Jan. 6, 2005

Protecting our benefits

I have been reading with empathy concerns raised by Laboratory retirees about future benefits under a contractor change. From my discussions at the Lab, the current work force has similar concerns. Here is the problem in a nut shell. How can Laboratory employees protect our pay and benefit packages presently offered by the University of California? One must first recognize the fact that keeping UC in itself does not ensure anyone of any continued benefit. To my knowledge, no UC employee has any contractual agreement guaranteeing any benefit with the university. Therefore, UC could change any and all benefits at their whim. It is also my understanding that we UC employees do not even enjoy the governmental protection of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which protects corporate America employees from some employer pension abuses.

The only sure way to protect employee benefits and pay is through collective bargaining. I have spent a considerable number of years as the corporate designee for union contracts. In the past I would have never considered such an option for myself or other UC employees, but in today's environment and the uncertainty of UC's future management prospects, it is important to protect ourselves. We could rely on the goodwill of others, but who knows for sure what that outcome will be.

This situation reminds me of when the Department of Energy Laboratory security force was privatized in the late 1970s, early 1980s. Politicians at that time promised comparative benefits for the DOE security guards; the RFP stated comparable benefits (aren't those the same words being used in our present situation?) What the security force got was $150 per month for an IRA versus their government retirement plan, plus significant reductions in their overall benefit package. How do I know this is a fact? It is because I was the administration manager for the winning Lab security contractor. Based on the previous example, I wouldn't count on the feds or politicians to protect any of us.

The current RFP states that the new contractor will have to recognize any existing collective bargaining agreements. Perhaps those affected might well consider the limited options that are in front of us.

--Tommy Hook