Bargaining updates: September 11th

CAWU presented counter proposals on Management Rights and No Discrimination.

Management did not have any counter proposals, saying that they will need some time to work on the economics for some proposals because, “labor costing is new to us.”

Discussion on Article 3: No Discrimination

The Bargaining Team is committed to maintaining rights for all employees by turning the non-discrimination language from the Employee Handbook (pg. 13) into a binding agreement in the contract. We made our initial No Discrimination proposal on December 19th, and have gone back and forth with management on the language (see the Article Tracker for dates).

The Bargaining Team proposed this language (taken nearly verbatim from our Employee Handbook) for Article 3, Section 1 of the contract:

The Union, the employees, and the Employer agree that conduct which constitutes unlawful harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, AIDS/HIV status, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical or mental disability, genetic information, military or veteran status, marital status, sex, gender identification or expression, political belief, family status, sexual orientation, age, pregnancy, citizenship or immigration status, status as a victim of domestic violence, and any other category protected by federal, state, or local law will not be tolerated.

In addition, the Employer will not discriminate against or harass any Employee on the basis of their union activity or union support. Those violating this policy may be subject to disciplinary action. It is understood that the Employer is an equal-opportunity employer, consistent with all applicable laws.

It’s unclear why management doesn’t want us to enshrine these rights. Instead of being specific about characteristics that should not be discriminated against, management wants the Bargaining Team to agree to this instead:

“Neither the Employer nor the Union will discriminate against any person on any basis prohibited by applicable federal, state, or local laws.”

Management's proposed language is insufficient because local, state, and federal laws protecting people from discrimination can change. Recent dramatic reversals of precedent by the Supreme Court, and the documented hostility of the first Trump administration to the National Labor Relations Board, which enforces labor law, are reasons why agreeing to specific conduct in a contract is so important.

While in bargaining, Gina (management’s negotiator) repeatedly told the Bargaining Team that our thoughts on this section were only “strong feelings,” and dismissed our overall concerns about the changing landscape of protections, telling us “feelings are not facts.” This felt very demeaning and belittling, and out of alignment with the reality of rollbacks on previous protections.

Whether or not you believe California is a state where all relevant protections will remain in place, there shouldn’t be any problem with enshrining this language into our contract when it already exists in our handbook. It’s clear management plans to use this as a bargaining chip—but we don’t believe this should be up for debate. Tell the Bargaining Team and Contract Action Team what you think, and talk with your coworkers about it.

Expect more of this kind of game-playing from management as negotiations progress. You can put an end to it by building power together:

• Sign up for membership

• Talk to your colleagues about our union, our contract campaign, and why they should sign up for membership

• Follow negotiations on our article tracker and updates page

• Make our union visible by wearing your pin (real or virtual) every day and union t-shirt on Thursdays