Dear all,

In response to the concerns raised by postdocs in the Life Sciences and
other Divisions about the ongoing UAW organiz rss [1]ng drive, the committee of
the Postdoc Society of LSD sought a meeting with representatives of UAW to
discuss all of these issues and seek clarif rss [2]cation on a number of points.

This meeting took place in Berkeley last night and was attended by eight
members of the LSD Postdoc Society committee, the President of the UAW
Grad Students union and another union organizer who is a postdoc at LBNL.
We have attached a summary of our discussions for those of you who are
interested in these issues.

As you know from the emails from Videos [3] of LBNL Labor Relations, UAW
has filed with the California Public Employment Relations Board to be the
exclusive bargaining representative of all of the postdocs in the UC
system with the exception of LLNL and LANL based on their claim of having
secured signatures from more than half of the (estimated) 5800 postdocs in
this group.

The committee of the Postdoc Society of the Life Sciences Division is
neutral on the issue of unionization, and encourages each postdoc to
gather as much information as possible so that he/she can make an informed
decision on this important issue.

Sincerely, and on behalf of the LSD Postdoc Society committee

Paraic Kenny,
President, LSD Postdoc Society

Website:
http://www.reddit.com/user/dmature/.rss [4]

Committee:
http://www.reddit.com/user/dmature/.rss [5]

______________________________

Summary of Meeting between the Committee of the Postdoc Society of the
Life Sciences Division (LBNL) and representatives from PRO/UAW.

July 26, 2006

In response to concerns raised by our members, the committee of the Life
Sciences Postdoc Society met last night with representatives of PRO/UAW to
obtain information about the union recognition drive currently ongoing
among postdoctoral researchers in the UC system. The union members present
were Scott Bailey, statewide president of the UC graduate students' union
(and a political science grad student at UCSD) and Ben Weaver, a LBNL
postdoc from the Physics Division who has been involved in the recognition
drive.

Attached is a paraphrased summary of the union members' response to our
questions. The below should in no way be taken to reflect word-for-word
quotations, or advocacy of either a pro- or anti-union position; nor is it
intended to be comprehensive in scope. We just wanted to share our
experience of the meeting with all of you so that everyone has the best
information possible. The committee of the Postdoc Society of the Life
Sciences Division is neutral on the issue of unionization, and encourages
each postdoc to gather as much information as possible so that he/she can
make an informed decision on this important issue. The plain text is a
paraphrase of the union reps' answers to our questions; our interjections
are [bracketed].

What's going on?

Members of the PRO/UAW are seeking permission from UC postdocs to be
recognized as our union. Per California state law, if 50%+1 of the members
of a work unit (a class of workers, in this case, UC postdocs) sign a
document endorsing a union as their sole collective bargaining
representative, the union is permitted to petition the state to begin
collective bargaining with the employer. The signatures have been
gathered, and the petition has been filed as of July 14th. After a series
of hearings, the union may be "recognized," at which point an election of
representatives to sit on a bargaining team will be held.

What will they be bargaining for?

Per state law, the UC system is legally obligated to meet with a union
bargaining team. The goal of the negotiations will be to establish a
contract for the members of the work unit. These negotiations take on the
order of 1 year, and contracts generally have a three-year term. The scope
of potential contracts is quite broad, including health benefits, perks,
policies for handling grievances, and many other issues pertaining to the
relationship between employer and employed.

Who will sit on the bargaining team?

This answer was a bit muddy, but the reps said it was "very likely" that
representatives from each campus would be on the team. These
representatives will be postdoctoral fellows, chosen by vote from the
postdoctoral fellows from each institution. The union will provide legal
and administrative support during the bargaining period and for contract
enforcement afterwards.

[This was particularly important to us, as we are concerned about what we
called the "Rhode Island" issue -- LBL has a tiny population compared to
the other UC campuses, and in a strictly proportional system we'd likely
have no voice at all. The reps assured us that in the case of the UC
graduate students, efforts had always been made to disproportionately
represent smaller campuses. Their assurances fell short of a promise.]

What's the timeline?

The petition has been filed; there's a waiting period until 8/14/2006
during which time issues pertaining to the recognition drive can be raised
at the Public Employment Relations Board ( http://www.perb.ca.gov/ [6]).

[Presumably this is an opportunity to report irregularities, challenges to
the definition of the work unit, etc.]

How was the "work unit" (the class of postdocs to be represented) defined?

The number of postdocs in the UC system (including all UC campuses and LBL
but not Livermore or Los Alamos) was estimated at 5800, and is based on
claims made by the UC human resources department to the state labor board.
The definition of the work unit will have to be approved by the Cal Public
Employment Relations Board ( http://www.perb.ca.gov/ [7] ) before recognition
of the union.

What kind of dues will I have to pay?

No dues will be levied until the contract is ratified. Ratification
happens by vote, where the voting population consists of all members of
the work unit. A simple majority of the voting members (i.e., those who
show up) will determine whether the contract is ratified. If the contract
is ratified, dues will be either 1.15% of pre-tax income for full dues-
paying union members, and somewhat less for "fee-paying" members.

What's the difference between dues-paying and fee-paying status?

Dues-paying members are members of the union and are able to vote in all
union elections (not just the contract ratification, in which all members
of the work unit are eligible to vote). Fee-paying members are paying a
"service fee" that reflects the benefits accruing to a member of the work
unit -- theoretically, this prevents "free ridership" by workers who
benefit from union representation without actually joining the union. The
amount charge to fee-paying members of the work unit is negotiated
annually, and it's essentially a fraction of the 1.15% paid by full union
members, less the amount the union spends on things that don't directly
benefit the workers in the unit. For example, if the union has a
convention or supports a political candidate and pays for it with dues,
the fee-payers don't have to contribute to that.

Where else has PRO/UAW organized academics?

The 12,000 graduate students of the UC system are Local 2865 of the
PRO/UAW. UAW also represents graduate students in the California State
University system and at the University of Washington and at New York
University. The overall membership of UAW is approximately 620,000
workers, 100,000 of whom are "white-collar". Of this 100,000, around 40%
are employed by universities and colleges. The PRO/UAW does not represent
postdocs at any institution at this time.

What benefits have accrued to the UC grad students?

1. Binding arbitration -- the University is obligated to hear grievances
in a timely fashion, and to abide by the results of arbitration
2. Vision and dental benefits
3. Sexual harassment policy: prior to unionization, sexual harassment
cases were heard by a panel of faculty from the same institution; now, an
independent body hears these cases.
4. Wage increases (which are tied to the % increase given to faculty)

[This isn't a comprehensive list; it's just what I managed to write down
before we moved on to the next question. A full list of the benefits and
terms of employment are shown in the current contract between UC and its
graduate student employees: http:// www.uaw2865.org/ [8]
Contract_2003-2006.pdf ]

What if I don't want to join?

Per the "dues-paying" vs. "fee-paying" paragraph above, no one has to join
the union. If the union succeeds in bargaining for a contract that is
ratified by a majority of the postdocs, everyone will have to pay at least
the service fee.

I feel like this has been happening behind our backs. Why wasn't the union
more straightforward?

The union's strategy is to go from person to person, rather than have
large centralized meetings. This is both to prevent organized retaliation
from the employer and because large centralized meetings end up not being
large or well-attended. So the information spreads by word of mouth. The
union wasn't holding out on anyone -- if you didn't talk to a rep, it's
because a rep didn't find you. The union representatives urged anybody
seeking comprehensive information to visit their website
http://www.prouaw.org [9] and that anybody seeking additional information or a
meeting with a union representative could arrange this by calling
(415)538-0844. LBNL postdocs are also welcome to contact Ben Weaver, a
postdoc in the Physics Division: weaver [at] ssl [dot] berkeley [dot] edu

What's the deal with those cards that are going around? The cards are like
a vote; if 50%+1 of the members of the work unit sign one, the union can
request to be recognized. They do not make one a member of the union, nor
do they ratify the negotiated contract, which requires an additional
majority vote. The text on the card reads: "I authorize Postdoctoral
Researchers Organize (PRO/UAW), International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America to represent me in
collective bargaining." I feel like I signed a card under false premises
and/or didn't realize that the cards were legally binding? The cards
explicitly state that the signatory is granting the union the
authorization to bargain on the signatory's behalf.

[However, a number of individuals have expressed a variety of concerns
about the ways in which union members represented the significance of the
cards. This was a sticking point in our discussion with the union reps: We
voiced these concerns, and they expressed disbelief that any
misrepresentation had occurred; the conversation ground to a halt at that
point, since we could cite no specific examples of misrepresentation. We
would certainly encourage anyone with concerns to get the details (name of
the union rep, what was said, etc) to us so that we can share specific
concerns with those involved in the recognition drive.Stromvergleich [10]sexcam [11]]