Decertification a bad idea; union gives representation

Staffer seeks to disband union

Backing one union should not be confused with employee support

United Staff dispels myths, untruths in Lobo

Meager raise doesn't answer staff questions

Decision over pay cut or raise left in staff's hands

Staff union is leaving door open to merit pay in future

Union accepts 6.5 percent increase

Union members need not worry about raises

Staff votes for unionization

Voting for union will give staff stronger voice

UNM employees to vote on forming union

 

Daily Lobo - Opinion
Issue: 4/15/04

Decertification a bad idea; union gives representation


Editor,

It is a ridiculous idea to decertify United Staff-UNM when it was voted in by a majority of the bargaining unit. Russell Morris' reason for decertification, "It's weak and can't effectively represent us," doesn't make any sense.

Does he think that it is better to have no representation at all? That's what would happen if US-UNM is decertified. It makes more sense to help strengthen the union by joining it and supporting the efforts of our bargaining team rather than destroying the only voice the staff has.

It is no surprise that many union supporters can't afford to pay dues because of the low wages here at UNM. That does not indicate that a majority opposes the union and the benefits that have already come from collective bargaining, such as an effective grievance process for employees for the first time in UNM history. It was also union lobbying that got us the big raise a few years ago after the UNM administration had given up at the Legislature. Decertification is a dumb idea, and no one with any sense should sign the petition.



Jennifer White

 

Staffer seeks to disband union

By Frank Zoretich
Tribune Reporter

URL: http://www.abqtrib.com/archives/news04/040904_news_unm.shtml

April 9, 2004

Backing one union should not be confused with employee support

Editor,

I would like to defend UNM regent Jamie Koch and the Board of Regents against the unwarranted accusation by Sherman McCorkle, the former chairman of New Mexico's Public Employee Labor Relations Council, that the regents are sympathetic to unions, as reported in the Albuquerque Tribune on Tuesday, April 7.

The accusation stems from the UNM Board of Regents' decision on a 4-2 vote to require workers on a UNM Hospital construction project be hired through unions and paid union wages. I want to assure McCorkle that when it comes to UNM's own employees, the University administration and the regents are not engaging in any such socialist conspiracy.

UNM has assiduously depressed non-administrative staff salaries to an average of 71 percent of market value (based on recently revealed UNM Human Resources statistics); they have kept staff salary increases in the last three years to a range from zero percent to 2 percent; they have provided no relief regarding the continuing double-digit rise in health insurance premiums; they have persistently refused to address the salary equity issues of long-term staff employees versus new hires; and they have attacked, chastised and ridiculed those who have for years been asking the regents, the University administration and the Legislature for relief.

Harry P. Norton

UNM staff
 

Daily Lobo - Opinion
Issue: 11/18/03

Meager raise doesn't answer staff questions

Editor,

Since no staff member or a member of any of UNM's staff unions is cited on the subject of the "3 percent raise" article in the Nov. 14 Daily Lobo, let me offer some unsolicited insights on this topic.

We have learned that the finance committee of the New Mexico Commission on Higher Education has unanimously voted to recommend a 3 percent salary increase for the state's universities' faculty and staff instead of supporting the New Mexico Council of University Presidents' recommendation of a 5 percent increase.

One of the benefits of the activities of United Staff-UNM, particularly its appearance on Sept. 9, 2003 at the impasse hearing before UNM regents, is that this union has highlighted the University's untenable modus operandi when dealing with the issues of staff salaries.

As someone with 16 years at UNM who has observed the annual scramble for faculty and staff salaries, let me review what the non-administrative employees at UNM can expect. The University has made its standard, and in practical terms meaningless, stand for a 5 percent salary increase; as usual, the Commission on Higher Education cuts it down to a lesser amount because to ask for more of the Legislature would be "unrealistic." The Legislature will award to UNM whatever amount it will, but we know for sure that unless US-UNM again lobbies the Legislature for a specified amount for its constituents which the University can't siphon off for other purposes, the staff will receive, as they have in past years, from 0-2 percent, and perhaps chump change. The administration will then blame the Legislature for the University's lack of a budget system that would address the appalling salary situation of non-administrative employees.

Of course, all of this will be accompanied by those obligatory regents' expressions of regret to us that the University is making "difficult choices with limited resources." None of those "difficult choices" will be borne of course by UNM's administrative-level public employees. After all, they have to be compensated for the heavy burden of those regrets.

It is interesting to hear that "pay inequities at UNM has (sic) been a hotly debated topic in recent months." Why? Is there some sort of an uncertainty that non-administrative UNM staff are hundreds and thousands of dollars underpaid in their market-based salaries? Is there any question that the current administration, much like past administrations, has no stated plan to address this issue besides making its brave annual recommendations and blaming the Legislature? Is there any question that, in fact, UNM's "budget experts" walked out of a July 1 contract negotiation session with US-UNM's representatives before US-UNM could present its analysis of UNM's budget and good faith proposals for addressing salary inequities and steps to remedy them?

After 16 years at UNM in the same position, I was paid $6,000 annually below the market value of my position under the former grade classification. After being reclassified on July 1, I am underpaid by $13,000. At the same time, more recent hires are earning almost the same amount in the same grade as I am. Why?

I have a question for this UNM administration: How is an annual 3 percent or 5 percent going to bring me, and hundreds of other long-term employees at UNM, to our market value?

Of course, I do have an outside-the-box solution to this problem. For the next 16 years, all public employees at UNM in administrative positions will be underpaid by hundreds and thousands of dollars, and each year, like the rest of us, they will receive from a 0 to 2 percent increase based on this below-market salary. The funds freed will be used for salary equity adjustments for staff in the non-administrative positions. Is this a preposterous proposition? Why? After all, administrative and non-administrative staff is paid from the same annual Legislative appropriations and follow the same salary schedule. A cursory perusal of this salary schedule indicates that hardly any administrative public employees allocate themselves salaries below their market value.

UNM has about a $1.4 billion budget. The University claimed that it could not budget this year some $600,000 to begin providing salary equity for those in the US-UNM bargaining unit. Why? Because, as UNM argued at the recent US-UNM impasse hearing, if the University treats these employees equitably, it would have to treat all the employees equitably. The fact that US-UNM has no legal mandate to bargain for any other staff aside, this is a revealing admission and a fascinatingly specious justification for the current UNM budget process.

In fact, if this is not UNM's call for all non-administrative employees to join, support and/or become active in a union, I don't know what is.

Harry P. Norton

US-UNM member
 

Daily Lobo - Opinion
Issue: 9/2/0

United Staff dispels myths, untruths in Lobo

Editor,

I find myself in the position of having to respond to three inaccurate, anti-union letters printed in the Daily Lobo in three sequential issues.

In the first place, Russell Morris is not a member of United Staff-UNM, and never was, so the headline to Morris's letter: "UNM union member advocates elimination" was extremely misleading.

I realize that people might not understand the difference between being a member of a bargaining unit, which was stipulated by the UNM administration, and a voluntary association, like a union.

While the union can ask that certain job titles be added or removed, it cannot ask that individuals be added or removed from the classifications defined by UNM. It is illegal for United Staff-UNM to not represent all employees in a given group, regardless of union membership.

Secondly, all University employees benefited from US-UNM's lobbying efforts that resulting in the 6.5 percent across-the-board raise under the very first contract. The University had already given up and accepted a plan for a 3 percent raise to be distributed as they saw fit.

Thirdly, in the recent contract negotiations, the 2 percent raise, plus a check that members of the bargaining unit received, was due to the intense lobbying efforts of US-UNM, AFT and NMFEE over the last 30-day legislative session. UNM officials did not volunteer the 2 percent out of the goodness of their cheap hearts.

Yes, people may be able to appease their supervisors enough to receive a disproportionate share of the money appropriated by the N.M. Legislature, but can we lobby the legislature successfully for those raises by ourselves? I think not. And, being a member of the bargaining unit does not, as was falsely intimated, prevent anyone from receiving merit pay, promotions or any other show of affection from one's supervisor. US-UNM has and continues to work to bring everyone up to their correct salary range, and to offset inflation through step-and-grade. No one is stopping anyone from being recognized on their own merits and performance.

Lastly, I'm glad people have the time and energy to call for decertification of the union. However, I think they will find that they are not in the "silent majority." The majority voted for union representation. The majority of people in this bargaining unit now have the dignity and respect they deserve, and the union is trying to ensure that they have the money they deserve.

Terry Mulcahy

UNM Staff
 

Daily Lobo - Opinion
Issue: 1/28/02
 

Decision over pay cut or raise left in staff's hands

Editor,

In the third week of New Mexico's Legislative session, it is time for UNM staff members to step up to the plate and bring heat to their legislators and the governor. If education employees do not receive a salary raise this session, in view of the projected health insurance, parking fees and cost of living increases, UNM staff will in effect experience a pay cut.

Last year United Staff-UNM, through the lobbyists of our parent organization, the American Federation of Teachers, fought hard for our 6.5 percent increase. This was generally considered a banner year for staff raises, but since l997, salaries at UNM have failed to keep pace with those of our peer institutions.

This year, we are lobbying our legislators to pass a 5.3 percent increase in higher education faculty and staff salaries, which amounts to about $27 million. We also are seeking to amend the prorated scale employers contribute to staff insurance premiums, not amended since l978, and revamp the funding formula under which higher education in the state is financed.

Many New Mexicans believe it when the governor, some legislators and the mass media tell them that there is no money for education. In fact, the state has about $450 million in cash reserves, a $12 billion educational endowment, $8 million in new revenues and a $3.6 billion state budget that law makers can adjust to prioritize education funding. Moreover, our legislators can write the proposed pay increases "above the line" in the budget, making them impervious to the governor's veto.

Legislators know that our pay scales are below market, they know the funding formula needs to be updated, but as long they don't hear it from us, why should they pay attention? The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

US-UNM will have information tables set up during the legislative session Thursdays in front of Mesa Vista Hall on main campus and Fridays just east of the Basic Medical Science building on North Campus. We will have pre-printed letters you can sign and address, and we will forward them to your legislators. Voter registration forms will also be available.

For more, visit our Web site at nmft.org, e-mail us at usunm@aol.com or call us at 243-4088. Pay raise or pay cut — it's your call.

Harry P. Norton
Admissions staff and President of the United Staff of UNM
 

Staff union is leaving door open to merit pay in future
By Giancarlo Messina

Editor



I would like to make one correction in you article entitled, “Unions accept 6.5 percent increase.” Your final comment, “....but we have shut down merit pay and are now on a level playing field,” is not a fair representation of the union position during the recent contract negotiations.

At the outset of these negotiations, the United Staff of UNM had made a bid to get an across-the-board increase that would include the possibility of performance-based pay based on the most recent performance evaluations. But in the interest of getting the 6.5 percent delivered on time, the negotiating team gave up the possibility of merit pay in the 2001-2002. There was no deliberate attempt to “shut down” merit pay.

In any case, we left in the possibility for employees in our bargaining unit to apply for “equity” pay if they are being paid below where they should be in the salary scale based on their years at UNM, education and experience.



-Harry Norton

US-UNM Spokesperson



Editor’s Note: In the June 28-July 4 issue, the Daily Lobo incorrectly attributed information about the union’s position on merit pay to union spokesman Terry Mulcahy. The error was made in editing.
 

Union accepts 6.5 percent increase
By Iliana Limón

Members of the United Staff of UNM educational support unit approved a University offer Wednesday night that will give 1,050 employees represented by the union a 6.5 salary increase.

During a voice vote, 65 members of the union, who represent a majority of active members, approved the agreement.

“I’m really happy, and I’m really excited about it,” said Terry Mulcahy, a union spokesman and UNM staff member. “It’s a good first step for the union and is a sign of great things to come.”

The union approved a measure that will allow bargaining unit employees to receive a 6.5 percent increase if the regularly hourly rate falls within the assigned pay range. If the increase causes them to exceed the pay range, union members will receive the increase in two equal lump sums that will be awarded in December 2001 and June 2002.

The agreement also states that all University business policies and procedures except for the wage increases will continue for bargaining unit employees for the term of the agreement, which is June 30, 2001 through June 30, 2002.

If the University considers changes to the policy and procedures that would affect the bargaining unit, it must provide the union with a copy of the proposed changes and the union will be given the chance to provide written input regarding the changes.

The Board of Regents still must approve the matter, but the regents have largely fallen in line with the University administration’s decisions on labor issues.

“We didn’t negotiate everything, but we specifically focused on salary increases because we only had two months to work with,” said Harry Norton, a union representative and UNM staff member. “The important thing is that we actually got the full amount that was recommended by the state Legislature. We think that this is the first time that has actually happened.”

Mulchahy said now that the union has secured the pay increases, it will revisit grievances that fall under the policy and procedure section that remained unchanged in the agreement.

“We will get to the grievance process, but this was the best issue to deal with first,” he said. “This is what people have been saying — that they wanted their raises in July. We had to come up with an agreement fast and we did that. Now we have time to talk about all the other issues we want to address.”

Critics of the union had said the negotiation process would hamper staff members’ ability to gain state legislated pay increases in a timely manner.

“I think this certainly validates us, and I know we certainly felt validated tonight,” Mulchahy said. “No one expected the University to give us 6.5 percent across the board. Rarely do salary increases truly reach everyone at an even rate, but we have shut down merit pay and are now on a level playing field.”
 

Union members need not worry about raises


Editor,
Following the March 22 election to establish a union for education support staff, a number of rumors and concerns have spread around campus.

People are understandably anxious and excited. The new union will bring changes for those involved, and it is a movement toward positive change that most UNM employees want.

Unfortunately, some employees have been misinformed concerning pay raises for 2001-2002. No decisions have been made whatsoever by the University or the union.

Here are the facts:

1. The state Legislature’s allocation, as approved by the Board of Regents, provides enough money to give all staff a 6.5 percent wage increase. Will the administration decide to award the entire amount? In the past, it has chosen not to. Perhaps this year the presence of another union at UNM will result in the full award.

2. The education support unit will decide what pay structure and pay increases will be negotiated for the next fiscal year prior to going into the negotiations. Whether any bonus — so-called “merit pay” — will be part of the contract depends on what the staff wants. We are surveying staff members on this point.

3. If negotiations for the contract extend past June 30, retroactive pay will be negotiable. Annual pay increase guidelines for those not yet in UNM collective bargaining units can be found in the Department of Human Resources budget. You may review them at www.unm.edu/~comp/pages/sswinstrl.html.

Whatever the University decides to allocate for 2001-2002, it will not address entrenched salary inequities.

Some questions to be considered include: Where are you in the “quartile systems” and should you be there? Does your salary reflect your market value?

But a contract is more than just about salaries. Employee protection and improvement clauses, including grievances (and your rights to be protected), workplace safety and the value of experience and education in determining job qualifications will be considered.

The bottom line is that we finally have the right to work together on this and other issues through the collective bargaining process. As with administrators’ employment contracts, contracts negotiated with staff are binding and not subject to differing or capricious interpretations.

Underlying that, of course, is the staff itself. We are not standing alone. We have the example and support of other educational employees in New Mexico and around the country. Just as we function as a team in our workplaces, our union team works for all of us. The more staff members participate in their union, the stronger the UNM education support staff will be.

The University and the Human Resource Department, through employee relations manager Patrick Vigil, have committed themselves to moving to the negotiating table. In a meeting with United Staff UNM representatives, Vigil said the University is “extremely interested and committed to negotiating a contract as quickly as possible.”

Vigil also stated what we have said above, that all issues of salaries and benefits are subject to negotiation and no decisions have been made.



Harry Norton
Admissions officer
United Staff UNM member
 

Staff votes for unionization
By Iliana Limón

The United Staff of UNM won the right to represent educational support employees at the bargaining table Thursday.

Of 1,050 eligible voters, 658 cast ballots with 531 voting to unionize and 127 voting against it. The union met the minimum number of votes to make the election valid — 630 votes or 60 percent. The group easily met the simple majority it needed to win the election.

About 25 union representatives who had been campaigning since 5 a.m. erupted with joy when the results were announced in Popejoy Hall at 7:30 p.m. As they were cheering, representatives from the University’s Human Resources Department gathered their things and headed home after keeping close vigil on the tallying of ballots.

Susan Carkeek, associate vice president for human resources, said she was not surprised by the election results.

“It was really close, and I think the number of people that showed up to vote was just above the 60 percent threshold they needed,” she said. “There were a lot of staff members whose voices weren’t heard, which is disappointing, but so be it. We’ll continue with the process from here.”

Carkeek said the next step is for the University to present the elections results to the Board of Regents for ratification.

Ona Savage, an adviser in the English Department, has fought for the last six years to see educational support staff unionize and was the union representative who signed off on the election results.

“It’s wonderful,” she said fighting back tears of joy. “What makes such a difference to me is that, for years, we thought people here were apathetic, but this proves that they aren’t. It just feels so great, and it’s so exciting.”

She said the election’s results are incredibly significant.

“It can take the uncertainty out of raises and can do a lot of things for a lot of people,” she said. “We can work to improve salaries and deal with the issues that are important to staff members.”

Savage said she will retire this year and added that she could not be leaving on a better note.

“I really feel as though the University will be better when I leave than when I came, and I love this place, I really do,” she said.

Alan Morgan, an academic adviser in the College of Nursing, did his best Uncle Sam impression and spent the day rallying support and encouraging eligible staff members to vote. He said his 14-hour day was worth it.

“I think it’s a great moment for the staff,” he said. “You worry about top-down organizations where the system is set up to support those on top and exclude others, but today is where it starts. We have the opportunity to make this into anything we want, so I hope we start by getting as many staff members involved as possible and show what democracy can do.”

Morgan said that a month ago he wasn’t sure that the union would have won the election because staff members were scared of the ramifications they would face for voting if the union lost.

“A lot of people who were afraid came out and voted,” he said. “They contrary to the way their fears had run.”

He said the overwhelming support the union received is a sign of good things to come.

“I think hope is running high because no one expected such good numbers,” he said. “It’s an incredible opportunity. Instead of competing against each other, we have the opportunity to take care of each other and be heroes to each other and that’s a great thing.”


 

Daily Lobo - Opinion
Issue: 3/6/01

Voting for union will give staff stronger voice


Editor,

Spring is coming, and you know what that means. It’s time for a union election! Yeehah!

United Staff UNM has affiliated itself with the American Federation of Teachers union and called for a collective bargaining election on March 22.

A little more than 20 years ago, I was an officer in the Communications Workers of America unit at the Physical Plant. At first, we didn’t do much, and the University toyed with us. But we organized and formed a group of dedicated stewards. We met regularly, learned how to file grievances and shared strategies, and we won almost every grievance we filed!

As a result, we won the respect of our supervisors. We were suddenly being asked for our opinions and no longer treated like children. It was an exciting time.

My job was temporary, however, and I transferred to another department that had no union protection. I was only there for a year when my position was eliminated. I found work in the electronics industry for four years but came back to UNM. However, I found that my job, like many, was considered “exempt” from union membership.

I joined a Staff Council committee. We resurrected the failed attempts to improve tuition benefits, got the approval of Staff Council and, with the support of the Faculty Senate, had tuition benefits extended. After years of failed attempts, it had taken two more years of research, meetings, meetings and more meetings to have something changed that made sense and benefited everyone, including the University.

There is a better way. It’s called collective bargaining. We meet and decide what we want, and tell our much higher-paid administrators exactly what we want and when we want it. Isn’t that better than having them tell us that their strategic plan is our strategic plan? Was UNM Pact your idea?

Compensation has been a “top priority” of every administration since the 1970s, but we have consistently fallen behind our peers. Even if we believe that some administrators are well intentioned, they still do not know exactly what we want, nor will they pursue it with the vigor that our own collective strength can.

Maybe you feel your current boss is nice, and maybe you think you can do OK on your own. Maybe. What happens when your boss is replaced? What happens when your department is eliminated or merged? Will your boss really back you up all the way? Even if so, not everyone has such perfect conditions. We need to stand up, stand out and show the University our solidarity here.

Not voting means that you are happy with the University’s determination of what you’re worth. Not voting means you are happy with the way the University spends our money and enforces its policies. Not voting means you want no part of decisions that affect you directly.

Let’s vote “yes” for collective bargaining.



Terry Mulcahy

Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Department
 

Daily Lobo - News
Issue: 3/5/01
 

UNM employees to vote on forming union


About 1,000 University of New Mexico employees from academic advisers to child care workers decide on March 22 whether to form a union.

The election is the first of two approved by the UNM Board of Regents for polls of workers in educational support and technical staff areas, but will exclude managers, who are not allowed to unionize in accordance with regents’ policy.

The organizing committee — known as United Staff UNM — has affiliated with the New Mexico Federation of Educational Employees.

The biggest category of employees who will be voting is probably the administrative assistants, who number in the hundreds, said Susan Carkeek, associate vice president and director of human resources.

Some 30 to 40 academic advisers also are eligible to vote, she said.

Ona Savage, an English Department employee who has been active in organizing the election, said staff members have complaints about their salaries, benefits and working conditions.

“We feel as though employees are ready to have a hand in deciding their own futures,” Savage said.

She said “morale hasn’t been terrific” among university staff.

“We’re just thrilled that after six years of hard work, the staff will finally be able to decide whether it wants to be represented by a union,” Savage said.

But Carkeek said the university has a great working relationship with the staff, who has a representative sitting at the table with the Board of Regents.

“I think they have wonderful access, so I don’t particularly see the need for a union,” she said.

The vote requires a 60 percent turnout to be valid and will be decided by a simple majority.

On election day, Staff members from north campus will vote in the Basic Medical Science Building, while main and south campus staff will vote in Popejoy Hall. The rules that the University and organizing staff agreed to state that staff members must vote at the polling place nearest their work site between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m.

Employees who regularly work outside of Bernalillo County are eligible to vote by a mail ballot. Attorney Rita Siegel, the independent party who will oversee the elections, will send out the ballots. She will also supervise absentee voting, which will be allowed for employees who are eligible to vote but will be absent on the day of voting because of hospitalization, temporary assignment, a leave of absence or are on vacation more than 50 miles away from the University.

Employees wishing to cast absentee ballots must make their request with Siegel by March 12, and she must receive the completed ballot no later than March 21.

For more information about the election, contact the United Staff of UNM at 243-4088 or the University’s Human Resources Department at 277-1849.