UCSC workers say administration violated ‘good faith’ measures by implementing parking rate increases

A coalition of UC Santa Cruz workers and students, including faculty members and graduate students, are fighting against the administration’s new parking rate increases, some of which went into effect this month. 

The coalition, called University Labor United, is made up of campus labor unions from the faculty and graduate student unions to unions representing bus drivers, dining hall workers and librarians. Faculty groups have been among the most vocal opponents. The faculty union, the Santa Cruz Faculty Association, says the university implemented the increases prior to concluding negotiations over the rates. 

“Senate faculty are furious about the administration’s proposed parking fee increases,” Debbie Gould, an association representative, said in a June 30 statement. “At our latest bargaining session, the administration agreed that it would not implement any increase until we had concluded the bargaining process. SCFA presumes that means a delay in implementation for everyone on the campus, and we will push for that.”

University officials didn’t answer questions for this story. 

The university announced last month that starting July, 1 parking permit fees will increase 7% to 10%, depending on the permit type. For example, A permits increased 10%, from $765.12 to $841.63 per year. The A permit offers parking in most of the school’s close-in parking lots and the remote parking lots.

UCSC officials first informed the campus of parking rate increases in January, laying out a plan of annual 6% to 10% increases starting this July and continuing through 2036, with 5% annual increases each year thereafter. In March, the faculty senate – the governing body made up of UCSC professors who run committees that write policy and make decisions involving curriculum, budgeting and instruction – passed a resolution saying it was “troubling” that the administration believed that faculty consultation wasn’t required to establish the parking rate increases. 

The resolution was read during the faculty senate meeting that month, with Chancellor Cindy Larive apologizing “for that error.” At that time, university spokesperson Scott Hernandez-Jason didn’t say whether Larive was considering pausing the increase, but said university officials expected to complete a campus consultation of the increases by the July 1 implementation date.

On June 30, school officials said the new increase for this upcoming year would be in effect July 1 and added that they would start a consultative process this fall to develop a rate schedule for the following years. 

In response, representatives from the faculty union spoke out against the announcement. In an email to its members, the union said it wrote to university officials arguing that they were ”not bargaining in good faith” after they went “back on their word, imposing illegitimate new costs on faculty” when they said they would delay implementation for faculty members until bargaining was done. 

The union asked that the Transportation and Parking Services (TAPS) office pause the parking increases for faculty until bargaining was concluded. 

Faculty union co-chair Megan Thomas wrote via email to Lookout that the university did subsequently pause the increases for faculty. 

“The SCFA has requested repeatedly that admin clarify the situation in their messaging to campus but so far no such clarifying messages have been sent by the university to my knowledge,” she wrote to Lookout.

She added that the union is “currently in bargaining” with the administration over the July 1 parking increases. 

Hernandez-Jason didn’t provide Lookout with someone to interview for this story and didn’t respond to Lookout’s questions, including whether the administration would pause the increases for faculty or other groups, and whether the university violated its policies by implementing the increases before concluding negotiations. 

The university’s FAQ page on the increases says that parking fees “should be considered within the context of overall employee compensation discussions” and “long-standing university policies and collective bargaining provisions govern how parking rates are established and negotiated.”

Additionally, the university FAQ says it can not “cannot legally or ethically apply different parking rates for the same permit to specific individuals or bargaining units.” However, graduate student union chair Rebecca Gross and University Council – American Federation of Teachers (UC-AFT) representative Jeb Purucker told Lookout that the university paused the rate increase for faculty. UC-AFT is the union representing lecturers. 

Purucker told Lookout the UC-AFT filed a cease-and-desist letter against the university’s pause for parking increases for faculty. 

“The university paused the increase for the senate faculty only, and that now is a violation of our contract because the UC-AFT contract says that they can raise rates, but they have to raise rates equally,” he said. “They can’t treat some groups of workers differently from others.”

Purucker said the university acknowledged receiving the letter but hasn’t yet filed a formal response. 

While faculty continue negotiating the parking increases, this year’s increase appears to still be in effect at least for all other groups, including students, according to Gross and Purucker. 

Third-year student Jordan Robinson said students are frustrated knowing that some won’t be able to afford the increase and believe the campus will become “inaccessible” for many. 

“A lot of students feel that they’re not really being heard at the moment … this proposal, for a lot of people, was just that tipping point,” she said. “No one’s really happy to be paying more.”

Robinson serves on the school’s Voices for Empowerment and Safety in Transportation (VEST), a student commission of seven members that advocates for student voices in the university’s transportation decisions. She said the group was disappointed the university didn’t consult with it prior to the implementation. 

“Students should be incorporated in the decisions on this campus – we’re the ones who are paying the tuition to attend here and have chosen to be here,” she said. “It’s unfortunate when we’re not incorporated in these decisions that are going to very much impact our experiences as students.”

Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.