Archive 2017


Welcome to the new CSUEU Chapter 318 website. Please excuse the construction zones as we transition from the old to the new. As of December 1, 2016 all new content will be located here. Efforts are underway to move the older still pertinent content from the old site.


Preparations for Chapter 318 Elections

November 30, 2017

Every three years elections are held for your chapter officers. We are coming up on the next election cycle Spring 2018. Now is the time for any member to nominate themselves or someone else (with their permission of course) for any of the officer positions listed below.

  • Chapter President/General Council Delegate
  • Chapter Vice-President
  • Chapter Secretary
  • Chapter Treasurer
  • Chapter Organizing Chair
  • Unit 2 Representative
  • Unit 5 Representative
  • Unit 7 Representative
  • Unit 9 Representative
  • General Council Delegates/Alternates

If you are interested in running download the Nomination and Consent Form (this is an MS Word document), complete and turn in to the Nominations committee.

Bargaining 2017

November 6, 2017

Contract Extended Through Ratification

The CSU and CSUEU have agreed to an extension of the contract previously in place while all parties work through the ratificaiton process. The CSUEU posting of the details is on their web page. Find the full content of the extension at the CSUEU posting of a PDF version.

October 27, 2017

CSU Employees Union Reaches Tentative Agreement

This agreement still needs to be ratified by Union Members and accepted by the CSU Board of Directors. Find the full write-up at the CSUEU article

October 20, 2017

CSUEU contract expired. See the CSUEU update.

Per a notice sent out at CSU Long Beach "The contract expiration should not impact the daily business of the university, however it does impact how overtime wages are paid. Until further notice, all overtime must be paid in cash. Employees cannot accumulate CTO during this time unless the contracts are extended or a new contract is in place. To clarify, employees can still use CTO to cover approved absences from work, however they cannot accrue CTO."

August 1, 2017

Curious about what the Chancellor's Office is proposing for pay and benefits? See our web information page for the CSU's salary and benefits proposals and analysis. Management's vision for the future of staff pay includes hand-picked pay increases, across-the-board parking increases, and longer vesting for retirement health benefits.

IRP Response - We Are Not Amused

July 31, 2017

Dear Fellow Staff:

Many of us received emails announcing that our In-Range Progression Requests for equitywere denied (some lucky few did receive IRP and congratulations to them). The campus used a form letter for the denials a form letter which is the same at other CSU campuses:

San Diego State University

The Center for Human Resources received an in-range progression request based on "equity." The University is denying the in-range progression request. This decision is based on a thorough review and analysis including the information submitted and we have determined an in-range progression is not warranted. You may submit a new request for in-range progression review in accordance with the CSUEU collective bargaining agreement.

CSU San Marcos

The Office of Human Resource received your in-range progression request based on "equity." The University is denying the in-range progression request. Based on a thorough review and analysis, including the information submitted, the campus has determined an in-range progression is not warranted. You may submit a new request for in-range progression review in accordance with the CSUEU collective bargaining agreement.

This is not an acceptable response. The CSU must give a real response, not a form letter. They must do a real analysis, not avoid the question. There are mandatory steps to an equity request:

  • Determine if there is an equity problem using comparisons of the employee’s salary to other employees hired later in the same classification.
  • If there is an equity problem, respond to the employee that there is merit to the request.
  • If there is an equity problem, forward the IRP request to the department for funding.
  • If the department refuses funding, then notify the employee that funding was denied and that the request can be resubmitted in the next fiscal year (after July 1, 2017 in this case).
  • Our campus is skipping all of these mandatory steps:

  • They are ignoring the fact that newer employees have been hired at a higher salary.
  • They are refusing to acknowledge the merit of the request.
  • They are not forwarding the request to the department for funding.
  • They are not telling employees that they can immediately resubmit their IRP request.
  • The CSU is doing this across the system because they cannot afford to respond to real lags in salary. They know that all CSU staff are behind an average of 9.2%. How do we know this? Because they gave us their proposal at contract bargaining with this information.

    Their solution is to handpick 2,291 people out of 16,000 to reward. Only employees who lag more than 17% behind the market salary would get any sort of increase (although some as little as $6 per year). Their proposal for “Equity Adjustments” is exactly what we described above except the President has “absolute discretion.” You can see the CSU’s bargaining proposal at our chapter web site ( beginning next Wednesday.

    What is the Union doing about this?

    First, we are going to share the information that the Chancellor’s Office put across at the bargaining table about your salaries. This includes the market salaries for every classification and the amounts they propose to approve or deny for employees (if they get their way).

    Second, we are filing an information request on the “thorough review and analysis” described in the denial letters. What are they using for comparison? How did they decide one employee with a lag gets an IRP and another gets a form letter?

    Third, we are filing an unfair labor practice for bad faith bargaining and unilateral changes to our union contract. The CSU either never intended for the IRP procedures to work for all employees or they just decided to screw it up now.

    Fourth, we are going to fight this at the bargaining table while IRP and salary are still on the table. If they want to play games with the contract, then we are going to put them in check with our own proposals.

    What can you do about this?

    If you got an IRP denial, send it to us at Fill out the request for more information to Human Resourcesso you get answers about their “thorough review and analysis.

    We all need to stick together as union members and as employees fighting for a fair contract.

    If you did not sign a membership card when you were hired, sign one now. This contract is our future. We can hold the CSU accountable, we can fix the salary system and restore service steps and improve IRP. When we fight, we win!

    In Union,
    Robert Yslas, Jr.
    Chapter 318, President

    IRP Information

    July 26, 2017

    Your Chapter Leadership is working on response to the massive IRP denial letters that have been going out. We will not sit still for this. Meantime we wanted you to know a little bit about IRPs when salaries are inverted

    Our CSUEU Headquarters is leading up a campaign related to salaries. See the news at the CSUEU HQ website.

    CSUEU E-Newsletter May 2017

    May 19, 2017

    A Rally For Change is being held on May 23, 2017 at the Office of the Chancellor in Long Beach. Rally flyer is availble.

    May 12, 2017

    The CSUEU Communications Team has had some changes in personnel and is hoping to have an email E-Newsletter up and going soon. Meantime a PDF version is available. The links may not work directly. You can always copy and paste them.

    CSU Middle Management Audit

    April 22, 2017

    The State of California, specifically the State Auditor, conducted a audit of the California State University system in response to the tremendous growth in middle management positions over that last few years. As expected, the growth in middle management increased 15% from 2007-08 to 2015-16, while seeing only a 6% growth in staff and 7% for faculty. We would like to thank Assembly-member Shirley Weber for her support and pursuit of this audit. The Auditor's chief complaint is the lack of oversight and accountability of the CSU as it relates to their budget, middle management increases, and lack of compliance from its previous audit.

    Here are some newspaper articles on this topic for your review (just to list a few):

    Therefore, I would ask you to please contact your local state legislators to demand oversight and accountability and stop the madness. Additional we ask that you write to your legislator to promote supporting SB 318 (Personal Service Contracts), AB 848 (Foreign Country Outsourcing), and an increase of $167.7 million to the proposed CSU budget...all with the intent of having oversight, transparency, and accountability. A sample letter is provided for your reference. Please take the time to send a letter to your representatives. Please email or mail your letters directly to your state representative.

    Auditor's Reports: Fact Sheet, Summary, Full Report

    In Union,
    Robert Yslas, Jr.
    President, CSUEU Chapter 318

    Contract Action! Please Write a Letter Today!

    April 18, 2017

    We need to get the attention of the President and the Chancellor! To do that, we are asking every San Diego State University employee to write a letter. It can be as simple as “President Hirshman/Chancellor White, please treat us fairly in our contract negotiations”. We have some samples you can use, edit, or just get ideas from below. We need to deliver a Santa size stack at the upcoming Board of Trustee's meeting to make an impression!

    Here’s what we’d like you to do:

    • 1. Prepare two letters: 1) to the President and 2) to Chancellor White. Use one of the samples below or write your own. Sign them.
    • 2. Deliver your letters by 5/19 to: Robert Yslas MC-7455

    We will deliver the letters to the President and the Chancellor at the May 25th Board of Trustee meeting. So please, write your letters today and deliver them by Friday, May 19th. We need to show the CSU administration that staff DO care and that we are concerned about. . .

    • ● Step pay!
    • ● No increases to parking costs!
    • ● No reduction in retirement benefits!
    • ● Fairness in benefits and salary increases with MPP and non-union staff.
    • ● Accept our preamble!
    • ● Stay out of Article 7 & 8!

    Let’s do this together! One Union, one Voice!
    In Union,
    Robert Yslas, Jr.
    President, CSUEU Chapter 318

    Following are 3 sample letters for reference. Each has a link to the document file in case you wish to use it.,

    Sample Letter 1  Don't Crush The Little Guy Word Format

    President <campus President>, Chancellor White,

    The CSUs proposals for modifying the CSUEU contract are crushing staff. We can’t get pay raises without begging, a humiliating process that is most often rejected by the department supervisors without even being passed to HR. New staff are hired making as much as staff who have been here for years. And now the CSU, YOU, want to take away benefits, charge more for parking, and crush our union.

    You cannot put the burden of the CSU problems on the backs of staff. It will not fix the problem!

    • Improve the staff to MPP ratio and provide more growth opportunities for staff.

    • Ensure that management pay raises are no more than what staff receive in their contract.

    • Ensure that management benefits are no more than what staff receive. And that they pay an equal share for them.

    • Staff are what keep things moving on this campus and yet they are continually kicked to the curb. Please stop beating up staff!

    One Union! One Voice!



    Sample Letter 2  Respect Word Format

    President <campus president>, Chancellor White,

    <Campus president> often speaks of respect, excellence, collaboration, and inclusion. 

    ...And yet staff always seem to be the last priority. Here are a few of the practices that don't demonstrate respect toward staff:

    1. Not replacing staff who leave.

    The workload is simply added to that of those who remain without any additional compensation.

    2. Turning a blind eye to overtime.

    Managers keep repeating that they won’t compensate overtime. Staff have been told to just get all the work done in 40 hours, which is often just not possible.

    3. Managers receive training that tells them not to check the box on staff evaluations that would indicate increased workload or new responsibilities.

    This makes no sense! Being honest here might mean the staff person would well deserve a pay raise or reclassification.

    4. Since the budget is tight, take away staff benefits.

    If we make things bad enough, they won't stay and accrue retirement benefits. And if we slash those, maybe they won't stay at all.

    5. Keeping the pay low.

    Management clearly get regular pay increases from the campus, management pay increases should be paid right after staff are paid yearly increases.

    6. Keeping the unprofessional management styles that lead to hostile and disrespectful work environments for staff.

    7. And now negotiating to reduce union rights to be able to try to help each other? 

    Could anything more be done to break the spirit of people who came to work for this university believing the words we use about respect and great places to work?

    One Union! One Voice!



    Sample Letter 3  We Matter Word Format

    Hello <Campus President>, Chancellor White,

    Many of us have worked here for years accepting lower than market pay in exchange for a promise for retirement benefits. To reduce those benefits is not only taking away the trust we have in this campus but also taking money from our pockets! We have stood by this campus through thick and thin. During the furlough’s we worked harder and made less for it but we did it on the promise that when the time came you would take care of us. There were many who did not have a second salary through a spouse or family during that time, and what kept us all going was the fact that the campus would be there for us not if but when we needed. 

    Not only are you taking from us by paying wages below market salaries, but now we are supposed to give up some of the benefits we’ve worked so long and hard for, to pay higher parking fees, and pay more for the benefits we still have. And then, we are supposed to be grateful to have a job….

    This campus is run by the “little” people. The IT techs who keep the computers safe and updated and take care of all of our computer needs, the facilities workers who make sure that things are maintained, and that paint is not peeling, and admin assistants, coordinators, analysts, budget managers, I could name them all but I am sure you get what I am saying!

    The bottom line is that while we continue to stay, we are more and more frustrated. We have given everything to this job because we believe in the mission, love the job itself, the campus, our co-workers, and the students. This campus could be a great workplace, it is as easy as keeping promises and playing fair.  Do not continue to treat us as third class citizens! 

    Doesn’t it make you glow with pride when you see employees smiling, happy, telling others that this truly is a fantastic place to work? 

    We would sure like to be those employees! 

    One Union! One Voice!



    Significant Problems Raised in Proposed Lateral Reassignment Procedure

    Brian Young, CSUEU Lead Labor Relations Representative

    February 2017

    CSUEU and SDSU officials met for a second time on the subject of lateral reassignment, movement of an employee from one position to another with the same classification and skill level.

    At the February 7 meeting, the University claimed that salary protections only applied to the new lateral reassignment process, but not to the existing recruitment process, which allows a manager to offer a lower salary.

    The contract is clear on lateral reassignment. Provision 17.10 of the union contract states:

    An employee may request a lateral reassignment to a posted position that is the same classification and skill level as the employeeís existing classification and skill level. An employee reassigned under this provision shall be paid at least the same salary rate as that of his/her previous position.

    The only other way to transfer employees laterally is through recruitment for a posted position. Some of these postings propose hiring salaries below the current salary of the employee. The Unionís position has always been that employees who move laterally are protected from salary reductions.

    Without this protection, employees could be forced to choose between staying in their current position or restart the slow climb up the salary scale for a new job opportunity.

    Complicating the picture, SDSU proposed that new lateral reassignment would work alongside old recruitment procedures. This would allow managers to reject lateral reassignment (and salary protection) and hire with a lower salary under open recruitment.

    The parties still share an interest in developing new procedures that clarify what steps are necessary for lateral movement, common standards for classifications, and increasing on-campus mobility. But the Union will not create a new process (lateral reassignment) that implies protections are lost on the larger scale (open recruitment).

    CSUEU formally requested clarification from the campus on the existing hiring policy. The Union will file a charge if the campus is not protecting employee salaries as guaranteed by the union contract.

    Attending the February 9 meeting for the Union were Brian Young, CSUEU field representative, and Sherry Velthuysen, CSUEU Unit 7 Representative. Catherine Love represented Human Resources and Heather Bendinelli represented Employee Relations.