The University of California Student Association (UCSA) has joined the effort to oppose the confirmation of David Crane to the UC Board of Regents.
UC students say Crane has failed to reach out to them in any formal capacity to hear about their concerns and experiences.
UCSA also cited Crane’s recent comments questioning the value of collective bargaining for public employees.
Back in February, during the height of national attention on Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin and his move to end collective bargaining for public employees in that state, David Crane, a nominee for UC Board of Regents wrote an op-ed criticizing and questioning the need for collective bargaining in the public sector.
Mr. Crane argued in an op-ed published in the San Francisco Chronicle that “collective bargaining for public employees in California changed the balance of power and – most importantly – gave public employees power over their compensation and benefits.”
“In the private sector, collective bargaining is used to equalize the power of employees and employers,” Mr. Crane wrote, but that public sector employees already had protections against dismissal, based on laws like the Civil Service Act.
Mr. Crane continued, “Because state employees already had civil service protections, collective bargaining wasn’t needed to equalize their power with employers’ power. As a result, collective bargaining for public employees in California changed the balance of power and – most importantly – gave public employees power over their compensation and benefits.”
Senator Yee called these remarks, “a direct attack on working families.”
“I thought we had already seen the height of arrogance by UC Regents,” said Senator Yee. “It is time for Regent Crane to put away his Wisconsin playbook and come down from his ivory tower.”
“While the Regents have approved million dollar contracts for their top administrators, they allow many UC workers and their families to live in poverty,” said Senator Yee. “Now, Regent Crane wants to take away their only avenue to earning a livable wage and a respectable retirement – their collective bargaining rights.”
In a statement issued earlier this week, UCSA said, “Particularly at a time when collective bargaining rights are under attack around the country, students find it disturbing that Mr. Crane would choose this time to raise questions about this fundamental and essential right for public employees.”
“I commend UCSA for their courageous stance in opposing David Crane to the Board of Regents,” said Senator Yee. “They deserve to have someone who will fight for them and ensure their needs are addressed. Considering recent efforts to privatize the University of California, yet another wealthy investor for a Regent is the last thing students need to protect their public university.”
“Crane promotes a very dangerous agenda that would harm working families in California,” Senator Yee added. “Unlike David Crane, I believe public employees make an enormous contribution to our neighborhoods and our communities. Taking away workers’ collective bargaining rights – which doesn’t help balance the budget or protect vital services – while giving big corporations tax breaks is simply unconscionable.”
The students are not the only ones who have come out against David Crane.
“Every day is a struggle for me and my family to make ends meet. I know high paid UC execs have plans to cut my check even more,” Arnold Meza, UC Berkeley Custodian and AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) member said. “It is not right that I am tightening my belt while executives are getting fatter. At least I know that my coworkers and I are guaranteed a voice through my union in decisions that are being made that will affect us, so we can protect our families.”
Allen Clark, President of the California School Employees Association said, “David Crane has proven, once again, that he is unfit to serve as a regent of the University of California. For us, this is not just a fight for collective bargaining. It is a fight to save the middle class.
“Patient care is my top priority. Because of our union, we were able to work out receiving hours for continuing education to improve our skills in the Radiology Department that allows us to provide a higher quality of patient care,” Randy Johnson, UCSF MRI/CT Technologist and AFSCME member said. “David Crane’s hope to get rid of collective bargaining for public employees is not just an attack on working families—it is an attack on patients and quality care.”
Patty Velez, Environmental Scientist and President of the California Association of Professional Scientists added, “David Crane is free to express his anti-worker views as a private citizen, but he should not have the bully pulpit of the UC Regents. The anti-union campaign he has waged against state employees in California should not be allowed to continue as part of our world class public university system.”
UC Santa Cruz Professor Robert Meister said, “Our opposition to Crane is to yet one more multi-millionaire who made his fortune in investment banking — just like current Regents Richard Blum, Russell Gould, Hadi Makarechian, Leslie Tang Schilling, George Marcus and Bonnie Reiss.”
He added, “The UC Regents are supposed to represent the people of California, not just the multi-millionaire investment bankers of California. Is it just a coincidence, by the way, that investment bankers in general have an incentive to get people out of institutional defined benefit plans and into individual defined contribution plans? Crane’s op-ed was a red flag to the legislature that this Schwarzenegger appointment must be stopped. I applaud Senator Yee for getting the message and taking action.”
David Crane, a resident of San Francisco, was appointed to the Board of Regents by former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger during his final days in office. Crane must be confirmed by the Senate by the end of the year in order to continue serving as a Regent for a 12-year term.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Here’s the link to Crane’s op-ed in Feb. 2011:
[url]http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/02/27/IN5N1HUAMS.DTL[/url]
Crane makes a lot of good points in his op ed. I haven’t seen any of them refuted by the critics. Just a lot of mumbo jumbo about investment bankers and anti-worker name calling.
I particularly admire the integrity of the students opposing Crane. By supporting higher costs due to the current system, they are calling for higher tuition and fees that they themselves will pay. They are putting their money where their mouth is, by saying that they support the principles opposed by Crane even though it they are causing harm to their education and financial status. (I suppose the alternative is that they don’t see the connection between higher costs and their own fees. But these are UC students – they can’t be that ignorant and naive.)
I don’t think you are correct. I don’t think enough people in the UC system are on collective bargaining for it to make much difference with tuition. The tuition rates are going up due to cuts from the state budget which are due primarily to the lack of revenue due to the poor economy.
I don’t know what point you think Mr. Crane was right on, but we can talk about that.
State workers, for instance, not working for the CSU system or UC, number about 180,000. How is it that such a small number of people have an inordinate amount of power. Look at local employees including all the safety an regular paper-pushers. They are a small number of our community. Maybe they have “power” through their connection to the community and in making a good argument for being treated decently. What is this magical “super power” that public unions have? David Crane talks about it. Talk about mumbo-jumbo!
[quote]But in the public sector, no such healthy tension exists because unions can use campaign contributions to gain control of “management,” which in California’s state government means the 120 legislators and the governor who together determine employee compensation and benefits. As a result of the focused power of the unionized public-sector workforce, management (i.e., legislators and governors) can end up being more responsive to public employees than to “shareholders,” that is, citizens benefiting from public services (e.g., students paying tuition at state colleges, parents taking kids to state parks, private-sector union workers building bridges, etc.) and taxpayers paying the bills.[/quote]
The irony here is that the quote above from Crane’s article is saying exactly what many have said on this blog in relation to our city budget negotiations and the undue influence of the firefighters’ union on the bargaining process. City management is not independent from the unions they are opposing across the bargaining table. So how is Crane wrong here? I’m not getting the distinction…
Because the state is not operating the same way as the city
You confuse the state and the university. The university is constitutionally separate and has its own budget.
Pressure from escalating benefits to unionized employees is a major factor in the university’s growing budget crisis.
One quarter of the total university budget goes to staff other than faculty. Another 9% goes to benefits.
There are over 16,000 employees at UC Davis and about 1,400 faculty. Faculty are not unionized but many other staff are.
See
http://budget.ucdavis.edu/budget-planning/documents/Budget Overview-Revenue.pdf
and
http://budget.ucdavis.edu/budget-planning/documents/2011-12/Budget planning ltr and attachments 5-13-11 revised.pdf
if you want to understand some of the budget pressures the university faces. The students will be paying much higher tuitions in years to come, and a good part of the budget pressure comes from past awards of unfunded retirement and health benefits.
It is remarkably similar to the situation in which the city finds itself.