FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA
@THECALIFORNIAAGGIE
SERVING THE UC DAVIS CAMPUS AND COMMUNITY SINCE 1915
THE CALIFORNIA AGGIE
@CALIFORNIAAGGIE
@CALIFORNIAAGGIE
VOLUME 138, ISSUE 9 | THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2019
THEAGGIE.ORG
AFSCME LOCAL 3299 STRIKES IN PROTEST OF ALLEGED JOB OUTSOURCING BY UC AND UNFAIR LABOR COMPLAINTS Latest strike marks sixth one over past year and a half
AFSCME protestors demonstrate on Toomey Field by Russell Blvd. on Wednesday, Nov. 13, 2019.(Photo by Justin Han / Aggie)
BY A L LY RUSSEL L campus@theaggie.org The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 3299, the UC’s largest employee union, went on strike on Nov. 13 for the sixth time in the last 18 months. Members and supporters protested the alleged outsourcing of jobs and unfair labor practices by the UC. This strike comes after six lawsuits were recently filed against the UC system. Union members and supporters formed picket lines at all 10 UC campuses as well as five UC medical centers. Despite this being the sixth strike organized in the last year and a half, rhetoric on both sides of the negotiation table has remained largely unchanged. With AFSCME and UC representatives presenting contradictory arguments, it is unclear how negotiations will proceed. Matthew Mussar, a UC Davis Medical Center employee on strike, spoke about concerns highlighted by union representatives. “We won’t stand to have our jobs contracted
out and lose the things we’ve fought so hard for in the past,” Mussar said. “We just want to provide the best patient care we can.” At the same time, UC representatives have conveyed entirely opposing viewpoints. Andrew Gordon, the associate director of media relations for the UC Office of the President, disputed claims brought up by union members like Mussar. “The University’s agreements with AFSCME already protect employees from displacement due to contracting,” Gordon said via email. “Furthermore, no employee can be terminated as a result of a sub-contracting decision.” Kathryn Lybarger, president of AFSCME 3299, alleged in an article in The Sacramento Bee that there has been an 84% increase in UC spending on outsourced jobs since 2016. UC representatives, however, claim figures referenced are incomparable. When asked about the possibility of gaining access to comparable statistics, Gordon instead repeated the same statement available to the press, describing the latest offer presented by the
UC to the union which was rejected by union representatives. AFSCME 3299 workers have been without a contract since June 2017, despite numerous offers presented by the UC. The most recent offer included a 3% wage increase and “the same health insurance rates as other employees,” according to an email from Gordon. Over the past two years of bargaining, seven other unions have successfully negotiated acceptable contracts with the UC. After another 40-day bargaining session this fall, AFSCME-represented workers seem no closer to reaching a contractual agreement with the UC than two years ago. Although union representatives are still unsatisfied with offers, the UC claims it has been generous and has consistently bargained in good faith. “It would be unfair to provide AFSCME-represented workers more than double the raises of other UC employees, which is what the union is demanding,” Gordon said. Another statement released by Dwaine Duckett, the UC’s vice president for systemwide human resources and programs, offered a different take on the
disconnect between union and UC representatives. “Given the hundreds of millions of dollars in state funding cuts UC has absorbed over the past five years, we must be fiscally prudent,” Duckett said. “University leaders have to be mindful that large, programmatic increases in pay and benefits for these workers drive up the cost of services they provide. We cannot — and will not — balance AFSCME’s demands on the backs of our students and patients.” AFSCME service workers as well as patient care technical workers joined in strike activities across the state and garnered national attention for their efforts. In response to letters sent by union members urging Democratic candidates to respect union boycotts, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) made the decision to change the venue of the December Democratic debate. Previously, UCLA was scheduled to host the debate. “In response to concerns raised by the local organized labor community in Los Angeles, we have asked our media partners to seek an alternative site for the December debate,” said Mary Beth Cahill, the DNC senior advisor, earlier this week in an article in the Huffington Post.
UC DAVIS WILL NOT MEET ZERO WASTE BY 2020 GOAL While the campus is not on track to meet its zero waste goal, it still plans on taking actions toward waste reduction, energy efficiency BY KAT HE RI N E DE B E N E DE T T I features@theaggie.org UC Davis is known as an environmentally-conscious university. Therefore, it comes as little surprise that that university, alongside the entire UC system, has been working on the “Zero Waste 2020” initiative and #MyLastTrash pledge, all part of the first zero waste initiative for college campuses. The campaign’s main goal is to certify all UC campuses as zero waste by 2020, meaning that they divert 90% of campus-wide waste. Although this goal is considered admirable by many, it has proven to be unrealistic for the campus. UC Davis has been working consistently to achieve zero waste status and has made considerable progress, but 2020 is in less than two months, and the campus is not expected to meet these goals before the new year. The California Aggie’s Editorial Board interviewed Chancellor Gary May recently and asked about whether the university was on track to meet its goals to be waste-free by 2020 and carbon-free by 2025. The chancellor did not directly address the university’s progress on the waste free initiative and, in a follow-up email with Dana Topousis, the chief marketing and communications officer for UC Davis, it was revealed that the campus will “not be meeting the zero waste goal for 2020.” “Our campus sustainability team is preparing a revised zero waste plan with strategies and steps that will be available for review in the coming months,” she said. “The plan will speak to prog-
ress to date and emerging barriers.” This does not discount the progress UC Davis has made since the initiative’s launch in 2009. According to the Engagement and Zero Waste Program Manager Sue Vang, UC Davis set and achieved a subgoal to meet 75% diversion of waste by 2012, but, unfortunately, much of the campus’ progress has plateaued since then. Another component of the initiative that the campus has made considerable progress toward includes meeting a set level of California’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards, a concept that UC Davis’ Director of Sustainability and Campus Sustainability Planner Camille Kirk commented on. “Those goals actually come from the UC sustainable practices policy,” Kirk said. “One of the things it calls for is for LEED buildings to achieve silver, strive for gold [status]. Since that policy was enacted and we’ve been building things and certifying existing buildings, we have one certified LEED building [that was previously existing], five silver, 20 gold and 11 platinum LEED certified buildings.” UC Davis and the UC system are still committed to pursuing zero waste and plan on making structural changes in the initiative to make it more attainable. As part of these changes, the UC will now be setting annual goals to keep campuses accountable and make it easier to track progress, according to Vang. One particular update to the goal encompasses the Title 24 energy consumption mandate, a state-wide group of energy efficiency
THE DAVIS FOOD CO-OP IS THANKFUL FOR ITS OWNERS! SO WE ARE DOING A
Thanksgiving
SALE Open Daily 7am—10pm
Waste disposal stations, such as the one pictured here, exist throughout campus for students to sort and dispose their waste. (Photo by Justin Han / Aggie)
standards expected of California buildings. The UC Sustainable Practices Policy originally called for UC campuses to be at 20% below the energy efficiency limits put forth by Title 24 annually. UC Davis is striving to surpass these limits, and is aiming to be at 25% under the limit. This has proven to be a difficult standard to meet, according to Kirk. “Title 24 is a constantly ratcheting down code, so every three years they update it to get progressively more stringent,” Kirk said. “We are finding that, at a certain point, 25% below something that’s really stringent becomes not actually achievable, so as a whole system we have called for [an option for our campuses.] Either you can do below 20% below Title 24 or you can meet an Energy Use Intensity, EUI, target, [which asks] for campuses to achieve a 2% [EUI] reduction
annually.” The option to reduce the EUI annually may be a more achievable option. On Davis’ campus, the EUI, measured in British thermal units per square foot per year, has been reduced from 295 to around 160 since 2000, Kirk said. In recent years, the immediate Davis campus has struggled to maintain at least a 2% reduction annually, but in the past year it has revamped its approach to meet these standards. Kirk is hopeful that it will once again be below the 2% reduction mark, noting that the Sacramento campus has consistently been below this mark. Another major revision puts more focus on reduction of waste, rather than on diversion. Vang expressed that, in the time that has trans-
from Friday, Nov 22 thru Friday, Nov 29
$
10 OFF 50
Your Purchase of
$
$
$
20OFF 75
Your Purchase of
$
30OFF 120
Your Purchase of $
One time use coupon applied to owners only (primary account) before Tax. Must be an owner by November 20, 2019 - Exclusions Apply ** (**See cashier for details )
620 G St, Davis
(530) 758-2667
www.davisfood.coop
@davisfoodcoop
ZERO WASTE on 11