The Wake

Mark Desrosiers, a library assistant for the University of Minnesota, also joined in the picketing at Coffman. Desrosiers says he is “sick and tired of getting screwed by the ”U.” [The University] expects things out of us that we can’t afford anymore.”

Almost exactly a year after a two-week strike by the University’s clerical and technical workers, certain issues surrounding the walkout remain unresolved.

University workers’ unions have chosen to focus on issues surrounding their new health care plan, or U Plan. University Unions United organized informational pickets outside of employee health and benefits fairs, which occurred Oct. 26 at St. Paul Student Center and Oct. 27 outside Coffman Union. The coalition consists of American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local Unions 3260, 3800, 3801 and 3937.

Desrosiers adds that getting the unions to work together was a step in the right direction.

Union members claim the university overestimated its health care budget for 2005 by nearly $6 million. Materials distributed by union members cited that the university, which will pay for 85 percent of cost for a family plan will save $5.1 million, while U Plan subscribers, who pay the other 15 percent, will save $900,000. The handout attributed this statistic to a Minnesota Daily article.

Lori Ann Vicich, director of communications for the university’s Office of Human Resources, says that the unions are “negotiating on estimates.” She confirms that current estimates point to an 8.5 percent increase in health care as opposed to the 13.5 percent increase that the university budgeted for next year. These are the figures the unions base their claim of a $6 million savings on. She noted that the specifics of a surplus wouldn’t be known until June of 2006.

Vicich says the health care program was operating at nearly a $6 million deficit before this year. Therefore, any money left over would be put towards accounting for the deficit. The unions claim that the extra money is going into the university’s general fund, but Vicich says, “The general fund is what covers the deficit.”

Stefanie Levi, a phone interviewer with the health studies department who participated in the picket outside of Coffman Union, says that the increase to a 15 percent premium was “essentially a wage cut.” The premium for this year was 10 percent. She says the increase “is not a life or death issue for my family, but is for others.”

The unions believe the money saved by the university next year should be put towards keeping premiums stable. Candace Lund, president of Local 3937, says keeping the premium at 10 percent for 2005 would cost the university $4.5 million, with $1.5 million of the projected savings left over, according to current estimates.

Some university workers believe that the unions could choose their battles more wisely. Two clerical workers, who wished to remain anonymous for fear of negative repercussions, believe that health care should not be as high on the union’s list of concerns.

“Everyone is paying through the nose for health care these days, and we’re better off than most,” says one university employee. She adds that her husband is $50,000 in debt because of expenses related to cancer treatment. If the same thing had happened to her, she would not be in nearly as bad of shape financially, she says.

Both argue that the union isn’t doing enough to benefit its older workers. They have each worked at the “U” for around 30 years. “I have met the rule of 90, [which is years of experience added to years of employment] and I can’t retire,” says one worker, citing that insurance needs and lack of benefits keep her working. Both of them fully participated in last year’s strike, but since have chosen to become “fair-share” share members of the union, as opposed to full members because they were disappointed with the results of last year’s settlement.

Union and university officials don’t dispute that money will be left over from what was originally budgeted for in 2005. It’s how the money will be used that has caused the disagreement between the two sides. It’s a matter of what should come first: stabilizing health care premiums for workers, or recovering losses caused by past health care costs.