These UMass jobs shouldn’t have pensions; workers decry the school’s solution as ‘union busting’

AMHERST – About 300 University of Massachusetts Amherst employees, union leaders, students and community supporters attended a labor rally Monday to support of employees whose jobs will be privatized or eliminated.

According to the union, more than 100 state positions in the Advancement Division at the school will be lost.

The university says these positions are being moved to the private entity, the University of Massachusetts Amherst Foundation to comply with employment laws.

“UMass is union busting,” Andrew Gorry said. He co-chairs the Professional Staff Union executive committee at UMass.

The school says it is forced to restructure its Advancement Division to comply with employment laws, after finding that affected employees spend more than a quarter of their time fundraising, which is not allowed.

Union members allege that the administration has misled employees about the change in their status, a claim the school denies.

The University Staff Association and the Professional Staff Union filed unfair labor practices complaints Feb. 28 with state Department of Labor Relations against the university, contending that UMass bargained in bad faith.

Jeff Jones, president of Local 1459 of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, attended the rally in solidarity with the workers.

“This is union busting any way you cut it,” he said. “It’s why I’m here today, to support the action.”

UMass’ plans to privatize the jobs is a direct response to the school’s admitted noncompliance with employment law, in which affected employees spent more than 25% of their time fundraising – which is forbidden.

In a recent letter to the Massachusetts State Retirement Board, an attorney with the Boston law firm Mintz requests that the state credit about 78 employees who worked on fundraising activities with earned pension benefits.

The letter said that a needed restructuring, to comply with employment laws, means “the majority of current Advancement positions will be eliminated and recreated, in whole or in part, as private UMAF positions.”

But other current Advancement positions will be unchanged and “remain public UMass Amherst positions.”

The school says current workers will have options and protections.

“Positions are being moved to the Foundation — not eliminated — and staff will not need to apply for these positions,” a UMass spokesman said in a statement, when asked for comment. “Advancement employees can choose to move to the Foundation with their positions and continue their work supporting the University’s mission through philanthropic outreach.”

It is unclear when the problematic employee pension arrangement was discovered.

The UMass foundation is an independent, private nonprofit. It raises money to support UMass Amherst programs, facilities and seeks to benefit students and faculty, according to the school.

The school says it has worked, under a retirement board deadline, to come up with a plan that protects workers’ “past and future retirement contributions.”

The unions claim their members’ financial well-being is at risk.

“The affected employees are being told that their state positions will be eliminated and equivalent jobs created in UMAF,” the unions said. “There is no guarantee that all positions would be transferred.”

The UMass spokesman said the school has been upfront with employees.

“From the outset, the university has been consistent in its communications with USA and PSU that this process is solely driven by legal and regulatory compliance requirements,” he said.

“The university became aware of the issue as a result of another pension matter and immediately began a review to determine whether UMass employees would be impacted,” he said.

Without a restructuring of the Advancement Division, he said, the Massachusetts State Retirement Board has warned that a lack of compliance with the law ‘could jeopardize the individuals’ retirement benefits as well as the entire pension system.’”

Workers attending the rally said they were told by the university in December they could lose their pensions because of this issue. Yet the school’s lawyer, in a letter to Massachusetts State Retirement Board dated Feb. 20, said affected employees should rightfully keep their pensions.

“If our past state service was compliant with pension laws, then why isn’t current and future service (not also sufficient),” Pat Nee asked, in an interview. He is associate director of Research at the school’s Advancement office, and has been worked at UMass 19 years.

“Nineteen years and never a word about being noncompliant – we were never told we are not state employees until December 2022 – my whole life is tied up in this university,” Nee said. “If they kick me out, I have nothing.”

Nee said that as a public employee, he did not pay into Social Security, and that losing his state pension would be catastrophic.

Among speakers Monday was Gail Gunn, an Advancement Division worker. After 25 years at the university, her job is poised to disappear.

“I am completely blind,” she said. “I will tell you, I have faced many challenges. We are facing this outrageous decision – this challenge to our integrity and future. We will win with your support,” she said.