Aug. 23, 1999
Correction to Aug. 18 letter
I would like to correct a misstatement in my letter to the Newsbulletin of Aug. 18 in which I wrote, "should members of a collective bargaining unit decide they didn't like the union that represents them, it would take more than half of all the members of the unit, not a simple majority, to evict the union." SB 645 states, "A vote of a majority of all the employees in a negotiating unit shall be required to rescind the organizational security arrangement" (referring to the requirement that nonunion members in a represented collective bargaining unit pay fees comparable to those paid as dues to the union or the equivalent to charitable organizations). I deeply regret any confusion caused by this error. The legislative analysis and SB 645 may be found at http://www.sen.ca.gov/htbin/testbin/ca-html?GOPHER_ROOT2:[BILL.CURRENT.SB.FROM0600.SB0645]CURRVER.TXT;1/bill/SB645
The issue of fairness raised in my letter remains. The fundamental democratic principle of majority rule seems to have gotten lost in the rush to bring HEERA to the Lab. Who has asked employees labwide if they want collective bargaining and its often adversarial methods. Not the California legislature, whose members in two hearings in New Mexico managed to find time for a total of only four Laboratory employees to testify and who presume to legislate for people who have no role in electing them. Not the University of California or the Laboratory, who have never asked the workforce for an opinion and could have, had they acted before the juggernaut got rolling. Not those who approached California legislators to legislate "employee rights" without asking the rest of us whether we preferred the right of collective bargaining to our first amendment rights of freedom of speech and association (HEERA or the HEERA-like policy will impose many constraints on current interactions between managers and employees).
As Stephen Barker of UC-Irvine points out in his presentation, "The Civility Dilemma," the way to reduce friction between subcultures (in this case, managers and employees) at an institution is by civil communication, which properly done leads to mutual understanding and problem resolution. I believe that this approach would lead to higher-quality, more enduring solutions than any achieved by us-against-them methods and that such divisiveness in the work place will aggravate our already difficult work environment, increasing stress levels and decreasing productivity.
Perhaps we are not always satisfied with the results of current interactions between managers and employees, but I see changes taking place since the advent of the current director and many moves in the right direction. The Salary Policy Committee and the Grassroots Safety Team are examples. So are the concerns for ethical conduct and people mistreatment issues expressed in the Six Zeros concept. Change takes time, and I would like to give it more time as long as progress continues.
--Betsy Barnett