Today, the Regents of the University met after a rally of nearly 200 supporters of the All Campus Labor Council and GEO. During the public comments period, eight of ten speakers spoke to the impact of health care changes on employees of the university. Here are some excerpts:

Five members of the all-campus labor council spoke today. GEO President David Dobbie spoke about the need for the University to become a leader in the health care crisis, and called on the University to respect GEO’s contract. Gina Soter, a member of LEO reflected on the impact of the changes on lecturers. She pointed out that the current proposal simply shifts the burden to workers. Instead, she proposed that labor and management stand together “shoulder to shoulder” to fight against growing health care conglomerates and rising costs. Ken Chaves, president of the UM Skilled Trades union spoke about how the University’s benefits package has traditionally been the thing that makes UM an attractive employer, helping with both bringing in new employees and retaining old. He mentioned that the changes especially affect employees who have made career committments to the University. Finally, Ron Lomax, of the UM AAUP requested an all-campus benefits compensation oversight committee. He read a statement from the AAUP that requested that the CHIPD report not be approved until further attention was paid to the concerns of University faculty and employees.

In addition, William Shea spoke about the inequities of the CHIPD plan, particularly pointing out how lower income employees may be disproportionately burdened with the creation of new family tiers, and further that the University apparently didn’t even study the distribution of employees in tiers. Retiree Robert Green spoke about the impact of the changes on retirees with fixed incomes. Finally, Chelsea Stroh spoke on behalf of SOLE and undergraduates in support of GEO and general respect for University labor.

Following the rally by the cube, the public comments were a powerful and coherent statement of the dissatisfaction of both organized labor and other university community members with the proposals of the CHIPD committee and the university.

Tags:

Comments are closed