With charges pending against Local 77 that the union did not fulfill its obligations to its constituents during summer contract negotiations, members of the 950-person union are expressing mixed reactions. Although some agree with the complaints, others blame low wage increases on the University.
In a manner reminiscent of the union's tight-lipped secrecy concerning the negotiating process--during which Local 77 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees hacked out a new three-year contract with the University--a number of employees were reluctant to talk about the charges or about their satisfaction with the new contract.
Of those who did speak, some said they did not believe that Melton Summerville, the dining services employee who filed the charges in early July, had a valid case against Local 77. Summerville accused the union's negotiating team of inadequately representing union members and of coercing members to vote on the lower of two possible wage increases.
"Did the union just give up in the negotiations? Maybe, but I don't think the union could have helped a lot more," said Lela Bullock, a West Campus housekeeper. "I don't really think the University listens too much to the union anyway."
Bullock added that she had not felt pressured to ratify the contract when it was put to vote but admitted that she had not known what she would be voting on before she attended the ratification vote.
"I just trusted that the negotiators had done what they could because if you can't trust them, who can you trust?" she said.
Others supported Summerville's conclusions that the union had not lived up to members' expectations, however.
One housekeeping employee said that the union should have had enough leverage to secure more than a 6.25 percent raise over the next three years, due to the nature of the services that union members perform on campus.
Local 77 represents about 950 employees in housekeeping, campus dining, grounds keeping and animal care.
William Minor, one of Summerville's co-workers in dining services, said he agreed that the union had not adequately represented Local 77 members in summer negotiations.
He added, however, that he may not have taken the charges as far as Summerville did. "I would have kept it more in-house," he said.
Summerville said he had intended to create fanfare around his charges, but that he thought the charges were necessary for union members to receive a fair wage increase.
Minor also supported Summerville's claim that Local 77's secrecy about the matter was detrimental to the union. Summerville had expressed concern that the union's negotiating team had not provided certain documents that were key to his case at his Oct. 8 hearing.
"If there's nothing to hide, why not keep it wide open?" Minor said. "Let's see the documentation."
Minor added that there was a lack of communication between union leaders and the rest of Local 77-something Summerville said was a problem that had allowed Carlos McCovey, president of Local 77, to coerce members into ratifying an unsatisfactory contract.
"I never go to the [union] meetings because there's so much favoritism in representing certain members," Minor said. "I just try to pay my dues and stay out of trouble, and that way I don't need them representing me."
Molly Nicholson contributed to this story.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.