It was nearly a year ago last year that the Campus Food Workers launched their most recent campaign to become university employees. On May 1, 2007, joined by hundreds of UC Davis students and community members they marched from the MU to the corner of Russell and Anderson. Three weeks later, they marched on Mrak Hall shutting it down. The actions have been consistent. They have received the support of many public leaders–Lamar Heystek, Lois Wolk, Christopher Cabaldon, the Yolo County Democratic Central Committee, former President Bill Clinton, and most recently Davis Mayor Sue Greenwald.
For the University it was an embarrassment–the only institution in the system to outsource their food service workers. For the workers it was at times a life and death fight, trying to get fair wages, affordable health coverage, and job protection. The lack of affordable health coverage literally put lives at risk.
The University finally pledged to study the issue, but no one had any idea what this would mean or where this would go.
We spoke with many workers over this time. One would tell us about her appendectomy that left her with a $47,000 debt that she would never repay. For another it was the inability to buy heart medicine that put his life on the line.
For these workers, help is on the way, but not as fast as some would like or need. Yesterday, UC Davis announced that they are taking a new approach toward the management of the food service program and its employees.
According to a press release:
“Under this new direction, the campus’s food service contractor, Sodexho, will continue to manage residential and retail food operations on campus, but an estimated 175 to 200 nonmanagement Sodexho employees will be eligible to transition to University of California employment.
UC Davis’ decision follows an extensive, six-month-long review of food service delivery models at college and university campuses across the country that employ best practices.
Campus and Sodexo officials here say they intend to act as soon as possible to complete the process of transitioning the Sodexho employees to UC-employee status and amending the existing contract. However, they anticipate it will take nine to 12 months to finish the job in a prudent manner that fully addresses the complexity of human resource issues that need to be managed.”
According to the Chancellor:
“We arrived at this new direction only after an engaged, thoughtful and collaborative process. We consulted with many key constituents, including representatives from student governance groups. Throughout the entire review process this campus was guided by several key principles to ensure that our final decision would allow us to retain the high quality and diversity of our campus food service program without weakening our commitment to access and affordability for all students.”
Sodexho’s senior vice president for campus services, Bill Lacey:
“Our desire is to offer the best opportunities for our employees and services to the campus. The university’s decision allows us to continue our long-term relationship and commitment to our employees with our continued focus on service to the campus.”
State Assemblywoman Lois Wolk applauded the announcement:
“This is a win-win solution to a problem that has divided the campus community for too long. It’s a win for the workers and students and it’s a win for the entire university family and the greater Davis community. It also provides for the university to benefit from the expertise and high quality food service that Sodexo management provides.
“Chancellor Vanderhoef should be praised for listening to the workers, students and many in the Davis community who supported bringing these workers into direct UC employee status.”
The workers themselves were a bit more circumspect about providing praise and in their celebration. The gist of their position is that this is a good thing, they are excited, but to a person no one understands the need to wait another 9 to 12 months.
I spoke with Ashok Kumar who has worked for Sodexho for six months as a part-time employee. He earns $8 per hour and has much uncertainty about the future since he does not know how he can support his family on that wage.
“I am excited about the long term situation, but it is tough in the short term.”
He believes nine months is a long time to wait. Moreover, he has been trying to become a full-time employee but they gave that job to someone else.
Kevin Cole is a worker I have spoken with before, in fact he is one of the workers that got a chance to meet President Clinton in mid-January.
“I was really happy that it happened. The only thing I really am not happy about is why we have to wait so long for this to take place. I don’t think it makes any sense to wait another year for this to take place.
They are telling us they are going through a process–I don’t understand what kind of process would take 10 to 12 months? Unless you are going to have to move across the country or something, but we’re right here.”
Chris Beran has been with the company for three years and have been fighting for the union the entire time.
“I’m happy with the outcome, I’m really just discouraged with the time frame and the fact that they are holding back on us.”
According to the University, this arrangement will cost an additional $2 million per year. Some of this will be passed on to students, but the university also intends to mitigate the impact.
“The transitioning of the food service employees to UC-employee status and the anticipated amendment to the Sodexo contract are expected to add additional annual costs of approximately $2 million — an estimated $1.5 million per year in additional costs to Student Housing and $500,000 per year to the Student Union operating services.
While a portion of these increased costs will be passed on to students, UC Davis intends to moderate the impact by: gradually passing on the increased costs over time; potentially expanding and modifying retail food services at places such as the Silo Union and the Activities and Recreation Center; using some reserve funds from the capital reserves of Student Housing and the student unions; and negotiating with Sodexho for an appropriate level of financial participation in the new approach.”
That seems the least they could have done. The lack of creativity in this process has often been appalling. To use that as justification for keeping low income people in poverty wages never made any sense.
In the end, timeline or no timeline this is a tremendous victory for not only the food service workers who will hopefully by January be getting better wages, access to affordable health care, and protection in the workplace, but to the entire community. The Chancellor may have done the right thing in the end, but throughout the process it was clear that this was not his first choice. The community forced him to do the right thing. This is a victory for the workers, the organizers, the students, and indeed the entire community. The individuals, the leaders, and the people who got behind this movement are the ones that made it possible. It was a tough fight, but in the end, justice prevailed.
Those who questioned their methods, never had to walk in their shoes. The May Day Protests may indeed have inconvenienced students who needed to get to class and take exams, but for the food service workers this was a fight that for some of them was for their very lives. It is one thing to have substandard wages, it is another thing to lack affordable health care. It is a sacrifice that those students who were inconvenienced made, albeit unwittingly, that has now allowed hundreds of workers the chance for better wages and to get themselves and their families the health insurance coverage that many of them so desperately need.
Without the May Day Protests and the subsequent march on Mrak Hall is doubtful that the community would have become energized and mobilized to the extent that it was. It is doubtful that their struggle would have caught the attention of so many public leaders. It is doubtful that the university would have felt the pressure to negotiate that they eventually did without that pressure. And so today, the victory was only possible because a public university that is so insulated from public accountability, a public university that is in many ways so insulated that they are responsible to no one, bowed to the pressure of a community that would not relent. Yesterday was not just a victory for workers, it was a victory for our community and indeed in the democratic process.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Congratulations Sodexho workers!
Congratulations Sodexho workers!
Congratulations Sodexho workers!
Congratulations Sodexho workers!
I’m saddened that you didn’t mention Arooj the UC Davis graduate and ex-Sodexo worker who fearlessly showed the courage to stand up for fairness and justice in the face of all odds and became a true union maid.
Ron Glick
I’m saddened that you didn’t mention Arooj the UC Davis graduate and ex-Sodexo worker who fearlessly showed the courage to stand up for fairness and justice in the face of all odds and became a true union maid.
Ron Glick
I’m saddened that you didn’t mention Arooj the UC Davis graduate and ex-Sodexo worker who fearlessly showed the courage to stand up for fairness and justice in the face of all odds and became a true union maid.
Ron Glick
I’m saddened that you didn’t mention Arooj the UC Davis graduate and ex-Sodexo worker who fearlessly showed the courage to stand up for fairness and justice in the face of all odds and became a true union maid.
Ron Glick
The Yolo County DA’s office has announced that they will not be prosecuting the students that were arrested at DQU. It’s in the newspapers today.
How about they also close the files on the Sodexho protesters?
The Yolo County DA’s office has announced that they will not be prosecuting the students that were arrested at DQU. It’s in the newspapers today.
How about they also close the files on the Sodexho protesters?
The Yolo County DA’s office has announced that they will not be prosecuting the students that were arrested at DQU. It’s in the newspapers today.
How about they also close the files on the Sodexho protesters?
The Yolo County DA’s office has announced that they will not be prosecuting the students that were arrested at DQU. It’s in the newspapers today.
How about they also close the files on the Sodexho protesters?
Congratulations Sodexho workers!
Congratulations and a big, “thank you,” are also in order to the Mayor and Councilmember Heystek for supporting a Living Wage and and for supporting the Sodexho workers.
We are facing tough economic times and a low pay is making life impossible for many local workers and their families.
The mayor has spoken up for rank-and-file employees of the city who are not at the top end of the pay scale and she is to be commended for that.
Congratulations Sodexho workers!
Congratulations and a big, “thank you,” are also in order to the Mayor and Councilmember Heystek for supporting a Living Wage and and for supporting the Sodexho workers.
We are facing tough economic times and a low pay is making life impossible for many local workers and their families.
The mayor has spoken up for rank-and-file employees of the city who are not at the top end of the pay scale and she is to be commended for that.
Congratulations Sodexho workers!
Congratulations and a big, “thank you,” are also in order to the Mayor and Councilmember Heystek for supporting a Living Wage and and for supporting the Sodexho workers.
We are facing tough economic times and a low pay is making life impossible for many local workers and their families.
The mayor has spoken up for rank-and-file employees of the city who are not at the top end of the pay scale and she is to be commended for that.
Congratulations Sodexho workers!
Congratulations and a big, “thank you,” are also in order to the Mayor and Councilmember Heystek for supporting a Living Wage and and for supporting the Sodexho workers.
We are facing tough economic times and a low pay is making life impossible for many local workers and their families.
The mayor has spoken up for rank-and-file employees of the city who are not at the top end of the pay scale and she is to be commended for that.
Labor rarely prevails without a struggle, even in a purportedly enlighened city like Davis. By displaying a willingness to fight for themselves and for others, regardless of the personal risk, the Sodexho workers set a high standard for the rest of us to try to achieve.
–Richard Estes
Labor rarely prevails without a struggle, even in a purportedly enlighened city like Davis. By displaying a willingness to fight for themselves and for others, regardless of the personal risk, the Sodexho workers set a high standard for the rest of us to try to achieve.
–Richard Estes
Labor rarely prevails without a struggle, even in a purportedly enlighened city like Davis. By displaying a willingness to fight for themselves and for others, regardless of the personal risk, the Sodexho workers set a high standard for the rest of us to try to achieve.
–Richard Estes
Labor rarely prevails without a struggle, even in a purportedly enlighened city like Davis. By displaying a willingness to fight for themselves and for others, regardless of the personal risk, the Sodexho workers set a high standard for the rest of us to try to achieve.
–Richard Estes
As someone who has been involved in these discussions with the Administration over the last 5 months, I am very pleased that the Administration chose “Option 2,” which was the Sodexho Management-University Employment hybrid, as opposed to the options 1 or 1.a, which increased cash subsidies for workers but did not actually provide health insurance or provide additional job security that would be provided by University Employment and Unionization.
As to why the 9 to 12 month delay, that comes down to Human Resources, and the process of defining and shifting employees over from Sodexhop employment to University Employment. The University needs to work out the new Union contract covered by these workers, need to ask senior (near retirement) workers if they wish to join the University or stay with Sodexho (Grandfathering), and set up/improve the Universities capacity to employ these workers, such as work out the specifics of the plans to pay for them, what reserves will be drawn down, what fees increased on which timeframe, and what services will increase in price and how-so in order to accommodate the increases in costs b/c of University Emnployment.
These changes will take time to work out and this is not a process to be rushed into, because that will lead to badly thought out plans. Regardless, the end goal of University Employment is finally in the works, which is an important accomplishment to be proud of.
-Max Mikalonis
Chair
Student Services and Fees Administrative Advisory Committee
As someone who has been involved in these discussions with the Administration over the last 5 months, I am very pleased that the Administration chose “Option 2,” which was the Sodexho Management-University Employment hybrid, as opposed to the options 1 or 1.a, which increased cash subsidies for workers but did not actually provide health insurance or provide additional job security that would be provided by University Employment and Unionization.
As to why the 9 to 12 month delay, that comes down to Human Resources, and the process of defining and shifting employees over from Sodexhop employment to University Employment. The University needs to work out the new Union contract covered by these workers, need to ask senior (near retirement) workers if they wish to join the University or stay with Sodexho (Grandfathering), and set up/improve the Universities capacity to employ these workers, such as work out the specifics of the plans to pay for them, what reserves will be drawn down, what fees increased on which timeframe, and what services will increase in price and how-so in order to accommodate the increases in costs b/c of University Emnployment.
These changes will take time to work out and this is not a process to be rushed into, because that will lead to badly thought out plans. Regardless, the end goal of University Employment is finally in the works, which is an important accomplishment to be proud of.
-Max Mikalonis
Chair
Student Services and Fees Administrative Advisory Committee
As someone who has been involved in these discussions with the Administration over the last 5 months, I am very pleased that the Administration chose “Option 2,” which was the Sodexho Management-University Employment hybrid, as opposed to the options 1 or 1.a, which increased cash subsidies for workers but did not actually provide health insurance or provide additional job security that would be provided by University Employment and Unionization.
As to why the 9 to 12 month delay, that comes down to Human Resources, and the process of defining and shifting employees over from Sodexhop employment to University Employment. The University needs to work out the new Union contract covered by these workers, need to ask senior (near retirement) workers if they wish to join the University or stay with Sodexho (Grandfathering), and set up/improve the Universities capacity to employ these workers, such as work out the specifics of the plans to pay for them, what reserves will be drawn down, what fees increased on which timeframe, and what services will increase in price and how-so in order to accommodate the increases in costs b/c of University Emnployment.
These changes will take time to work out and this is not a process to be rushed into, because that will lead to badly thought out plans. Regardless, the end goal of University Employment is finally in the works, which is an important accomplishment to be proud of.
-Max Mikalonis
Chair
Student Services and Fees Administrative Advisory Committee
As someone who has been involved in these discussions with the Administration over the last 5 months, I am very pleased that the Administration chose “Option 2,” which was the Sodexho Management-University Employment hybrid, as opposed to the options 1 or 1.a, which increased cash subsidies for workers but did not actually provide health insurance or provide additional job security that would be provided by University Employment and Unionization.
As to why the 9 to 12 month delay, that comes down to Human Resources, and the process of defining and shifting employees over from Sodexhop employment to University Employment. The University needs to work out the new Union contract covered by these workers, need to ask senior (near retirement) workers if they wish to join the University or stay with Sodexho (Grandfathering), and set up/improve the Universities capacity to employ these workers, such as work out the specifics of the plans to pay for them, what reserves will be drawn down, what fees increased on which timeframe, and what services will increase in price and how-so in order to accommodate the increases in costs b/c of University Emnployment.
These changes will take time to work out and this is not a process to be rushed into, because that will lead to badly thought out plans. Regardless, the end goal of University Employment is finally in the works, which is an important accomplishment to be proud of.
-Max Mikalonis
Chair
Student Services and Fees Administrative Advisory Committee
“It was a tough fight, but in the end, justice prevailed. Those who questioned their methods, never had to walk in their shoes.”
Would you feel this way if the illegal tactics used were in a cause you didn’t approve of? Suppose students who were late for exams (because the Sodexho workers interfered with traffic and some buses could not get through) chose civil disobedience to address their concerns, and shut down food services on campus so the Sodexho workers missed a week’s pay? Would you be for civil disobedience as an appropriate method for those students to protest? One man’s cause is another’s fellow’s irritation. If everyone engaged in civil disobedience every time they didn’t get their way, we would have chaos and anarchy.
Secondly, I do not see this as quite the victory everyone else does. Turns out the students are going to have to absorb the cost in higher food prices and tuition hikes. So how was this a victory for students??? My daughter is working two part-time jobs to put herself through UCD, because gov’t grant money does not cover all the costs for her college education (I am a low-income disabled parent). Now she is going to have to struggle even harder to make ends meet. What, will she have to get a third part-time job now? How is she going to find time to study?
The Sodexho workers have the option to leave their poor paying jobs and go elsewhere. Students do not have that choice. It would be far better if students took over the Sodexho workers’ positions. The University is supposed to be in place for STUDENTS, not low wage earners who can get jobs at fast food joints, big box stores, etc.
Am I opposed to what happened? Yes and no. I do not approve of civil disobedience – it is a dangerous concept to indulge in and can lead to killings as it did at Kent State during the Viet Nam era. I am very disappointed students will have to absorb the increase through tuition/fee hikes. Students are often desperately poor themselves, so all that has happened is cost has been shifted to another group of poor folks. The University itself continues to pay its administrators enormous salaries while hiking tuition. I am not happy Sodexho workers are taking away jobs from students, who need work on campus. The only thing that I am happy about is that a light has been shown on the University’s practice of non-competitive bidding process that allowed Sodexho workers to take away student jobs.
Every time tuition goes up at public univesities, some low income student is shut out of college because grant money doesn’t cover all costs of a university education.
“It was a tough fight, but in the end, justice prevailed. Those who questioned their methods, never had to walk in their shoes.”
Would you feel this way if the illegal tactics used were in a cause you didn’t approve of? Suppose students who were late for exams (because the Sodexho workers interfered with traffic and some buses could not get through) chose civil disobedience to address their concerns, and shut down food services on campus so the Sodexho workers missed a week’s pay? Would you be for civil disobedience as an appropriate method for those students to protest? One man’s cause is another’s fellow’s irritation. If everyone engaged in civil disobedience every time they didn’t get their way, we would have chaos and anarchy.
Secondly, I do not see this as quite the victory everyone else does. Turns out the students are going to have to absorb the cost in higher food prices and tuition hikes. So how was this a victory for students??? My daughter is working two part-time jobs to put herself through UCD, because gov’t grant money does not cover all the costs for her college education (I am a low-income disabled parent). Now she is going to have to struggle even harder to make ends meet. What, will she have to get a third part-time job now? How is she going to find time to study?
The Sodexho workers have the option to leave their poor paying jobs and go elsewhere. Students do not have that choice. It would be far better if students took over the Sodexho workers’ positions. The University is supposed to be in place for STUDENTS, not low wage earners who can get jobs at fast food joints, big box stores, etc.
Am I opposed to what happened? Yes and no. I do not approve of civil disobedience – it is a dangerous concept to indulge in and can lead to killings as it did at Kent State during the Viet Nam era. I am very disappointed students will have to absorb the increase through tuition/fee hikes. Students are often desperately poor themselves, so all that has happened is cost has been shifted to another group of poor folks. The University itself continues to pay its administrators enormous salaries while hiking tuition. I am not happy Sodexho workers are taking away jobs from students, who need work on campus. The only thing that I am happy about is that a light has been shown on the University’s practice of non-competitive bidding process that allowed Sodexho workers to take away student jobs.
Every time tuition goes up at public univesities, some low income student is shut out of college because grant money doesn’t cover all costs of a university education.
“It was a tough fight, but in the end, justice prevailed. Those who questioned their methods, never had to walk in their shoes.”
Would you feel this way if the illegal tactics used were in a cause you didn’t approve of? Suppose students who were late for exams (because the Sodexho workers interfered with traffic and some buses could not get through) chose civil disobedience to address their concerns, and shut down food services on campus so the Sodexho workers missed a week’s pay? Would you be for civil disobedience as an appropriate method for those students to protest? One man’s cause is another’s fellow’s irritation. If everyone engaged in civil disobedience every time they didn’t get their way, we would have chaos and anarchy.
Secondly, I do not see this as quite the victory everyone else does. Turns out the students are going to have to absorb the cost in higher food prices and tuition hikes. So how was this a victory for students??? My daughter is working two part-time jobs to put herself through UCD, because gov’t grant money does not cover all the costs for her college education (I am a low-income disabled parent). Now she is going to have to struggle even harder to make ends meet. What, will she have to get a third part-time job now? How is she going to find time to study?
The Sodexho workers have the option to leave their poor paying jobs and go elsewhere. Students do not have that choice. It would be far better if students took over the Sodexho workers’ positions. The University is supposed to be in place for STUDENTS, not low wage earners who can get jobs at fast food joints, big box stores, etc.
Am I opposed to what happened? Yes and no. I do not approve of civil disobedience – it is a dangerous concept to indulge in and can lead to killings as it did at Kent State during the Viet Nam era. I am very disappointed students will have to absorb the increase through tuition/fee hikes. Students are often desperately poor themselves, so all that has happened is cost has been shifted to another group of poor folks. The University itself continues to pay its administrators enormous salaries while hiking tuition. I am not happy Sodexho workers are taking away jobs from students, who need work on campus. The only thing that I am happy about is that a light has been shown on the University’s practice of non-competitive bidding process that allowed Sodexho workers to take away student jobs.
Every time tuition goes up at public univesities, some low income student is shut out of college because grant money doesn’t cover all costs of a university education.
“It was a tough fight, but in the end, justice prevailed. Those who questioned their methods, never had to walk in their shoes.”
Would you feel this way if the illegal tactics used were in a cause you didn’t approve of? Suppose students who were late for exams (because the Sodexho workers interfered with traffic and some buses could not get through) chose civil disobedience to address their concerns, and shut down food services on campus so the Sodexho workers missed a week’s pay? Would you be for civil disobedience as an appropriate method for those students to protest? One man’s cause is another’s fellow’s irritation. If everyone engaged in civil disobedience every time they didn’t get their way, we would have chaos and anarchy.
Secondly, I do not see this as quite the victory everyone else does. Turns out the students are going to have to absorb the cost in higher food prices and tuition hikes. So how was this a victory for students??? My daughter is working two part-time jobs to put herself through UCD, because gov’t grant money does not cover all the costs for her college education (I am a low-income disabled parent). Now she is going to have to struggle even harder to make ends meet. What, will she have to get a third part-time job now? How is she going to find time to study?
The Sodexho workers have the option to leave their poor paying jobs and go elsewhere. Students do not have that choice. It would be far better if students took over the Sodexho workers’ positions. The University is supposed to be in place for STUDENTS, not low wage earners who can get jobs at fast food joints, big box stores, etc.
Am I opposed to what happened? Yes and no. I do not approve of civil disobedience – it is a dangerous concept to indulge in and can lead to killings as it did at Kent State during the Viet Nam era. I am very disappointed students will have to absorb the increase through tuition/fee hikes. Students are often desperately poor themselves, so all that has happened is cost has been shifted to another group of poor folks. The University itself continues to pay its administrators enormous salaries while hiking tuition. I am not happy Sodexho workers are taking away jobs from students, who need work on campus. The only thing that I am happy about is that a light has been shown on the University’s practice of non-competitive bidding process that allowed Sodexho workers to take away student jobs.
Every time tuition goes up at public univesities, some low income student is shut out of college because grant money doesn’t cover all costs of a university education.
FINALLY!
FINALLY!
FINALLY!
FINALLY!
First, Kent State was not civil disobedience, it was a protest- a legal assembly of people.
The responsibility for danger during civil disobedience fall the the reaction of the state not on the actions of those civilly disobeying.
I think protesting is often confused with the concept of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is Gandhi walking to the sea to harvest salt illegally. Protesting is marching, chanting, picketing, etc.
I think the sitting down in the intersection was meant to be civil disobedience but a key concept was missed – the act committed during civil disobedience should highlight the injustice being committed. So yes, blocking an intersection did not highlight the injustice. They should have blocked a Sodexho dining commons, but such is life.
First, Kent State was not civil disobedience, it was a protest- a legal assembly of people.
The responsibility for danger during civil disobedience fall the the reaction of the state not on the actions of those civilly disobeying.
I think protesting is often confused with the concept of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is Gandhi walking to the sea to harvest salt illegally. Protesting is marching, chanting, picketing, etc.
I think the sitting down in the intersection was meant to be civil disobedience but a key concept was missed – the act committed during civil disobedience should highlight the injustice being committed. So yes, blocking an intersection did not highlight the injustice. They should have blocked a Sodexho dining commons, but such is life.
First, Kent State was not civil disobedience, it was a protest- a legal assembly of people.
The responsibility for danger during civil disobedience fall the the reaction of the state not on the actions of those civilly disobeying.
I think protesting is often confused with the concept of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is Gandhi walking to the sea to harvest salt illegally. Protesting is marching, chanting, picketing, etc.
I think the sitting down in the intersection was meant to be civil disobedience but a key concept was missed – the act committed during civil disobedience should highlight the injustice being committed. So yes, blocking an intersection did not highlight the injustice. They should have blocked a Sodexho dining commons, but such is life.
First, Kent State was not civil disobedience, it was a protest- a legal assembly of people.
The responsibility for danger during civil disobedience fall the the reaction of the state not on the actions of those civilly disobeying.
I think protesting is often confused with the concept of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is Gandhi walking to the sea to harvest salt illegally. Protesting is marching, chanting, picketing, etc.
I think the sitting down in the intersection was meant to be civil disobedience but a key concept was missed – the act committed during civil disobedience should highlight the injustice being committed. So yes, blocking an intersection did not highlight the injustice. They should have blocked a Sodexho dining commons, but such is life.
David:
Sometimes you do drink the kool-aid don’t you? First of all, this was not and never would have been a “life and death” situation. Can we back off on the over-heated rhetoric a little? Unionization of coal miners, farmworkers, etc. might be life and death but unionization of cafeteria workers on a univ. campus in California can hardly be described in such abusrd terms without someone bursting into laughter. Come on. Get a grip.
Secondly, the union got what it wanted and then promptly started griping about the timeline. Just goes to prove some folks ain’t never happy. They get what they want and then immediately start whining about the way they got it. The nine month timeline is simply an estimate for how long it may take to sort out the employee’s individual situations. Some may be near retirement and so staying in Sodexho’s pension plan may be better for them than simply being placed in the univ. plan with no or little time invested. When Riverside switched over a number of employees were in effect shafted by the sudden transistion to a univ. system. Steps are being taken to ensure that workers are treated respectfully and with care.
Next, you should know that some workers will lose their jobs. This is the outcome that you wanted and yes, some people could lose their jobs over it. This is simply because of the standards the univ. requires for employment. (Max did a good job of explaining this) Background checks, for example, may screen some out. For others, resident or alien status could be an issue. You wanted everyone to be univ. employees and now univ. standards will take over. Fortunately, the univ. has outlined a careful, deliberative process for evaluating each employee’s case. You should be congratulating the univ. for this level of concern and care instead of jumping on the bandwagon.
Finally, the criticisms of Lois Wolk are way off base. If there was one person who contributed to this outcome it was Lois, not the councilmembers, nor the “living wage.” It was Lois who did not back down and she and she alone deserves the most credit for the outcome. Her and the Chancellor. Anyone who says anything different is just ignorant.
Finally, 1:40 p.m. gets it. The winners in this battle? The workers. Most of all, the union. The losers? The students who will now have to pay extra for the cost of higher meal fees.
So it’s over now and done. Let’s drop the union stooge mentality and move ahead.
David:
Sometimes you do drink the kool-aid don’t you? First of all, this was not and never would have been a “life and death” situation. Can we back off on the over-heated rhetoric a little? Unionization of coal miners, farmworkers, etc. might be life and death but unionization of cafeteria workers on a univ. campus in California can hardly be described in such abusrd terms without someone bursting into laughter. Come on. Get a grip.
Secondly, the union got what it wanted and then promptly started griping about the timeline. Just goes to prove some folks ain’t never happy. They get what they want and then immediately start whining about the way they got it. The nine month timeline is simply an estimate for how long it may take to sort out the employee’s individual situations. Some may be near retirement and so staying in Sodexho’s pension plan may be better for them than simply being placed in the univ. plan with no or little time invested. When Riverside switched over a number of employees were in effect shafted by the sudden transistion to a univ. system. Steps are being taken to ensure that workers are treated respectfully and with care.
Next, you should know that some workers will lose their jobs. This is the outcome that you wanted and yes, some people could lose their jobs over it. This is simply because of the standards the univ. requires for employment. (Max did a good job of explaining this) Background checks, for example, may screen some out. For others, resident or alien status could be an issue. You wanted everyone to be univ. employees and now univ. standards will take over. Fortunately, the univ. has outlined a careful, deliberative process for evaluating each employee’s case. You should be congratulating the univ. for this level of concern and care instead of jumping on the bandwagon.
Finally, the criticisms of Lois Wolk are way off base. If there was one person who contributed to this outcome it was Lois, not the councilmembers, nor the “living wage.” It was Lois who did not back down and she and she alone deserves the most credit for the outcome. Her and the Chancellor. Anyone who says anything different is just ignorant.
Finally, 1:40 p.m. gets it. The winners in this battle? The workers. Most of all, the union. The losers? The students who will now have to pay extra for the cost of higher meal fees.
So it’s over now and done. Let’s drop the union stooge mentality and move ahead.
David:
Sometimes you do drink the kool-aid don’t you? First of all, this was not and never would have been a “life and death” situation. Can we back off on the over-heated rhetoric a little? Unionization of coal miners, farmworkers, etc. might be life and death but unionization of cafeteria workers on a univ. campus in California can hardly be described in such abusrd terms without someone bursting into laughter. Come on. Get a grip.
Secondly, the union got what it wanted and then promptly started griping about the timeline. Just goes to prove some folks ain’t never happy. They get what they want and then immediately start whining about the way they got it. The nine month timeline is simply an estimate for how long it may take to sort out the employee’s individual situations. Some may be near retirement and so staying in Sodexho’s pension plan may be better for them than simply being placed in the univ. plan with no or little time invested. When Riverside switched over a number of employees were in effect shafted by the sudden transistion to a univ. system. Steps are being taken to ensure that workers are treated respectfully and with care.
Next, you should know that some workers will lose their jobs. This is the outcome that you wanted and yes, some people could lose their jobs over it. This is simply because of the standards the univ. requires for employment. (Max did a good job of explaining this) Background checks, for example, may screen some out. For others, resident or alien status could be an issue. You wanted everyone to be univ. employees and now univ. standards will take over. Fortunately, the univ. has outlined a careful, deliberative process for evaluating each employee’s case. You should be congratulating the univ. for this level of concern and care instead of jumping on the bandwagon.
Finally, the criticisms of Lois Wolk are way off base. If there was one person who contributed to this outcome it was Lois, not the councilmembers, nor the “living wage.” It was Lois who did not back down and she and she alone deserves the most credit for the outcome. Her and the Chancellor. Anyone who says anything different is just ignorant.
Finally, 1:40 p.m. gets it. The winners in this battle? The workers. Most of all, the union. The losers? The students who will now have to pay extra for the cost of higher meal fees.
So it’s over now and done. Let’s drop the union stooge mentality and move ahead.
David:
Sometimes you do drink the kool-aid don’t you? First of all, this was not and never would have been a “life and death” situation. Can we back off on the over-heated rhetoric a little? Unionization of coal miners, farmworkers, etc. might be life and death but unionization of cafeteria workers on a univ. campus in California can hardly be described in such abusrd terms without someone bursting into laughter. Come on. Get a grip.
Secondly, the union got what it wanted and then promptly started griping about the timeline. Just goes to prove some folks ain’t never happy. They get what they want and then immediately start whining about the way they got it. The nine month timeline is simply an estimate for how long it may take to sort out the employee’s individual situations. Some may be near retirement and so staying in Sodexho’s pension plan may be better for them than simply being placed in the univ. plan with no or little time invested. When Riverside switched over a number of employees were in effect shafted by the sudden transistion to a univ. system. Steps are being taken to ensure that workers are treated respectfully and with care.
Next, you should know that some workers will lose their jobs. This is the outcome that you wanted and yes, some people could lose their jobs over it. This is simply because of the standards the univ. requires for employment. (Max did a good job of explaining this) Background checks, for example, may screen some out. For others, resident or alien status could be an issue. You wanted everyone to be univ. employees and now univ. standards will take over. Fortunately, the univ. has outlined a careful, deliberative process for evaluating each employee’s case. You should be congratulating the univ. for this level of concern and care instead of jumping on the bandwagon.
Finally, the criticisms of Lois Wolk are way off base. If there was one person who contributed to this outcome it was Lois, not the councilmembers, nor the “living wage.” It was Lois who did not back down and she and she alone deserves the most credit for the outcome. Her and the Chancellor. Anyone who says anything different is just ignorant.
Finally, 1:40 p.m. gets it. The winners in this battle? The workers. Most of all, the union. The losers? The students who will now have to pay extra for the cost of higher meal fees.
So it’s over now and done. Let’s drop the union stooge mentality and move ahead.
I just don’t understand why a “low-income disabled” person would begrudge another low-income person an opportunity to earn slightly higher income and some health insurance. None of these workers are going to be wealthy – even with the move to UCD staff status. Their jobs will still be on the lower income level. This person’s daughter is working her way through college so she can join the upper middle class and enjoy a much higher income in the future. I just can’t understand the reasoning that someone else should subsidize her education by being satisfied with poverty level wages and inadequate access to health care.
Congratulations Sodexho workers! A happier and healthier workforce benefits us all.
I just don’t understand why a “low-income disabled” person would begrudge another low-income person an opportunity to earn slightly higher income and some health insurance. None of these workers are going to be wealthy – even with the move to UCD staff status. Their jobs will still be on the lower income level. This person’s daughter is working her way through college so she can join the upper middle class and enjoy a much higher income in the future. I just can’t understand the reasoning that someone else should subsidize her education by being satisfied with poverty level wages and inadequate access to health care.
Congratulations Sodexho workers! A happier and healthier workforce benefits us all.
I just don’t understand why a “low-income disabled” person would begrudge another low-income person an opportunity to earn slightly higher income and some health insurance. None of these workers are going to be wealthy – even with the move to UCD staff status. Their jobs will still be on the lower income level. This person’s daughter is working her way through college so she can join the upper middle class and enjoy a much higher income in the future. I just can’t understand the reasoning that someone else should subsidize her education by being satisfied with poverty level wages and inadequate access to health care.
Congratulations Sodexho workers! A happier and healthier workforce benefits us all.
I just don’t understand why a “low-income disabled” person would begrudge another low-income person an opportunity to earn slightly higher income and some health insurance. None of these workers are going to be wealthy – even with the move to UCD staff status. Their jobs will still be on the lower income level. This person’s daughter is working her way through college so she can join the upper middle class and enjoy a much higher income in the future. I just can’t understand the reasoning that someone else should subsidize her education by being satisfied with poverty level wages and inadequate access to health care.
Congratulations Sodexho workers! A happier and healthier workforce benefits us all.
Couldn’t disagree with anonymous more, I think health insurance is a life or death issue.
Couldn’t disagree with anonymous more, I think health insurance is a life or death issue.
Couldn’t disagree with anonymous more, I think health insurance is a life or death issue.
Couldn’t disagree with anonymous more, I think health insurance is a life or death issue.
I would feel better about this deal if the university would have permitted the students (present and future) who are going to have to pay for it would have had a chance to vote on it — yes or no.
This is yet another move which makes a so-called affordable public education unaffordable to many.
I recently found a copy of my first quarter’s bill from UCSB for the fall 1982 quarter, which included all my fees for my on-campus dorm, all my food, my medical care and of course reg fees: $326. If you adjust that number for inflation, it is the equivalent of $734.71 today. For the full year, that would be an expense of $2,204.13.
This is from the UCSB financial aid website: “The exact cost of attending the University of California, Santa Barbara will vary. Generally, however, the total undergraduate costs, including fees, books and supplies, transportation, and personal expenses for three quarters on campus during the 2007-2008 academic year are estimated to be $25,000 for residents of California and $45,000 for nonresidents, including international students.”
It sure is great that the UC Davis undergrads are going to have to pay $2,000,000 a year more to make the Sodexho workers happy.
I would feel better about this deal if the university would have permitted the students (present and future) who are going to have to pay for it would have had a chance to vote on it — yes or no.
This is yet another move which makes a so-called affordable public education unaffordable to many.
I recently found a copy of my first quarter’s bill from UCSB for the fall 1982 quarter, which included all my fees for my on-campus dorm, all my food, my medical care and of course reg fees: $326. If you adjust that number for inflation, it is the equivalent of $734.71 today. For the full year, that would be an expense of $2,204.13.
This is from the UCSB financial aid website: “The exact cost of attending the University of California, Santa Barbara will vary. Generally, however, the total undergraduate costs, including fees, books and supplies, transportation, and personal expenses for three quarters on campus during the 2007-2008 academic year are estimated to be $25,000 for residents of California and $45,000 for nonresidents, including international students.”
It sure is great that the UC Davis undergrads are going to have to pay $2,000,000 a year more to make the Sodexho workers happy.
I would feel better about this deal if the university would have permitted the students (present and future) who are going to have to pay for it would have had a chance to vote on it — yes or no.
This is yet another move which makes a so-called affordable public education unaffordable to many.
I recently found a copy of my first quarter’s bill from UCSB for the fall 1982 quarter, which included all my fees for my on-campus dorm, all my food, my medical care and of course reg fees: $326. If you adjust that number for inflation, it is the equivalent of $734.71 today. For the full year, that would be an expense of $2,204.13.
This is from the UCSB financial aid website: “The exact cost of attending the University of California, Santa Barbara will vary. Generally, however, the total undergraduate costs, including fees, books and supplies, transportation, and personal expenses for three quarters on campus during the 2007-2008 academic year are estimated to be $25,000 for residents of California and $45,000 for nonresidents, including international students.”
It sure is great that the UC Davis undergrads are going to have to pay $2,000,000 a year more to make the Sodexho workers happy.
I would feel better about this deal if the university would have permitted the students (present and future) who are going to have to pay for it would have had a chance to vote on it — yes or no.
This is yet another move which makes a so-called affordable public education unaffordable to many.
I recently found a copy of my first quarter’s bill from UCSB for the fall 1982 quarter, which included all my fees for my on-campus dorm, all my food, my medical care and of course reg fees: $326. If you adjust that number for inflation, it is the equivalent of $734.71 today. For the full year, that would be an expense of $2,204.13.
This is from the UCSB financial aid website: “The exact cost of attending the University of California, Santa Barbara will vary. Generally, however, the total undergraduate costs, including fees, books and supplies, transportation, and personal expenses for three quarters on campus during the 2007-2008 academic year are estimated to be $25,000 for residents of California and $45,000 for nonresidents, including international students.”
It sure is great that the UC Davis undergrads are going to have to pay $2,000,000 a year more to make the Sodexho workers happy.
Rich,
The numbers do not add up.
Students are not going to be paying $2,000 per year more based simply on the wage increase for the Sodexho workers.
Also, it doesn’t seem to make any sense that you are saying that the workers wages have gone up over the rate of inflation over the last twenty-five to thirty years. Certainly not enough to make for the kind of fee hikes that you are claiming.
Rich, your math is a little fuzzy for my taste.
Rich,
The numbers do not add up.
Students are not going to be paying $2,000 per year more based simply on the wage increase for the Sodexho workers.
Also, it doesn’t seem to make any sense that you are saying that the workers wages have gone up over the rate of inflation over the last twenty-five to thirty years. Certainly not enough to make for the kind of fee hikes that you are claiming.
Rich, your math is a little fuzzy for my taste.
Rich,
The numbers do not add up.
Students are not going to be paying $2,000 per year more based simply on the wage increase for the Sodexho workers.
Also, it doesn’t seem to make any sense that you are saying that the workers wages have gone up over the rate of inflation over the last twenty-five to thirty years. Certainly not enough to make for the kind of fee hikes that you are claiming.
Rich, your math is a little fuzzy for my taste.
Rich,
The numbers do not add up.
Students are not going to be paying $2,000 per year more based simply on the wage increase for the Sodexho workers.
Also, it doesn’t seem to make any sense that you are saying that the workers wages have gone up over the rate of inflation over the last twenty-five to thirty years. Certainly not enough to make for the kind of fee hikes that you are claiming.
Rich, your math is a little fuzzy for my taste.
DPD:
What a patronizing commment: “I think health insurances is a life or death issue.”
You effete liberal. What do you know? You cozy up to these office worker unions like you’re on the front line of the labor movement. My forefathers died and were sickened by industrial processes they had to endure to earn a wage. And you want to compare that to cafeteria workers on a university campus?
What a pathetic thing to say. How dare you compare the two.
DPD:
What a patronizing commment: “I think health insurances is a life or death issue.”
You effete liberal. What do you know? You cozy up to these office worker unions like you’re on the front line of the labor movement. My forefathers died and were sickened by industrial processes they had to endure to earn a wage. And you want to compare that to cafeteria workers on a university campus?
What a pathetic thing to say. How dare you compare the two.
DPD:
What a patronizing commment: “I think health insurances is a life or death issue.”
You effete liberal. What do you know? You cozy up to these office worker unions like you’re on the front line of the labor movement. My forefathers died and were sickened by industrial processes they had to endure to earn a wage. And you want to compare that to cafeteria workers on a university campus?
What a pathetic thing to say. How dare you compare the two.
DPD:
What a patronizing commment: “I think health insurances is a life or death issue.”
You effete liberal. What do you know? You cozy up to these office worker unions like you’re on the front line of the labor movement. My forefathers died and were sickened by industrial processes they had to endure to earn a wage. And you want to compare that to cafeteria workers on a university campus?
What a pathetic thing to say. How dare you compare the two.
I think your anger is misplaced. I was not comparing them. But, by the same token, I met people whose lives were placed into severe jeopardy due to lack of health care. One woman, will carry a large debt to her grave for an appendectomy and another man almost died for lack of ability to buy heart medicine.
I think your anger is misplaced. I was not comparing them. But, by the same token, I met people whose lives were placed into severe jeopardy due to lack of health care. One woman, will carry a large debt to her grave for an appendectomy and another man almost died for lack of ability to buy heart medicine.
I think your anger is misplaced. I was not comparing them. But, by the same token, I met people whose lives were placed into severe jeopardy due to lack of health care. One woman, will carry a large debt to her grave for an appendectomy and another man almost died for lack of ability to buy heart medicine.
I think your anger is misplaced. I was not comparing them. But, by the same token, I met people whose lives were placed into severe jeopardy due to lack of health care. One woman, will carry a large debt to her grave for an appendectomy and another man almost died for lack of ability to buy heart medicine.
Let the poster who does not have health insurance through an employer cast the first stone.
Over the last 80 years since the construcion of Hoover Dam our health insurance system has evolved to where most people get their health insurance through their work. It seems that many posters here think this goes on in a vacuum, that the food service workers are not worthy of having what most other workers in America get, health insurance through their work.
Of course paying decent wages makes prices go up and causes other economic impacts. This is the argument that is often used against the minimum wage so lets take these arguments all the way out and ask these posters if they even believe in a minimum wage.
The one thing anyone said that makes sense was the post about Wolk. I think she probably did play an important role with the chancellor that was not in the public eye.
As for Mr Rifkin your analysis is too simplistic when comparing costs, there are, of course, so many variables that your comparison is worthless. Still I have observed a pattern in your writing that I think is worthy of note.
Over the last few years I have read that you want to get rid of tenure for teachers, think other public servents like firefighters are over paid. You have suggested that we should balance the local school budget by no longer funding health insurance for teachers without seeming to understand that wages and benefits have been negotiated as a package for many years so that your suggestion really amounts to a pay cut for the teachers. Now you want students to be able to vote on a labor contract between the university and its employees and subcontractors to see if the students are willing to pay for the workers to have decent wages and benefits. I’m sure the regents would have problems with this concept of students getting to vote on how the university is managed. Be that as it may the real question I have for you is why do you have such antipathy towards working people?
Ron Glick
Let the poster who does not have health insurance through an employer cast the first stone.
Over the last 80 years since the construcion of Hoover Dam our health insurance system has evolved to where most people get their health insurance through their work. It seems that many posters here think this goes on in a vacuum, that the food service workers are not worthy of having what most other workers in America get, health insurance through their work.
Of course paying decent wages makes prices go up and causes other economic impacts. This is the argument that is often used against the minimum wage so lets take these arguments all the way out and ask these posters if they even believe in a minimum wage.
The one thing anyone said that makes sense was the post about Wolk. I think she probably did play an important role with the chancellor that was not in the public eye.
As for Mr Rifkin your analysis is too simplistic when comparing costs, there are, of course, so many variables that your comparison is worthless. Still I have observed a pattern in your writing that I think is worthy of note.
Over the last few years I have read that you want to get rid of tenure for teachers, think other public servents like firefighters are over paid. You have suggested that we should balance the local school budget by no longer funding health insurance for teachers without seeming to understand that wages and benefits have been negotiated as a package for many years so that your suggestion really amounts to a pay cut for the teachers. Now you want students to be able to vote on a labor contract between the university and its employees and subcontractors to see if the students are willing to pay for the workers to have decent wages and benefits. I’m sure the regents would have problems with this concept of students getting to vote on how the university is managed. Be that as it may the real question I have for you is why do you have such antipathy towards working people?
Ron Glick
Let the poster who does not have health insurance through an employer cast the first stone.
Over the last 80 years since the construcion of Hoover Dam our health insurance system has evolved to where most people get their health insurance through their work. It seems that many posters here think this goes on in a vacuum, that the food service workers are not worthy of having what most other workers in America get, health insurance through their work.
Of course paying decent wages makes prices go up and causes other economic impacts. This is the argument that is often used against the minimum wage so lets take these arguments all the way out and ask these posters if they even believe in a minimum wage.
The one thing anyone said that makes sense was the post about Wolk. I think she probably did play an important role with the chancellor that was not in the public eye.
As for Mr Rifkin your analysis is too simplistic when comparing costs, there are, of course, so many variables that your comparison is worthless. Still I have observed a pattern in your writing that I think is worthy of note.
Over the last few years I have read that you want to get rid of tenure for teachers, think other public servents like firefighters are over paid. You have suggested that we should balance the local school budget by no longer funding health insurance for teachers without seeming to understand that wages and benefits have been negotiated as a package for many years so that your suggestion really amounts to a pay cut for the teachers. Now you want students to be able to vote on a labor contract between the university and its employees and subcontractors to see if the students are willing to pay for the workers to have decent wages and benefits. I’m sure the regents would have problems with this concept of students getting to vote on how the university is managed. Be that as it may the real question I have for you is why do you have such antipathy towards working people?
Ron Glick
Let the poster who does not have health insurance through an employer cast the first stone.
Over the last 80 years since the construcion of Hoover Dam our health insurance system has evolved to where most people get their health insurance through their work. It seems that many posters here think this goes on in a vacuum, that the food service workers are not worthy of having what most other workers in America get, health insurance through their work.
Of course paying decent wages makes prices go up and causes other economic impacts. This is the argument that is often used against the minimum wage so lets take these arguments all the way out and ask these posters if they even believe in a minimum wage.
The one thing anyone said that makes sense was the post about Wolk. I think she probably did play an important role with the chancellor that was not in the public eye.
As for Mr Rifkin your analysis is too simplistic when comparing costs, there are, of course, so many variables that your comparison is worthless. Still I have observed a pattern in your writing that I think is worthy of note.
Over the last few years I have read that you want to get rid of tenure for teachers, think other public servents like firefighters are over paid. You have suggested that we should balance the local school budget by no longer funding health insurance for teachers without seeming to understand that wages and benefits have been negotiated as a package for many years so that your suggestion really amounts to a pay cut for the teachers. Now you want students to be able to vote on a labor contract between the university and its employees and subcontractors to see if the students are willing to pay for the workers to have decent wages and benefits. I’m sure the regents would have problems with this concept of students getting to vote on how the university is managed. Be that as it may the real question I have for you is why do you have such antipathy towards working people?
Ron Glick
Over the last few years I have read that you want to get rid of tenure for teachers…
Yes. I would get rid of tenure for university professors, too. I believe people who are competent should keep their jobs and those who are not should not.
… think other public servents like firefighters are over paid.
Firefighters (particularly in Davis) are quite exceptional. They are overpaid and overbenefitted. The biggest losers in rewarding them so much are other city workers. The income to the city does not grow when we overpay and overbenefit firefighters. As such, they are either taking money away from secretaries, landscapers, custodians, clerks, cops, etc. or they are causing the city to not hire as many people as it needs in those other areas.
“You have suggested that we should balance the local school budget by no longer funding health insurance for teachers…”
My preference would be that we would keep all of the necessary teachers and administrators and have them temporarily give back their last increase in their wages. If we did that, we would not have to lay off any teachers, other than those cut back due to declining enrollment. Sadly, the union rejected that idea.
As an alternative, I did suggest (as you say) we could temporarily not fund the health insurance benefits for district personnel (but allow them to pay this expense themselves while the budget crisis is ongoing). The only reason to do this would be to preserve the jobs of the teachers and staff which are going to be fired if we go in the direction we currently are going.
I know this is terribly callous of me, trying to preserve the jobs of necessary teachers and staff.
“… without seeming to understand that wages and benefits have been negotiated as a package for many years so that your suggestion really amounts to a pay cut for the teachers.”
Agreed. It is a paycut for teachers, staff and adminstrators, but it would be temporary, until the state budget crisis passes.
If we don’t do this — and you know the teachers’ union is too strong to allow it — we are going to cut 100% of the wages and benefits of those who are let go and that will damage the educations of many if not all students.
“Now you want students to be able to vote on a labor contract between the university and its employees and subcontractors to see if the students are willing to pay for the workers to have decent wages and benefits.”
Yes. I think it is fair that the people who will be paying the bill have some say in it. The administration of UCD is not going to pay this expense. Sodexho Corp is not paying this bill. It is being passed on to students. So, yes, let them vote.
“I’m sure the regents would have problems with this concept of students getting to vote on how the university is managed.”
I think the regents (going back 25 years) deserve rebuke for allowing the UC system to go off track: it was designed to provide an affordable, quality public education. It is no longer affordable, because we pay everyone in the public sector too much money (in inflation adjusted dollars). As you know from my column, I decried the fact that the inflation adusted salary paid to Chancellor Vanderhoef is TRIPLE what we paid Chancellor Meyer (whose daughter was a high school classmate of mine) 20 years ago. We are paying everyone on campus — including the outside contractors — way too much. These costs add up. They have made a UC education way too expensive for many, if not most families. I am also very much against the added fees to pay for Div 1 sports and to pay for all of the athletic facilities.
“Be that as it may the real question I have for you is why do you have such antipathy towards working people?”
I loathe your use of the term “working people.” All of us who have jobs, Ron, are working people. Most of us who pay taxes are “working people.”
I have no problem with individual workers trying to make as much money as they can. People who are productive deserve to be rewarded. I believe productive public school teachers are terribly underpaid.
I also believe in public service. I do not believe people who choose to work in the government today, however, need 2-3 times as much money in REAL DOLLARS as their predecessors made just 20 years ago. I believe we have completely lost the idea of public service. When we pay prison guards an average of $108,000 per year, that is private service on the public dollar.
Here’s a good example of turning public service into private riches: a person who works five years for the city of Davis can retire and get free lifetime medical insurance. (All city of Davis employees get this benefit, as long as they work at least 5 years.) That is going to cost the taxpayers approximately $1,000,000 for each retireee who lives 30 years after employment. Is that reasonable?
I don’t blame the Sodexho workers for tryiing to get the most money they can get, with a nice benefits package. That is their right to try for a good deal. I blame those who will be passing this cost onto students and future students.
Also, as an aside, I strongly oppose the idea of tying health insurance to employment. We are probably never going to change this system, but it is ultimately not efficient, not good for job creation, and not a good way to make sure everyone gets covered. We could do much better. But entrenched interests, particularly labor unions*, would not allow a change.
* That said, Andy Stern of the SEIU has been an exceptional leader in this regard. He has called for just what I favor: universal health insurance paid for by income taxes.
Over the last few years I have read that you want to get rid of tenure for teachers…
Yes. I would get rid of tenure for university professors, too. I believe people who are competent should keep their jobs and those who are not should not.
… think other public servents like firefighters are over paid.
Firefighters (particularly in Davis) are quite exceptional. They are overpaid and overbenefitted. The biggest losers in rewarding them so much are other city workers. The income to the city does not grow when we overpay and overbenefit firefighters. As such, they are either taking money away from secretaries, landscapers, custodians, clerks, cops, etc. or they are causing the city to not hire as many people as it needs in those other areas.
“You have suggested that we should balance the local school budget by no longer funding health insurance for teachers…”
My preference would be that we would keep all of the necessary teachers and administrators and have them temporarily give back their last increase in their wages. If we did that, we would not have to lay off any teachers, other than those cut back due to declining enrollment. Sadly, the union rejected that idea.
As an alternative, I did suggest (as you say) we could temporarily not fund the health insurance benefits for district personnel (but allow them to pay this expense themselves while the budget crisis is ongoing). The only reason to do this would be to preserve the jobs of the teachers and staff which are going to be fired if we go in the direction we currently are going.
I know this is terribly callous of me, trying to preserve the jobs of necessary teachers and staff.
“… without seeming to understand that wages and benefits have been negotiated as a package for many years so that your suggestion really amounts to a pay cut for the teachers.”
Agreed. It is a paycut for teachers, staff and adminstrators, but it would be temporary, until the state budget crisis passes.
If we don’t do this — and you know the teachers’ union is too strong to allow it — we are going to cut 100% of the wages and benefits of those who are let go and that will damage the educations of many if not all students.
“Now you want students to be able to vote on a labor contract between the university and its employees and subcontractors to see if the students are willing to pay for the workers to have decent wages and benefits.”
Yes. I think it is fair that the people who will be paying the bill have some say in it. The administration of UCD is not going to pay this expense. Sodexho Corp is not paying this bill. It is being passed on to students. So, yes, let them vote.
“I’m sure the regents would have problems with this concept of students getting to vote on how the university is managed.”
I think the regents (going back 25 years) deserve rebuke for allowing the UC system to go off track: it was designed to provide an affordable, quality public education. It is no longer affordable, because we pay everyone in the public sector too much money (in inflation adjusted dollars). As you know from my column, I decried the fact that the inflation adusted salary paid to Chancellor Vanderhoef is TRIPLE what we paid Chancellor Meyer (whose daughter was a high school classmate of mine) 20 years ago. We are paying everyone on campus — including the outside contractors — way too much. These costs add up. They have made a UC education way too expensive for many, if not most families. I am also very much against the added fees to pay for Div 1 sports and to pay for all of the athletic facilities.
“Be that as it may the real question I have for you is why do you have such antipathy towards working people?”
I loathe your use of the term “working people.” All of us who have jobs, Ron, are working people. Most of us who pay taxes are “working people.”
I have no problem with individual workers trying to make as much money as they can. People who are productive deserve to be rewarded. I believe productive public school teachers are terribly underpaid.
I also believe in public service. I do not believe people who choose to work in the government today, however, need 2-3 times as much money in REAL DOLLARS as their predecessors made just 20 years ago. I believe we have completely lost the idea of public service. When we pay prison guards an average of $108,000 per year, that is private service on the public dollar.
Here’s a good example of turning public service into private riches: a person who works five years for the city of Davis can retire and get free lifetime medical insurance. (All city of Davis employees get this benefit, as long as they work at least 5 years.) That is going to cost the taxpayers approximately $1,000,000 for each retireee who lives 30 years after employment. Is that reasonable?
I don’t blame the Sodexho workers for tryiing to get the most money they can get, with a nice benefits package. That is their right to try for a good deal. I blame those who will be passing this cost onto students and future students.
Also, as an aside, I strongly oppose the idea of tying health insurance to employment. We are probably never going to change this system, but it is ultimately not efficient, not good for job creation, and not a good way to make sure everyone gets covered. We could do much better. But entrenched interests, particularly labor unions*, would not allow a change.
* That said, Andy Stern of the SEIU has been an exceptional leader in this regard. He has called for just what I favor: universal health insurance paid for by income taxes.
Over the last few years I have read that you want to get rid of tenure for teachers…
Yes. I would get rid of tenure for university professors, too. I believe people who are competent should keep their jobs and those who are not should not.
… think other public servents like firefighters are over paid.
Firefighters (particularly in Davis) are quite exceptional. They are overpaid and overbenefitted. The biggest losers in rewarding them so much are other city workers. The income to the city does not grow when we overpay and overbenefit firefighters. As such, they are either taking money away from secretaries, landscapers, custodians, clerks, cops, etc. or they are causing the city to not hire as many people as it needs in those other areas.
“You have suggested that we should balance the local school budget by no longer funding health insurance for teachers…”
My preference would be that we would keep all of the necessary teachers and administrators and have them temporarily give back their last increase in their wages. If we did that, we would not have to lay off any teachers, other than those cut back due to declining enrollment. Sadly, the union rejected that idea.
As an alternative, I did suggest (as you say) we could temporarily not fund the health insurance benefits for district personnel (but allow them to pay this expense themselves while the budget crisis is ongoing). The only reason to do this would be to preserve the jobs of the teachers and staff which are going to be fired if we go in the direction we currently are going.
I know this is terribly callous of me, trying to preserve the jobs of necessary teachers and staff.
“… without seeming to understand that wages and benefits have been negotiated as a package for many years so that your suggestion really amounts to a pay cut for the teachers.”
Agreed. It is a paycut for teachers, staff and adminstrators, but it would be temporary, until the state budget crisis passes.
If we don’t do this — and you know the teachers’ union is too strong to allow it — we are going to cut 100% of the wages and benefits of those who are let go and that will damage the educations of many if not all students.
“Now you want students to be able to vote on a labor contract between the university and its employees and subcontractors to see if the students are willing to pay for the workers to have decent wages and benefits.”
Yes. I think it is fair that the people who will be paying the bill have some say in it. The administration of UCD is not going to pay this expense. Sodexho Corp is not paying this bill. It is being passed on to students. So, yes, let them vote.
“I’m sure the regents would have problems with this concept of students getting to vote on how the university is managed.”
I think the regents (going back 25 years) deserve rebuke for allowing the UC system to go off track: it was designed to provide an affordable, quality public education. It is no longer affordable, because we pay everyone in the public sector too much money (in inflation adjusted dollars). As you know from my column, I decried the fact that the inflation adusted salary paid to Chancellor Vanderhoef is TRIPLE what we paid Chancellor Meyer (whose daughter was a high school classmate of mine) 20 years ago. We are paying everyone on campus — including the outside contractors — way too much. These costs add up. They have made a UC education way too expensive for many, if not most families. I am also very much against the added fees to pay for Div 1 sports and to pay for all of the athletic facilities.
“Be that as it may the real question I have for you is why do you have such antipathy towards working people?”
I loathe your use of the term “working people.” All of us who have jobs, Ron, are working people. Most of us who pay taxes are “working people.”
I have no problem with individual workers trying to make as much money as they can. People who are productive deserve to be rewarded. I believe productive public school teachers are terribly underpaid.
I also believe in public service. I do not believe people who choose to work in the government today, however, need 2-3 times as much money in REAL DOLLARS as their predecessors made just 20 years ago. I believe we have completely lost the idea of public service. When we pay prison guards an average of $108,000 per year, that is private service on the public dollar.
Here’s a good example of turning public service into private riches: a person who works five years for the city of Davis can retire and get free lifetime medical insurance. (All city of Davis employees get this benefit, as long as they work at least 5 years.) That is going to cost the taxpayers approximately $1,000,000 for each retireee who lives 30 years after employment. Is that reasonable?
I don’t blame the Sodexho workers for tryiing to get the most money they can get, with a nice benefits package. That is their right to try for a good deal. I blame those who will be passing this cost onto students and future students.
Also, as an aside, I strongly oppose the idea of tying health insurance to employment. We are probably never going to change this system, but it is ultimately not efficient, not good for job creation, and not a good way to make sure everyone gets covered. We could do much better. But entrenched interests, particularly labor unions*, would not allow a change.
* That said, Andy Stern of the SEIU has been an exceptional leader in this regard. He has called for just what I favor: universal health insurance paid for by income taxes.
Over the last few years I have read that you want to get rid of tenure for teachers…
Yes. I would get rid of tenure for university professors, too. I believe people who are competent should keep their jobs and those who are not should not.
… think other public servents like firefighters are over paid.
Firefighters (particularly in Davis) are quite exceptional. They are overpaid and overbenefitted. The biggest losers in rewarding them so much are other city workers. The income to the city does not grow when we overpay and overbenefit firefighters. As such, they are either taking money away from secretaries, landscapers, custodians, clerks, cops, etc. or they are causing the city to not hire as many people as it needs in those other areas.
“You have suggested that we should balance the local school budget by no longer funding health insurance for teachers…”
My preference would be that we would keep all of the necessary teachers and administrators and have them temporarily give back their last increase in their wages. If we did that, we would not have to lay off any teachers, other than those cut back due to declining enrollment. Sadly, the union rejected that idea.
As an alternative, I did suggest (as you say) we could temporarily not fund the health insurance benefits for district personnel (but allow them to pay this expense themselves while the budget crisis is ongoing). The only reason to do this would be to preserve the jobs of the teachers and staff which are going to be fired if we go in the direction we currently are going.
I know this is terribly callous of me, trying to preserve the jobs of necessary teachers and staff.
“… without seeming to understand that wages and benefits have been negotiated as a package for many years so that your suggestion really amounts to a pay cut for the teachers.”
Agreed. It is a paycut for teachers, staff and adminstrators, but it would be temporary, until the state budget crisis passes.
If we don’t do this — and you know the teachers’ union is too strong to allow it — we are going to cut 100% of the wages and benefits of those who are let go and that will damage the educations of many if not all students.
“Now you want students to be able to vote on a labor contract between the university and its employees and subcontractors to see if the students are willing to pay for the workers to have decent wages and benefits.”
Yes. I think it is fair that the people who will be paying the bill have some say in it. The administration of UCD is not going to pay this expense. Sodexho Corp is not paying this bill. It is being passed on to students. So, yes, let them vote.
“I’m sure the regents would have problems with this concept of students getting to vote on how the university is managed.”
I think the regents (going back 25 years) deserve rebuke for allowing the UC system to go off track: it was designed to provide an affordable, quality public education. It is no longer affordable, because we pay everyone in the public sector too much money (in inflation adjusted dollars). As you know from my column, I decried the fact that the inflation adusted salary paid to Chancellor Vanderhoef is TRIPLE what we paid Chancellor Meyer (whose daughter was a high school classmate of mine) 20 years ago. We are paying everyone on campus — including the outside contractors — way too much. These costs add up. They have made a UC education way too expensive for many, if not most families. I am also very much against the added fees to pay for Div 1 sports and to pay for all of the athletic facilities.
“Be that as it may the real question I have for you is why do you have such antipathy towards working people?”
I loathe your use of the term “working people.” All of us who have jobs, Ron, are working people. Most of us who pay taxes are “working people.”
I have no problem with individual workers trying to make as much money as they can. People who are productive deserve to be rewarded. I believe productive public school teachers are terribly underpaid.
I also believe in public service. I do not believe people who choose to work in the government today, however, need 2-3 times as much money in REAL DOLLARS as their predecessors made just 20 years ago. I believe we have completely lost the idea of public service. When we pay prison guards an average of $108,000 per year, that is private service on the public dollar.
Here’s a good example of turning public service into private riches: a person who works five years for the city of Davis can retire and get free lifetime medical insurance. (All city of Davis employees get this benefit, as long as they work at least 5 years.) That is going to cost the taxpayers approximately $1,000,000 for each retireee who lives 30 years after employment. Is that reasonable?
I don’t blame the Sodexho workers for tryiing to get the most money they can get, with a nice benefits package. That is their right to try for a good deal. I blame those who will be passing this cost onto students and future students.
Also, as an aside, I strongly oppose the idea of tying health insurance to employment. We are probably never going to change this system, but it is ultimately not efficient, not good for job creation, and not a good way to make sure everyone gets covered. We could do much better. But entrenched interests, particularly labor unions*, would not allow a change.
* That said, Andy Stern of the SEIU has been an exceptional leader in this regard. He has called for just what I favor: universal health insurance paid for by income taxes.
A number of good points were made here. Sodexho employee’s win, and who knows what number of them will lose their jobs due to standards the University, the State of California and the Federal Gov’t require.
Who will suffer the biggest loss? The students and their parents who now have to pay more because of the greedy unions. For the benefit of a few hundred people tens of thousands now have to pay more at UC. Thanks to the greedy unions.
What the unions don’t see coming their way is a steamroller reffered to as the National Economy. Public employee unions are the first ones to get rolled and they deserve it.
A number of good points were made here. Sodexho employee’s win, and who knows what number of them will lose their jobs due to standards the University, the State of California and the Federal Gov’t require.
Who will suffer the biggest loss? The students and their parents who now have to pay more because of the greedy unions. For the benefit of a few hundred people tens of thousands now have to pay more at UC. Thanks to the greedy unions.
What the unions don’t see coming their way is a steamroller reffered to as the National Economy. Public employee unions are the first ones to get rolled and they deserve it.
A number of good points were made here. Sodexho employee’s win, and who knows what number of them will lose their jobs due to standards the University, the State of California and the Federal Gov’t require.
Who will suffer the biggest loss? The students and their parents who now have to pay more because of the greedy unions. For the benefit of a few hundred people tens of thousands now have to pay more at UC. Thanks to the greedy unions.
What the unions don’t see coming their way is a steamroller reffered to as the National Economy. Public employee unions are the first ones to get rolled and they deserve it.
A number of good points were made here. Sodexho employee’s win, and who knows what number of them will lose their jobs due to standards the University, the State of California and the Federal Gov’t require.
Who will suffer the biggest loss? The students and their parents who now have to pay more because of the greedy unions. For the benefit of a few hundred people tens of thousands now have to pay more at UC. Thanks to the greedy unions.
What the unions don’t see coming their way is a steamroller reffered to as the National Economy. Public employee unions are the first ones to get rolled and they deserve it.
“Sodexho employee’s win, and who knows what number of them will lose their jobs due to standards the University, the State of California and the Federal Gov’t require.”
That’s pretty much unsubstantiated spin and speculation. My understanding is that basically the process is a formality whereby workers will simply fill out university paperwork and become university employees if they so choose.
“The students and their parents who now have to pay more because of the greedy unions. “
Aside from the fact that the students have overwhelming supported the food service workers, there is also this:
“While a portion of these increased costs will be passed on to students, UC Davis intends to moderate the impact by: gradually passing on the increased costs over time; potentially expanding and modifying retail food services at places such as the Silo Union and the Activities and Recreation Center; using some reserve funds from the capital reserves of Student Housing and the student unions; and negotiating with Sodexho for an appropriate level of financial participation in the new approach.”
So that sounds like a scare-tactic, straw man as well.
Finally, “Thanks to the greedy unions.”
The greedy low wage employees who will go from making $8 to $10 per hour now up to about $12 hour with benefits and protections. These people who are putting food on their families tables, how dare they seek a modest wage increase and better health benefits.
“Sodexho employee’s win, and who knows what number of them will lose their jobs due to standards the University, the State of California and the Federal Gov’t require.”
That’s pretty much unsubstantiated spin and speculation. My understanding is that basically the process is a formality whereby workers will simply fill out university paperwork and become university employees if they so choose.
“The students and their parents who now have to pay more because of the greedy unions. “
Aside from the fact that the students have overwhelming supported the food service workers, there is also this:
“While a portion of these increased costs will be passed on to students, UC Davis intends to moderate the impact by: gradually passing on the increased costs over time; potentially expanding and modifying retail food services at places such as the Silo Union and the Activities and Recreation Center; using some reserve funds from the capital reserves of Student Housing and the student unions; and negotiating with Sodexho for an appropriate level of financial participation in the new approach.”
So that sounds like a scare-tactic, straw man as well.
Finally, “Thanks to the greedy unions.”
The greedy low wage employees who will go from making $8 to $10 per hour now up to about $12 hour with benefits and protections. These people who are putting food on their families tables, how dare they seek a modest wage increase and better health benefits.
“Sodexho employee’s win, and who knows what number of them will lose their jobs due to standards the University, the State of California and the Federal Gov’t require.”
That’s pretty much unsubstantiated spin and speculation. My understanding is that basically the process is a formality whereby workers will simply fill out university paperwork and become university employees if they so choose.
“The students and their parents who now have to pay more because of the greedy unions. “
Aside from the fact that the students have overwhelming supported the food service workers, there is also this:
“While a portion of these increased costs will be passed on to students, UC Davis intends to moderate the impact by: gradually passing on the increased costs over time; potentially expanding and modifying retail food services at places such as the Silo Union and the Activities and Recreation Center; using some reserve funds from the capital reserves of Student Housing and the student unions; and negotiating with Sodexho for an appropriate level of financial participation in the new approach.”
So that sounds like a scare-tactic, straw man as well.
Finally, “Thanks to the greedy unions.”
The greedy low wage employees who will go from making $8 to $10 per hour now up to about $12 hour with benefits and protections. These people who are putting food on their families tables, how dare they seek a modest wage increase and better health benefits.
“Sodexho employee’s win, and who knows what number of them will lose their jobs due to standards the University, the State of California and the Federal Gov’t require.”
That’s pretty much unsubstantiated spin and speculation. My understanding is that basically the process is a formality whereby workers will simply fill out university paperwork and become university employees if they so choose.
“The students and their parents who now have to pay more because of the greedy unions. “
Aside from the fact that the students have overwhelming supported the food service workers, there is also this:
“While a portion of these increased costs will be passed on to students, UC Davis intends to moderate the impact by: gradually passing on the increased costs over time; potentially expanding and modifying retail food services at places such as the Silo Union and the Activities and Recreation Center; using some reserve funds from the capital reserves of Student Housing and the student unions; and negotiating with Sodexho for an appropriate level of financial participation in the new approach.”
So that sounds like a scare-tactic, straw man as well.
Finally, “Thanks to the greedy unions.”
The greedy low wage employees who will go from making $8 to $10 per hour now up to about $12 hour with benefits and protections. These people who are putting food on their families tables, how dare they seek a modest wage increase and better health benefits.
Ron Glick – I was asking the same question you asked Rich. Why is it that he has such antipathy towards working people? Seems bitter for some reason.
Nevertheless, congratulations to the workers.
Now it’s up to the university to decide how they want to cover the costs. The students do not have to carry the load as Rich has been suggesting. There are other pots of money. As someone said earlier the math does not add up.
Ron Glick – I was asking the same question you asked Rich. Why is it that he has such antipathy towards working people? Seems bitter for some reason.
Nevertheless, congratulations to the workers.
Now it’s up to the university to decide how they want to cover the costs. The students do not have to carry the load as Rich has been suggesting. There are other pots of money. As someone said earlier the math does not add up.
Ron Glick – I was asking the same question you asked Rich. Why is it that he has such antipathy towards working people? Seems bitter for some reason.
Nevertheless, congratulations to the workers.
Now it’s up to the university to decide how they want to cover the costs. The students do not have to carry the load as Rich has been suggesting. There are other pots of money. As someone said earlier the math does not add up.
Ron Glick – I was asking the same question you asked Rich. Why is it that he has such antipathy towards working people? Seems bitter for some reason.
Nevertheless, congratulations to the workers.
Now it’s up to the university to decide how they want to cover the costs. The students do not have to carry the load as Rich has been suggesting. There are other pots of money. As someone said earlier the math does not add up.
“Sodexho employee’s win, and who knows what number of them will lose their jobs due to standards the University, the State of California and the Federal Gov’t require.”
DPD responded: “That’s pretty much unsubstantiated spin and speculation. My understanding is that basically the process is a formality whereby workers will simply fill out university paperwork and become university employees if they so choose.”
DPD, I must say that the best thing about you is that you speculate without having the added benefit of information. This is just another example. Yes, for some employees the process will be as simple as filling out paperwork. But for others who cannot pass background checks and who are not citizens, the process will mark the end of the line for their employment. This is what happened with UC Riverside’s process and it will happen here as well. I understand that neither you nor the union want to be standing anywhere near when that happens but you brought this on and you should take some responsibility for it.
“Sodexho employee’s win, and who knows what number of them will lose their jobs due to standards the University, the State of California and the Federal Gov’t require.”
DPD responded: “That’s pretty much unsubstantiated spin and speculation. My understanding is that basically the process is a formality whereby workers will simply fill out university paperwork and become university employees if they so choose.”
DPD, I must say that the best thing about you is that you speculate without having the added benefit of information. This is just another example. Yes, for some employees the process will be as simple as filling out paperwork. But for others who cannot pass background checks and who are not citizens, the process will mark the end of the line for their employment. This is what happened with UC Riverside’s process and it will happen here as well. I understand that neither you nor the union want to be standing anywhere near when that happens but you brought this on and you should take some responsibility for it.
“Sodexho employee’s win, and who knows what number of them will lose their jobs due to standards the University, the State of California and the Federal Gov’t require.”
DPD responded: “That’s pretty much unsubstantiated spin and speculation. My understanding is that basically the process is a formality whereby workers will simply fill out university paperwork and become university employees if they so choose.”
DPD, I must say that the best thing about you is that you speculate without having the added benefit of information. This is just another example. Yes, for some employees the process will be as simple as filling out paperwork. But for others who cannot pass background checks and who are not citizens, the process will mark the end of the line for their employment. This is what happened with UC Riverside’s process and it will happen here as well. I understand that neither you nor the union want to be standing anywhere near when that happens but you brought this on and you should take some responsibility for it.
“Sodexho employee’s win, and who knows what number of them will lose their jobs due to standards the University, the State of California and the Federal Gov’t require.”
DPD responded: “That’s pretty much unsubstantiated spin and speculation. My understanding is that basically the process is a formality whereby workers will simply fill out university paperwork and become university employees if they so choose.”
DPD, I must say that the best thing about you is that you speculate without having the added benefit of information. This is just another example. Yes, for some employees the process will be as simple as filling out paperwork. But for others who cannot pass background checks and who are not citizens, the process will mark the end of the line for their employment. This is what happened with UC Riverside’s process and it will happen here as well. I understand that neither you nor the union want to be standing anywhere near when that happens but you brought this on and you should take some responsibility for it.
Rich Rifkin said: “As you know from my column, I decried the fact that the inflation adusted salary paid to Chancellor Vanderhoef is TRIPLE what we paid Chancellor Meyer (whose daughter was a high school classmate of mine) 20 years ago. We are paying everyone on campus — including the outside contractors — way too much. These costs add up. They have made a UC education way too expensive for many, if not most families. I am also very much against the added fees to pay for Div 1 sports and to pay for all of the athletic facilities.”
Rich continues to beat this drum. Shame on you, Rich. The Chancellor is, first of all, one of the lowest paid Chancellors in the UC system. Secondly, the complexity and size of the university and the size of the student body has changed greatly from Chancellor Meyer’s time.
You act as if you could pay an executive with such huge oversight responsibilities peanuts. You’re wrong. You couldn’t. It’s easy to strike out at someone with a salary that looks by our standards to be quite large. But assessed against the market and the range of responsibilities it’s more than reasonable.
Rich Rifkin said: “As you know from my column, I decried the fact that the inflation adusted salary paid to Chancellor Vanderhoef is TRIPLE what we paid Chancellor Meyer (whose daughter was a high school classmate of mine) 20 years ago. We are paying everyone on campus — including the outside contractors — way too much. These costs add up. They have made a UC education way too expensive for many, if not most families. I am also very much against the added fees to pay for Div 1 sports and to pay for all of the athletic facilities.”
Rich continues to beat this drum. Shame on you, Rich. The Chancellor is, first of all, one of the lowest paid Chancellors in the UC system. Secondly, the complexity and size of the university and the size of the student body has changed greatly from Chancellor Meyer’s time.
You act as if you could pay an executive with such huge oversight responsibilities peanuts. You’re wrong. You couldn’t. It’s easy to strike out at someone with a salary that looks by our standards to be quite large. But assessed against the market and the range of responsibilities it’s more than reasonable.
Rich Rifkin said: “As you know from my column, I decried the fact that the inflation adusted salary paid to Chancellor Vanderhoef is TRIPLE what we paid Chancellor Meyer (whose daughter was a high school classmate of mine) 20 years ago. We are paying everyone on campus — including the outside contractors — way too much. These costs add up. They have made a UC education way too expensive for many, if not most families. I am also very much against the added fees to pay for Div 1 sports and to pay for all of the athletic facilities.”
Rich continues to beat this drum. Shame on you, Rich. The Chancellor is, first of all, one of the lowest paid Chancellors in the UC system. Secondly, the complexity and size of the university and the size of the student body has changed greatly from Chancellor Meyer’s time.
You act as if you could pay an executive with such huge oversight responsibilities peanuts. You’re wrong. You couldn’t. It’s easy to strike out at someone with a salary that looks by our standards to be quite large. But assessed against the market and the range of responsibilities it’s more than reasonable.
Rich Rifkin said: “As you know from my column, I decried the fact that the inflation adusted salary paid to Chancellor Vanderhoef is TRIPLE what we paid Chancellor Meyer (whose daughter was a high school classmate of mine) 20 years ago. We are paying everyone on campus — including the outside contractors — way too much. These costs add up. They have made a UC education way too expensive for many, if not most families. I am also very much against the added fees to pay for Div 1 sports and to pay for all of the athletic facilities.”
Rich continues to beat this drum. Shame on you, Rich. The Chancellor is, first of all, one of the lowest paid Chancellors in the UC system. Secondly, the complexity and size of the university and the size of the student body has changed greatly from Chancellor Meyer’s time.
You act as if you could pay an executive with such huge oversight responsibilities peanuts. You’re wrong. You couldn’t. It’s easy to strike out at someone with a salary that looks by our standards to be quite large. But assessed against the market and the range of responsibilities it’s more than reasonable.
“I must say that the best thing about you is that you speculate without having the added benefit of information. This is just another example. Yes, for some employees the process will be as simple as filling out paperwork. But for others who cannot pass background checks and who are not citizens, the process will mark the end of the line for their employment. This is what happened with UC Riverside’s process and it will happen here as well. I understand that neither you nor the union want to be standing anywhere near when that happens but you brought this on and you should take some responsibility for it.”
It is interesting that you say that, I got an inquiry about this issue yesterday, and my answer was based on the response I got from multiple sources. The bottom line I was told is that this is largely a myth and scare tactic.
“I must say that the best thing about you is that you speculate without having the added benefit of information. This is just another example. Yes, for some employees the process will be as simple as filling out paperwork. But for others who cannot pass background checks and who are not citizens, the process will mark the end of the line for their employment. This is what happened with UC Riverside’s process and it will happen here as well. I understand that neither you nor the union want to be standing anywhere near when that happens but you brought this on and you should take some responsibility for it.”
It is interesting that you say that, I got an inquiry about this issue yesterday, and my answer was based on the response I got from multiple sources. The bottom line I was told is that this is largely a myth and scare tactic.
“I must say that the best thing about you is that you speculate without having the added benefit of information. This is just another example. Yes, for some employees the process will be as simple as filling out paperwork. But for others who cannot pass background checks and who are not citizens, the process will mark the end of the line for their employment. This is what happened with UC Riverside’s process and it will happen here as well. I understand that neither you nor the union want to be standing anywhere near when that happens but you brought this on and you should take some responsibility for it.”
It is interesting that you say that, I got an inquiry about this issue yesterday, and my answer was based on the response I got from multiple sources. The bottom line I was told is that this is largely a myth and scare tactic.
“I must say that the best thing about you is that you speculate without having the added benefit of information. This is just another example. Yes, for some employees the process will be as simple as filling out paperwork. But for others who cannot pass background checks and who are not citizens, the process will mark the end of the line for their employment. This is what happened with UC Riverside’s process and it will happen here as well. I understand that neither you nor the union want to be standing anywhere near when that happens but you brought this on and you should take some responsibility for it.”
It is interesting that you say that, I got an inquiry about this issue yesterday, and my answer was based on the response I got from multiple sources. The bottom line I was told is that this is largely a myth and scare tactic.
So I cite the example of UC Riverside’s conversion and the problems there, particularly with workers losing out on pension earnings and job security and you’ve got what? “Multiple sources,” which of course you don’t identify. I realize you take your orders from the union on this one but I’ve got facts and you’ve got bupkis except more snide allegations. Sorry. You’re empty-handed.
So I cite the example of UC Riverside’s conversion and the problems there, particularly with workers losing out on pension earnings and job security and you’ve got what? “Multiple sources,” which of course you don’t identify. I realize you take your orders from the union on this one but I’ve got facts and you’ve got bupkis except more snide allegations. Sorry. You’re empty-handed.
So I cite the example of UC Riverside’s conversion and the problems there, particularly with workers losing out on pension earnings and job security and you’ve got what? “Multiple sources,” which of course you don’t identify. I realize you take your orders from the union on this one but I’ve got facts and you’ve got bupkis except more snide allegations. Sorry. You’re empty-handed.
So I cite the example of UC Riverside’s conversion and the problems there, particularly with workers losing out on pension earnings and job security and you’ve got what? “Multiple sources,” which of course you don’t identify. I realize you take your orders from the union on this one but I’ve got facts and you’ve got bupkis except more snide allegations. Sorry. You’re empty-handed.
Whats to celebrate about? Someone else brought this up: According to the enterprise, the benefits to these workers will be paid for by increase in student fees. So you rob all students to pay a select few.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t graduation rates for minority students low? How does raising tuition fees make UCD more attractive to the “disadvantaged?”
Bravo, protestors.
Whats to celebrate about? Someone else brought this up: According to the enterprise, the benefits to these workers will be paid for by increase in student fees. So you rob all students to pay a select few.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t graduation rates for minority students low? How does raising tuition fees make UCD more attractive to the “disadvantaged?”
Bravo, protestors.
Whats to celebrate about? Someone else brought this up: According to the enterprise, the benefits to these workers will be paid for by increase in student fees. So you rob all students to pay a select few.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t graduation rates for minority students low? How does raising tuition fees make UCD more attractive to the “disadvantaged?”
Bravo, protestors.
Whats to celebrate about? Someone else brought this up: According to the enterprise, the benefits to these workers will be paid for by increase in student fees. So you rob all students to pay a select few.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t graduation rates for minority students low? How does raising tuition fees make UCD more attractive to the “disadvantaged?”
Bravo, protestors.
“According to the enterprise, the benefits to these workers will be paid for by increase in student fees.”
But the Enterprise wasn’t completely right, as I have shown in the article body and in a comment, the fee schedule for this is more complicated than simply coming from students tuition. Also if there are 20,000 students, their share of $2 million, is $100, not a huge expense.
“According to the enterprise, the benefits to these workers will be paid for by increase in student fees.”
But the Enterprise wasn’t completely right, as I have shown in the article body and in a comment, the fee schedule for this is more complicated than simply coming from students tuition. Also if there are 20,000 students, their share of $2 million, is $100, not a huge expense.
“According to the enterprise, the benefits to these workers will be paid for by increase in student fees.”
But the Enterprise wasn’t completely right, as I have shown in the article body and in a comment, the fee schedule for this is more complicated than simply coming from students tuition. Also if there are 20,000 students, their share of $2 million, is $100, not a huge expense.
“According to the enterprise, the benefits to these workers will be paid for by increase in student fees.”
But the Enterprise wasn’t completely right, as I have shown in the article body and in a comment, the fee schedule for this is more complicated than simply coming from students tuition. Also if there are 20,000 students, their share of $2 million, is $100, not a huge expense.
“So I cite the example of UC Riverside’s conversion and the problems there,”
You made statements about their conversion.
“particularly with workers losing out on pension earnings and job security and you’ve got what? “Multiple sources,” which of course you don’t identify.”
And of course you do not identify yourself. I did not speak to these individuals on the record, so I cannot disclose their names.
” I realize you take your orders from the union on this one but I’ve got facts and you’ve got bupkis except more snide allegations. Sorry. You’re empty-handed.”
Yeah, I take orders… and I’m the one empty-handed. Good lord.
“So I cite the example of UC Riverside’s conversion and the problems there,”
You made statements about their conversion.
“particularly with workers losing out on pension earnings and job security and you’ve got what? “Multiple sources,” which of course you don’t identify.”
And of course you do not identify yourself. I did not speak to these individuals on the record, so I cannot disclose their names.
” I realize you take your orders from the union on this one but I’ve got facts and you’ve got bupkis except more snide allegations. Sorry. You’re empty-handed.”
Yeah, I take orders… and I’m the one empty-handed. Good lord.
“So I cite the example of UC Riverside’s conversion and the problems there,”
You made statements about their conversion.
“particularly with workers losing out on pension earnings and job security and you’ve got what? “Multiple sources,” which of course you don’t identify.”
And of course you do not identify yourself. I did not speak to these individuals on the record, so I cannot disclose their names.
” I realize you take your orders from the union on this one but I’ve got facts and you’ve got bupkis except more snide allegations. Sorry. You’re empty-handed.”
Yeah, I take orders… and I’m the one empty-handed. Good lord.
“So I cite the example of UC Riverside’s conversion and the problems there,”
You made statements about their conversion.
“particularly with workers losing out on pension earnings and job security and you’ve got what? “Multiple sources,” which of course you don’t identify.”
And of course you do not identify yourself. I did not speak to these individuals on the record, so I cannot disclose their names.
” I realize you take your orders from the union on this one but I’ve got facts and you’ve got bupkis except more snide allegations. Sorry. You’re empty-handed.”
Yeah, I take orders… and I’m the one empty-handed. Good lord.
DPD – You covered a great story and yes, you do have your confidential sources because people trust you. Whoever “anonymous” is sounds like sour grapes. Either they didn’t get the story, or they’re just pissed that you were right on this one.
Keep up the great work! The Vanguard is a much needed news source in our Davis community. Without it we would not know half of what is going on in Davis. Thank you.
DPD – You covered a great story and yes, you do have your confidential sources because people trust you. Whoever “anonymous” is sounds like sour grapes. Either they didn’t get the story, or they’re just pissed that you were right on this one.
Keep up the great work! The Vanguard is a much needed news source in our Davis community. Without it we would not know half of what is going on in Davis. Thank you.
DPD – You covered a great story and yes, you do have your confidential sources because people trust you. Whoever “anonymous” is sounds like sour grapes. Either they didn’t get the story, or they’re just pissed that you were right on this one.
Keep up the great work! The Vanguard is a much needed news source in our Davis community. Without it we would not know half of what is going on in Davis. Thank you.
DPD – You covered a great story and yes, you do have your confidential sources because people trust you. Whoever “anonymous” is sounds like sour grapes. Either they didn’t get the story, or they’re just pissed that you were right on this one.
Keep up the great work! The Vanguard is a much needed news source in our Davis community. Without it we would not know half of what is going on in Davis. Thank you.
DPD:
The union was out on campus again today still whining and wheedling. Not a word of appreciation or gratitude, just union folks now unhappy with the terms of the arrangement. If it’s so bad why don’t they just reject it. People were just incredulous at the chutzpah of these people. Greedy, greedy, greedy.
DPD:
The union was out on campus again today still whining and wheedling. Not a word of appreciation or gratitude, just union folks now unhappy with the terms of the arrangement. If it’s so bad why don’t they just reject it. People were just incredulous at the chutzpah of these people. Greedy, greedy, greedy.
DPD:
The union was out on campus again today still whining and wheedling. Not a word of appreciation or gratitude, just union folks now unhappy with the terms of the arrangement. If it’s so bad why don’t they just reject it. People were just incredulous at the chutzpah of these people. Greedy, greedy, greedy.
DPD:
The union was out on campus again today still whining and wheedling. Not a word of appreciation or gratitude, just union folks now unhappy with the terms of the arrangement. If it’s so bad why don’t they just reject it. People were just incredulous at the chutzpah of these people. Greedy, greedy, greedy.
anonymous 7:45 pm: it sounds like you are greedy. if you can’t think of others and have to make up stuff just to get your point across then it doesn’t speak well for you.
anonymous 7:45 pm: it sounds like you are greedy. if you can’t think of others and have to make up stuff just to get your point across then it doesn’t speak well for you.
anonymous 7:45 pm: it sounds like you are greedy. if you can’t think of others and have to make up stuff just to get your point across then it doesn’t speak well for you.
anonymous 7:45 pm: it sounds like you are greedy. if you can’t think of others and have to make up stuff just to get your point across then it doesn’t speak well for you.
Rich Rifkin is right again. The Tenure system guarantee’s a faculty person their job for life. That means the taxpayers have to pay even if the faculty member chooses not to teach very much or goes on vacation for the rest of the time.
Having been there and seen it, the tenure system for faculty is incredibly wasteful and unfair to good honest faculty members.
THEY CAN’T BE FIRED or gotten rid of because they are poor employee’s. What a stupid situation.
Rich Rifkin is right again. The Tenure system guarantee’s a faculty person their job for life. That means the taxpayers have to pay even if the faculty member chooses not to teach very much or goes on vacation for the rest of the time.
Having been there and seen it, the tenure system for faculty is incredibly wasteful and unfair to good honest faculty members.
THEY CAN’T BE FIRED or gotten rid of because they are poor employee’s. What a stupid situation.
Rich Rifkin is right again. The Tenure system guarantee’s a faculty person their job for life. That means the taxpayers have to pay even if the faculty member chooses not to teach very much or goes on vacation for the rest of the time.
Having been there and seen it, the tenure system for faculty is incredibly wasteful and unfair to good honest faculty members.
THEY CAN’T BE FIRED or gotten rid of because they are poor employee’s. What a stupid situation.
Rich Rifkin is right again. The Tenure system guarantee’s a faculty person their job for life. That means the taxpayers have to pay even if the faculty member chooses not to teach very much or goes on vacation for the rest of the time.
Having been there and seen it, the tenure system for faculty is incredibly wasteful and unfair to good honest faculty members.
THEY CAN’T BE FIRED or gotten rid of because they are poor employee’s. What a stupid situation.
DPD says someone else’s opinion or facts is spin? Most of the crap I’ve read here is spin by DPD. DPD has confidential sources who trust him? What an error it is to trust a spin doctor like DPD.
Wait til the economic sky fall’s DPD,then spin that one.
DPD says someone else’s opinion or facts is spin? Most of the crap I’ve read here is spin by DPD. DPD has confidential sources who trust him? What an error it is to trust a spin doctor like DPD.
Wait til the economic sky fall’s DPD,then spin that one.
DPD says someone else’s opinion or facts is spin? Most of the crap I’ve read here is spin by DPD. DPD has confidential sources who trust him? What an error it is to trust a spin doctor like DPD.
Wait til the economic sky fall’s DPD,then spin that one.
DPD says someone else’s opinion or facts is spin? Most of the crap I’ve read here is spin by DPD. DPD has confidential sources who trust him? What an error it is to trust a spin doctor like DPD.
Wait til the economic sky fall’s DPD,then spin that one.
8:05 PM
Who’s making stuff up? I saw the union leafletting myself and I have plenty of witnesses, most of whom said “these people just don’t know when to quit!” Not a good pr day for the union.
8:05 PM
Who’s making stuff up? I saw the union leafletting myself and I have plenty of witnesses, most of whom said “these people just don’t know when to quit!” Not a good pr day for the union.
8:05 PM
Who’s making stuff up? I saw the union leafletting myself and I have plenty of witnesses, most of whom said “these people just don’t know when to quit!” Not a good pr day for the union.
8:05 PM
Who’s making stuff up? I saw the union leafletting myself and I have plenty of witnesses, most of whom said “these people just don’t know when to quit!” Not a good pr day for the union.
Unless I start seeing some names here, I’m not giving it any veracity. There is no way for anyone to judge whether you are telling the truth or not.
The tenure system came out of the McCarthy era where teachers were at risk not for how well they taught, but instead, for the risk of injecting controversial ideas into subjects they taught. If you think this is not still a problem you haven’t spent much time in schools where topics such as evolution or sex ed are still controversial and should not be subject to the whims of petty administrator and trustees.
Another big issue is that one of the ways that parents and communities find out about deficiencies in their schools are from teachers who speak out. What protections should whistle blower teachers have?
Further, since you propose no alternative to tenure I am assuming that you feel that teachers should be at will employees. Rather than make that assumption I would like to give you the opportunity to offer alternatives. While your addressing my first defense of tenure you might want to also address these other concerns.
What protections should there be for teachers who have dedicated many years of service and moved up the pay scale if someone gets the bright idea to lower overhead by firing the oldest or longest serving teachers?
What protections should teachers have from disgruntled students who received poor marks or needed discipline?
Since so many teachers leave the profession in the first few years of their careers, and, since you think the overall quality of education is hurt by teachers with tenure, what should we do to improve recruitment and retention of higher quality teachers and the additional people you would need to fill the ranks from the additional loss of those who would give up without the kind of protection tenure provides?
Many districts have caps on how many years of service teachers can transfer for placement on the pay scale. This has the effect of being defacto collusion to keep teachers from leaving districts after they have served many years in one place. Once again, if teachers become at will employees what would keep districts from firing people and making them go to other districts where they would need to take jobs for less money just to lower overhead?
Tenure is not a perfect system but it is too easy to say we should get rid of it without proposing what should replace it. I hope that by asking these questions it provides food for thought on issues that need to be addressed if you want to have a thoughtful discussion on tenure.
Ron Glick
Unless I start seeing some names here, I’m not giving it any veracity. There is no way for anyone to judge whether you are telling the truth or not.
The tenure system came out of the McCarthy era where teachers were at risk not for how well they taught, but instead, for the risk of injecting controversial ideas into subjects they taught. If you think this is not still a problem you haven’t spent much time in schools where topics such as evolution or sex ed are still controversial and should not be subject to the whims of petty administrator and trustees.
Another big issue is that one of the ways that parents and communities find out about deficiencies in their schools are from teachers who speak out. What protections should whistle blower teachers have?
Further, since you propose no alternative to tenure I am assuming that you feel that teachers should be at will employees. Rather than make that assumption I would like to give you the opportunity to offer alternatives. While your addressing my first defense of tenure you might want to also address these other concerns.
What protections should there be for teachers who have dedicated many years of service and moved up the pay scale if someone gets the bright idea to lower overhead by firing the oldest or longest serving teachers?
What protections should teachers have from disgruntled students who received poor marks or needed discipline?
Since so many teachers leave the profession in the first few years of their careers, and, since you think the overall quality of education is hurt by teachers with tenure, what should we do to improve recruitment and retention of higher quality teachers and the additional people you would need to fill the ranks from the additional loss of those who would give up without the kind of protection tenure provides?
Many districts have caps on how many years of service teachers can transfer for placement on the pay scale. This has the effect of being defacto collusion to keep teachers from leaving districts after they have served many years in one place. Once again, if teachers become at will employees what would keep districts from firing people and making them go to other districts where they would need to take jobs for less money just to lower overhead?
Tenure is not a perfect system but it is too easy to say we should get rid of it without proposing what should replace it. I hope that by asking these questions it provides food for thought on issues that need to be addressed if you want to have a thoughtful discussion on tenure.
Ron Glick
Unless I start seeing some names here, I’m not giving it any veracity. There is no way for anyone to judge whether you are telling the truth or not.
The tenure system came out of the McCarthy era where teachers were at risk not for how well they taught, but instead, for the risk of injecting controversial ideas into subjects they taught. If you think this is not still a problem you haven’t spent much time in schools where topics such as evolution or sex ed are still controversial and should not be subject to the whims of petty administrator and trustees.
Another big issue is that one of the ways that parents and communities find out about deficiencies in their schools are from teachers who speak out. What protections should whistle blower teachers have?
Further, since you propose no alternative to tenure I am assuming that you feel that teachers should be at will employees. Rather than make that assumption I would like to give you the opportunity to offer alternatives. While your addressing my first defense of tenure you might want to also address these other concerns.
What protections should there be for teachers who have dedicated many years of service and moved up the pay scale if someone gets the bright idea to lower overhead by firing the oldest or longest serving teachers?
What protections should teachers have from disgruntled students who received poor marks or needed discipline?
Since so many teachers leave the profession in the first few years of their careers, and, since you think the overall quality of education is hurt by teachers with tenure, what should we do to improve recruitment and retention of higher quality teachers and the additional people you would need to fill the ranks from the additional loss of those who would give up without the kind of protection tenure provides?
Many districts have caps on how many years of service teachers can transfer for placement on the pay scale. This has the effect of being defacto collusion to keep teachers from leaving districts after they have served many years in one place. Once again, if teachers become at will employees what would keep districts from firing people and making them go to other districts where they would need to take jobs for less money just to lower overhead?
Tenure is not a perfect system but it is too easy to say we should get rid of it without proposing what should replace it. I hope that by asking these questions it provides food for thought on issues that need to be addressed if you want to have a thoughtful discussion on tenure.
Ron Glick
Unless I start seeing some names here, I’m not giving it any veracity. There is no way for anyone to judge whether you are telling the truth or not.
The tenure system came out of the McCarthy era where teachers were at risk not for how well they taught, but instead, for the risk of injecting controversial ideas into subjects they taught. If you think this is not still a problem you haven’t spent much time in schools where topics such as evolution or sex ed are still controversial and should not be subject to the whims of petty administrator and trustees.
Another big issue is that one of the ways that parents and communities find out about deficiencies in their schools are from teachers who speak out. What protections should whistle blower teachers have?
Further, since you propose no alternative to tenure I am assuming that you feel that teachers should be at will employees. Rather than make that assumption I would like to give you the opportunity to offer alternatives. While your addressing my first defense of tenure you might want to also address these other concerns.
What protections should there be for teachers who have dedicated many years of service and moved up the pay scale if someone gets the bright idea to lower overhead by firing the oldest or longest serving teachers?
What protections should teachers have from disgruntled students who received poor marks or needed discipline?
Since so many teachers leave the profession in the first few years of their careers, and, since you think the overall quality of education is hurt by teachers with tenure, what should we do to improve recruitment and retention of higher quality teachers and the additional people you would need to fill the ranks from the additional loss of those who would give up without the kind of protection tenure provides?
Many districts have caps on how many years of service teachers can transfer for placement on the pay scale. This has the effect of being defacto collusion to keep teachers from leaving districts after they have served many years in one place. Once again, if teachers become at will employees what would keep districts from firing people and making them go to other districts where they would need to take jobs for less money just to lower overhead?
Tenure is not a perfect system but it is too easy to say we should get rid of it without proposing what should replace it. I hope that by asking these questions it provides food for thought on issues that need to be addressed if you want to have a thoughtful discussion on tenure.
Ron Glick
DPD and 8:05:
You people are something. There were plenty of witnesses to the union leafleting and still complaining yesterday, some of the witnesses are quite prominent. What will it take to prove it to you? Have a union stooge admit it to you? When you speak do their lips move? Pathetic.
I want an apology from you when you find out it’s true. I’m not holding my breath expecting to get one but you owe me one nonetheless. Even worse, you’ll come up with some justification for it.
DPD and 8:05:
You people are something. There were plenty of witnesses to the union leafleting and still complaining yesterday, some of the witnesses are quite prominent. What will it take to prove it to you? Have a union stooge admit it to you? When you speak do their lips move? Pathetic.
I want an apology from you when you find out it’s true. I’m not holding my breath expecting to get one but you owe me one nonetheless. Even worse, you’ll come up with some justification for it.
DPD and 8:05:
You people are something. There were plenty of witnesses to the union leafleting and still complaining yesterday, some of the witnesses are quite prominent. What will it take to prove it to you? Have a union stooge admit it to you? When you speak do their lips move? Pathetic.
I want an apology from you when you find out it’s true. I’m not holding my breath expecting to get one but you owe me one nonetheless. Even worse, you’ll come up with some justification for it.
DPD and 8:05:
You people are something. There were plenty of witnesses to the union leafleting and still complaining yesterday, some of the witnesses are quite prominent. What will it take to prove it to you? Have a union stooge admit it to you? When you speak do their lips move? Pathetic.
I want an apology from you when you find out it’s true. I’m not holding my breath expecting to get one but you owe me one nonetheless. Even worse, you’ll come up with some justification for it.
Show me the leaflet, give me your name, give me something other than an anonymous and unverifiable post, please…
Show me the leaflet, give me your name, give me something other than an anonymous and unverifiable post, please…
Show me the leaflet, give me your name, give me something other than an anonymous and unverifiable post, please…
Show me the leaflet, give me your name, give me something other than an anonymous and unverifiable post, please…
Sodexho workers, their families, and the entire community have won an incredible victory here in Davis. Many people believed it would never be possible, but I think this goes to show how by organizing together we can do incredible things.
As always there are and will continue to be a tremendous amount of rumors. However, I personally have worked directly with workers at both Santa Cruz and at Irvine for the transitions from contracted out food service to direct UC jobs, and I would like to clear up a few of these rumors:
1) In both SC & I, every formerly contracted out worker who wanted to become a direct UC worker, in fact, did become a direct UC worker. It is just plain wrong to start rumors to the contrary. If a worker was good enough to work at UCD when it was not a very good job, then she or he is good enough to work at UCD when the job comes with dignity and respect.
2) In both SC & I, the administration made a decision to directly hire the workers in the Spring, used the Summer as a transition, and then directly hired all of the workers by the Fall. Workers have been contracted out for nearly 40 years, and don’t deserve to have their justice delayed any further.
If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to call me directly at 510-529-5552.
Thanks,
Max Bell Alper
Lead Organizer
AFSCME Local 3299
Sodexho workers, their families, and the entire community have won an incredible victory here in Davis. Many people believed it would never be possible, but I think this goes to show how by organizing together we can do incredible things.
As always there are and will continue to be a tremendous amount of rumors. However, I personally have worked directly with workers at both Santa Cruz and at Irvine for the transitions from contracted out food service to direct UC jobs, and I would like to clear up a few of these rumors:
1) In both SC & I, every formerly contracted out worker who wanted to become a direct UC worker, in fact, did become a direct UC worker. It is just plain wrong to start rumors to the contrary. If a worker was good enough to work at UCD when it was not a very good job, then she or he is good enough to work at UCD when the job comes with dignity and respect.
2) In both SC & I, the administration made a decision to directly hire the workers in the Spring, used the Summer as a transition, and then directly hired all of the workers by the Fall. Workers have been contracted out for nearly 40 years, and don’t deserve to have their justice delayed any further.
If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to call me directly at 510-529-5552.
Thanks,
Max Bell Alper
Lead Organizer
AFSCME Local 3299
Sodexho workers, their families, and the entire community have won an incredible victory here in Davis. Many people believed it would never be possible, but I think this goes to show how by organizing together we can do incredible things.
As always there are and will continue to be a tremendous amount of rumors. However, I personally have worked directly with workers at both Santa Cruz and at Irvine for the transitions from contracted out food service to direct UC jobs, and I would like to clear up a few of these rumors:
1) In both SC & I, every formerly contracted out worker who wanted to become a direct UC worker, in fact, did become a direct UC worker. It is just plain wrong to start rumors to the contrary. If a worker was good enough to work at UCD when it was not a very good job, then she or he is good enough to work at UCD when the job comes with dignity and respect.
2) In both SC & I, the administration made a decision to directly hire the workers in the Spring, used the Summer as a transition, and then directly hired all of the workers by the Fall. Workers have been contracted out for nearly 40 years, and don’t deserve to have their justice delayed any further.
If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to call me directly at 510-529-5552.
Thanks,
Max Bell Alper
Lead Organizer
AFSCME Local 3299
Sodexho workers, their families, and the entire community have won an incredible victory here in Davis. Many people believed it would never be possible, but I think this goes to show how by organizing together we can do incredible things.
As always there are and will continue to be a tremendous amount of rumors. However, I personally have worked directly with workers at both Santa Cruz and at Irvine for the transitions from contracted out food service to direct UC jobs, and I would like to clear up a few of these rumors:
1) In both SC & I, every formerly contracted out worker who wanted to become a direct UC worker, in fact, did become a direct UC worker. It is just plain wrong to start rumors to the contrary. If a worker was good enough to work at UCD when it was not a very good job, then she or he is good enough to work at UCD when the job comes with dignity and respect.
2) In both SC & I, the administration made a decision to directly hire the workers in the Spring, used the Summer as a transition, and then directly hired all of the workers by the Fall. Workers have been contracted out for nearly 40 years, and don’t deserve to have their justice delayed any further.
If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to call me directly at 510-529-5552.
Thanks,
Max Bell Alper
Lead Organizer
AFSCME Local 3299
Yes, there were flyers passed out at the Chancellor’s “Ice Cream Social” yesterday. The main issue is that the UCD administration wants to further delay giving workers what they have always deserved. It is simply wrong to finally admit that workers deserve to be included in the UCD community, and then ask them to wait another 9 to 12 months. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said “A Right Delayed Is A Right Denied.”
Yes, there were flyers passed out at the Chancellor’s “Ice Cream Social” yesterday. The main issue is that the UCD administration wants to further delay giving workers what they have always deserved. It is simply wrong to finally admit that workers deserve to be included in the UCD community, and then ask them to wait another 9 to 12 months. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said “A Right Delayed Is A Right Denied.”
Yes, there were flyers passed out at the Chancellor’s “Ice Cream Social” yesterday. The main issue is that the UCD administration wants to further delay giving workers what they have always deserved. It is simply wrong to finally admit that workers deserve to be included in the UCD community, and then ask them to wait another 9 to 12 months. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said “A Right Delayed Is A Right Denied.”
Yes, there were flyers passed out at the Chancellor’s “Ice Cream Social” yesterday. The main issue is that the UCD administration wants to further delay giving workers what they have always deserved. It is simply wrong to finally admit that workers deserve to be included in the UCD community, and then ask them to wait another 9 to 12 months. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said “A Right Delayed Is A Right Denied.”
So the complaint was that the workers are not happy at the delay–a message conveyed by three workers in this very article. Thank you Max for clarifying the content of the leaflet. So now I turn it onto anonymous–do you have a problem with them wanting an expedited process?
So the complaint was that the workers are not happy at the delay–a message conveyed by three workers in this very article. Thank you Max for clarifying the content of the leaflet. So now I turn it onto anonymous–do you have a problem with them wanting an expedited process?
So the complaint was that the workers are not happy at the delay–a message conveyed by three workers in this very article. Thank you Max for clarifying the content of the leaflet. So now I turn it onto anonymous–do you have a problem with them wanting an expedited process?
So the complaint was that the workers are not happy at the delay–a message conveyed by three workers in this very article. Thank you Max for clarifying the content of the leaflet. So now I turn it onto anonymous–do you have a problem with them wanting an expedited process?
Yes, I do. Contrary to Max’s speculative story…I have been told that a number of workers lost pension rights and other benefits in the transition to UC Riverside. Obviously, Max cannot be trusted anymore on this issue than I can. It might pay to look into it a little closer to determine if employees did suffer any losses and if any employess could not, in fact, pass UC hiring requirements.
It’s clear DPD that I was right on the leafleting issue and you were wrong. You accused me of starting rumors. I did not. What I said was completly factual and yet you continue to wheedle and weasel your way out of it. I am done with you. Your allegiance is not to the truth but to the union.
Yes, I do. Contrary to Max’s speculative story…I have been told that a number of workers lost pension rights and other benefits in the transition to UC Riverside. Obviously, Max cannot be trusted anymore on this issue than I can. It might pay to look into it a little closer to determine if employees did suffer any losses and if any employess could not, in fact, pass UC hiring requirements.
It’s clear DPD that I was right on the leafleting issue and you were wrong. You accused me of starting rumors. I did not. What I said was completly factual and yet you continue to wheedle and weasel your way out of it. I am done with you. Your allegiance is not to the truth but to the union.
Yes, I do. Contrary to Max’s speculative story…I have been told that a number of workers lost pension rights and other benefits in the transition to UC Riverside. Obviously, Max cannot be trusted anymore on this issue than I can. It might pay to look into it a little closer to determine if employees did suffer any losses and if any employess could not, in fact, pass UC hiring requirements.
It’s clear DPD that I was right on the leafleting issue and you were wrong. You accused me of starting rumors. I did not. What I said was completly factual and yet you continue to wheedle and weasel your way out of it. I am done with you. Your allegiance is not to the truth but to the union.
Yes, I do. Contrary to Max’s speculative story…I have been told that a number of workers lost pension rights and other benefits in the transition to UC Riverside. Obviously, Max cannot be trusted anymore on this issue than I can. It might pay to look into it a little closer to determine if employees did suffer any losses and if any employess could not, in fact, pass UC hiring requirements.
It’s clear DPD that I was right on the leafleting issue and you were wrong. You accused me of starting rumors. I did not. What I said was completly factual and yet you continue to wheedle and weasel your way out of it. I am done with you. Your allegiance is not to the truth but to the union.
I also just re-read the comments posted by Max and realized they are a carefully parsed set of comments that further analysis can tear to shreds.
I also just re-read the comments posted by Max and realized they are a carefully parsed set of comments that further analysis can tear to shreds.
I also just re-read the comments posted by Max and realized they are a carefully parsed set of comments that further analysis can tear to shreds.
I also just re-read the comments posted by Max and realized they are a carefully parsed set of comments that further analysis can tear to shreds.
The University admits increased costs will be borne in part by students. That is not “justice” in my book – just a shift of money from one low income group to another. Furthermore, students should be running the food services, not Sodexho. The University exists to benefit students, not outside contractors.
I do not begrudge anyone a fair wage with appropriate benefits. That is not the point I was trying to make. Now that the Sodexho workers got what they wanted at the expense of students, they should be careful what they wish for. Don’t be surprised if the University really decides to do the right thing when the Sodexho contract ends, and turn the food services on campus back to the students, which is where it should have been in the first place. Only time will tell…
The University admits increased costs will be borne in part by students. That is not “justice” in my book – just a shift of money from one low income group to another. Furthermore, students should be running the food services, not Sodexho. The University exists to benefit students, not outside contractors.
I do not begrudge anyone a fair wage with appropriate benefits. That is not the point I was trying to make. Now that the Sodexho workers got what they wanted at the expense of students, they should be careful what they wish for. Don’t be surprised if the University really decides to do the right thing when the Sodexho contract ends, and turn the food services on campus back to the students, which is where it should have been in the first place. Only time will tell…
The University admits increased costs will be borne in part by students. That is not “justice” in my book – just a shift of money from one low income group to another. Furthermore, students should be running the food services, not Sodexho. The University exists to benefit students, not outside contractors.
I do not begrudge anyone a fair wage with appropriate benefits. That is not the point I was trying to make. Now that the Sodexho workers got what they wanted at the expense of students, they should be careful what they wish for. Don’t be surprised if the University really decides to do the right thing when the Sodexho contract ends, and turn the food services on campus back to the students, which is where it should have been in the first place. Only time will tell…
The University admits increased costs will be borne in part by students. That is not “justice” in my book – just a shift of money from one low income group to another. Furthermore, students should be running the food services, not Sodexho. The University exists to benefit students, not outside contractors.
I do not begrudge anyone a fair wage with appropriate benefits. That is not the point I was trying to make. Now that the Sodexho workers got what they wanted at the expense of students, they should be careful what they wish for. Don’t be surprised if the University really decides to do the right thing when the Sodexho contract ends, and turn the food services on campus back to the students, which is where it should have been in the first place. Only time will tell…
Slow learner said:
“Furthermore, students should be running the food services, not Sodexho.”
Why? This statement of value places a higher priority on student jobs than on quality food services. When students need to study for mid-terms, who’s going to oversee food services under your vision? Students’ job, first and foremost, is to learn, study, and graduate–not take over food services and other parts of the campus. While it sounds quaint to say “we’re a fully student-run university,” it’s unrealistic.
“The University admits increased costs will be borne in part by students. That is not “justice” in my book – just a shift of money from one low income group to another.”
I’m amazed at the general lack of economic sense on this blog. I’m talking about real basics like supply and demand and the need for the university to break even financially. You wonder why home prices have shot up more in Davis than outlying areas–guess what? No supply with high demand–a housing position held as sacrosanct on this blog.
Someone or something has to bear the increased costs of food services–whether it’s increased advertising dollars, higher tuition, decreased surplus revenue (for rainy-day funds), campus budgets, revenue transfer from other areas, among other things. There could be some offsets with reduced negotiations and less purchasing time spent on this particular contract.
But get a clue. Services cost money–there’s no such thing as a free lunch–except for this blog. 🙂
Slow learner said:
“Furthermore, students should be running the food services, not Sodexho.”
Why? This statement of value places a higher priority on student jobs than on quality food services. When students need to study for mid-terms, who’s going to oversee food services under your vision? Students’ job, first and foremost, is to learn, study, and graduate–not take over food services and other parts of the campus. While it sounds quaint to say “we’re a fully student-run university,” it’s unrealistic.
“The University admits increased costs will be borne in part by students. That is not “justice” in my book – just a shift of money from one low income group to another.”
I’m amazed at the general lack of economic sense on this blog. I’m talking about real basics like supply and demand and the need for the university to break even financially. You wonder why home prices have shot up more in Davis than outlying areas–guess what? No supply with high demand–a housing position held as sacrosanct on this blog.
Someone or something has to bear the increased costs of food services–whether it’s increased advertising dollars, higher tuition, decreased surplus revenue (for rainy-day funds), campus budgets, revenue transfer from other areas, among other things. There could be some offsets with reduced negotiations and less purchasing time spent on this particular contract.
But get a clue. Services cost money–there’s no such thing as a free lunch–except for this blog. 🙂
Slow learner said:
“Furthermore, students should be running the food services, not Sodexho.”
Why? This statement of value places a higher priority on student jobs than on quality food services. When students need to study for mid-terms, who’s going to oversee food services under your vision? Students’ job, first and foremost, is to learn, study, and graduate–not take over food services and other parts of the campus. While it sounds quaint to say “we’re a fully student-run university,” it’s unrealistic.
“The University admits increased costs will be borne in part by students. That is not “justice” in my book – just a shift of money from one low income group to another.”
I’m amazed at the general lack of economic sense on this blog. I’m talking about real basics like supply and demand and the need for the university to break even financially. You wonder why home prices have shot up more in Davis than outlying areas–guess what? No supply with high demand–a housing position held as sacrosanct on this blog.
Someone or something has to bear the increased costs of food services–whether it’s increased advertising dollars, higher tuition, decreased surplus revenue (for rainy-day funds), campus budgets, revenue transfer from other areas, among other things. There could be some offsets with reduced negotiations and less purchasing time spent on this particular contract.
But get a clue. Services cost money–there’s no such thing as a free lunch–except for this blog. 🙂
Slow learner said:
“Furthermore, students should be running the food services, not Sodexho.”
Why? This statement of value places a higher priority on student jobs than on quality food services. When students need to study for mid-terms, who’s going to oversee food services under your vision? Students’ job, first and foremost, is to learn, study, and graduate–not take over food services and other parts of the campus. While it sounds quaint to say “we’re a fully student-run university,” it’s unrealistic.
“The University admits increased costs will be borne in part by students. That is not “justice” in my book – just a shift of money from one low income group to another.”
I’m amazed at the general lack of economic sense on this blog. I’m talking about real basics like supply and demand and the need for the university to break even financially. You wonder why home prices have shot up more in Davis than outlying areas–guess what? No supply with high demand–a housing position held as sacrosanct on this blog.
Someone or something has to bear the increased costs of food services–whether it’s increased advertising dollars, higher tuition, decreased surplus revenue (for rainy-day funds), campus budgets, revenue transfer from other areas, among other things. There could be some offsets with reduced negotiations and less purchasing time spent on this particular contract.
But get a clue. Services cost money–there’s no such thing as a free lunch–except for this blog. 🙂
“This statement of value places a higher priority on student jobs than on quality food services. When students need to study for mid-terms, who’s going to oversee food services under your vision? Students’ job, first and foremost, is to learn, study, and graduate–not take over food services and other parts of the campus. While it sounds quaint to say “we’re a fully student-run university,” it’s unrealistic.”
To Anonymous 12:27 – Other UC campuses manage to achieve all-student run food services, so it must be workable. Furthermore, students completely run the Unitrans system here at UCD, and do it quite well, despite the rigors of going to school at the same time. Low income students need these campus jobs, to supplement their grant money, which often does not cover all their expenses. Every time tuition goes up, some low income students are not able to afford attending UCD. Why should the univesity cater to low wage earning Sodexho workers at the expense of its own students/potential students? Remember, attendance of minority students is down and continues to go down.
“Someone or something has to bear the increased costs of food services–whether it’s increased advertising dollars, higher tuition, decreased surplus revenue (for rainy-day funds), campus budgets, revenue transfer from other areas, among other things. There could be some offsets with reduced negotiations and less purchasing time spent on this particular contract.”
Yes, but there will be an increase in the cost of food – to “pay for” this transfer of Sodexho workers onto the UCD payroll as UC employees. What is worse, the Sodexho contract itself is highly questionable from an ethical and financial standpoint, since 1) it was not facilitated by any sort of competitive bidding process; 2) has resulted in an inferior food product according to many. I would much rather turn the process over to students, let them get experience running a food service business, and allow them the chance to improve the end product. My guess is they will do it cheaper than Sodexho because they do not have to pay for Sodexho’s corporate facilities or administrators.
“This statement of value places a higher priority on student jobs than on quality food services. When students need to study for mid-terms, who’s going to oversee food services under your vision? Students’ job, first and foremost, is to learn, study, and graduate–not take over food services and other parts of the campus. While it sounds quaint to say “we’re a fully student-run university,” it’s unrealistic.”
To Anonymous 12:27 – Other UC campuses manage to achieve all-student run food services, so it must be workable. Furthermore, students completely run the Unitrans system here at UCD, and do it quite well, despite the rigors of going to school at the same time. Low income students need these campus jobs, to supplement their grant money, which often does not cover all their expenses. Every time tuition goes up, some low income students are not able to afford attending UCD. Why should the univesity cater to low wage earning Sodexho workers at the expense of its own students/potential students? Remember, attendance of minority students is down and continues to go down.
“Someone or something has to bear the increased costs of food services–whether it’s increased advertising dollars, higher tuition, decreased surplus revenue (for rainy-day funds), campus budgets, revenue transfer from other areas, among other things. There could be some offsets with reduced negotiations and less purchasing time spent on this particular contract.”
Yes, but there will be an increase in the cost of food – to “pay for” this transfer of Sodexho workers onto the UCD payroll as UC employees. What is worse, the Sodexho contract itself is highly questionable from an ethical and financial standpoint, since 1) it was not facilitated by any sort of competitive bidding process; 2) has resulted in an inferior food product according to many. I would much rather turn the process over to students, let them get experience running a food service business, and allow them the chance to improve the end product. My guess is they will do it cheaper than Sodexho because they do not have to pay for Sodexho’s corporate facilities or administrators.
“This statement of value places a higher priority on student jobs than on quality food services. When students need to study for mid-terms, who’s going to oversee food services under your vision? Students’ job, first and foremost, is to learn, study, and graduate–not take over food services and other parts of the campus. While it sounds quaint to say “we’re a fully student-run university,” it’s unrealistic.”
To Anonymous 12:27 – Other UC campuses manage to achieve all-student run food services, so it must be workable. Furthermore, students completely run the Unitrans system here at UCD, and do it quite well, despite the rigors of going to school at the same time. Low income students need these campus jobs, to supplement their grant money, which often does not cover all their expenses. Every time tuition goes up, some low income students are not able to afford attending UCD. Why should the univesity cater to low wage earning Sodexho workers at the expense of its own students/potential students? Remember, attendance of minority students is down and continues to go down.
“Someone or something has to bear the increased costs of food services–whether it’s increased advertising dollars, higher tuition, decreased surplus revenue (for rainy-day funds), campus budgets, revenue transfer from other areas, among other things. There could be some offsets with reduced negotiations and less purchasing time spent on this particular contract.”
Yes, but there will be an increase in the cost of food – to “pay for” this transfer of Sodexho workers onto the UCD payroll as UC employees. What is worse, the Sodexho contract itself is highly questionable from an ethical and financial standpoint, since 1) it was not facilitated by any sort of competitive bidding process; 2) has resulted in an inferior food product according to many. I would much rather turn the process over to students, let them get experience running a food service business, and allow them the chance to improve the end product. My guess is they will do it cheaper than Sodexho because they do not have to pay for Sodexho’s corporate facilities or administrators.
“This statement of value places a higher priority on student jobs than on quality food services. When students need to study for mid-terms, who’s going to oversee food services under your vision? Students’ job, first and foremost, is to learn, study, and graduate–not take over food services and other parts of the campus. While it sounds quaint to say “we’re a fully student-run university,” it’s unrealistic.”
To Anonymous 12:27 – Other UC campuses manage to achieve all-student run food services, so it must be workable. Furthermore, students completely run the Unitrans system here at UCD, and do it quite well, despite the rigors of going to school at the same time. Low income students need these campus jobs, to supplement their grant money, which often does not cover all their expenses. Every time tuition goes up, some low income students are not able to afford attending UCD. Why should the univesity cater to low wage earning Sodexho workers at the expense of its own students/potential students? Remember, attendance of minority students is down and continues to go down.
“Someone or something has to bear the increased costs of food services–whether it’s increased advertising dollars, higher tuition, decreased surplus revenue (for rainy-day funds), campus budgets, revenue transfer from other areas, among other things. There could be some offsets with reduced negotiations and less purchasing time spent on this particular contract.”
Yes, but there will be an increase in the cost of food – to “pay for” this transfer of Sodexho workers onto the UCD payroll as UC employees. What is worse, the Sodexho contract itself is highly questionable from an ethical and financial standpoint, since 1) it was not facilitated by any sort of competitive bidding process; 2) has resulted in an inferior food product according to many. I would much rather turn the process over to students, let them get experience running a food service business, and allow them the chance to improve the end product. My guess is they will do it cheaper than Sodexho because they do not have to pay for Sodexho’s corporate facilities or administrators.
To slow learner:
Which other UC campuses have entirely student-run food services?
To slow learner:
Which other UC campuses have entirely student-run food services?
To slow learner:
Which other UC campuses have entirely student-run food services?
To slow learner:
Which other UC campuses have entirely student-run food services?
Does anyone get DPD’s drift? His wife is an afscme rep. You could hit them both in the face with the truth about this situation and neither would admit to it. Dpd yell’s, “give me facts and names”, but he would rarely if ever provide the same in his rantings.
They are both self serving individuals and don’t care about what the majority of the people need or want as long they get their way.
Does anyone get DPD’s drift? His wife is an afscme rep. You could hit them both in the face with the truth about this situation and neither would admit to it. Dpd yell’s, “give me facts and names”, but he would rarely if ever provide the same in his rantings.
They are both self serving individuals and don’t care about what the majority of the people need or want as long they get their way.
Does anyone get DPD’s drift? His wife is an afscme rep. You could hit them both in the face with the truth about this situation and neither would admit to it. Dpd yell’s, “give me facts and names”, but he would rarely if ever provide the same in his rantings.
They are both self serving individuals and don’t care about what the majority of the people need or want as long they get their way.
Does anyone get DPD’s drift? His wife is an afscme rep. You could hit them both in the face with the truth about this situation and neither would admit to it. Dpd yell’s, “give me facts and names”, but he would rarely if ever provide the same in his rantings.
They are both self serving individuals and don’t care about what the majority of the people need or want as long they get their way.
“His wife is an afscme rep.”
As I have said before, my wife does not work for AFSCME.
“His wife is an afscme rep.”
As I have said before, my wife does not work for AFSCME.
“His wife is an afscme rep.”
As I have said before, my wife does not work for AFSCME.
“His wife is an afscme rep.”
As I have said before, my wife does not work for AFSCME.
If a worker was good enough to work at UCD when it was not a very good job, then she or he is good enough to work at UCD when the job comes with dignity and respect.
That’s funny… cause it seems that in the real world jobs with dignity and respect usually have higher standards of employment than “not a very good job”
If a worker was good enough to work at UCD when it was not a very good job, then she or he is good enough to work at UCD when the job comes with dignity and respect.
That’s funny… cause it seems that in the real world jobs with dignity and respect usually have higher standards of employment than “not a very good job”
If a worker was good enough to work at UCD when it was not a very good job, then she or he is good enough to work at UCD when the job comes with dignity and respect.
That’s funny… cause it seems that in the real world jobs with dignity and respect usually have higher standards of employment than “not a very good job”
If a worker was good enough to work at UCD when it was not a very good job, then she or he is good enough to work at UCD when the job comes with dignity and respect.
That’s funny… cause it seems that in the real world jobs with dignity and respect usually have higher standards of employment than “not a very good job”
So you are demeaning and disparaging these workers? Are you an elitist?
So you are demeaning and disparaging these workers? Are you an elitist?
So you are demeaning and disparaging these workers? Are you an elitist?
So you are demeaning and disparaging these workers? Are you an elitist?
DPD,
Was she, your wife, ever an afscme rep? Who does she work for now? How about the truth.
DPD,
Was she, your wife, ever an afscme rep? Who does she work for now? How about the truth.
DPD,
Was she, your wife, ever an afscme rep? Who does she work for now? How about the truth.
DPD,
Was she, your wife, ever an afscme rep? Who does she work for now? How about the truth.
My wife currently works for SEIU Local 1000 and has never worked for AFSCME.
My wife currently works for SEIU Local 1000 and has never worked for AFSCME.
My wife currently works for SEIU Local 1000 and has never worked for AFSCME.
My wife currently works for SEIU Local 1000 and has never worked for AFSCME.
” Anonymous said…
To slow learner:
Which other UC campuses have entirely student-run food services?”
My understanding is that all other student food services programs at the other campuses are student run. Someone correct me if I am wrong!
” Anonymous said…
To slow learner:
Which other UC campuses have entirely student-run food services?”
My understanding is that all other student food services programs at the other campuses are student run. Someone correct me if I am wrong!
” Anonymous said…
To slow learner:
Which other UC campuses have entirely student-run food services?”
My understanding is that all other student food services programs at the other campuses are student run. Someone correct me if I am wrong!
” Anonymous said…
To slow learner:
Which other UC campuses have entirely student-run food services?”
My understanding is that all other student food services programs at the other campuses are student run. Someone correct me if I am wrong!
I don’t believe that ANY of the UC schools have “student” managed food service operations. All have career managers whether employed by UC or a contractor. Run by the “students” would not be an accurate description of most of the operations although students play an important role in the operations at different schools. My understanding is that in most of these settings, the union will limit the amount of student labor and/or the positions that they are allowed to fill to protect the career employee’s position.
I don’t believe that ANY of the UC schools have “student” managed food service operations. All have career managers whether employed by UC or a contractor. Run by the “students” would not be an accurate description of most of the operations although students play an important role in the operations at different schools. My understanding is that in most of these settings, the union will limit the amount of student labor and/or the positions that they are allowed to fill to protect the career employee’s position.
I don’t believe that ANY of the UC schools have “student” managed food service operations. All have career managers whether employed by UC or a contractor. Run by the “students” would not be an accurate description of most of the operations although students play an important role in the operations at different schools. My understanding is that in most of these settings, the union will limit the amount of student labor and/or the positions that they are allowed to fill to protect the career employee’s position.
I don’t believe that ANY of the UC schools have “student” managed food service operations. All have career managers whether employed by UC or a contractor. Run by the “students” would not be an accurate description of most of the operations although students play an important role in the operations at different schools. My understanding is that in most of these settings, the union will limit the amount of student labor and/or the positions that they are allowed to fill to protect the career employee’s position.
Agfter reading all the responses from,DPD, it still looks like more of his usual baloney. No facts, accusing the others of no facts and no names.
Having asked 108 davisities,over a 3 week period at the farmers market, if they knew who DPD is or had they heard of the Davis vanguard, guesswhat? 3 of them had heard of it,”somewhere”, and none had responded.
Dpd suffers from delusions of Grandeur.
Agfter reading all the responses from,DPD, it still looks like more of his usual baloney. No facts, accusing the others of no facts and no names.
Having asked 108 davisities,over a 3 week period at the farmers market, if they knew who DPD is or had they heard of the Davis vanguard, guesswhat? 3 of them had heard of it,”somewhere”, and none had responded.
Dpd suffers from delusions of Grandeur.
Agfter reading all the responses from,DPD, it still looks like more of his usual baloney. No facts, accusing the others of no facts and no names.
Having asked 108 davisities,over a 3 week period at the farmers market, if they knew who DPD is or had they heard of the Davis vanguard, guesswhat? 3 of them had heard of it,”somewhere”, and none had responded.
Dpd suffers from delusions of Grandeur.
Agfter reading all the responses from,DPD, it still looks like more of his usual baloney. No facts, accusing the others of no facts and no names.
Having asked 108 davisities,over a 3 week period at the farmers market, if they knew who DPD is or had they heard of the Davis vanguard, guesswhat? 3 of them had heard of it,”somewhere”, and none had responded.
Dpd suffers from delusions of Grandeur.