2:15: University is doing PR stuff. They "appreciate the spirit" of our approaches, but want to make them more "manageable." University does not want to support a living wage salary increase. They do not think that this compensation would be appropriate, even though the costs would be negligible, and are justifying this with the opportunity that they offer graduate students through positions. Apparently, the fact that this opportunity includes wages that many GTF workers struggle to live on is irrelevant to them. The University NEEDS our work, but they're pretending that it's a one-way street of them benefiting us through our work.
2:20: The University does not want to take further steps to make sure that GTFs aren't asked to work more hours than they are paid, because this would be too hard.
2:22: The University says it is not practical for all GTF workspaces to have access to Internet in their offices, because apparently this is still the 1980s.
2:27: The University wants to reduce the frequency of GTF evaluations.
2:29: The University also does not want students to be guaranteed the length of funding they are TOLD THEY WILL HAVE when they are accepted at UO. Told that you would be covered for four years, and then in your third year have funding pulled away? Tough luck, says the University.
2:31: The University does not want to make a policy where departments are not allowed to discourage GTFs from enrolling in Summer class, even though this is perfectly allowable for GTFs to do. They just want to keep it on the down-low and handle it on a case-by-case basis, allowing it to continue behind the scenes.
2:35: The University does not want to accept the proposed GTF salary increase They also do not want to officially acknowledge when GTFs cover for other GTFs who have to miss a class. GTFs already cover for other GTFs, but they just do not want to acknowledge it officially.
2:40: The University is rejecting the following paid leaves for GTFs: medical, sickness, and death in a family. UO says: Don't get sick or have a family, folks! It also looks like paid parental leave is being rejected too, but I'm going to wait until I have clear information about this to confirm it.
2:47: So far, the general response by UO to fairer GTF working conditions and wages:
2:49: Looks like the University wants to introduce language around drug tests and background checks.
2:50: University is unable to respond about Healthcare proposals (such as Major Dental Coverage) yet. Because "money doesn't grow on trees." Teeth don't grow on trees either, buddy.
2:52: We're asking for a written statement about their counter-proposals. They have to ask if they can do that. I mean, we gave them a whole detailed PowerPoint presentation and we're mostly getting vague statements with vague rationales, but I guess the University just doesn't have time to give us clear information right off the bat.
2:55: Yep, looks like they generally want to reject the general proposals of GTFs getting ANY paid leave. Even though GTFs are typically in an age group most likely to start a family, apparently the University doesn't want us to be able to do that. And since they are rejecting wage increases, having a baby as a GTF can financially destroy you, as you will not be paid during that time.
2:57: Caucusing right now. The general air in the room amongst members is one of disappointment and annoyance. The University does not seem to want to support their GTF workers.
3pm: I want to take this time to quickly thank everyone who showed up today. A lot of people are away for Break, but we still have a good amount of people showing up.
3:18: The Union hands out blue cards for GTFs to sign if
they would like to voluntarily become full members of the GTFF. Apparently the
University wants a say in what is on these blue cards, or maybe may want people
do it electronically so they are dissuaded from going into the Union office and
getting more information from Union staff and volunteers.
3:28: Lost Internet access. I’ll be typing into an offline
document and then upload when wireless is letting me in again. Good thing that
this is not my office and I don’t have any undergraduate e-mails to respond to!
3:35: Caucus over. Now our side of the table will be asking
for clarifications. Why do we need University approval for our blue cards?
University side responds: we don’t know, we’ll have to check.
3:38: We are also wondering why the University wanted to
eliminate certain categories from a proposal about non-discrimination.
University: “Do you know of an example where someone was discriminated against
based on HIV-status?” REALLY? The University does not understand what it means
to discriminate against someone with “certain characteristics” because in some
circumstances these warrant “different treatment.” This is a very unsettling
response.
3:41: Regarding the implementation of time sheets that will
make sure GTFs are not forced to work over-time, the University does not want
to make every department conform to “a single process” that would “impose” on
different parts of the University that has different needs. The University
wants to avoid “unnecessary centralization.” Shouldn’t GTFs not being worked overtime be
relevant across the board though?
3:43: Now we are asking about the University saying it is
not practical to provide basic food appliances (such as mini-fridges, which are
also useful for storing insulin and breast milk). The University does not think
that kitchen access has been a problem, so they want more information about that.
3:47: We want more information about the prices of providing
GTF workers with wireless access on campus. The University will hopefully
provide those numbers.
3:50: The University does not want a penalty for not being
able to provide GTF workers workspaces within a length of time. We want to know
where GTFs will work if they are not provided a space. University: it depends
on the GTF. The University does not know what GTFs will do about meetings with
Undergrads in that situation, but wants a specific example of this situation occuring. I
guess planning ahead for things isn’t enough when it involves GTF workers?
4:03: We are not sure why the University thinks it is
unreasonable to have a policy where graduate programs are not allowed to
attempt to coerce students into not taking Summer classes, especially because
the Collective Bargaining Agreement says we have should have Summer funding. We
also do not understand why better Summer coverage is not practical, considering
that it used to have better coverage (and the University is loaded with cash).
4:06: We think that layoffs should be covered by the
University because the University has MUCH more money to deal with their
fluctuations than graduate students, who might be forced out of the University
by a layoff when they cannot afford to attend anymore. Students should be
guaranteed the length of coverage they were told they would have. If a course
does not get enough enrollments, that is not the GTF’s fault, especially since
it was the Department who put that position forward. 2 weeks notice on a layoff
can completely destroy a graduate student financially. We would like a clear
counter-proposal about this.
4:10: The University said that the financial aid’s office
report on the cost of a living wage is irrelevant, and we want to know why.
University: “The GTFs’ wages are not intended to insure to the GTF that all
their living expenses will be covered.” Apparently this is because of the market!
They think they are “helping the GTFs” but don’t mention how we are essential
and CHEAP for the University to hire. We’re letting them know that it is not
okay for them to discount our contribution to the University.
4:13: University responds: “This is a mutually beneficial
operation.” They are saying that they did not mean to imply this is a “one-way
street.” Our response is that since our contributions are so valued, our living
conditions need to be taken into account. We bring in a ton of tuition revenue,
and we want to be able to pay rent and buy groceries. We think our living wage proposal is
reasonable because we are using the living wage numbers that the University Financial Aid Office provided.
4:16: We are confused that the University dismissed all paid
leave because “6/12 weeks is unfeasible.” But this is not what we asked for –
we said 6 weeks per year, not 6 weeks per 12 weeks. This is just like what
Staff and Faculty are allowed to do, for example, if they have a baby.
4:18: We are disappointed with the outright “No” given to us
by the University about paid leave. Our members are going to be extremely
unhappy. To tell us that we don’t deserve any paid leave at all is very
frustrating.
4:20: They are discussing the ins-and-outs of GTFs covering for
other GTFs. The question would be how to actualize this policy in light of
other employment policies about GTFs. But, once again, this has already been occurring; the question is whether the University will be able to acknowledge it.
4:21: We are also concerned about how GTFs on parental leave
can receive health insurance if this is unpaid leave.
4:23: We think that we should have access to physical copies
of Collective Bargaining Agreements because we can actually physically bring
them with us when we have a dispute. Our members find them very useful. The University does not want to pay for this paper.
4:26: The University wants to figure out the bargaining schedule for next term. They want us to consider what we can get out of the way
so we can focus on the more contentious issues.
4:28: We want copies of their proposals so they can’t pull
stuff up out of the blue on us in the next meeting. We can’t make any
concessions unless we have clear proposals.
4:45: The Bargaining meeting is finished for today, but the grads are going to meet to discuss thoughts about the proceedings. Thanks again, GTFF Bargaining Team! More info next term.
