Davis Faculty Association

Archive for the ‘Faculty Welfare’ Category

News and Updates for November 9, 2017

Prepared on behalf of the DFA Board by Joe Kiskis.

As a service to Davis Faculty Association members, this informal newsletter will be emailed to members several times a year as developments warrant. The goal is to draw attention to items of likely interest related to UC Davis, the University of California, or higher education more generally.

The Davis Faculty Association is affiliated with the Council of UC Faculty Associations (CUCFA) and with the American Association of University Professors (AAUP).

==============================

Topics:

MEETING WITH CHANCELLOR MAY
(DFA Board members meet with Chancellor May.)

OPEN ENROLLMENT
(Deadline 5pm, Tuesday, Nov. 21.)

OPEN ENROLLMENT AND WESTERN HEALTH ADVANTAGE
(Changes more modest than feared.)

RETIREE HEALTH INSURANCE
(Work group formed. Decisions delayed until June.)

FREE SPEECH CENTER
(President Napolitano creates free speech center.)

GRAD STUDENT RESEARCHERS GIVEN RIGHT TO UNIONIZE

UCOP FUNDING IMPACTS UPDATE
(Problems with line item funding for UCOP may be corrected.)

NEGOTIATED SALARY TRIAL PROGRAM REVIEW
(If you opposed it in 2011, you probably still won’t like it.)

MICHAEL BROWN APPOINTED UC PROVOST

—————————————

MEETING WITH CHANCELLOR MAY

Members of the DFA board met with Chancellor May on Oct. 6, 2017. Co-Chair Jesse Drew described the Davis Faculty Association. Board members brought up a number of topics including the importance of public higher eduction, shared governance, free speech and academic freedom, DACA students, diversity, retiree health insurance, and issues associated with the legislatively mandated changes in the mechanics of UCOP funding. The discussion was positive, future-oriented, and cordial.

—————————————-

OPEN ENROLLMENT

Members are reminded that open enrollment closes at 5pm, Tuesday, Nov. 21.

—————————————–

OPEN ENROLLMENT AND WESTERN HEALTH ADVANTAGE

During the last few months, there were statements concerning the change in relations between UC Davis Health and Western Health Advantage (WHA) and the impact that would have on UC employees using WHA for health insurance. In the end, the impact on UC employees is smaller than was previously anticipated. The UCnet now states “Although UC Davis Health has ended its ownership and commercial network participation in Western Health Advantage (WHA), UC and WHA have come to a special arrangement for UC employees. Through this arrangement, UC WHA members and their families may continue to see their current UC Davis Health primary care provider (PCP) or select a UC Davis Health PCP in the future. WHA members will not have access to the Advantage Referral program, which allowed you to self-refer to specialists within WHA’s network. Instead, starting in 2018, your PCP will refer you to an appropriate provider if you require specialty care.”

—————————————

RETIREE HEALTH INSURANCE

As previously reported in this space and elsewhere, UCOP threatened to remove the 70% floor for funding of retiree health. If adopted, this would pave the way for decreases in funding for retiree health insurance, i.e. increased costs and/or decreased benefits for present and future retirees.

Faced with unified and overwhelming opposition to a Regents Agenda action item that would effect such a change, OP has decided to delay any possible Regental action until after a work group on this topic issues a report — likely around June 2018.

OP comment:
Work group to be formed to study, make recommendations about health benefits for retirees

http://ucnet.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/2017/10/work-group-to-be-formed-to-study,-make-recommendations-about-health-benefits-for-retirees.html

Senate Chair letter:
Letters on Retiree Health, memo from Senate Chair White to President Napolitano (10/17)

http://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/reports/SW-JN-Retiree-Health.pdf

—————————————

FREE SPEECH CENTER

President Napolitano creates academic center without Senate consultation and appoints advisory board with herself as chair.

UC launches national effort to promote free speech and civic engagement https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/uc-launches-national-effort-promote-free-speech-and-civic-engagement
https://freespeechcenter.universityofcalifornia.edu

The National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement will engage in education, research, advocacy, and fund and run a fellowship program.
https://freespeechcenter.universityofcalifornia.edu/fellows/

Although the center will not be granting degrees, it will engage in the academic activities of education, research, and providing fellowships. Based on those activities, it appears to be an academic center that warrants Senate consultation in its formation. I understand that Senate consultation did not take place.

Some observers have noted the unusual makeup of the advisory board.
https://freespeechcenter.universityofcalifornia.edu/advisory-board/

It includes Barbara Boxer, former US Senator; Tamara Keith, White House Correspondent, NPR; Anne Kornblut, Director, Strategic Communications, Facebook; Bret Stephens, Columnist, New York Times; and George Will, Columnist, Washington Post. Noting those members and considering the politicized, relatively negative news coverage of free speech issues at universities in general and at some UC campuses in particular, a possibility that comes to mind is that a goal of the center might be to encourage more favorable coverage of the official UC positions on free speech. These have been articulated by Napolitano in her statements. In the preface of their recent book Free Speech on Campus, her two advisory board co-chairs Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of the Berkeley School of Law, and Howard Gillman, UCI Chancellor, state the similar view that “…the ability to express all ideas and viewpoints, no matter how offensive — is necessary at all colleges and universities.”

—————————————–

GRAD STUDENT RESEARCHERS GIVEN RIGHT TO UNIONIZE

The Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA) gave CSU and UC employees, including faculty, the right to unionize. Originally graduate students were specifically excluded. More recently TAs and Postdocs were included. With SB 201, now signed into law, grad student researchers (GSRs) will have the option to unionize. Many employees in non-managerial positions are unionized. Faculty at CSU are unionized. Faculty at UCSC are unionized, but faculty at other UC campuses have not voted to unionize.

———————————————-

UCOP FUNDING IMPACTS UPDATE

Readers may recall that the legislature decided to fund UCOP as a line item rather than the normal practice of leaving it to the university to decide what share of UC funding goes to OP. In the way that the legislature chose to do this, there is a negative financial impact on core funding for the campuses. I.e. the net effect is to punish the campuses rather than the intended target, OP. There are now some who believe that this error may be corrected.

———————————————–

NEGOTIATED SALARY TRIAL PROGRAM REVIEW

The program is complex and difficult to quickly summarize. In a nutshell and with considerable oversimplification, it is a mechanism by which individual faculty can negotiate higher salaries directly with the administration. Money to pay the higher salaries comes from non-state funds.

The Negotiated Salary Program (NSP) (APM 668 proposed) was proposed in 2011 and heavily criticized by the Senate and by various CUCFA-related individuals and FAs. In spite of that, a Negotiated Salary Trial Program (NSTP) has been running for several years on three campuses: UCLA, UCSD, and UCI.

A review of the trial program is itself out for full Senate review. At Davis comments are due by Nov. 10. i.e. very soon.

The review is mixed, but in the end, the reviewing taskforce recommended that the trial continue for four more years with other campuses given the opportunity to opt in.

Review
http://academicsenate.ucdavis.edu/rfc/view.cfm?or&id=1347

Senate review from 2011
http://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/reports/RMA_CarlsonreAPM668_FINAL.pdf

————————————————

MICHAEL BROWN APPOINTED UC PROVOST

In July Michael Brown of UCSB was appointed UC Provost

https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/uc-santa-barbara-s-michael-brown-appointed-provost-uc-system

Taking a Stand Against Harassment

The DFA Board has voted to endorse the statement issued yesterday, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), American Federation of Teachers (AFT), and Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) calling on college and university leaders to defend members of universities and colleges from campaigns of harassment: “…anything short of a vigorous defense of academic freedom will only further imperil safety. Concessions to the harassers send the message that such odious tactics are effective. They have a chilling effect on the entire academic community.” See the full statement here.

News and Updates for June 2, 2017

Prepared on behalf of the DFA Board by Joe Kiskis.

FLASH: four new Regents appointed today, June 2. See next edition for comments.

Topics in this news update:
Davis Faculty Association membership building
Phil Kass to Vice Provost Academic Affairs
L&S Deans office reorganization and open positions
Senate Chair Chalfant’s comments at May Regents meeting
Regents actions at May meeting Changes to Lecture with Security of
Employment series Changes to UC Retirement Savings Program fees
Davis Division Senate budget letter
May revise of Governor’s budget
Systemwide Senate salary letter

———————–

DAVIS FACULTY ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP BUILDING

The Board of the Davis Faculty Association encourages each member to
recruit one new member. That would greatly improve our ability to
function effectively. It is now possible to join online.

———————–

PHIL KASS TO VICE PROVOST ACADEMIC AFFAIRS

Professor Phil Kass will take over as Vice Provost of Academic Affairs,
succeeding the retiring Maureen Stanton, effective July 1.

————————-

L&S DEANS OFFICE REORGANIZATION AND OPEN POSITIONS

Dean Elizabeth Spiller, has written to the College of Letters and Science commenting on the appointments of six Associate Deans and an Executive Dean.

Associate Dean of the Faculty in the Humanities, Arts and Cultural Studies
Associate Dean of the Faculty in the Mathematical and Physical Sciences
Associate Dean of the Faculty in the Social Sciences
Associate Dean, Academic Senate Liaison, Undergraduate Education and Advising
Associate Dean, Undergraduate Programs and Planning
Associate Dean, Research and Graduate Programs
Executive Assistant Dean, Finance and Administration

This does not mean a net increase of seven positions, but I’m uncertain about what the correct net increase is.

There will be internal searches for the second, fifth, and sixth of these. The others have been filled.

——————————

SENATE CHAIR CHALFANT’S COMMENTS AT MAY REGENTS MEETING

Academic Senate Chair Jim Chalfant provided remarks to the University of California Board of Regents May 2017 with pointed comments on perceptions of UC vs. reality, the audit of UCOP, and other items.  Video and pdf.

——————————-

REGENTS ACTIONS AT MAY MEETING

The full Board, meeting on May 18, approved three actions. Two were UCOP budgets for 2017-18, and the other is the much-discussed non-resident cap. For more detail, see:
http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/aar/mayb.pdf
or for even more detail, see the agenda items here:
http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/meetings/agendas/may17.html

———————————

CHANGES TO LECTURER WITH SECURITY OF EMPLOYMENT SERIES

The Office of the President is now formally proposing changes to the Lecturer with Security of Employment (LSOE) series. This topic has been discussed less formally for the last couple of years with a variety of opinions expressed. Recall that faculty in this series are Senate members. Perhaps the most visible change would be to rename the title to “Teaching Professor.” Another significant change will be that a new Teaching Professor step system will be developed that is closer to that used in the Professorial series. Scholarly achievement is added to the advancement criteria.

——————————–

CHANGES TO UC RETIREMENT SAVINGS PROGRAM FEES

If you have investments in the UC Retirement Savings Program and read all of your email very carefully, you will have noticed a change in the fee structure for the Retirement Savings Funds. The administrative fees (as opposed to the investment management fees) are now being charged as a flat rate of $35/year per person. This change is disadvantageous to investors with relatively small balances and advantageous to investors with larger balances. The detailed rationale for why this change is overall advantageous is unavailable.

———————————-

DAVIS DIVISION SENATE BUDGET LETTER

The Davis Division of the Academic Senate has a letter critical of both the process leading to and the content of the budget framework letter for 2017-18 from the Interim Chancellor and the Interim Provost.

Budget Framework letter

Senate Budget Letter

And there is now a response to the Senate letter from Chancellor-Designate May and Interim Chancellor Hexter

Basically these letters reveal the stresses in attempting to address the ongoing deficit in the campus core funds budget. It will be very difficult to reverse the decrease in educational quality that has resulted from the substantial increase in students that has been made made without the necessary corresponding investment in faculty and facilities.

———————————————-

MAY REVISE OF THE GOVERNOR’S BUDGET

Overall the Governor’s May budget revise contained no major changes for the University. The modest base budget increase per the budget agreement between the Governor and University President is maintained. However, the May revise states “In response to the State Auditor’s review of the UC Office of the President, the May Revision sequesters $50 million in UC funding until such time that the Auditor’s recommendations and other UC commitments are implemented.” The other commitments refer to follow through on piloting activity-based costing (lack of progress at UC Davis is specifically mentioned) and in meeting transfer student goals at a few campuses.

The Regents action to increase tuition by 2.5% increases the State’s Cal Grant cost. As a consequence of that, the Governor is redirecting $4M from the University budget to Cal Grants for students attending private California institutions. The logic of this change is a bit obscure.

The May revise also contains a statement about out years. “Rising Cal Grant costs from tuition hikes will also limit the state’s ability to increase General Fund support in the future. The state has increased General Fund spending by at least 4 percent annually since 2012-while tuition has been flat. Going forward, the universities should plan for 3-percent growth annually beginning in 2018-19. If the universities raise tuition in the future, additional downward adjustments to state support may be needed to cover the higher Cal Grant costs.”

During the next few weeks, the legislature will be working to pass a budget for 2017-18. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) recommends that the legislature adopt the Governor’s May revise changes. Nevertheless it is always possible that there will be significant changes before a final budget is passed and signed.

———————————-

SYSTEMWIDE SENATE SALARY LETTER

Basically the letter expresses a Senate preference for applying funds available to faculty salary increases to the base salary scales rather than splitting them between the base scales and addressing other targeted concerns such as equity, inversion, and compression. The targeted issues could be addressed with campus funds.

Faculty Associations’ Letter to the President of Long Island University

September 8, 2016 – As you may already know, three days ago, President of Long Island University Kimberly R. Cline and the Board of Trustees locked out the faculty of the LIU Brooklyn Campus. After contract negotiations on a new contract dragged to the start of a new academic term, the administration simply ended negotiations. Such a lockout has never happened before in higher education in the United States. The administration not only locked out the faculty, but they also cut off their pay, their benefits, their health care, and even their university email. (For more up to date information see https://academeblog.org/2016/09/08/lockout-of-faculty-at-liu-looking-down-into-the-abyss/).

Convinced that this gross violation of labor relations and shared governance practices must be met with swift and resolute denunciation, CUCFA has sent a letter to President Cline http://cucfa.org/2016/09/letter-to-the-president-of-liu/ inviting her to desist from her chosen course of action and return to the negotiating table. We invite all DFA members to pay attention to the unfolding of events and participate in the discussions that are likely to follow regarding how to deal with this dangerous precedent were LIU’s administrators to persist with the look out. You can also sign an online petition hosted by the AFT.
https://actionnetwork.org/letters/end-the-lockout-and-bargain-a-fair-contract-now

We Supports the UC Academic Senate Resolution Rejecting the “2016 Tier Pension Plan”

On February 10, 2016, the Assembly of the Academic Senate of the University of California adopted the following resolution and sent it to UC President Janet Napolitano:

The Assembly rejects the imposition of the PEPRA cap on the University of California and the discontinuation of the current pension plan in the absence of any plan or program to fund or to provide compensating increases in total remuneration, so as to prevent harming the mission of the University of California by eroding its ability to recruit and retain the best faculty. [1]

The Council of UC Faculty Associations strongly supports this resolution and calls on President Napolitano and the UC Regents to reject this disastrous, ill-conceived and unnecessary plan.

Background:

In fall 2015, President Napolitano and Governor Jerry Brown, the so-called Committee of Two, engaged in private talks about UC’s budget and pension plan. As part of their negotiations, Napolitano agreed to a new “2016 tier” to UC’s retirement plan that would limit the amount of covered compensation that can be used in calculating retirement income based on the 2013 Public Employee’s Reform Act (PEPRA) legislation ($117,020 in 2016), which was designed to address instability and the high cost of the California Employee’s Pension System (CalPERS). In response to Napolitano and Brown’s deal, the Regents appointed a Retirement Options Task Force (ROTF) that proposed two plans for a new 2016 tier. [2]

The proposed 2016 tier and adoption of the PEPRA cap would create inferior retirement options for future faculty (who are more likely to be women or under-represented minorities), create a two-tier retirement system and further undermine total compensation for faculty. The proposals will greatly weaken the University’s ability to recruit and retain the top faculty, undermine UC’s ability to make the competitive offers necessary to recruit and retain outstanding faculty members, and increase inequities between the UC campuses while doing little to address the unfunded liability of UC Retirement Plan.

In addition, the process that led to the decision to adopt the PEPRA cap and institute a new retirement tier lacked transparency, careful deliberation, and adequate consultation with the Senate.

We continue to collect UC employee signatures in opposition to these proposed changes at: http://www.protectmypension.org/

 

[1] The full text of the resolution: http://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/reports/documents/AssemblyPensionResolution2-10-16.pdf

The full Academic Senate letter and divisional reports on the new retirement plan: http://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/reports/documents/DH_JN_ROTF_2-12-16.pdf

[2] For an analysis of the proposals, see Celeste Langan, “Retirement plan impacts entire community,” http://www.dailycal.org/2016/02/12/343390/

Act now to prevent further degradation of our retirement system

The University of California is currently considering introducing a new  pension plan for its employees hired after 2016. These proposed changes  will dramatically reduce pension benefits for most new faculty.

The Davis Academic Senate is planning to have two town hall events  to discuss these proposals, one on Monday, January 25, at 10 am, at the  UCD Med Center’s Center for Health and Technology lecture hall 1341. The  other on January 28, at 10 am, in MU II. Please attend to learn more details or  to express your opinion on these issues.

The Davis Academic Senate has also set up a comment form at where you can express your concerns about this plan.

Your opportunity to provide input to the Senate lasts just a couple  weeks. For some purposes, it will be most effective to provide input  this week.

Please read on for additional background and contact information.

This ill-conceived and ill-advised plan, which was negotiated behind  closed doors by President Napolitano and Governor Brown without any  engagement with the Academic Senate, the Regents, the Legislature, or  the larger university community, will do serious damage to the quality  of the University of California.

While the details are highly technical

the implications are not:

1) This is a serious cut in benefits to faculty and many other  professional staff, such as staff scientists and nurses, hired after  July 2016. (See pages 44, 45 and 84 of the task force report.)

2) UC faculty are already much more poorly compensated than faculty at  UC’s peer institutions despite the fact that the cost of living in most  parts of California is very high.

This plan will make it much harder to attract faculty and other  professionals and keep them here.

3) This plan does not do anything to make the existing pension system  healthier and could actually decrease the rate at which the unfunded  liability is retired. (See page 57 of the task force report.)

We agree with the assessment of Academic Senate leaders J. Daniel Hare  and James A. Chalfant’s analysis who concluded:

“If salaries don’t increase to compensate for these reduced benefits,  then UC will have to settle for a lower-quality of faculty who did not  receive better offers elsewhere. Many UC faculty members were hired in  spite of more lucrative salary offers elsewhere, just as many have  either declined outside offers or declined to pursue them. It may have been true at one time that benefits made up for our uncompetitive  salaries. The 2014 Total Remuneration Study showed that no longer to be  the case. While salaries and benefits continue to lag, and we are  contemplating making the lag even greater with the new-tier options, it  is important to note that most of the non-pecuniary attributes of UC  employment also are declining.”

As Academic Senate Chair Dan Hare stated in his remarks to the Regents  in September:

“Any reduction in either salary or benefits surely will have  consequences for the ability of UC to build and retain a future faculty  that is as distinguished as the current faculty. As recommendations are  brought forward in early 2016, I encourage the Regents to carefully  consider not only the budgetary cost of future retirement options, but  also their impact on how faculty members behave in terms of recruitment  and retention. If we are not careful, small budgetary savings will risk  far greater costs to the University, our students, and the citizens of
California.”

We urge you to sign our petition http://www.protectmypension.org/to  express your opposition to proposed changes to the UC Retirement Plan.  We will forward the names of those that sign to local campus faculty  welfare committees so they are aware of local concern about this issue.

UCOP President Janet Napolitano has also invited faculty feedback. Please consider  sending a copy of your comments to us at newtier@cucfa.org.

Petition opposing changes to the UC retirement plan

The Davis Faculty Association, via the Council of UC Faculty Associations, is a member of the UC Union Coalition. A Union Coalition petition in opposition to detrimental changes to UC pension benefits is available here:

http://www.protectmypension.org/

Please read it and consider joining in the opposition to changes that would harm the quality of the university.

Some background material about this issue:

Following unfortunate developments in the Governor Brown/President Napolitano Committee of Two, the Governor’s budget May revise, and the final State budget, the 2016 Retirement Options Task Force has been working to modify key elements of retirement benefits for faculty and other employees hired after June 30, 2016. The Task Force sent its report to President Napolitano on Dec. 15, 2015. The report will be widely released on January 15.

Although we have not seen the report, the information that is currently available indicates that it will recommend changes that are detrimental to the University and to future employees. In particular, it will concede to the President’s decision in the Committee of Two to impose a lower cap on pensionable income for future employees. This will likely be only partly compensated for by a defined contribution supplemental plan.

Available information also indicates that the report fails to oppose the offering of a full defined contribution plan, which new employees can select rather than the current defined benefits of the UC Retirement Plan.

We have already written about the harm that will be done to the University if these changes are adopted:

http://cucfa.org/2015/11/uc-task-force-considering-pension-cuts/

By reducing total compensation, these proposals will reduce the ability of UC to recruit and retain top quality faculty and staff.

Please consider objecting to these changes by signing the petition at:

http://www.protectmypension.org/

UC task force considering pension cuts – we need your help

President Napolitano has charged a task force with developing a new 2016 UC Retirement Plan tier for faculty and other employees hired after June 30, 2016. We urge you to read CUCFA’s letter which details the proposed changes to the UC Retirement Plan and lays out the threat they pose to overall compensation for new faculty, as well as for the health of the pension system for all faculty. The letter includes a link and a pdf version with the names of faculty and task force representatives to whom concerns can be directed.

FA statement to the UC Regents about proposed new UCRS tier

Professor Celeste Langan spoke on behalf of the UC Faculty Associations at the July 22, 2015 UC Regents meeting during the public comment period. Below is a copy of her full comments:


 

As co-Chair of the Berkeley Faculty Association and on behalf of the Council of UC Faculty Associations, I wish to address the Regents concerning the third discussion item of the Finance Committee agenda, item F3, “Update on Final 2015-16 Budget.” The update, produced by the Office of the President, misleadingly claims that the final budget “incorporates the funding framework developed by UC and the Governor.” If you’ll recall, the “framework” of the May Revise proposed that the state make a contribution of $436 million toward the unfunded liability of the UC Retirement Plan. The final budget, however, promises only a “one-time payment” of $96 million; there is nothing in the budget that commits the state to two additional payments of $170 million. Yet even this meager one-time payment is contingent upon Regential approval of a cap on pensionable salary consistent with PEPRA (Public Employee Pension Reform Act) for employees hired after July 1, 2016.

The Council of UC Faculty Associations is opposed to the University making permanent changes in the structure of its retirement plan in exchange for a very modest one-time contribution from the State. We are especially opposed to the introduction of a full defined-contribution option. There is absolutely no justification for the proposed introduction of a full defined-contribution option; neither the Legislature nor the Governor called for the introduction of a Defined Contributions plan in aligning the UCRP with PEPRA. Yet UCOP seems bent on introducing such an option, to the point that their statement exposes their intention as a foregone conclusion rather than a possible outcome of consultation and deliberation — those elements of what we once understood as “shared governance.”

I call your attention to the third paragraph on page 3 of the F3 agenda item. First OP declares, “The President will convene a retirement options task force to advise on the design of new retirement options that will include the pensionable salary cap consistent with PEPRA. The retirement options will be brought to the Regents next year for review and approval.” But apparently the “design of new retirement options” is a fait accompli, for the penultimate sentence of that paragraph declares, “new employees will have the opportunity to choose a fully defined contribution plan as a retirement option, as an alternative to the PEPRA-capped defined benefit plan.”

Since the two minutes allotted in the public comments session is the temporal equivalent of Twitter’s 140 characters, let me ask: #What’s up with UCOP? If I had to speculate, I’d say that UCOP’s attempt to replace Defined Benefits with Defined Contributions suggests its preference for a mobile, “flexible,” precarious professoriate with a consequently short-term institutional memory — a professoriate that wouldn’t recall that only 6 years ago, the relative merits of defined contribution versus defined benefit plans were thoroughly, carefully, and widely discussed by UC constituents. Given substantial evidence that defined benefits are more cost-efficient than defined contributions in achieving the same level of benefits, it was agreed that the University of California was best served by continuing with UCRP as a defined benefit plan. Thus in 2010, when the President recommended and the Regents endorsed pension reforms, UCRP was preserved as a defined benefit plan.

Ironically, the paragraph in question concludes, “For represented groups, retirement options will be subject to collective bargaining.” Well, the UC Faculty Associations represent a good number of those faculty, members of the Academic Senate, without collective bargaining rights, and we say that UCOP has vitiated the interests of that faculty, both those vested in the current UCRP and those who will be hired after 2016. We deplore the introduction of a different tier of faculty benefits, but we firmly oppose the attempt of UCOP to introduce a fully defined contribution plan in this untoward and unjustified manner.

First round is on us, June 10th at Sudwerk

The Board of the Davis Faculty Association invites all UCD faculty to join us over a beer – or other drink – at Davis’s Sudwerk restaurant at 5:00 pm on Wednesday, June 10th. The first drink will be courtesy of the DFA.

Come discuss the issues confronting UC. We want to hear about your concerns, your suggestions, and any other input you may have for the Board of the DFA. To be effective in representing you, we need your help.

Please forward this message to your colleagues! As the University of California continues to face challenges, we need concerted action as much as ever.

Please join us on the 10th.

You are currently browsing the archives for the Faculty Welfare category.