News Briefs - March 2, 2002

Update on Negotiations for AFSCME Local 3506

UC Workers to hold first-ever statewide rally, defend quality education,

healthcare, research

UBC $300-a-year offer rejected by striking teaching assistants

AFL-CIO Executive Council Actions - Renewing the Drive for Comprehensive

Health Care Reform

Update on Negotiations for AFSCME Local 3506

Hey to everyone,
First I'd like to thank everyone for their support. I hope that after reading this information, we'll continue to get your
support as well as ideas as to move forward. Please forward this message to all those interested and concerned.
Remember what happens to one group in CCC can happen to another group in CCC.
Our local has never been as organized or powerful since its inception. Both CCC and AFSCME Council 31 (our
governing union) knows this. Our local has been working and preparing to strike for this upcoming Monday. This
week would have been the most powerful time to go out. Truman the largest campus is scheduled for registration
and every other campus is scheduled to do their midterm attendance reports. The amount of work and manpower to
accomplish these goals is BIG!! It also would affect the pocket of CCC funding for our program. AGAIN both CCC
and AFSCME Council 31 knows this.
So what did happen? For the first time, Council 31's third top man (Mike Newman) came in "to make a difference".
The reason given, if CCC sees the "big guy", they'll come forth and do some serious bargaining. Mind you our local
has always said that if CCC would do some serious bargaining we would stay at the table and not strike. Our local
has always communicated that we would not go on a wildcat strike, due to loss of legal protection of our members
and bad publicity. So after sitting at the table for awhile.....CCC came back and said that they are "dangerously close
to their bottom line". They offered us....30cents an hour raise in years 1&2 of our contract, 40cents in year 3 and
45cents in year 4. NO TO EVERYTHING ELSE. The wisdom and leadership of Council 31.....we will not strike this
week, we will continue to sit at the table and continue to negotiate. WE go back next Thursday.
Needless to say, our membership is ANGRY. As president, my goal at this point is to channel our organization,
strength, anger and power into some positive action. We are doing a lot of outreach to our members over this
weekend to see what things they are willing to do at this point. As soon as we have a concrete plan, we'll
communicate it to our supporters. If any of you have some good suggestions, please feel free to communicate them
to us.
In Solidarity, Sue Schulz
Posted via e-mail March 1, 2003.
Back to top

UC Workers to hold first-ever statewide rally, defend quality education,

healthcare, research
From San Diego to Sacramento, University of California workers will hold the first-ever statewide rally to defend
quality education, research and healthcare on Feb. 26. Members of the Coalition of University Employees (clerical
workers), California Federation of Teachers (UC-AFT Lecturers), AFSCME, Union of Professional and Technical
Employees (CWA), California Nurses Association and other campus employees will hold lunchtime rallies at
campuses statewide.

UC, dubbed "California's worst public employer" by a State Legislative panel nearly three years ago, continues to
treat workers unfairly and remain unaccountable to the public. The State Public Employee Relations Board has
received 69 unfair labor practice charges against UC. "UC used to stand for quality education, research and
healthcare," said clerical workers' union president Claudia Horning, "But today it stands for unfair and
unaccountable. Workers call on the University to keep its commitment to employees and the public."
For more information, visit www.cueunion.org.
ALL RALLIES BEGIN AT 12:15 PM ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2003

Berkeley:
Assemble at California Hall, march to Sproul Plaza (arrive approx. 12:20pm).
Giant puppets, musical band. Assemblymember Loni Hancock (staffer) ; Judy Goff, Alameda Labor Council;
Jessica Quindel, Graduate Student Assembly.
Contact: Amatullah Alaji-Sabrie, (510) 435-8417.

Davis:
Silo Courtyard, off Hutchinson Dr. in the center of campus
Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante (invited). Union representatives.

Los Angeles:
Murphy Hall, 410 Charles Young Dr. East (use parking lot P2, off Hilgard/Manning Av.)
Charles Lester, Los Angeles Federation of Labor; Jerry Greenstein, office of Assemblyman Paul Koretz.

Riverside:
Assemble at Arts Building (University at Canyon Av.), march to Hinderaker Hall
Contact Rita Skinner, (909) 260-5298.

San Diego:
Assemble at Geisel Library (on Library Walk), march to Chancellor's office.
Assemblywoman Christine Kehoe (staffer); union representatives
Contact: Sally Hampton, (760) 500-5497(cell) or Chris Hertzog, (619) 957-6790.

San Francisco:
Medical Sciences Building, 513 Parnassus Av.
Supervisor Tom Ammiano, Representative of physicians group, union members.
Contact Marian Chapman, (415) 794-3234.

Santa Barbara:
"Regentsville" Soupline with union-management tug-of-war
Prof. Nelson Lichtenstein, union representatives.
Beverly Leaney (805) 714-1056 or Brandon Johnson, President, (805) 570-4300.

Santa Cruz:
Baytree/Quarry Plaza off Hagar Dr. (parking near bookstore).
Union representatives including City Councilmember Mike Rotkin (invited).
Contact Julie Jacobs, (831) 278-0881 or 420-0258.
COALITION OF UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES
State Headquarters: 2855 Telegraph Av., Berkeley CA
(510) 845-2221
Fax (510) 845-7444
www.cueunion.org
See also this article: "UC unions rally in statewide solidarity," by Emma Schwartz, Jay Kapp & Kim-Mai Cutler,
Daily Californian, February 27, 2002.
Back to top

UBC $300-a-year offer rejected by striking teaching assistants

THE PICKET POST
Thursday February 27th UBC Teaching Assistants continue to escalate their strike today after rejecting an offer of an
extra $300 a year from the university.
The offer came yesterday in talks at the B.C. Labour Board. Teaching assistants rejected it because it still fails to

offset the extra $1000 dollars in fees which they will have to pay to the university in order to be able to work there.
Currently, a typical full-time teaching assistant at UBC makes $8900, of which he/she will have to pay back $3200
in fees from September. For many TAs, the remaining $6000 is the sum total of their disposable income. UBC's
published assessment of the minimum cost of living for a student is $9700.
The university's offer of 3%, 4%, 3% over 3 years would put the after-tuition income of the typical full-time TA at
$6300 from September. This compares with a $6700 figure for September 2001, since the fees TAs pay to the
university are increasing faster than the income they receive from the university. Although UBC tuition hikes for the
2004-5 academic year have not yet been announced, policy statements suggest they will be a further $500, in
addition to the $1000 increase already announced.
The teaching assistants' union, CUPE 2278, is therefore insisting that negotiations must include both wages and
tuition fees. UBC continue in their refusal to discuss tuition fees at the table.
"The proposed wage increase gives us nothing that can't be clawed back in tuition hikes", said Alex Grant, the TA
union president. Teaching assistants will escalate their strike actions today, picketing the Buchanan Tower, where
extensive humanities teaching occurs, the Forest Sciences Centre and the Centre for Advanced Wood Processing,
from 7am to 5pm. The number of buildings picketed and the length of picket actions has increased every day since
the TAs withdrew their services last Monday.
Posted via e-mail March 2, 2003
Back to top

AFL-CIO Executive Council Actions - Renewing the Drive for Comprehensive

Health Care Reform
February 25, 2003
Hollywood, Florida
The deepening health care crisis occupies center stage in the life of the nation and in the lives of
millions of Americans - an urgent situation that requires the union movement to show unstinting
determination and unwavering leadership in leading a renewed campaign for comprehensive
health care reform that will ensure affordable, high quality health care for all. No issue is more
important to the men, women and children who have no health coverage or to the ever-growing
ranks of those who are at risk of losing it. For unions and their members, health care is at the top
of the bargaining agenda.
The economic downturn that is being aided and abetted by the failed policies of the Bush
Administration is wiping out incremental gains in health care coverage achieved in the late
1990s. Once again, it falls to the American unions to mount the campaign for comprehensive
health care reform. In contract negotiations large and small, we need to hold the line against
employer attempts to push health costs onto working family budgets. At the grass roots, we must
demand action from both state and federal legislators to constrain costs, expand access to
coverage, level the playing field among employers, and improve the quality of care.
As much as anything else, we need to turn the 2004 elections into a referendum on whether all
Americans should finally be able to get affordable, high quality health care with their right to
choose their own doctor.
A large and growing number of Americans have no health insurance at all: 41.2 million people
had no insurance in 2001, 1.4 million more than the previous year. Out- of-control health care
cost increases are putting enormous pressure on job-based health plans. State- based health
insurance programs are threatened not only by spiraling costs but also by the growing state fiscal
crisis and the lack of help from the federal government. And Medicare recipients still have no
access to a comprehensive prescription drug benefit through that universal program.
Job-based health insurance is a critical but fragile source of coverage for Americans. Health care

cost pressures are placing big strains on employer-sponsored plans, and many employers are
reacting by passing costs onto workers and cutting back on coverage. Health care costs are rising
at rates that cannot be sustained. Benefits experts expect the costs of employer-sponsored health
plans to increase at double-digit rates for the third straight year in 2003 - by as much as 15
percent or more. Health care costs could double in just five years if that rate continued.
One Hewitt Associates survey found that many employers are likely to pass along at least 25 to
30 percent of these price hikes to their employees. A Kaiser Family Foundation survey of
employer-provided health benefits similarly found that employers dealt with cost increases by
passing along premium hikes to their employees. On average, worker premium costs increases
by 27 percent for single coverage and 16 percent for family coverage in 2002. Three-quarters of
the employers the foundation surveyed said they are likely to pass along even more costs to
workers in 2003. Health care cost shifting inevitably adds to the ranks of the uninsured: An
earlier AFL-CIO study found that between 1989 and 1996, premium cost shifting accounted for
75 percent of the decline in employment-based coverage.
Workers are fighting to preserve hard-won health benefits at companies across the country - like
GE, where 20,000 workers struck for two days in January to protest cost-shifting and like the
Peterbilt company, where 700 workers have been locked out since the day after Labor Day.
Workers are also fighting to win health coverage for those workers whose low wages and high
health costs makes insurance unaffordable, such as janitors in Boston as well as other cities and
hotel workers in Chicago.
Prescription drug costs are likely to lead to deep cuts in or elimination of retiree health coverage.
Drug costs constitute 40 to 60 percent of employers' retiree health care costs, and steep price
hikes are prompting employers to eliminate drug benefits, cap their contributions or drop their
obligations altogether. The Kaiser Family Foundation survey found the share of large employers
offering retiree coverage declined from 66 percent in 1988 to 34 percent in 2002. A significant
share of employers that continue to provide retiree coverage has passed along substantial cost
increases to retirees.
In addition to soaring costs, public need-based programs for the uninsured are facing increased
demands for services during the economic downturn and the worst state financial crisis since
World War II. The Kaiser Commission on the Uninsured reports that 40 states expect shortfalls in
their fiscal year (FY) 2003 Medicaid budgets, and 49 states and the District of Columbia are
implementing FY 2003 cost-containment plans for Medicaid spending. In California,
Connecticut, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, Oklahoma,
Tennessee and Washington, at least one million people, largely in working poor families, stand to
lose health care coverage altogether if the cuts proposed in these eleven states are implemented
fully. And the crisis will only worsen next year when Medicaid enrollment is predicted to grow
7.7 percent on average because of the sluggish economy.
After so many years of talk in Washington, D.C., Medicare recipients- seniors and disabled
workers - still do not have access to an outpatient prescription drug benefit as a standard feature
of the Medicare benefits package. Beneficiaries desperately need a prescription drug benefit to
address the significant role that prescription drugs play in modern health care and the soaring
costs of drugs. Enactment of a truly comprehensive prescription drug benefit also would relieve
some of the cost pressures being felt by state Medicaid programs and employer-sponsored retiree
health plans.
The health care crisis confronting the nation demands real leadership, but President George W.
Bush has failed to offer constructive responses to the country's health care challenges. Instead, he

is playing a shell game with families'Medicare and Medicaid benefits and putting forward private
insurance proposals that threaten to weaken the security of workers'health benefits.
The administration's proposal to change Medicare - by spending $400 billion over the next 10
years to create a prescription drug benefit within the Medicare+Choice program and propping up
the floundering Medicare+Choice managed care program - is deeply flawed and falls short of
meeting seniors' pressing needs. The president's plan forces seniors to leave the Medicare
coverage they trust and turn instead to profit-motivated Health Maintenance Organizations
(HMOs) for both their drug coverage and their basic health care. That means insurance
executives rather than Medicare would decide how much to charge and what to offer.
Far more than the $400 billion the president proposes is needed to provide a meaningful drug
benefit to seniors. According to the Congressional Budget Office's newest projections, the cost of
outpatient prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries over the next 10 years (2004-2013) will
total $1.84 trillion.
The president's plan also would not appear to reduce cost pressures on employers that provide
drug coverage for their retirees. A key design feature of any drug plan is whether and to what
extent it provides cost relief to existing employer health plans that provide prescription drug
coverage to retirees. Although very few specifics have been shared with the public on the
administration's plan, if it tracks last year's Republican congressional proposals, it will not
provide any such relief because employer contributions do not count as payments that trigger
Medicare coverage. The states and their residents who depend on Medicaid for basic health
coverage desperately need help from the federal government. But the president's response,
outlined in his FY 2004 budget, is a proposed Medicaid block grant that provides no real
financial relief for the states and leaves beneficiaries open to harsh benefit cuts and, for some,
elimination of health coverage.
The president calls for an additional $12.7 billion in Medicaid funding over seven years - $3.25
billion in FY 2004 - but the added resources are limited to states that agree to convert to a
Medicaid block grant with capped funding regardless of the number of new beneficiaries joining
the program. States that prefer to continue under the existing program are ineligible for
additional assistance. The president describes his approach as giving states a "choice," but at a
time when states are starved for resources, "coercion" is a more apt description.
In fact, even states that go along with the president's plan will get no increase in funding over the
next 10 years. The extra resources the president proposes stop after seven years; thereafter,
participating states essentially are required to pay them back as federal Medicaid contributions
decline.
The administration's flagship proposal to address the growing ranks of the uninsured - a
refundable tax credit for the purchase of health insurance, costing $89 billion over 10 years fails uninsured Americans and jeopardizes job-based coverage for low- and middle- income
workers.
The proposed premium credit assistance ignores the high costs of individual polices and the
difficult circumstances facing those most in need. According to a recent study by the Center for
Studying Health System Change, premiums for individual policies in 1998 and 1999 ranged from
$1,452 a year for a young adult (age 18 to 29) in excellent health to $3,276 per year for an early
or near retiree (age 55 to 64) in poor health. Under the Bush plan, an individual who had $20,000
in annual income and no dependents would be eligible for a $556 premium credit, only slightly
more than one-third the cost of the least expensive policy. Maximum benefits under the Bush
plan are available only to individuals who earn $15,000 or less per year (in modified adjusted

gross income) and who have no dependents and to all other filers with $25,000 or less in income.
The Bush tax credit proposals also threaten to undermine job-based coverage for low- and
moderate- income workers. If young, healthy workers believe they can find adequate coverage
with the tax credits, they may abandon employer-sponsored plans. As a result, employers' risk
pools would dry up and lead to higher per-worker insurance costs for those who remain. Some
employers - especially those with predominantly low-wage workforces - may eliminate their
health insurance plans altogether and urge their workers to rely on the Bush premium credits
even though they may be inadequate. President Bush's proposal to create Association Health
Plans (AHPs) raises troubling questions. AHPs are described often by proponents as a panacea
for small businesses trying to purchase affordable coverage in an era of double-digit health care
inflation. In fact, proposals, such as President Bush's, that would exempt AHPs from state
regulation would do little to address the current small employer insurance crisis and would leave
all working families paying more for less health coverage.
At best, AHPs would offer minimal benefits that are attractive only to young and healthy
workers, raising costs for older and sicker workers remaining in other group health plans. The
Congressional Budget Office has estimated that less than 1 percent of the uninsured will gain
coverage through AHPs and four out of five workers in small firms will see their premiums
increase.
To the extent that younger, healthier workers migrated to AHPs on the promise of lower costs,
traditional group insurance coverage would see costs rise dramatically, especially for small and
medium size firms, where costs are already rising over 20 percent per year. Insurers in this
market, notably Blue Cross Blue Shield, believe that the group insurance market could be
destroyed as a result, an outcome that many independent experts also believe possible. At their
worst, AHPs are at high risk for fraud and abuse. The strong consumer protections and solvency
standards that exist in every state must be there to safeguard working families from the health
insurance scams that have left millions of dollars in unpaid medical bills and thousands without
coverage. Far better alternatives to the president's flawed proposals exist. Congressional
proposals to establish a meaningful Medicare drug benefit, with substantial cost relief for
employers, are being advanced, as are proposals to lower prescription drug costs for all
purchasers by making it easier to bring generic drugs to market. The AFL-CIO remains
convinced that only comprehensive, national health care reform will solve the problems of health
care cost, coverage and quality. A special challenge exists at time in recruiting employer support
for comprehensive reform. In this regard, the work of the National Coalition on Health Care is
especially important.
Congressional proposals have again been put forward that would require most, if not all,
employers to provide health benefits or to enroll all Americans in a single, unified system of
health care funded by contributions by employers and workers. National unions and labor
movements at the state level, along with their community allies, are on the leading front of
initiatives to expand coverage and reduce costs. At the same time, the lack of leadership in
Washington is leading states to tackle comprehensive reform at their level.
A number of states are exploring statewide health care reform, using a variety of models. In
Wisconsin, the state labor federation is garnering support for a payroll-tax based system (similar
to the states' unemployment insurance program), which would serve four purposes: first, extend
coverage to all workers and their families; second, constrain costs by having all employers, union
plans, and major public programs purchase care through a single insurance pool; third, level the
playing field between employers who provide benefits and those who currently freeload; fourth,

provide a platform for introducing proven methods of improving quality and reducing
preventable medical mistakes. Though details remain to be worked out, preliminary cost
estimates indicate that the plan is an affordable way to expand coverage without compromising
care. Importantly, the Wisconsin approach preserves options for collectively bargained plans to
expand on the basic coverage under the state program, either by providing richer benefits or
absorbing greater shares of workers' costs.
The labor movement is working on coverage initiatives in other states, as well. A pay-or-play
proposal, which would require employers to provide a minimum level of coverage or pay into a
state fund, has been developed by the California Labor Federation and introduced in the
California State Senate. A single-payer proposal is also being introduced in California, with
considerable union backing. Other state labor federations also are developing new approaches to
expanding health coverage at the state level.
State labor movements have also been major players in local efforts to control drug costs and to
make drugs more affordable to seniors and low-income individuals. Spurred on by the
groundbreaking Maine RxHealth law, numerous states have passed or are considering programs
that use their states' bulk purchasing power to negotiate steep discounts on drugs. For example,
the Washington State AFL-CIO is leading an effort to enact legislation that will create a
statewide prescription drug purchasing pool that includes public, private and individual
purchasers.
Unions are also seeking to use pooled purchasing arrangements to reduce overall health care
costs. The American Federation of Teachers, for example, is promoting group purchasing for its
members' health care through both voluntary cooperative agreements and statewide legislation.
Recent efforts to collect and report quality data on health care providers are an important step in
promoting improved quality and reducing costs. The U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, under the leadership of Secretary Thompson, has led the way in health quality
measures with its ground-breaking work on nursing homes and home health. In addition, efforts
by hospital associations to report hospital performance measures represent meaningful progress.
AFL-CIO affiliated unions are playing singular roles in negotiating for programs that measure
and control quality of care, reduce errors and address chronic disease and wellness. Their
experience is that the front-end investments in these programs reap savings in the long run, both
in overall program costs and quality of life for active and retired members and their families.
Unions are working directly with employers to reduce the rate of medical error in hospitals that
contract with their plans, by agreeing to certain patient safety measures through contract
language and through participation in national coalitions such as the Leapfrog Group.
Implementation of the group's three top safety recommendations - requiring computerized entry
of doctors' medication orders, evidence-based hospital referrals and staffing of intensive care
units with doctors trained in critical care medicine - has been shown to reduce medication errors
by 50 percent in the former case and to reduce the risk of death by 30 percent and 10 percent,
respectively, in the latter two.
Unions also play an active role in the National Quality Forum, an outgrowth of the Clinton
managed care commission that was created to develop and implement a national strategy for
health care quality measurement and reporting. Other unions have developed new measurement
tools on their own or in conjunction with local or national efforts such as the National Committee
on Quality Assurance and the Foundation for Accountability. Finally, several unions and
employers are working together in labor - management committees to jointly select providers
based on agreed-upon quality measures.

Collectively, all of these approaches to quality and safety are designed both to improve patient
outcomes and to reduce health care costs. Now, even more than in the past, the AFL-CIO
believes strongly that universal coverage is the best and ultimately only way to achieve the goal
of extending affordable, high quality health care to all Americans. Until we are able to move to
such a system, the AFL-CIO and its affiliated unions, along with state federations and central
labor councils, will:

Maintain a broad-based and focused educational and informational campaign

about the crisis in health care, targeting activities at the national, state and local level

Explore and analyze the cost, feasibility and strategies to provide comprehensive,
high quality and affordable health care to all Americans

Continue to support federal legislative and regulatory initiatives to cut health care
costs, improve quality and expand coverage, including efforts to enact an affordable,
comprehensive prescription drug benefit within Medicare that is available to all
beneficiaries and that recognizes and supports the contributions of employer- sponsored
retiree plans,

At the federal level, seek waivers and other appropriate legislative and regulatory
measures that will allow states to engage in responsible innovation designed to boost
coverage, improve quality and lower costs,

Oppose irresponsible strategies that will not ultimately lower costs, improve
quality or expand coverage, including specifically proposals such as President Bush's
individual tax credit and AHP plans that threaten to undermine existing health coverage,

Oppose efforts to block grant the Medicaid program, while also pushing for more
federal support to help states meet demands under their Medicaid programs and to expand
coverage under State Children's Health Insurance Program to reach more low income
children and their parents,

In bargaining and otherwise, urge our employers to join the union movement in
backing and participating in campaigns and initiatives designed to boost health care
coverage, reduce costs and improve quality,

Through legal actions and otherwise, resist efforts by industry giants and their
trade associations, including the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America,
to block adoption and implementation of prescription drug plans and other initiatives, and

Host three regional meetings this spring and summer (one in the northeast, one in
the Midwest and one on the west coast) to explore further the crises in health care
bargaining and in health care in general, and to assist unions in health benefits bargaining
and in broader public policy work.
Copyright 2003 AFL-CIO
Posted via e-mail on March 1, 2003.
Back to top

Last revised on March 15, 2003 by the Webmaster.