Cal State reneged on pay increases for skilled trade workers but gave its executives raises

I’ve worked at Cal State San Bernardino since 2017, supervising a team of skilled trades workers who maintain the buildings that thousands of students and faculty rely on every day. My crew is one of many across the California State University system whose work keeps campuses safe, functional and open to the nearly half a million students CSU serves.

Our work is hands-on and might be less visible than the roles people typically associate with universities, such as professors or administrators. But it is fundamental to the success of CSU, because the 43 million square feet of infrastructure across 22 campuses could not function without the electricians, plumbers, carpenters, locksmiths and maintenance workers who sustain it.

When I joined CSU, I believed that a public institution that prides itself as a place of opportunity for low-income students would show respect for its workforce, with predictable raises, solid benefits and a clear path to retirement. I’m a father of three young sons, living in one of the most expensive states in the country; these are a must.

For a moment, it looked like that expectation might finally become reality. Last year, after CSU had denied reliable salary steps for its workforce for nearly three decades, Teamsters Local 2010 won them back. That victory followed 18 months of bargaining, strikes and persistent organizing. It represents not only a financial breakthrough, but a long-overdue recognition for thousands of workers.

Now CSU is walking back those promised contractual raises and step increases, despite receiving full state funding (through a loan) intended to pay workers more. The move is not only disappointing but outrageous, because the workers fought for and won that funding.

When the initial state budget proposed cuts to CSU, thousands of union members mobilized. We advocated for CSU, lobbying and petitioning the state to restore the funding needed so we could finally be paid fairly. Because of us, CSU received full funding in the state’s budget, funding that was intended for restoring salary step increases.

CSU has since pocketed that money, while claiming it does not have the funding to provide raises for its workers, many of whom are struggling to make ends meet.

Meanwhile, CSU has approved significant salary increases for campus presidents and eliminated administrative pay caps designed to prevent excessive growth in executive compensation. CSU’s Chancellor Mildred García received more than $1 million in salary and other perks this year alone.

The money is there. What’s missing is the willingness to pay the frontline workers — who keep the campuses running — what we are owed.

To add insult to injury, CSU has offered workers a one-time bonus in place of the multi-year raises that were guaranteed in our contract.

A one-time bonus is not going to help cover the cost of my sons’ college tuition. It will not get me, nor my colleagues, through the rising cost of living in California. It will do little to help with mortgages or soaring insurance costs. 

As a single-income household supporting three children, I need the contractual raises I’m owed, not a one-time payment intended to subdue workers.

This broken promise is not just unfair; it undermines CSU’s public mission. CSU cannot claim to be a “powerful agent for social mobility and economic prosperity” when it treats its workers this way.

Across the CSU system, the frustration is widespread and only growing. Workers know the refusal to pay promised raises is not the result of financial shortcomings, but rather a reflection of CSU’s priorities — to take care of those at the top.

That’s why members of Teamsters Local 2010 are prepared to go on an unfair labor practice strike across 22 CSU campuses from Feb.17-20. No worker wants to strike. But withholding our labor is the only tool left to force CSU to honor our contract and the promise they made to us.

If CSU wants to uphold the values it promotes publicly, including equity and access to opportunity, it must start by honoring commitments it made to its workers. 

The question is not whether CSU can afford to pay us. It’s whether the university is willing to put the wellbeing of its workforce ahead of greed.