CSU’s second salary proposal made during contract negotiations on July 29 contained small improvements over the first proposal, but is still woefully inadequate and added yet another unnecessary poison pill to our successor contract negotiations. Instead of responding to our concerns by walking back its proposed takeaway on emergency pay or proposing guaranteed raises in later years, CSU instead proposed the same kind of state budget contingency language that they abused to withhold promised raises in 2025.
Specifically, the CSU proposal included a 1% salary structure adjustment (SSA) and one step increase for 2027/28 conditioned on the CSU receiving $180 million in additional, ongoing funding from the State. If State funding were to not meet this threshold, CSU could again reopen the contract and withhold even these minimal raises.
CSU’s Lowball Salary Proposal
Current Year (2026/27):
- Total 3.2% wage increase
- All remaining Unit 6 to Target Step (1.4% overall increase)
- One 2% Step Progression, dependent on performance evaluation (1.8% overall since those at top of range wouldn’t receive step)
- Effective following ratification, meaning we would lose out on raises the longer it takes to reach a fair deal
2027/28:
- Total ~2.8% wage increase
- 1% SSA
- One 2% Step Progression, dependent on performance evaluation (1.8% overall since those at top of range wouldn’t receive step)
- Effective in October 2027, meaning 3 months of missed raises vs. if in effect in July
- State budget contingency so not actual guaranteed raises
2028/29:
- Reopener, no guaranteed raises
There is no justification for CSU to again push contingency language when countless public and private sector employers commit to multiple years of guaranteed raises facing just as much or more budget uncertainty. CSU continues to propose these minimal raises and massive takeaways even as it is receiving a 7% increase in its ongoing state funding this year and is entering the third year of its annual 6% undergraduate tuition hikes.
“There’s no budget contingency for the $13 million CSU is sending each year to OpenAI but for the people who work every day at the CSU keeping it running, the CSU puts contingency language on their lowball raise offers. There is a massive disconnect between Chancellor Garcia’s words on CSU seeking to be an ‘employer of choice’ and the reality of the insulting wages offered to their own employees at the bargaining table.”
Steve Phillips
Teamsters Bargaining Team Member, CSU Fullerton
Accounting for CSU’s continued refusal to provide the July 2025 raises contained in our prior contract and the fact that step increases would not go to all employees, CSU’s current proposal would provide a total of only 1% in general, base-building raises in four years and even that is subject to the contingency. This is not a serious or good faith proposal from the CSU and we will not stand for it.
Our Teamsters Unit 6 bargaining team countered with a salary proposal that continues to demand the full, retroactive payment of July 2025 raises, along with fair salary adjustments and step increases each of the three years, not subject to performance evaluations or contingencies.
Our Teamsters proposal:
- Rejects CSU’s attempts to effectively eliminate our emergency pay language.
- Adapts the IRP process to allow a mechanism to seek additional increases to address inequities.
- Increases various stipends and allowances that have not been adjusted in years.
- Makes clear that we will not accept CSU’s loopholes to get out of providing guaranteed, fair raises for our essential work.
Our Bargaining Team also rejected the CSU’s attempt to remove our monthly premium supplements in Article 25 – Benefits and proposed new language around life insurance and rural healthcare/dental stipends to address concerns that have been raised by our members. We also provided a response to CSU’s earlier proposal on Article 18 – Leaves of Absence with Pay with changes to reflect expansions in leave benefits under current laws and in other CSU contracts.
CSU provided their first proposal on Article 30 – Layoffs with the only proposed change being to delete language that prevents the CSU from increasing student work hours in the unit in the event of layoffs. CSU claimed they were making this proposal since they are now negotiating a contract for student workers and did not think it was appropriate to have limits on student workers in other contracts. Our team objected to this transparent attempt to weaken our language protecting our Bargaining Unit work in the event of layoffs.
Show CSU that we won’t take their insults lying down! Sign your name to the No Confidence Declaration!
“CSU’s latest lowball proposal continues to show their disrespect for the workers whose work makes the University work. Our team continues to push for a fair contract and our members are gearing up our actions as school opens up this fall to keep up the pressure on CSU.”
Jason Rabinowitz
Secretary-Treasurer, Teamsters Local 2010
Finally, we reached tentative agreements to maintain current contract language on the following 10 articles that neither side was seeking changes for: Article 3 – Management Rights, Article 5 – Effect of Agreement, Article 6 – Non-Discrimination, Article 11 – Probationary Period, Article 14 – Corrective Action, Article 15 – Employee Rights, Article 21 – Outside Employment, Article 27 – Training and Development, Article 29 – Work-Incurred Injury or Illness, and Article 31 – Savings Clause.
Our next scheduled bargaining session is on August 10 at our Teamsters office in Oakland. Our Bargaining Team will continue pressing CSU to put real raises on the table and pull back unnecessary and insulting takeaways.
In Solidarity,
Our Teamsters CSU Bargaining Team
Chief Negotiator Jason Rabinowitz, Local 2010 Secretary-Treasurer
Ernesto Torres, CSU San Bernardino, Local 2010 Vice President and Skilled Trades Director
Christopher Rooney, CSU Northridge
Carlos Sanchez, CSU San Diego
Deborah Elia, CSU San Francisco
Jared Pecot, CSU San Luis Obispo
Steve Phillips, CSU Fullerton
Alex Vermie, Local 2010 Research Analyst
