We will get to reporting on the Regents and what they heard about the state budget last week as time permits. Rest assured that we have - as always - preserved the recordings indefinitely. (And we have already reported on the first day and a half.)
The key issue in some sense is what happens to the non-higher ed and non-UC parts of the budget. The biggest chunk is controlled by Prop 98 as amended for K-14. In the governor's May Revise, the Prop 98 world accounts for over 40% of the total general fund. And that includes a diddling with the details of Prop 98.
Suffice it to say that the influential California Teachers Association is opposing the diddling and is pushing for "more."*
There are other parts of the budget that are not mandated by formula but are subject to constraints. At the end of the day, the judicial system produces a certain number of state prisoners. Squeeze too hard on that piece of the budget and there will be federal court decisions requiring minimum expenditures on constitutional grounds.
What all is said and done, the legislature sees UC as one of more vulnerable parts of the state budget. The Regents can raise tuition if state allocations are squeezed. The prisons can't. And the nice part, politically, is that the Regents get the blame. No one wants to say that. Yours truly just did.
Blog readers will likely know that UAW 4811 - which represents a variety of UC student-workers and researchers - has called what it terms an "unfair labor practice strike" starting Monday. The strike revolves around recent campus events concerning the encampments. Unlike the big 2022 strike - see the image - this one apparently will be on a rotating basis starting at Santa Cruz. In federal law - which in many ways served as a model for the state statute covering UC and CSU - a ULP strike is differentiated from an "economic strike," the latter being a strike over wages, hours, and working conditions, typically when a new contract is being negotiated and no existing contract is in place. A ULP strike - because it is seen as defending legal rights under the relevant statute - gives individual workers protection from being permanently replaced.
But as is often the case in law, there is a catch. The ultimate judge as to whether a given strike is a ULP strike or something else rests with the California Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). So, whether the ULP strike protections apply is typically determined after the strike has begun. Adjudication of such matters can take time. Thus, the union and its members in a proclaimed ULP strike are taking a risk. PERB might not agree.
If PERB ruled that the rotating work stoppage was not a ULP strike, the union would then likely face liability for violating the no-strike clause in its current contracts with UC.* Such clauses typically specify that disagreements over the meaning of the contract during the duration of the contract are to be settled using a specified grievance-and-arbitration process.** No-strike clauses are generally seen as important to maintenance of good labor relations from the management viewpoint.
We usually think of a grievance as a situation in which a worker has been subject to discipline (including perhaps termination), and complains through a specified process. In union situations, the union takes the case on behalf of the worker through a series of steps with management officials. If the matter cannot be resolved, it goes to a neutral arbitrator for a binding decision. The arbitrator holds a hearing somewhat similar to a court, but with less formality. The union's case in such situations rests on a clause in the contract which will usually require that discipline will only be undertaken "for cause." Essentially, such clauses are interpreted by arbitrators as requiring due process. Arbitrators over many years have developed guidelines concerning what that means in the context of a workplace. But the important point is that what the union is alleging in a typical individual grievance is that the contract is being violated by improper discipline, i.e., the discipline was not for cause.
Contract violations are not confined, however, to individual discipline situations and can refer to any contract violation.
There is also a concept in labor law regarding the "scope of bargaining." Typically, anything that falls under "wages, hours, and working conditions" is within the scope of bargaining. Unions can press for such matters to the point of impasse and can strike over them (when there is no bar due to a no-strike clause). Issues that fall under the category of wages, hours, and working conditions are deemed mandatory items of bargaining and both sides must negotiate in good faith about them. Unions can "discuss" other non-mandatory matters with management, but not to the point of impasse and strike. Again, it is left to PERB to determine what is mandatory and what is not, and what good faith means - and it can take time for the legal process to play out.
If there is a bottom line to this quick course in labor relations, it is that labor law and practice involves many ambiguities such as the meaning of "working conditions," discipline "for cause," and "good faith," that adjudicating such matters can take time, and that "trust" in a labor-management relationship can be as important as the legal niceties. There is more to be said, but enough for now.
====
*At Harvard, the local union is testing this issue by filing a complaint with the NLRB (the relevant authority for the private sector) rather than striking. It thus will get a ruling without the risks entailed in testing the issue by striking. See https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/5/17/hgsu-encampment-unfair-labor-practices/. UAW 4811 at UC filed a ULP charge with PERB on May 10, prior to the planned strike:
As blog readers will know, a bill was introduced in the legislature that would compel UC to make undocumented student eligible for university employment. The Regents were seemingly moving to that objective when they received strong legal warnings about the perils of testing federal immigration law in that way. There is a theory that if UC was compelled to offer jobs to undocumented students by state law, it would be shielded from penalty. That is the thrust of AB 2586.
There is now another approach, a bill - ACA 20 - that would create a constitutional amendment that would have to go before voters, that would have the same objective, i.e., compelling UC, presumably on the basis that the compulsion would provide legal protection.
Both bills are at an early stage. They have't been heard in committee, let alone enacted by both houses. We will see. CalMatters has more about these approaches:
Resolution of No Confidence in Chancellor Block: “Whereas, Chancellor Block failed to ensure the safety of our students and grievously mishandled the events of last week. Resolved, that we make a motion of no confidence in Chancellor Block.” The Legislative Assembly voted 79 Approve, 103 Oppose, 5 Abstain, and 7 were present but did not vote. This resolution required a majority of votes cast to be approved. [AIPSC (2nd ed.) 5.1] As 43% of votes cast were in favor, the Legislative Assembly did not approve the resolution.
Resolution to Censure Chancellor Block: “Whereas, Chancellor Block failed to ensure the safety of our students and grievously mishandled the events of last week. Resolved, that we make a motion to censure Chancellor Block.” The Legislative Assembly voted 88 Approve, 88 Oppose, 3 Abstain, and 15 were present but did not vote. This resolution required a majority of votes cast to be approved. [AIPSC (2nd ed.) 5.1] As 50% of votes cast were in favor, the Legislative Assembly did not approve the resolution.
From the UCLA Newsroom: Zvi Bern, a theoretical physicist, and Leonard Kleinrock, one of the early pioneers of the internet, have been elected to the National Academy of Sciences in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research.
The two professors are among 120 new members and 34 international members recently announced by the academy. Membership is one of the highest honors a scientist in the United States can receive.
===
Zvi Bern
Professor of physics and astronomy, UCLA College
Bern, a faculty member since 1992 and director of UCLA’s Mani L. Bhaumik Institute for Theoretical Physics, is internationally known for his theoretical work in elemntary particle physics. Using advanced theoretical methods to carry out complex computations, Bern is developing improved ways for physicists to understand how elementary particles scatter off each other, paticularly under extreme conditions, and has applied those ideas to physics at the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland, to maximally supersymmetric gauge and gravity theories, and to gravitational wave physics.
A fellow of the American Physical Society, Bern, along with David Kosower and Lance Dixon, was awarded the J. J. Sakurai Prize for Theoretical Particle Physics in 2014. In 2023, the same trio won the Galileo Galilei Medal from the Galileo Galilei Institute for Theoretical Physics.
===
Leonard Kleinrock
Distinguished professor emeritus of computer science, UCLA Samueli School of Engineering
In 1962, as a graduate student at MIT, Kleinrock developed the mathematical theory of packet switching — a foundational technology of the internet that allows computers to exchange information across a network. A year later, he joined UCLA, where he continued to refine and test this process. On Oct. 29, 1969, Kleinrock’s team directed the successful transmission of the first message over the Arpanet from a computer in UCLA’s Boelter Hall to another computer at the Stanford Research Institute — a seminal moment that has been recognized as the birth of the internet.
Kleinrock continues to teach courses at UCLA Samueli and currently heads the UCLA Connection Lab, where he directs scholarly work and advises graduate students on computer networks and related topics like inclusive connectivity. In 2016, he created the Internet Research Initiative at UCLA, which supports undergraduate students in independent research.
Kleinrock is also a recipient of the National Medal of Science, the nation’s highest award for scientific achievement, and a member of the National Academy of Engineering, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the National Academy of Inventors. He is an inaugural member of the Internet Hall of Fame.
With this year’s newly elected members, the academy now has 2,617 active members and 537 international members.
===
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by a congressional act of incorporation signed by Abraham Lincoln. One of three national academies, along with National Academy of Engineering and the National Academy of Medicine, it provides independent, objective advice to the federal government on matters related to science and technology.
One of the more controversial issues that was due to be taken up at the Regents was the question of departmental political statements. It was scheduled for yesterday's meeting. But at some point, it was taken off the agenda. An explanation was given in the Daily Bruin article below for the change in schedule. Yours truly suspects it was deferred because it was seen as likely to be the source of further protests. Deferring it to the next meeting puts it in July. Just a surmise.
From the Bruin: The UC Board of Regents Academic and Student Affairs Committee deferred a proposal to limit University faculty from making political statements on departmental website homepages. The Regents previously delayed a vote on the proposal – Item J1 – in March to Thursday.
The proposal was deferred because there was judged to be insufficient time to discuss it Thursday. The regents had not yet finished their closed session discussions on campus safety by 12:30 p.m., when they were scheduled to have done so. The Daily Bruin understands there were also concerns that the regents would not have had a quorum to discuss the item. The proposal mandates that departmental homepage websites can only be used for information regarding University operations. Personal or collective opinions of members of the department would not be permitted on departmental homepages, but the proposal would not restrict faculty members from posting opinions on their individual faculty webpages or social media...
