|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Council of University of California Faculty Associations (CUCFA) Lobbying A
History: Achievements Over 25 Years FACULTY
SALARIES For twenty years the Faculty Associations on all the campuses have been urging, prodding, persuading administrators and legislators--largely behind the scenes--to raise faculty salaries and increase benefits. We have been remarkably successful, as a few highlights indicate. *
In 1975 the FAs lobbied to override the Governor's veto of a 14.5% salary
increase and succeeded. There's no true way to quantify the impact of the FAs on UC salaries today. Every year we exert pressure--in lean times and in prosperous times. In lean times we push for a greater state contribution to UC; in prosperous times we concentrate on the faculty share of the pot. To quantify the total effect such pressure has produced would be impossible but rough estimates indicate how little faculty association dues are in exchange for tireless efforts to increase every year those range increases to faculty salaries. If we look only at the ten years between 1985-86 and 1995-96, faculty received total range increases of nearly 41% cumulatively: in '85 9.5%; '86 5%; '87 5.6%; '88 6.3%; '89 4.7%; '90 4.8%; a dry spell; '93 a catastrophe -3.5%; '94 3%; '95 3%; '96 3% and 2% on 10-1-96. Of that total, about 5% can be attributed mainly to the efforts of the Faculty Association: 2.1% in 85-86 and 2.7% in 87-88, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. It's what happens every year behind the scenes, that constant pressure, that results in the biggest economic benefit to faculty. Back to TopIn 1993-94 the FAs filed an unfair labor practice charge against the University in an effort to compel payment of the merit increases for the second half of the 1991-92 fiscal year. We supported other faculty groups who were also trying to force the University to pay these postponed merit increases. A class action suit was finally successful. FA faculty members testified at the hearing to determine lawyers' fees in the class action suit against the University. On the basis of that testimony, the judge lowered the lawyers' fees. In October of 1994 we published a newsletter article outlining for faculty who had received merit increases the issues involved in whether they should stay in the successful class action suit against the University or opt out. Although it may be hard sometimes to know where full credit should be given for any single improvement in faculty benefits, it is clear that for over 20 years the Council of UC Faculty Associations has been the most active and successful advocate for faculty benefits. If the Council didn't actually effect an improvement, all parties at least knew that they constantly had to consider faculty interests because FA Council pressure just wouldn't disappear. *
In 1981 the FAs lobbied for an employer sponsored dental plan, and the
Regents approved dental plans for UC employees. The FA was then active
in informing faculty about the dental coverage options open to faculty.
* In 1986 UC Faculty Associations collected over $396,000 for the campaign against Prop. 61, which would have imposed a constitutional limitation on the combined salaries and benefits of all state employees including UC faculty of $64,000. Prop 61 was defeated. The FAs were able to perform this service, whereas the University was not, because we are an independent nonprofit organization that receives no state funds. Even if Prop 61 had been blocked without FA support, the failure to make this defensive effort would have left a very strong impression in the minds of the legislature. The faculty would have been seen as unwilling to make any kind of contribution to defend its interests and therefore the Council would have had less credibility in future negotiations over faculty salaries. * In 1987, the UC Faculty Associations campaigned against 1987 S.B. 1332 (McCorquodale). This bill would have resulted in the imposition of significant payroll and administrative costs on employees who directed their contributions to any plan or third party broker of their choice. In a letter to the California Senate, the Governor cited the Council of UC FAs' opposition to this bill. The Council was opposed because it came too late--UC already had a highly satisfactory program for employee choice. * In 1990, the Council of UC FAs raised funds to support prop 111, a constitutional amendment to solve serious problems plaguing state fiscal policy. Prop 111 changed the formula that set the Gann Spending Limit, passed by voters in 1989 as Prop 4. Inflation, which reflects a national trend in the cost of living, would be replaced by the percentage of growth in California personal income, which more accurately reflects the economic conditions of the state. Unless the formula was changed, the state would have had to cut its level of support for higher education, health, transportation, and other essential programs in the face of tremendously increasing population and demand for these services. IMPROVED RETIREMENT BENEFITS Ever since the mid seventies, the Faculty Associations have been active in improving retirement benefits. In the 1980s the FAs urged parity at UC with PERS (Public Employees Retirement System). * In 1984, The FAs urged a 3% reduction in UCRS employee contributions: they were reduced by 1%. * In 1985 the FAs successfully persuaded the University to offer faculty additional investment options through an outside manager of a family of funds; Fidelity and Calvert were added to the possible investment selections. In this year we also asked the Administration to clarify with table and charts whether or not employees should "buy back" UCRS service credit when they go on leave or take sabbatical. In 1986, the FAs made a major investment in information: we hired professionals to assemble a booklet of information, FA Pamphlet: UCRS and Social Security, to help faculty decide whether they should coordinate their benefits with Social Security or not. The FAs also lobbied for a one-time ad hoc COLA to restore UCRS members who retired between 1962 and 1976 to 75% of their purchasing power as measured by the cumulative Consumer Price Index (CPI) since the time of their retirement; increases ranged from 2.47% to 14.37%. * We also urged the elimination of remarriage restrictions; in the past, UCRS pre-retirement survivor benefits had been payable to an eligible surviving spouse only if the spouse were unmarried. Now surviving spouses can remarry and still receive benefits. * Finally, in 1986, the FAs urged UCRS to calculate attained age on the date of retirement in complete months. Until this time, age at the preceding birthday was used. INFORMATION ABOUT VERIPs To jump forward, in 1994, the FAs published a major article in our Newsletters, "VERIP III: How Much is it Worth?" We provided a financial framework to help faculty evaluate their options. We also published an article about lump sum cashouts--pros and cons. Our Feb. 1997 newsletter covered the subject of changes in the policies concerning "buybacks" of lost UCRP service credit. We didn't offer advice, but we did suggest some general questions to guide faculty through this difficult and complex subject. This information was provided by the Council of University of California Faculty Associations. This page was last updated February 12, 2004.
|