Byung Kyu Park's Personal Website

Recent email from my beloved UAW 2865:

From: UAW 2865 Berkeley <berk...@uaw2865.org>
To: xxxx...@xxxxx.com
Subject: Healthcare Bargaining Update; Straw Poll on Demands
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 16:23:22 +0000 (UTC)

Dear UAW Local 2865 member,

We are writing to update you on the current state of bargaining with the UC over
our healthcare benefits. On May 17, the University abruptly broke off
negotiations over implementation of a systemwide GSHIP that is to take effect
before the end of our current contract. The systemwide GSHIP contains many
positive features and we are pleased that the UC has accepted many of our
recommendations.  However, we feel strongly that further improvements can and
must be made, especially with regards to dependent healthcare benefits. To this
end, we will continue to bargain with the University for dependent-care-coverage
remissions in our full contract negotiations.  In continuing negotiations, we will
continue to demand a systemwide GSHIP that includes (1) the participation of all
ten campuses, (2) a benefits package that is strong enough that all campuses
feel it is in their best interest to participate in the plan, and (3) a consistently
high quality of healthcare across all campuses.
   Moreover, we continue to maintain that the university must bargain any
changes that would occur after September 30, 2010 (the expiration of our
current contract).

In order to achieve these goals as we transition into bargaining over the full
contract, we are taking a straw poll to reaffirm our members’ commitment to our
position regarding GSHIP. Polling began Monday, May 24, and will end on
Thursday, May 27. Furthermore, as we move into the full contract negotiations,
we will have a bargaining kickoff event to demonstrate the importance of our
working conditions on the learning conditions of UC students. This event will
take place on Wednesday, June 2, 2010 from noon to 1pm across all UC
campuses. We will continue to bargain over GSHIP in the successor contract
negotiations based on your reaffirmed commitment.

Polling is happening through member-to-member organizing (on campus, on the
phone, etc.). If you want to weigh in via email, please reply no later than
midnight on Thursday. Please include your full name with your response.

Poll language:
We support UAW 2865’s position that (1) a systemwide GSHIP must have a
benefits package that is strong enough that all campuses feel it is in their best
interest to participate in the plan, and that (2) the quality of healthcare should
be consistent at all campuses. We also support UAW 2865’s position that the
University shall not make any changes to GSHIP after September 30, 2010
without agreement from UAW 2865.

Stay tuned for more detailed information on our planned actions. To find out
how you can be involved, please contact your campus office.

In solidarity,

UAW Local 2865 Bargaining Committee

Molly Ball, Davis Recording Secretary
Kelly Burns, Santa Barbara Recording Secretary
Jorge Cabrera, Santa Barbara Chair
Josh Cho, Irvine Chair
Evelyn Fidler, San Diego Chair
John Gust, Riverside Recording Secretary
Des Harmon, Los Angeles Recording Secretary
Nick Kardahji, Berkeley Recording Secretary
Jessy Lancaster, Santa Cruz Recording Secretary
Juliette Lunger, Los Angeles Chair
Brian Malone, Santa Cruz Chair
David Selby, San Diego Recording Secretary
Jessica Taal, Berkeley Chair

Bron Tamulis, Irvine Recording Secretary
David Willhoite, Riverside Chair
Jesse Woo, Davis Chair

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
UAW 2865 Berkeley
2070 Allston Way, Suite 205
Berkeley, CA 94704
phone: (510) 849-1628  /  fax: (510) 549-2514
berk...@uaw2865.org  /  www.uaw2865.org

mail-list.com    1302 Waugh Dr. #438    Houston, Texas    77019    USA

This message was launched into cyberspace to xxxx...@xxxxx.com

Uh, really? When you call something “straw poll”, don’t you usually have more than one choice? I understand that this “straw poll” would be nonbinding (as all straw polls are), but what they are trying to do here is not get a genuine level of support from UAW 2865 members. What they are trying to do here is goose up fake support (esp. goosed up by union mobs carrying clipboards on campus throughout this week) and call it a “poll”. This sounds more like the poll they conduct in North Korea. You know, vote for Secretary Kim as the new secretary, or don’t vote at all.

Well. I remember what happened last time I signed something than looked innocuous from my beloved UAW 2865. They turned the statement into vicious bullying demands while retaining my name among the signatories. And this statement doesn’t even look innocuous right from the start, so it’s clear what I should do—rip up the paper if anyone hands me one to sign.

P.S. There’s only one thing I want out of GSHIP: I want to be able to opt out of it (and keep the benefits as actual dollars, reduced for tax if necessary). Frankly, I don’t like the pool I am in as a participant in GSHIP, and I can do far better on my own (even after the tax penalty) outside the system.

Here’s yet another email from my beloved union (private email addresses redacted):

From: UAW 2865 Berkeley <berk...@uaw2865.org>
To: xxxx...@xxxxx.com
Subject: June 8th Primary Election Recommendations
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 16:58:20 +0000 (UTC)

Dear UAW 2865 members,

The June 8th Primary election is just around the corner, and many of you are
already receiving your absentee ballots.

As public employees, it is crucial that we stay engaged in the electoral
process, as the decisions that are made by our public officials impact our lives
as workers, students as well as residents. We work to elect, and hold
accountable, pro-labor, pro-higher-education candidates.

Below you will find recommendations from UAW and the California State
Federation of Labor on statewide and local races and ballot measures.

Governor
Jerry Brown

United States Senator
Barbara Boxer

Lieutenant Governor
Janice Hahn

Attorney General
No Recommendation

Secretary of State
Debra Bowen

Treasurer
Bill Lockyer

Controller
John Chiang

Superintendent of Public Instruction
Tom Torlakson

Insurance Commissioner
DUAL: Hector De La Torre and Dave Jones

Board of Equalization
District 1 - Betty Yee
District 2 - Chris Parker
District 3 - No Endorsement
District 4 - Jerome Horton

Proposition 13 - Tax Assessment for Seismic Retrofit
Recommendation: Vote YES
This proposition is an important tax reform that, if passed, will create jobs
and make our buildings safer.

Proposition 14 - Top Two Primary
Recommendation: Vote NO
This proposition, if passed, will eliminate partisan primaries, limit voter
choice, bar small parties and independents from competing in the general
election, and lead to more personality-driven, less issue-driven politics.

Proposition 15 - California Fair Elections Act
Recommendation: Vote YES
This proposition, if passed, will create a pilot program to publicly finance
elections for Secretary of State.

Proposition 16 - Two-Thirds Approval for Local Public Power
Recommendation: Vote NO
This proposition is a blatant power grab by PG&E to maintain their monopoly and
if passed, will make it harder for local communities to take control of their
energy production.

Proposition 17 - Alter Auto Insurance Company Regulations
Recommend: Vote NO
This proposition is an initiative backed by a single major insurance company that,
if passed, will lead to higher insurance rates for many drivers.

US Congressional Representatives
9th District Barbara Lee

13th District Fortney “Pete” Stark

CA State Assembly
14th District Nancy Skinner
16th District Sandre Swanson

Alameda County Supervisor
District 2 - Nadia Lockyer
District 3 - Wilma Chan

Alameda County Sheriff
N/A

Alameda County District Attorney
N/A

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
UAW 2865 Berkeley
2070 Allston Way, Suite 205
Berkeley, CA 94704
phone: (510) 849-1628  /  fax: (510) 549-2514
berk...@uaw2865.org  /  www.uaw2865.org

mail-list.com    1302 Waugh Dr. #438    Houston, Texas    77019    USA

This message was launched into cyberspace to xxxx...@xxxxx.com

Maybe it’s just me, but I think it’s … revealing how my beloved UAW 2865 is recommending me to vote in Democratic primary. In other words, unions are just nothing but partisan organizations working on behalf of Democrats (for the record, I am a registered Libertarian, and I am regretting that choice this particular election season, as I cannot vote in the Republican primary for my favored candidates (e.g. Mr. DeVore)).

On the non-partisan matters (i.e. propositions; although I am not entirely sure what the point of primary voting for propositions is; do the defeated propositions not appear in the general ballot, or do the propositions simply lose the support of the party?), I am distressed that I agreed with UAW 2865′s positions on Props. 13 and 14, but I am glad that I voted the right way for the remaining propositions. Three out of five ain’t so bad.

Another message from my beloved union (private address redacted):

From: UAW 2865 Berkeley <berk...@uaw2865.org>
To: xxxx...@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: Healthcare Negotiations Beginning; Vote on Initial Demands Feb.
        3rd or 4th
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 18:45:37 +0000 (UTC)

January 20, 2010

Dear UAW 2865 members,

UAW 2865 is preparing to open our current contract with University of
California in order to negotiate improvements to the Graduate Student
Health Insurance Program. We consider UC’s agreement to enter
negotiations on GSHIP as a victory in our years-long struggle to improve
the quality of healthcare that academic student employees receive. In
recent years this struggle has included UC providing vision and dental
coverage as part of all GSHIP plans and the establishment of a UAW-UC
committee which has explored how best to make healthcare
improvements.

All members are encouraged to attend a meeting with bargaining
committee members and to vote on our initial healthcare bargaining
demands on February 3rd or 4th. Campus-specific dates, times, and
locations will be sent out next week.

We are opening healthcare now so we can negotiate changes that would
take effect in August for the 2010-2011 academic year. This would not be
possible under the already scheduled negotiations, because our current
contract expires September 30, 2010 and no changes take effect until the
entire contract is settled and ratified. We still plan to begin our full
set of negotiations in the spring, and there will be a separate process
where members will have a chance to vote on those initial demands as well.

If you have any questions or would like to get involved, please contact us
(info below).

In solidarity,

Bargaining Committee, UAW Local 2865

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
UAW 2865 Berkeley
2070 Allston Way, Suite 205
Berkeley, CA 94704
phone: (510) 849-1628  /  fax: (510) 549-2514
berk...@uaw2865.org  /  www.uaw2865.org

mail-list.com    1302 Waugh Dr. #438    Houston, Texas    77019    USA

This message was launched into cyberspace to xxxx...@xxxxx.xxx

So far, I haven’t participated in any union votes, mainly because I didn’t want to be part of (and hence, at least at my personal level, legitimize) the farcical imitation of democracy, but maybe I should vote.

Why? Well, let’s just say … I’m heartened by the ballot heard around around the world yesterday. If Massachusetts voters can vote for a small-government Republican, perhaps UAW 2865 members can finally say enough is enough—or at least, one day we will get to the bottom of what dirty tactics my beloved union uses to get 99% approvals on its measures.

I just got this email from my beloved union (private email redacted):

From: UAW 2865 Berkeley <berk...@uaw2865.org>
To: xxxx...@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: UAW Job Opportunity
Date: Wed,  6 Jan 2010 00:07:12 +0000 (UTC)

January 5, 2010

UAW is now hiring for social media jobs related to getting the word out about
its various campaigns. If you have experience with social media and think
you have what it takes to make UAW campaigns “go viral,” please send a CV
or resume along with a cover letter that highlights your experience in these
areas to uaw2...@uaw2865.org; attn: Christine Petit. Please also include
your availability for work (part-time or full-time; if part-time
approximately how many hours per week).

Applicants who get their materials in by 5pm on Thursday, January 7 will
have top priority; but because UAW has many ongoing campaigns, we will
consider applications received after that date as well.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
UAW 2865 Berkeley
2070 Allston Way, Suite 205
Berkeley, CA 94705
phone: (510) 849-1628  /  fax: (510) 549-2514
berk...@uaw2865.org  /  www.uaw2865.org

mail-list.com    1302 Waugh Dr. #438    Houston, Texas    77019    USA

This message was launched into cyberspace to xxxx...@xxxxx.xxx

Er, what? Getting the word out about “its various campaigns”? If I know the kind of policies UAW 2865 has supported in the past, I am sure these are the policies I donate money to candidates (usually $100 at a time, when I can afford to) to oppose.

Is this what my dear union wastes my union dues on? Weren’t they supposed to be taking $10 a month from my salary so that they can fight for us at our workplace, not advance radical left-wing agenda? Or am I just expecting too much from the corrupt union leadership?

P.S. No, getting out of the union won’t really fix this problem. Their idea of “fair share” for non-union member is something like $9 per month instead of $10 per month. Either way, it’s more than the amount I pay for any utility besides rent (my cell phone service being the only one, for which I pay $100 a year).

Somewhat weak-kneed response from the Academic Senate says:

The Berkeley Senate Divisional Council shares the deep concern of all faculty, students, and staff about the terrible effects of the budget cuts imposed on the public teaching and research mission of the University. However, after discussion, the Divisional Council also recognizes the diversity of faculty opinion on the merits of a walkout. We therefore neither endorse nor oppose a walkout, regarding participation in it as a matter of individual faculty conscience, and knowing that faculty will meet their obligations to their students. We know that the campus administration sees matters in the same light.

Diversity of faculty opinion? Sure, diversity is all good, but the fact is, classes are not being held when and where they were originally scheduled!

Where is the list of faculty supporting this walkout? I would like to make sure that their “diversity of opinion” does not hurt my learning environment and avoid their classes if possible. Surely if you are brave enough to have an opinion (and voice them), you are brave enough for the consequences?

UC President Mark Yudof addresses criticisms, explains the situation:

I actually think the students ought to be angry about the fee increase proposal. I mean, I don’t see why they shouldn’t be. They are going up by tens and tens of percents. I’m angry about it too. I liked the old system. The closer it was to being free the happier I was. But that’s not the world I live in. And that’s not the world the Board of Regents lives in. And you could have 18 or 26 new board members and a new president and 10 new chancellors. But unless President Obama gives them a printing press, they are going to have much the same sort of decisions. Maybe some nuanced differences, but there aren’t many choices.

No one is happy about the fee increases (perhaps the one thing students, especially those from middle class who actually pay tuition, unlike graduate students or students from families earning under $60,000, might really be angry about). Everyone has done everything, except for relying on “faith-based budgeting”, to avoid that, and now it has to be done as a measure of last resort.

I’d recommend you to listen to the whole video (or read the whole transcript, as I did). I myself am personally taking this as the true account of our situation that hasn’t been muddled and corrupted by unions and other special interests. But even if you do not have the same faith in the university administration as I do (to me, the University is mother and father; nothing I have today has come from anywhere but from the University, so I am not an impartial judge of what the University does), the least you can do, if you are fair-minded and open-minded as so many college students claim to be, is listen to both sides.

Weigh the evidences they present, not the rhetorics or publicity stunts, and decide for yourself: how will my walking out on the 24th improve the situation? Whom and whose policies are you really protesting, and do you really have any other alternative (this is Alinsky’s rule #11, by the way)?

While some classes may be closed due to the walkout on Sept. 24 being publicized right now, I have great hopes that classes that actually teach something (i.e. anything but humanities, such as political science or English, really) will go on as if nothing happened. In case my hopes, that reasonable teachers would not participate in a political publicity stunt at the cost of their students, are dashed to bits, I am determined to make sure that my students are not affected, not in my class.

This supposed protest didn’t come up in our weekly Physics 111-BSC GSI meeting, and I hope it never will (because that would indicate that no one plans on skipping work that day). But in case it does, and in case any of the GSIs normally in the lab on Thursdays walk out, I will volunteer to be in the lab.

I know unions don’t like that v-word. People who volunteer don’t make any money and that means they can’t get a piece of the paycheck. Fuck the union. Fuck United Auto Workers Local 2865, a.k.a. the GSI union.

I have tried hard to keep politics out of my classrooms, whether it’s from me (you might have seen that I leave most … inflammatory political posts off this website) or from anyone else. I haven’t had to so far worry about the “anyone else” part, but if you think that I would let anyone harm the learning environment to serve their political cause just because opposing would be unpopular among my peers or because the damned GSI union would be displeased, you would be wrong.

There are only two things, short of me falling deathly ill, that can keep me out of the BSC lab on Thursday, Sept. 24: (1) my fellow GSIs show up to work and I don’t have to do their job for them; (2) none of the students come to the lab due to their enthusiasm with this walkout.

We will see what happens.

I’m just going to post two (somewhat old) emails I have in my inbox. I think I’ve made it fairly clear how I feel about these issues, so I don’t think I need to add my own commentaries. I think the emails themselves and who sent them speak clearly enough.

First, the email from the chair of physics department:

From: Frances Hellman <phys...@berkeley.edu>
To: ALL Faculty <facu...@physics.berkeley.edu>,
        Staff All <sta...@physics.berkeley.edu>,
        Grads all <gra...@physics.berkeley.edu>,
        Undergrad majors <maj...@physics.berkeley.edu>
Subject: [Grads] Department budget cut information
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:34:26 -0700

[-- Attachment #1 --]
[-- Type: multipart/alternative, Encoding: 7bit, Size: 16K --]

Dear Physics faculty, staff, grads, majors, post-docs, visitors,

I attach (and insert below for convenience) a summary of how the
department is handling its budget cut.  To date, most of you have been
focused on the furlough program, which affects our salaries and our
ability to do our jobs, but which is temporary.   In addition to this, the
Physics Department is taking what is being called a permanent budget cut of
approximately $400,000 (~20% of our permanent state budget, similar to
other departments).  I have worked hard with staff and faculty to arrive at
what we think is the best way to handle this cut, and outline the details
below.  A cut of this magnitude will have impact. There is without doubt
things here that will make you angry and frustrated - I share that
frustration, and am doing what I can to mitigate it.  This mainly consists
of trying to choose as wisely as possible how and where to make the cuts,
keeping eyes open for places to recover money, and fund raising to offset
cuts where possible.  Your input is and will be appreciated.

We looked hard at all parts of the department to find the best ways to
make this cut.  We anticipate being able to do this without layoffs, which
I note many departments are facing, but by necessity there are going to be
some difficult choices and some services provided in the past will have to
be eliminated or reduced.   I wrote you previously concerning one
significant part of the budget plan, which involved an increase and
restructuring of shop recharge rates.  I am now writing to you with the
other parts of the reduction plan for this upcoming year.  I apologize for
the fact that some of these changes are being implemented with virtually no
notice (e.g. lecture demos; end of semester teaching schedule announced by
the university).  This is not how any of us like to operate, but the
process is cumbersome and not easy to anticipate what and when we will get
information from which we must make decisions.  I reiterate that none of
this is being done lightly -- it is not possible to take a budget reduction
from the state of this magnitude without incurring some pain.  It is also
not possible to say much about what is likely next year -- the university
is looking at a variety of ways to help reduce our reliance on state
funding, while still supporting excellent research and teaching and
remaining committed to being an open public university.   I do want here to
inject one personal comment -- I still believe that Berkeley and
particularly our Physics Department is and will be a great institution.  I
am committed to finding ways to make that continue to be true, and will
work with you as best as I can do to achieve this.

The changes for our department described below have been arrived at in
consultation with faculty and staff of the department.  We are working
hard to find ways to increase income, and have targeted several opportune
fund raising efforts which have already begun-- ranging from support for
the Advanced Lab (Physics 111), to SPS, to graduate student fellowships
(two endowments), to (hopefully) a new endowed chair.  Our successes in the
past have in fact been most helpful in mitigating the impact of the state
budget disaster on our department.  Our block grant (grad student support)
and our TAS (GSI and lecturer) budgets have not been cut, so negative
impacts on some of our core functions are somewhat less severe than might
have been.

One important point to note --the below are associated with cuts in our
permanent budget.  There is in addition the furlough program, which will
impact all staff and faculty (graduate students, post-docs and anyone 100%
on non-state funding are exempt).  Furlough days will inevitably have an
impact on how department services can be handled.  The staff in our
department work very hard to meet departmental needs, but furloughs will
impact their ability to do this, and faculty and students need to
understand and work with staff to avoid missed deadlines and other
problems.  It is therefore extremely important to anticipate your needs
such as purchasing or grant handling or lecture demos; get requests in
early and recognize that staff may not be able to provide all the services
you have previously received (although I note that the search for another
accounting analyst is still underway and will help relieve pressure when it
is successful).

Specific cuts (approximate savings in parentheses):
1.    The shop recharge rates have been modified as previously discussed.
The Electronics Shop manager position (budgeted at 100%) is reduced by 50%,
allowing us to continue to employ our present (temporary) 1/2 time E-shop
manager Jerry Przybylski. In addition, the shop tool allowance has been
temporarily suspended.  Recharge income and shop usage will be carefully
monitored during the year.

2. Instructional support services will be reduced by ½ person.  This takes
advantage of Cindy Holmes' retirement -- she was full time FTE but will be
replaced by a ½ FTE.  Instructional support (lecture demos, lower division
labs, advanced lab) will re-organize to minimize impact on teaching, but
you should expect to see reductions in availability of demos for classes.
Guidelines on how this will be handled will be sent to instructors and
GSI's for affected classes.

3.  Our main administrative office is discontinuing its student helper,
and Nathan Proctor will be covering assignments in other parts of the
department, in addition to his primary duties as web master, colloquium
and special events organizer.  He will also be helping to cover for
Madeleine Gordon, who will be retiring this fall.  A number of other staff
have opted for a temporary time reduction (in addition to the mandatory
furloughs) which help offset costs in other areas.

4. Colloquium travel budget and special events budget (Segre and
Oppenheimer, annual staff, student, faculty holiday parties) have been
maintained, but with reduced budgets where possible; support for colloquia
entertainment expenses is reduced to a maximum of $175 per dinner.

5.  Faculty recruiting allowance has been eliminated for now (~$12,500);
funding for bringing in diversity speakers to the department has been
reduced to $2000/year, with a max of $400 per speaker, first come first
serve; funding for AMO seminar has been reduced to $1500 per year.

6.  Support for SWPS, SPS, COMPASS, CalDay, graduation, and 111 lab have
been maintained, as has grad student recruiting budget.

7.  Cookie/tea will only be provided on Mondays (colloquium day).  On
other days, the department will provide tea only.  (~$3000 per year)

8. The faculty lunches will no longer be held in the faculty club --
attendance was too light to justify the cost.  (~$2500 per year).  For
this upcoming year, we will try holding this informally in room 324
LeConte on Thursdays and see if attendance improves.

9. Telephone lines-- we have already identified 16 phone lines that have
been eliminated (saving ~$6000 per year) and estimate that there are an
additional ~16 lines that can be eliminated.

10.  PANIC room charges are currently being assessed to see if there is
room for savings.  Other small cuts have been made in all areas of the
department.

11.  There have been shifts of personnel from state funds to more
discretionary funds -- this may impact the availability of matching and
recruiting funds and other discretionary costs.  The impact of this will
be seen in time, particularly as we see if/how increased recharge rates
decrease shop usage.

Sincerely,
Frances Hellman, Physics Department Chair

[-- Attachment #2: Physics dept budget reductions.pdf --]
[-- Type: application/pdf, Encoding: base64, Size: 48K --]

[-- application/pdf is unsupported (use 'v' to view this part) --]

[-- Attachment #3 --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Encoding: 7bit, Size: 0.1K --]

_______________________________________________
Grads mailing list
Gra...@physics.berkeley.edu

http://physics.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/grads

And the second email is from my GSI union “executive board”, or, as I like to call them, union pigs:

From: UAW 2865 Berkeley <berk...@uaw2865.org>
Subject: UC employees hold no-confidence vote on President Mark Yudof
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 22:24:15 +0000 (UTC)

August 26, 2009

Dear UAW 2865 member,

Employees throughout the University of California system will be participating
in a no-confidence vote on UC President Mark Yudof. The vote will take place
from today through Wednesday, September 2 on all UC campuses, and results
will be announced on September 3rd. The vote has been organized by a coalition
of unions protesting Yudof’s budgetary policies and rejecting the notion that UC
has a fiscal emergency.

The university union coalition is encouraging all employees to register their
rejection of Yudof’s policies by participating in the no-confidence vote.

The remaining vote times/locations for your campus are:

Thu, 8/27
Bancroft/Telegraph, 11:30 a.m. - 6:00 p.m.
University Village, 12:00 p.m. - 1:00 p.m.
Dwinelle Hall, 8:30 p.m. - 9:30 p.m.

Thu, 8/27 thru Wed, 9/2
Moffitt Library/Free Speech Movement Café, 12:00 p.m. - 1:00 p.m.
Northgate (Hearst/Euclid), 12:00 p.m. - 1:00 p.m.
Westgate (Center/Oxford), 7:30 a.m. - 9:00 a.m.

Fri, 8/28 thru Wed, 9/2
Bancroft & Telegraph, 12:00 p.m. - 1:00 p.m.

Tue, 9/1 thru Wed, 9/2
Yali's/Stanley Hall, 12:00 p.m. - 1:00 p.m.
Lawrence Hall of Science, 12:00 p.m. - 1:00 p.m.
1111 Franklin (UCOP), 12:00 p.m. - 1:00 p.m.
Richmond Field Station, 12:00 p.m. - 1:00 p.m.

Wed, 9/2
College/Bancroft, 12:00 p.m. - 1:00 p.m.

In solidarity,

UAW Local 2865 Executive Board

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
UAW 2865 Berkeley
2855 Telegraph Ave, Suite 305
Berkeley, CA 94705
phone: (510) 549-3863  /  fax: (510) 549-2514
berk...@uaw2865.org  /  www.uaw2865.org

mail-list.com    1302 Waugh Dr. #438    Houston, Texas    77019    USA

As a commentary not on the emails but on my own sentiments, this is all I have to say: my jobs at UC Berkeley were my first ever. As a first employer, I could not have asked for a better one—and as a continuing, 6th-year employee, I could not ask for a better workplace.

As for “my” union, for the life of me, I cannot figure out what they do with my $9 that they take out of my paycheck every month. Aside from giving salaries to the union pigs, I mean.

Well, so the GSI union held a “no confidence vote” over last couple weeks. I didn’t vote because: 1) we are not in a parliamentary system with a responsible government; “no confidence vote” is as meaningless as non-binding ASUC resolution condemning Israel; 2) the voting times were not convenient or even easy to understand.

Daily Cal now reports on how that extra-legal vote turned out:

More than 10,000 ballots—1,300 on the UC Berkeley campus-were tallied in the vote questioning Yudof’s handling of the UC system’s financial dilemma, with the measure of no confidence passing with an overwhelming 96 percent of the votes.

Great. 96 percent of people voting agreeing with each other. So, to make the numbers easy, let’s say it was 100 percent, like the percentage of North Korean voters supporting Secretary Kim. The report also says 1,300 people voted on UC Berkeley campus. I don’t really care about other UC campuses, so I’ll just work with that number.

How many are exactly 1,300 people, given the size of UC Berkeley campus? Well, we have about 10,000 graduate students, a good majority of which have been a GSI at one point or another. So, I will assume that there are 5,000 members of the GSI union (who are currently on UC Berkeley campus) who got the same email I did. Assuming that the 1,300 voters were coming from this 5,000-member pool, we have a turnout ratio of approximately 25% supposedly expressing disapproval.

So, if we assume that people who didn’t vote, like myself, didn’t really have an opinion on Yudof, what’s his actual disapproval rate? Well, so he has 25% people who “strongly disagree” with his policies (that may sound high, but Obama has 40% of American voters strongly disagreeing with his policies, so it’s not so high compared to some other miserable failure). If we split the people who didn’t vote in half, then UC President Yudof has 62.5% disapproval rate and 37.5% approval rate. I’d say that’s decent, considering that it’s in the middle of a supposedly the worst recession since the Great Depression and that the State of California, the primary funding source for UC, has been broke for some time. And remember: this estimate is based on the assumption that those eligible for voting in this farce was just the members of the GSI union. If we assume that the vote represents all UC Berkeley affiliates, as the article suggests, then it’s 1,300 voters out of 30,000-member community, giving us a whopping 4.3% turn-out rate, and corresponding 52.2% disapproval of Yudof and 47.8% approval.

So, while I have no particular opinion on UC President Yudof (that’s why I didn’t vote), you can see how ineffectual and unrepresentative this union vote is. And there is a good reason. According to the email I received on Aug. 26th, following were the voting times and places:

Thu, 8/27
Bancroft/Telegraph, 11:30 a.m. – 6:00 p.m.
University Village, 12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.
Dwinelle Hall, 8:30 p.m. – 9:30 p.m.

Thu, 8/27 thru Wed, 9/2
Moffitt Library/Free Speech Movement Café, 12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.
Northgate (Hearst/Euclid), 12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.
Westgate (Center/Oxford), 7:30 a.m. – 9:00 a.m.

Fri, 8/28 thru Wed, 9/2
Bancroft & Telegraph, 12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.

Tue, 9/1 thru Wed, 9/2
Yali’s/Stanley Hall, 12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.
Lawrence Hall of Science, 12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.
1111 Franklin (UCOP), 12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.
Richmond Field Station, 12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.

Wed, 9/2
College/Bancroft, 12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m.

So, unless you reacted to this email with less than 24 hour turn-around time, you had to find one of those 1-hr blocks at various, unpredictable locations in order to vote at all. While I don’t have any data on how the votes were distributed in time, it wouldn’t be surprising if a majority of voters voted on Aug. 27, at Bancroft/Telegraph during the only 6-hr block. And it wouldn’t be surprising if a majority of voters were union insiders who knew about this vote long, long before this email was ever sent out.

This isn’t so different from how the union is usually run: pretty much like Venezuela. Votes are held, for ratification of contract negotiations and such, but the times for votes are carefully chosen to minimize the voter turn-out as much as possible, which ensures that only the hardcore members of the union, i.e. those who wrote up those proposals in the first place, get to vote, so they ensure their 100% “voter approval”.

So, one might ask: why am I a member of this undemocratic union? Well, the fact of the matter is, it matters very little to them whether I am a member or not. As long as I teach at Berkeley, they collect their “fair share” from my paycheck, if I am not a union member, I think around $8 per month when I’m teach 10-hrs per week. As a member of the union, I pay around $9 per month as “union due”. While I am not sure if $1/month is worth my money, in terms of the only thing I get is updates to union’s usual nefarious tactics, there isn’t exactly a way for me to vote with my feet, so, for the moment, I just remain a disgruntled member who will be ready to cross the picket line if and when the union declares a strike.

UAW 2865 reports:

CALIFORNIA. Members of UAW Local 2865 voted by a 96% margin to ratify a new contract yesterday, ending three days of voting state-wide.

96% margin ?!?! That tells me there is some high-level manipulation going on here. In a true democracy, you should NEVER be able to get more than 90% in a group of 100 agree on anything. No US president wins by a landslide of more than 90%. But I’ll bet Kim Jeong Il will win by 96% or better every time there is a vote.