group wrote in their press release:

"We heard stories from workers in dire situations such as Esther Juarez who needed emergency medical treatment in a life and death situation and is now strapped with tens of thousands of dollars of medical debt due to lack of health care coverage."

ASUCD Senator Albert Parnell came to show support for the Sodexho workers not just for himself but on behalf of other ASUCD Senators.

"There's been resolutions in the past that ASUCD brought up that show the support and that show that we're hear in solidarity for these workers so that they can live a comfortable life... So they should not have to worry about whether they should choose to pay for the medications or have to put food on the table for their families and themselves. $11 per hour is not a lot of money. It's nowhere near living comfortable and being able to survive. It's nowhere near being able to know that if you ever get injured, or if your health is even in jeopardy, that you can go to the hospital and not have to worry about co-payments that are going to jeopardize whether you are going to be able to put food on the table for your family or your kids or whether you are going to put your health in jeopardy."

Speaking yesterday as well was Joe Moreno. As we mentioned last week, Joe came to meet President Bill Clinton and then suffered a serious incident with his heart because he could not afford to pay for his heart medications. He is just out from the hospital but his condition remains precarious. He told me that his heart no longer beats normally. He has about 15 percent of capacity. He will be on medication the rest of his life and he's not even sure he will be able to resume his full work.

He told the crowd of supporters:

“I am a contracted out Cook at UCD and I have been with Sodexho for 2 years. I have a heart condition, which requires me to take 5 different medications. The problem is that because of the low wages and the expensive medical insurance, I have been uninsured; the medications would cost me $400 a month, which I just can’t afford. I used to be on medical public assistance, but then I got cut off of that by the state about a year and a half ago. Now I save up the medication that I do have and only take them when it gets really bad. Lately I feel like all my strength is gone, and I get weak easily and have shortness of breath which makes it hard for me to walk. I’m hoping to be able to get medical insurance this year.”

The worst part for him is affording the co-pay. And sadly none of this would have occurred had Sodexho offered better health care last year. For the rest of his life, he will live with this fact. Joe is not alone as we have described numerous workers who have suffered greatly from lack of affordable health care. This day and age, health care cannot be a luxury, it is a necessity. And those who do not have it will have a greatly diminished life span and a greatly diminished quality of life. The worst part to me is that the people making these decision are not only public employees but they are living in great comfort receiving compensation of well over $100,000 and in many cases over twice that. We are not talking about a tremendous among of workers, it seems that it would only be right for them to get decent and affordable health coverage. How difficult would it be to have them able to attend the university health center and receiver adequate care and treatment?

Community member Lourdes spoke representing the Gospel Justice Group of St. James Catholic Church:

"I'm standing here for Esther, for Lidya, and for Joe - three UC Davis campus food service workers who I know. I believe that the ability to work to earn a living is a right of all people. All workers have the right to a fair wage, to organize themselves, and to work in good conditions. This is NOT happening on campus for the SODEXHO Food Service Workers!"

For these reasons, the fight will go on and the report as released is very critical of university practices. How much longer will this community allow this university to continue to operate as it has?

• To read the full report
  
  
• More info on the Progressive Faculty Group at UC Davis

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Valley Oak Supporters March For Charter School

A group of roughly 40 students, community members, and Valley Oak students marched from Valley Oak elementary school to City Hall yesterday evening to push support for a charter school.

Last month, the Davis Joint Unified School Board voted by a 4-1 margin to reject the resolution to amend the charter and last night they were expected to take up the original charter and reject that as well.

Following the march, an interesting situation developed as a group of Valley Oak Hispanic families came to the board meeting and spoke. Their spokesperson claimed that they were misled by the charter petition's Spanish translation. They claimed that it suggested that the petition was to keep Valley Oak itself a community school rather than a charter school. The petitioners were accused of using the Hispanic Community as political pawns.

However, in speaking to a number of the parents after their comments during the public comment session in Spanish, it seems that many want to send their children to the Valley Oak Charter school.

The Vanguard intends to follow up on this development today.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Thursday Vanguard Stories

• Davis Growth Discussions To Continue Tonight
  
  
• Pizza Fundraiser on behalf of Injured Davis Police Officer
  
  
• Valley Oak March Tonight

Davis Growth Discussions To Continue Tonight

Tonight at 7 PM at the school district conference room the General Plan Housing Element Steering Committee will meet in part to discuss the results from the workshop two weeks ago.

It is not altogether clear what the results of the workshop were and how much they will affect the final decisions made by the panel. It seems that there were only nine ranking changes on six different sites that were suggested by 15 or more people. Three of these dealt with Covell Village and two Nishi.

Only two of the suggestions were to raise the ranking. That included the Lewis Cannery project which was recommended from Medium to High. And the full Covell Village property which was also recommended from Medium to High.

(see all eight summary charts of the workshop).

A few quick thoughts on these changes and then some more general comments.

First, the recommended move of PG&E makes some sense. I know it is a convenient area to consider since it is infill and not all that useful at this point in time. However, from what I understand the city would have to pay the moving costs for PG&E to relocate their property and that would run around $60 million. I know the Mayor has been a strong advocate for this project and location, and perhaps there is some aspect of this I am missing, however right now I tend to agree with the comment: "Not realistic for development."

Two of the Nishi proposals were lowered one from high to low and one from medium to low. I agree with that. Access is a huge concern. Right now realistically it looks like you would only have access from Olive Drive by car. That is a highly congested area as it is and adding more vehicle traffic would just be problematic. The bicycle access plans are a good idea, but this is just not realistic until you fix the traffic.

Many suggested that Signature be reduced from medium to low. In general, sprawl is opposed by the public. This is really something that our city leaders need to take into consideration. I do not believe that the sports park development is a sufficient reason to develop inside the Mace Curve at this time.

Then the 800 pound gorilla--Covell Village. There were significant recommendations moving the development in both directions. The traffic congestion issue is the big one that led voters to reject it in the first place but a close second would be the sprawl factor, the agricultural land factor and the very fact that the voters just rejected this a little over two years ago.

On the plus side, you have people citing it as a unique infill location (it is not infill), a great location for senior community, and close to shopping and schools.

The bottom line, is that you can argue that it is close to downtown relatively speaking, but overall it is a bad place to grow the way that Davis is currently configured. You simply lack the infrastructure and access to put more people in that location. There is no freeway access. All traffic would have to dump onto Covell, and Woodland is developing down Road 102, which means that traffic is going to be going from Davis to Woodland.

At the end of the day, I'm not completely unhappy with the way the HESC process has played out. But there are a number of concerns that I will go into briefly.

First, if Covell is the 800 gorilla, the 1% growth rate is the brontosaurus. Everything that was done by this committee now depends upon how much we should grow. At the last council meeting, the council majority, specifically Councilmember Don Saylor and Mayor Pro Tem Ruth Asmundson, talked about the need for housing. I just couldn't disagree more at this point in time given the housing market, given the strains on city budget and infrastructure. People think of housing as a means to raise city revenue but you basically get a modest one-time development fee, and we do not get enough for that to begin with, but that is far trumped by the cost for service.

Bottom line here is there seems little or no need to surpass RHNA guidelines which adds just under 500 units in the next six years.

Second, I think we need to take a more holistic approach here. And I'll divide these comments two-fold.

The council has recently heard from the Simmons property folks and the Horse Ranch development. These two projects are moving along at this time along with the Lewis Property. That's three developments that are moving forward outside somewhat of the confines of the HESC. That does not make a lot of sense from the perspective of the work done by this committee and planning for the future.

Along the same lines we have multiple factors moving at the same time. We just spoke about the sphere of influence from LAFCO which will be discussed in February and March. The council is discussing the 1% growth rate next week. You have new RHNA numbers about growth allocation and fair share of growth. You still have the Yolo County general plan with the fact that those study areas are apparently not dead. Along with that you have the pass-through agreement. You have the HESC. None of this is being discussed in totem. How do all of these factors contribute to the overall growth picture?

In some ways I feel that this process is almost ad hoc. And that decisions are being made on each of these steps independently. There are different maps and different processes. And the result will be what exactly? Does the public or even our leaders on council know?

By the end of March we should have a good idea of the answers to some of those things--but on April first will our leaders be able to tell us what the future of Davis looks like?

Add one more point--is the council majority going to continue to support Measure J as we currently know it? A lot of these decisions are being made suggesting that Measure J will protect us from growth. It permeates each issue. But will they keep it in place in the current form?

These next few weeks of discussions should tell us a tale. We'll have to find out where we stand after that.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Pizza Fundraiser on behalf of Injured Davis Police Officer

Steve's Pizza of Woodland is hosting a fundraiser Thursday (today) to benefit a Davis police officer who lost part of his leg in a motorcycle accident.

The event is sponsored by the Woodland Police Department.

"Twenty-five percent of the proceeds from all dine-in, takeout and delivery orders made between 11 a.m. and 9 p.m. Thursday will go toward the family of Trevor Edens to help with his medical expenses. The restaurant is at 714 Main St. in Woodland.

Edens, 33, lost the lower half of his left leg on Dec. 30, when his personal motorcycle collided with a vehicle at a Roseville intersection. Edens was off duty at the time.

Those wishing to participate in Thursday's fundraiser must present a flier for Edens to receive a donation. Fliers are available at Steve's Pizza, and several officers will be distributing them at the restaurant on Thursday. "

Quick Comments:

What I am going to do is give a check directly to the Woodland Police Department in addition to buying a pizza. After all, any excuse I have to get pizza, I have to take. Plus I want to reward the generosity of Steve's Pizza and help Officer Edens. I hope you can all help out.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Valley Oak March Tonight

Contact County Board of Education in Support of the Valley Oak Charter School

February 21, 2008 marks the first potential date that an appeal to the County Board of Education would occur. The Valley Oak Charter School proponents are asking the public write in to the board in order request that they approve a Valley Oak Charter School.

Click here for sample letter

Send the letter to County Superintendent of Schools Jorge Ayala and all five of the board members. Residents of Yolo County only vote for one of the board members. They vote by district. The district numbers correspond with the County Supervisor districts. Thus Davis residents would either be represented by Davis Campbell (District 2) or Joseph Thomson (District 4). However, since all members will vote, it is recommended that all five members of the board be emailed the letter.

Valley Oak March Thursday at 5:30 PM

Join us as we walk from

Valley Oak Elementary School to the District Offices at B Street

5:30pm~ Line up at Valley Oak

6:00pm~ Walk to the Board Meeting

7:00pm~ School Board Meeting Begins

Bring flash lights and jackets.

Also it might be a good idea to leave a car (van) near the District Offices and one at Valley Oak.

Please help and carpool on the way back.

Make signs and wear Valley Oak shirts.

No matter how you feel about this issue, come and support the children of Davis!!

Children and Adults:

Remember to respect others and their views!

Valley Oak Charter is still very much alive!!!

Why Join the Walk

· Valley Oak Charter was denied by the Davis School Board Jan. 24th, 2008 with a 4-1vote, stressing budget. This went against the recommendation of their newly hired Superintendent.

· The law states five reasons for denying a charter and the district’s budget is not one of them. One Board member stressed that the law should be changed, revealing a lack of understanding for why the law was written.

· While planning our appeal and talking to the County School Board, we were informed that our Charter has not yet been denied and the attorney for the district also plays a roll with the County School Board and he will need to be replaced during the charter appeal, due to conflict of interest.

· The Charter is on the Davis School Board Agenda for Thursday, February 7th, 2008, to be denied due to its educational plan. News to us! It turns out that only the resolution of the charter application that the Superintendent and the Charter worked on was denied.

· We plan to submit our appeal to the County School Board Friday, February 8th, 2008.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Wednesday Vanguard Stories

• Will LAFCO Changes to Davis' Sphere of Influence Open the Door to Growth on the Periphery?
  
  
• Election Night: Unity 2008

Will LAFCO Changes to Davis' Sphere of Influence Open the Door to Growth on the Periphery?

Lost in the shuffle was a report in the Davis Enterprise that Davis' sphere of influence would be reduced by LAFCO.

In the Davis Enterprise article this is presented as a means to "preserve more prime agricultural land."

Claire St. John of the Davis Enterprise writes:

"'The changes from the existing SOI, adopted in 1988, reflect the likely boundaries and best growth areas for the city,' the consultant, PMC, wrote in a report. 'The primary differences between the 1988 adopted SOI and the proposed SOI include the removal of several prime agricultural areas, moving the university property within the 10-year SOI and adjustment of areas to reflect where growth is likely.'

A reduction of about 400 acres is proposed, most of which is prime agricultural land. The proposal also includes some re- jiggering to reflect where Davis is likely to grow in the future."

However before this can be approved, there will be a public process and a discussion of at the February 26, 2008 Davis City Council Meeting. This discussion takes place two weeks after the discussion of Davis' one percent growth rate.

The article suggests both Davis Supervisors are concerned about the new boundaries.

"Thomson and Yamada, who also serve as Yolo County supervisors, said they would prefer to see the sphere of influence stretch more to the west of Davis where services such as a hospital, nearby grocery store and other amenities already exist. To include those lands could give Davis more control of its growth and avoid having development forced on it as happened with Mace Ranch.

'By failing to include that property, the city was caught off guard,' Yamada said.

'The question in 1986 was if Davis was taking its fair share of growth,' Thomson added. 'Some people didn't think so and they ganged up and Davis has been paying for it every since. You don't have to grow to the sphere. It's just that that's what you evaluate when you look at annexation.'"

The larger concern however, might be the fact that if areas are not included in the sphere of influence, they might not be covered under the pass-through agreement. That means that the county might have a greater ability to develop on Davis' periphery or close to Davis' periphery under a new arrangement.

Councilmember Stephen Souza, an alternate on LAFCO is quoted in the Enterprise article:

"When reached later, Souza, who is also a Davis City Council member, said Davis now has control over its borders under Measure J. That measure requires voter approval on any General Plan change from agriculture to urban use.

'We have placed a provision in our municipal code that allows us to have ultimate control over any development outside the city of Davis,' he said. 'I believe we should control our own destiny, we should not be controlled by others. When I say 'we' I mean we, the citizens of Davis.'

Any border development needs to be discussed with the county and vice versa, Souza added. That hasn't been the accepted practice in recent years, Thomson said.

'We shouldn't be talking at each other, we need to be talking with each other,' he said. 'We affect each other.' "

In addition to the Davis City Council meeting, LAFCO will take up public comment on the proposed sphere of influence on the evening of March 31, at the Davis City Hall.

One of the issues that must be clarified is whether shrinking the city's sphere of influence instead of protecting prime agricultural land will actually leave it more vulnerable. Davis has Measure J in place to protect its periphery and require a citizen vote. Davis also a pass-through agreement with the county that enables it to have a say in development on its periphery. If changes to the boundary alter that arrangement, we could be looking at a repeat of what happened last summer.

Additionally, the county has not taken the three studies areas proposed at that time off the table, but they might have an easier track elsewhere including along the I-80 corridor if this comes to pass.

Davis residents need to watch this with great interest in the coming weeks.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Election Night: Unity 2008

For one night at least, Davis Democrats were just Davis Democrats. Friend and foe. Adversary and ally alike shed their labels and lined up under the big tent. Democrats got together last night at Lamppost Pizza for the Yolo County Young Democrats Election Night Party.

For local Democrats, races are officially on. Proposition 93 was defeated at last count 53-46. That means that Lois Wolk, although she faces no primary challenge, will face the fight of her life when she takes on fellow Assemblyman Greg Aghazarian. Supervisor Mariko Yamada and West Sacramento Mayor Christopher both were at the party last night and will square off for the Democratic nomination for the 8th Assembly District. The winner will almost certainly be the next Assembly representative in the heavily Democratic District. Jim Provenza and John Ferrera will square off for the open 4th Supervisorial District currently held by Ms. Yamada.

The shocker is the national results however. Senator Hillary Clinton won the biggest prize of California, currently 52-42. But Barack Obama won more states, as of last count 13 with New Mexico still too close to call although Senator Obama leads narrowly. The popular vote is nearly evenly split. The delegate count far from decided, but most likely also evenly split. Most pundits had felt the best Senator Obama would do would be 7 to 9 states. So he outperformed expectations there. On the other hand, it seemed many felt that he could take California, but that was never a context.

That leaves amazingly enough the Democratic nomination completely up for grabs. Pundits argued that Senator Obama did not have to win the election outright last night, if he stayed close he would have the momentum and resources to win a prolonged battle. That will be put to a test now as the races move on past Super Tuesday no closer it seems to a winner.

The same cannot be said for the Republicans. Though hardcore conservatives railed against him, Senator John McCain won every single big prize last night, most of them winner-takes-all states. The biggest loser was former Governor Mitt Romney. And Governor Mike Huckabee won some Southern contests playing a spoiler roll for Gov. Romney. That nomination is all but sewn up for McCain, and we shall see if the party can unite behind him.

Meanwhile for Davis and Yolo County, it is game on. Just under four months until the election for the Democratic nominees for Senate and Assembly, and the non-partisan but heated battles for Supervisor and City Council.

For one night though, it seemed like everyone was on the same side.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Tuesday Vanguard Stories

• Local Races Appear to Be On as Proposition 93 Losing Badly in the Polls
  
  
• Fight For Valley Oak Charter School Heats Up This Week

Local Races Appear to Be On as Proposition 93 Losing Badly in the Polls

The Field Poll released on Monday shows that Proposition 93 is losing 46% to 33% with another 21% undecided. Traditionally undecided voters for propositions break against them.

As I have explained in the past, while I find myself strongly against term limits, I equally find myself opposed to this measure.

For me term limits are both anti-democratic and also on a practical level an abysmal failure. We have a legislature that is largely inexperienced and the second that they become experienced, the legislator is termed out of office. Moreover, from a democratic standpoint (small "d"), the people should have the right to vote for the candidate of their choice.

It is the revolving door aspect of the legislature that Proposition 93 attempts to deal with, however, in my view, fails. It is true it extends the term in a given office, in the case of the Assembly, from three two-year terms to six two-year terms. From that standpoint, it improves the expertise in the Assembly markedly.

However, it has to rob Peter to pay Paul. And so while it increases the amount of experience in the Assembly, it decreases the amount of experience in the Senate. Right now the vast majority of legislators spend six years in the Assembly (sometimes four) and then move on to the Senate for eight. That means that there is experience among Senators from day one who have served already in the Assembly. With this law it is unclear what happens in the Senate. Will people run for the Senate having served time in the Assembly? That would reduce their amount of time in the Senate. Will people run for the first time in the Senate, that will produce a body much less experienced in legislature, to the point where the Senate will look much more like the Assembly than the current body.

Practical considerations aside, the big clincher for me is the fact that this process was set up to protect the current leadership. They put this specifically on the February ballot so it would take effect immediately and allow legislators currently slated to be termed out to run for re-election. Not surprisingly this measure is sponsored by the Speaker Fabian Nunez and Senate Majority Leader Don Parata. It is thus a measure aimed at preserving and prolonging their time as leaders in the Assembly.

Moreover it throws current races into chaos. At a local level the stakes may have been quite high. There is what could be called a Grandfather clause in the initiative. It would allow current legislators to serve 12 years in their current office regardless of whether they served in the other branch. Thus Senator Mike Machado who served already in the Assembly, would be allowed a third Senate term.

If the position passed, Senator Machado would be able to run for re-election to the Senate. That would force Assemblywoman Lois Wolk to stay in the Assembly where she could stay another six years if she so chose, or at least four years until the Senate seat opens again.

West Sacramento Mayor Christopher Cabaldon and Yolo County Supervisor Mariko Yamada would not have a seat to run for. Supervisor Yamada has already stated that she will not run for re-election for the County Supervisor position so at least the dominoes do not carry past the 8th Assembly Race.

All of this appears moot at this point as the proposition is failing.

And while I think this is a flawed law, it is also a sobering reminder that term limits are here to stay for a long time, because if this law, which is basically neutral or even more restrictive in terms of total terms cannot pass, no term limits reform law will likely pass.

The Field Poll puts people like me in the minority, with the majority of liberal Democrats strongly favoring the bill and a smaller majority of more moderate Democrats also favoring the bill.

However, I just do not believe this solves the problems of term limits. All it seems to do is protect the current leadership and frankly I have seen nothing from the current leadership that makes me want to see them protected.

Tomorrow it seems very likely that the Assembly races will launch again in earnest. Mayor Cabaldon has decided, it appears, to not accept voluntary campaign limits. Supervisor Yamada in the latest disclosure did not raise a lot of money and spent more than she took in. Meanwhile Lois Wolk will face a tough fight against Assemblyman Greg Aghazarian for the 5th Senate District.

As we can clearly see, campaign season is not over. After today, it has only just begun.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Monday Vanguard Stories

• Why Tomorrow I Am Voting For Barack Obama
  
  
• Guest Commentary: UC, THE WAL-MART OF HIGHER EDUCATION?

Why Tomorrow I Am Voting For Barack Obama

Some may be very surprised to hear this, but up until a week ago Saturday, I had no idea who I would vote for, for President.

Each of the top three candidates for President on the Democratic side had both their strengths and their weaknesses in my mind. In fact, there was an aspect that I liked in each, but also something that held me back.

John Edwards was the guy who probably was the purest in terms of ideological fit with me. He is the idea man. There was an article the other day that without Edwards, neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama would have a platform. And while that is in some ways oversimplified, he is in many ways the conscience of the Democratic Party.

But it is a tough sell to convince America, that a rich man can be a populist and a corporate man, as the standard before for anti-corporate America. The entire nation must sympathize with the plight of Elizabeth Edwards but at the end of the day, John Edwards was too much of an enigma running against the inevitable tide of history.

For Barack Obama he is the rising star of the Democratic Party, a party that has had far too few rising stars in the last forty years and far too many empty promises. And yet for me it was not his time. Having served less than a term in the Senate, it was obvious that they could nail his inexperience to him and use it to burn him down. The voice was there but in many ways the substance seemed lacking.

And then there is the Tom Bradley factor. Up by 10 points in the polls in 1982 the night before the election, Tom Bradley narrowly lost the governorship. Why? It seemed that when the people got into the privacy of the polling booth, all they saw was a black man and they could not pull the lever for him.

For Hillary Clinton, she is the inheritor of the Clinton legacy. The only Democrat to win the presidency during my conscious lifetime. I was but three years-old when Jimmy Carter was elected and seven when he lost to Ronald Reagan in 1980.

Hillary Clinton was probably the least ideologically in tuned to my world view. She was the fighter for health care for all before it was fashionable, but she also voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq.

However, one thing that you know with Hillary Clinton is that she will not be swift-boated. Attacks on her will be revisited ten-fold. Look no further than the attack they tried to pin on her with the Pentagon, she had that turned on the Pentagon in less than one news cycle.

So back and forth I went in my mind, Edwards wasn't going to win, Obama couldn't win the General Election, and Hillary was too establishment and too conservative.

All of that torment and uncertainty ended the day that Barack Obama won the South Carolina Primary. I listened to his speech and it sent shivers down my spin and energy into my heart.

And what was so unclear became so clear in a heartbeat. The Democrats have lost site of where they need to be and what they need to do to be there. Obama can be eloquent without preaching. He can talk about race without making White America feel guilty. And he can talk about the future with a sense of hope lifting us up where most politicians drag us down.

"Yes, we can" he said over and over again, and I believed him.

"Yes, we can change," he said and I knew he believed it too.

He spoke about the future, he spoke about healing. Healing the divide between white and black and also white, black and Latino..

"When I hear the cynical talk that blacks and whites and Latinos can't join together and work together, I'm reminded of the Latino brothers and sisters I organized with and stood with and fought with side by side for jobs and justice on the streets of Chicago. So don't tell us change can't happen.

When I hear that we'll never overcome the racial divide in our politics, I think about that Republican woman who used to work for Strom Thurmond, who is now devoted to educating inner city-children and who went out into the streets of South Carolina and knocked on doors for this campaign. Don't tell me we can't change."

He spoke about the future. Seizing the future. Fighting cynicism and believing in a common purpose.

"Yes, we can. Yes, we can change. Yes, we can.

Yes, we can heal this nation. Yes, we can seize our future. And as we leave this great state with a new wind at our backs and we take this journey across this great country, a country we love, with the message we carry from the plains of Iowa to the hills of New Hampshire, from the Nevada desert to the South Carolina coast, the same message we had when we were up and when we were down, that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we will hope.

And where we are met with cynicism and doubt and fear and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of the American people in three simple words -- yes, we can."

Just two weeks ago, I sat at the Varsity Theater and watched the video of Martin Luther King, Jr. deliver his speech, "I have a Dream." The remarkable thing about that speech is that it was an optimistic dream, it was a hopeful dream. He reached across the aisle to white America and implored them to see his dream because it was the American Dream. He did not make White America feel guilty about the racial politics of the day. Instead he spoke of hope and optimism.

In many ways, though their speaking styles vary, I see Barack Obama as the inheritor of the Martin Luther King, Jr. legacy. A new generation of Black leadership in this country that is not encumbered with the memories of Jim Crow because he was not born yet. A generation of Black leadership in this county who have reached beyond the racial divide, who reaches beyond the aisle of partisanship and can bring in new people to join in the voices of this country. He can reach out to White America, segments of which have struggled for decades and have been ignored for years by the Democratic party and the Black leadership.

It was Martin Luther King, Jr. who organized the impoverished Whites and Blacks, realizing that poor Whites were and would continue to be mobilized against the Black struggle as long as their poverty was ignored. We have lost that legacy and yet in Obama that legacy has been reborn.

At the end of the day though, this is about winning. John McCain is the likely Republican candidate. Against Hillary Clinton, Senator McCain controls the independent middle unencumbered and the only way that Senator Clinton wins is by dragging this race into the mud.

I can live in the mud sometimes, but that is not what this nation needs. This nation needs healing. It needs energy. It needs hope and optimism.

That is the core of the message of Ronald Reagan that so confounded Democrats who could only see his rank hypocrisy and indifference to the struggle of many. President Reagan was able to rhetorically lift up Americans, appeal to their selfish side and make them believe it was Morning in America again.

Barack Obama can reach out for that same sense of hope and optimism and bring Americans to believe that they can make the changes in this society that they so desperately need. He can bring in disaffected Black voters, apathetic young White college students, disenfranchised middle of the road voters and can expand the electorate. A McCain-Obama race would bring out the very best in this country and for once raise the level of political rhetoric.

After eight years of bitter partisan divide with George Bush, after years of bitter partisan divide in Washington, after long years of lies and deception, the nation needs healing and the best person to provide that healing is Barack Obama.

In the span of just over a week, I have gone from the fence to the passion of the newly converted. I can sit and watch Obama speeches all night long and never grow tired of him. I cannot say that about another political figure in this generation.

In the end, when I listen to Obama I really do believe:

"Yes, we can. Yes, we can change. Yes, we can."

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Guest Commentary: UC, THE WAL-MART OF HIGHER EDUCATION?

By: Hank Chapot

If you love the University of California, you may be interested in a study released January 15th by the Center for Labor and Community Research, titled, "Failing California's Communities: how UC's low wages affect surrounding communities".

For those who pay attention to UC's labor issues, the story is depressingly familiar. This study of zip codes and census data for roughly 20,000 low paid UC service and patient care employees at ten campuses and five hospitals asked the question; if UC paid market-rate wages, what would be the economic impact, or "multiplier effect", and where would it show? It was produced with help from AFSCME local 3299.

The conclusions were clear, UC's lowest paid workers are concentrated in low income communities most in need of economic improvement and UC is failing those communities by paying wages significantly below other colleges and hospitals in California (25% below overall). Comparisons were made to wages at regional hospitals and large community colleges. Citing a 2005 study by the National Economic Development and Law Center, one-third of UC's 124,000 employees do not earn sufficient wages to pay for food, rent and other basic necessities and many are eligible for public assistance. Nearly half of UC patient care and service workers live in neighborhoods with a poverty rate fifty percent higher than those surrounding the campuses. In the Bay Area, the percentage is probably higher.

That study recognized that compensation practices of large employers affect entire communities. CLCR researchers note that as one of the largest employers in the state, if UC paid prevailing wages, it would have significant direct economic impact on struggling communities, including Oakland and Richmond, Inglewood and Hawthorne, plus 55 other working class communities near the UC system, where incomes run 15% lower than average. CLCR researchers conclude that, "the economic impact of UC matching prevailing wages is estimated to add $147 million in spending on local goods and services in those communities, create nearly nine hundred new jobs, add $9 million in state and local taxes and contribute $23 million in local business earnings." Obviously, if UC were to provide market-rate wages, the social returns in low and moderate income communities would be far greater than any increase in sales of luxury goods in upscale districts adjacent to UC campuses from payoffs and perks lavished on top management.

Old-timers tell me UC used to say, "it is a privilege to work for the greatest university in the world, and because of our interest in public service and the egalitarian mission of the university, you will gladly accept a little less."

More recently they said, "the economy is bad, we have to raise fees, tuition, health care costs, and no, no equity increases this year." Seems every year, good or bad, UC's primary customers, students, classroom educators and hospital patients take the hit.

This year the mantra is, "Arnold won't give us the money, $14B deficit you know." But the state budget slice for service workers at UC is just 8.6%, the rest comes from hospital revenues, the feds and non-governmental funding such as food services and parking. While tuition costs explode, students fees, the ultimate battering ram of UC's excuses, provide barely 1% of service costs.

And I'm talking about unionized workers here, usually the most stable members of working class communities, whose wages UC is keeping down. People end up taking second jobs, putting their teen-aged children into the workforce and even collecting cans during breaks for a little extra cash.

Sources in current contract negotiations say the university has acknowledged that IT IS NOT ABOUT MONEY, rather, they claim it would be "fiscally irresponsible" to raise workers pay to prevailing wage. That from a public entity with 22 billion dollars in net assets(assets minus expenses), up 18% in the last two years, a university system that is the largest recipient of Federal R&D funding in the nation, $4 billion last year alone. Current Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau recently cited low turnover at the bottom as justification for underpaying workers, and it is true that we need our jobs and UC can be a good place to work. However, we have less employment mobility than UC's elite and are therefore ripe for exploitation.

Readers will be unsurprised that labor contracts within the UC system are in flux. One of the largest employers in every jurisdiction where it resides, UC seems determined to continue depressing wages, in contradiction of its stated ideals.

From the study's conclusion; "What is at stake is the economic future of West Sacramento, San Pablo, Watsonville, El Cajon, East Oakland and other poor communities that would greatly benefit if UC made a greater economic investment in California's communities."

A PDF version of the study "Failing California's Communities: how UC's low wages affect surrounding communities"

Hank Chapot is a gardener at UC Berkeley.
He can be reached at

Hank Chapot - Oakland CA
email: hchapot@igc.org
Phone: 510.654.5311
Cogito Ergo Green

Valley Oak Charter Petition To Be Appealed To the County

Last night at the Valley Oak multipurpose room, around 60 parents, teachers, and community members gathered braving the cold driving rains on a Saturday Night to show their support for the ongoing Valley Oak Charter effort and to find out the next steps.

The community was walked through the process at this point including the next steps of the Charter School appeal, efforts to lobby members of the County Board of Education, and how to handle intent to return forms.

The importance of getting out information to the parents was underscored by reports that there were efforts underway at disinformation on the part of some district staff to confuse parents and to make them believe that this process was over.

Parents and community members also expressed support for Valley Oak Elementary school and the efforts to keep Valley Oak open as a Charter School.

Supervisor Mariko Yamada whose two daughters attended Valley Oak, recounted efforts to paint and decorate the school in the early to mid 1990s as many were allowing the school to deteriorate.

Catching up with the Supervisor after the meeting, she expressed her continued support for the Charter as she has at school board meetings.

"I'm in full support of the Valley Oak Charter, as you know I was opposed to Valley Oak closing. But we've moved on from that. I think that the group is working very hard to present its appeal before the Yolo County Board of Education. And I will certainly be in full support of that whatever our office can do to support that we will continue to work on that."

The Vanguard also spoke with Ellen Cohen whose two children attended Valley Oak in the GATE program.

"I have two children, both of whom went here to Valley Oak. They were both in the GATE program. What we found here was just a very rich educational experience. My kids had been at their previous elementary schools, but never until they came here experienced the sense of community that I think is unique to Valley Oak. I think Valley Oak offers a kind of diversity that does not exist anywhere in any other Davis school. My great upset is that this was the most vulnerable school among all schools and the most critical to keep open. So I think that it's great that we have a new opportunity to move forward."

Bill Storm, science teacher at Valley Oak and one of the organizers put it most eloquently, arguing that the district has maintained that the programs can be replicated elsewhere and that students will receive the same level of education elsewhere in the district.

"The board of education continued to put forward the idea that the charter school at this sight with this program is not unique. That this school doesn't do anything different from any other site. That the children will be served equally by being distributed as they would at Valley Oak. That's patently untrue. That's never been the case. It's never been true. And there's no reason to think that it would be true because the district staff has tried to replicate this program for English speakers for poor kids and it's never been done. The numbers speak for themselves, the STAR testing data. It makes it patently obvious what's going on. The anecdotal, the numerical, all the data has been ignored to the end of closing this school. It has not been closed for programmatic reasons."

Teacher Steve Kelleher told the Vanguard that the process is going forward.

"It's moving forward, it's a good document, there's no reason to believe it won't fly through the county as well."

The timeline is very tight at this point if they hope to get the school open for 2008-09.

"We need to get [the appeal] in next week in order to get it on the agenda for the [county] board meeting, which I believe is on the 21st. There's a window of time that you need to submit documents."

In advance of the meeting, Mr. Kelleher will be meeting with the CBO from the County.

"I'm going to have a conversation with the Yolo County Office of Education. Specifically I need to set up some time with the CBO, Chief Budget Officer, and apprise her of what's happening and the changes that we've made to the document. There seems to be some confusion as to whether the charter's going to be rejected or not. The district did miss the deadline that they agreed to and in my mind that means that they've rejected the charter. So we'll move forward and present the appeal to the county next week."

Meanwhile the school board will meet this week to formally reject the Charter Proposal.

"From what I understand they are just going to rubber stamp their decision to reject it... They rejected the updated version on Thursday the 24th, and on Thursday the 7th they expect to reject the original document."

Valley Oak parents and supporters plan to march once again from Valley Oak to the school board.

Julie Cuetera better known as Dweezil, the Valley Oak Dragon told the Vanguard:

"From Valley Oak to the School Board. We will probably leave at 5:30, I'll confirm the time. And Dweezil will lead the march and dance during the march. And everyone can carry signs like they did to save the school, this time they can say, 'we want the charter.'"

The first time, 100 people showed up. This time, she is hoping for 200 people.

"Well I did it in three days last time, this time I have six days so let's try for 200."

All community members are encouraged to show up and support Valley Oak.

Stay tuned to the Vanguard this week for other key information and announcements.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting