May 22, 2014
UAPD’s bargaining team and UC management representatives have continued to meet for negotiations toward a first contract that will cover physicians, dentists, and podiatrists at the student health and counseling centers statewide. Unfortunately, after nine negotiation sessions, tentative agreements have been reached on only four basic contract articles, such as non-discrimination in employment. The UAPD team is committed to completing the contract as soon as possible, but it has become increasingly apparent that the UC negotiators are dragging their feet.
Where appropriate contract language is consistently found across other UC unions’ collective bargaining agreements, UAPD has proposed that same language in an effort to reach a fair agreement in a timely way. We have been disappointed that UC has not taken this approach, instead insisting on negotiating the minutiae of every proposal. This is not the approach that employers take when they are seeking to reach a full agreement that respects employees’ value and service.
Recent UAPD proposals include annual paid CME time, reimbursement for CME costs, and a method for Limited Appointment and Contract appointments to convert to Career positions. Given the past few years’ experience with UCOP, the bargaining team has also spent significant time insisting on a regular forum for doctors to give input into the delivery of quality care at each student health center. The disastrous implementation of Point and Click provides a glaring example of the need for such input.
Four bargaining sessions scheduled for May will be held in Oakland, at both UCOP and UAPD headquarters. We anticipate advancing salary proposals at that time. We will continue urging the UC negotiators to pick up the pace, so doctors can have the contract we deserve without undue delay.
February 19, 2014
The UAPD Bargaining Team has met twice with the University of California management team. The team members are Amol Doshi, M.D. (UC San Diego), Sean Kennedy, M.D. (UC Davis), Chip McDaniel, M.D. (UC Los Angeles), Jeffrey Nelson, M.D. (UC Berkeley), Harry Siemonsma, M.D. (UC Irvine), Al Groh (UAPD Executive Director), Jeff Duritz (UAPD Chief Negotiator), and Jake Baxter (UAPD Representative and Lead Organizer). The team is negotiating a first contract for the student health and counseling center doctors (physicians, dentists, and podiatrists) at the ten UC campuses. The contract will cover salary, benefits, and all other terms and conditions of employment.
At the first session on January 29, the two sides agreed to ground rules that will govern the negotiations. At meeting on February 12, UAPD submitted several proposals, including job classification protections and union representative access. UC proposals included some standard benefits language, but also a provision that would allow the University to change the terms of retiree health and the pension during the term of our contract. The UAPD team is of course opposed to ceding this authority while a negotiated agreement is in force.
Additional bargaining sessions are scheduled for the end of February and mid-March. By the end of March, UAPD will submit economic proposals. UAPD will continue to send updates in order to keep everyone informed.
January 22, 2014
The UAPD Bargaining Team recently met with CSU administrators and signed an agreement adding a 1.34% salary increase to the UAPD contract. The increase is retroactive, and doctors will be paid as if the raise went into effect on July 1, 2013. CSU anticipates that the increase, including backpay, will not show up on paychecks until April of this year.
The 1.34% increase will go into effect only once it has been approved by the CSU Board of Trustees. The agreement has been placed on the 10 day waiting list for the Board’s January agenda. You can view the language of the agreement here.
While the current contract is in effect until June 30, 2014, the salary increase was discussed during a “reopener” between CSU and the union. In the next month, UAPD will begin preparing for negotiations over the full contract, in part by sending a bargaining survey to all current union members.
December 20, 2013
Under the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA), universities and unions are required to post their initial bargaining subjects and hold meetings where members of the public can comment. Those public notice meetings will take place January 8 and January 23 at UC’s headquarters, 300 Lakeside Drive in Oakland.
After this requirement is met, contract bargaining will begin. UAPD and UC have already scheduled dates in February through May, with the goal of ratifying our new contract during the current fiscal year.
Many doctors filled out a bargaining priorities survey in late May. That survey was sent only to people who had signed union authorization cards. Now that eligibility for the UAPD bargaining unit has been agreed, a new survey will soon be distributed to everyone who will be represented by the Union.
All physicians and dentists, including those who filled out the previous survey, are encouraged to complete this one, which will directly inform our proposals.
December 19, 2013
UAPD continues to push for safety enhancements at all of the Department of State Hospital (DSH) facilities. Patton State Hospital recently launched a comprehensive personal alarm system similar to the one installed at Napa State Hospital in 2012. In addition, a UAPD-backed bill to require the hospitals to create enhanced treatment units with higher security for the most violent patients is currently being considered by the State legislature. Safety is a key concern of UAPD members at DSH. The latest issue of “Governing” notes that state workers in nursing and health care facilities have the highest workers compensation injury rates in America — 13.1 injuries per 100 employees per year. That is higher than police officers or fire fighters.
December 19, 2013
One of the challenges unions face in trying to prevent the misuse of private contractors by the State of California is the fact that departments often sign new contracts before the union is made aware of the fact. A new bill that was signed into law by the Governor, AB 906, fixes that problem, as it requires departments to notify the relevant unions before they sign a new contract for personal services. The bill was introduced by Assemblymember Dr. Richard Pan (D-Sacramento), who is a member of UAPD, and supported by both UAPD and AFSCME. This was one of two UAPD-backed bills to address the problem of private contracting during the last legislative session, both of which were signed into law. The other contractor bill was AB 1008, which prevented Alameda Health Services (AHS) from outsourcing work now done by UAPD-represented physicians (see p. 3).
November 27, 2013
On November 12, 2013 San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed and four other California mayors filed initial paperwork for a dangerous initiative called the “The Pension Reform Act of 2014.” If the initiative qualifies for the ballot and if it is passed by California voters, it would amend the state constitution to do away with the “vested rights doctrine” that currently protects the pensions of millions of public sector workers, including UAPD members. If passed, the new initiative would give public employers the ability to change the pension formulas for current employees, not just future hires. Though they would still owe current employees a retirement benefit based on what they’ve earned to date, moving forward public employers would be able to “modify, freeze, or terminate” those benefits. In other words, the initiative is the most serious attack on pensions to date. Reed and his supporters are trying to collect 800,000 signatures by June to place the initiative on the November 2014 ballot.
UAPD is part of a coalition that is gearing up to fight Reed’s pension-killing initiative. We are already raising funds and preparing a strategy to get the word out to California voters. But it’s not too early to start talking to your friends and family about why they should oppose this initiative, first by refusing to sign the petition, and, if it comes to the ballot, by voting no on the measure.
Read more …