WHEN LAST WE MET, THE ADMINISTRATION HAD WALKED AWAY FROM THE TABLE.
Just in case that was unclear. In response to this act of bad faith in bargaining, our members have overwhelmingly voted to authorize our bargaining team to call a strike, when legal issues permit such and action. We would prefer not to strike. We want to work. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations persists...
Today we're meeting, but the administration is still refusing to bargain on the economic issues, so today will likely be a brief conversation about Article 9. Room is rapidly filling with members, as well as allies from local unions. We're here, we're strong and we're angry.
4:05 p.m. Here we go. Admin confirms the only item on the agenda is Article 9. They are not getting the message. The admin still insisting adding a single piece of paper to a file is a workload issue for staff. The admin is adding in new language that requires departments to include their absence policy in their departmental agreements. They also are adding language that allows a GTF to ask a supervisor about workload.
The university will only maintain the records if a GTF decides to make a comment about the workload required by a particular course. Otherwise, no records will be kept. They are trying to "reduce the number of pieces of paper" on file, except for "useful" information.
We're responding that having the workload history on file, whether there was a comment or not, is important in the case that no one comments even though there's an an issue and a GTF decides to check if there is a history of unreported workload issues. The admin's proposal prevents a problem from being addressed in the term where it occurs, basically.
The admin is now appealing to the fact that workload issues rarely crop up. Never you mind that the reason they rarely crop up is because we don't have the sheets and GTFs often do not realize they are being overworked. We made this proposal because workload is an issue and there needs to be rigorous documentation of workloads so that GTFs can be aware of the time required to teach a course and address any workload issue at the time the workload issue occurs.
Fancy Lawyer now suggests most of this information would not useful, unless there is a comment made on the workload. His equivocation of the meaning of "useful" is almost as bad as his prevarication on "fair."
We're responding that our members want this information. They think it's useful, and it's not up to some mercenary lawyer to decide for the GTF what information is and is not useful to them.
We're now submitting a counterproposal that incorporates the language about including absence policies. Fancy Lawyer clarifies that our proposal is unchanged from last time, with this exception. He's really trying to get us to force and impasse, and we're not going to give this smug mercenary the satisfaction.
Fancy Lawyer now appears unclear on the proposal he just offered. I guess $290/hr just doesn't buy good help these days.
Our workload is not "just another piece of paper." The administration does not want our workloads documented. They do not want a paper trail that shows the way in which the university depends on the systemic overworking of GTFs.
4:25 p.m. We're going to caucus. Radio silence. In the meantime, enjoy this gif, expressing the tenor of the room towards Fancy Lawyer:
4:35 p.m. We've called the admin team back, let's see how long this takes.
4:46 p.m. Admin team trickling back in. We're indicating our concern that the admin team's lack of movement on Article 9 is about more than paper. Specifically, we think it indicates the admin does not want a history of GTF workloads. Fancy Lawyer sticks to the risible position that a worksheet without comment does not provide "useful" information.
Fancy Lawyer is also bizarrely conflating context with commentary.
We're now pointing out that the administration calling our workload "just a piece of paper" is a baldfaced insult to members who are confronting workload issues at this very moment and lack the empirical data necessary to bring up this issue with a department head or supervisor. The admin's proposal doesn't allow for a workload issue to be addressed at the time it occurs.
4: 53 p.m. We're not going to TA Article 9 today. Discussing the agenda for the next session, and we're encouraging the admin to come to that session with an economic proposal. We're pointing out that we are deeply disappointed with the admin's lack of movement on economic issues. We're reiterating that our bylaws prevent us from ratifying in the summer and encouraging the administration to settle our contract now, before the summer term comes. We're asking them formally to bring an economic package.
Fancy Lawyer says they are not going to bring an economic package that is "significantly different" from their previous offers. they are reasserting that they need "more information" from the Trust. The difference between the plans offered is 2%-3%. Fancy Lawyer says it's 5%. This is ~$400K/yr.
Fancy Lawyer reasserts that they are not going to offer a changed package. They can "move things around," but they aren't going to to add to the pot of money available.
We're pointing out that our members are confused as to why the admin has put the brakes on movement on the economic package. We're asking if the admin ever even planned to give us a fair contract.
We're offering to give them whatever information they wish to get our contract settled.
Fancy Lawyer says he's never had a negotiation go to a strike vote, but "he knows people who have."
This is the person the administration selected to pay $290/hr to represent them at the table.
Fancy Lawyer wants to know if the meeting is conditional on the admin "making significant movement." He's trying to worm his way out of his cockup last week when he walked away. He wants to know if we want to show up to a session where they aren't going to bring further proposals. He's trying to force us to be the side that compels impasse.
We're pointing out that the Trust is meeting Tuesday. Fancy Lawyer says the management team will gather after that and make a decision.
Now Fancy Lawyer is backtracking and suggesting he didn't say what he clearly said because he didn't hear what he clearly heard.
We're asking why information concerning ~$400K is so crucial when the administration never mentioned it until the end of term.
Fancy Lawyer is returning to his obfuscatory pontificating about "risk."
Fancy Lawyer says "based on discussions [he's] heard so far" that no economic package that includes our wage, healthcare and fee demands is forthcoming. Which is an admission that he LIED about needing the Trust to meet to put forward an improved economic package. He now asserts that the admin has not intention of meeting our bottom line.
He wants to know if our bottom line is a really a bottom line. He says he feels "fairly confident" that if he goes back to the people who make the decisions and tells them that our current package is our bottom line, that those people will tell him that our bottom line cannot be met.
Fancy Lawyer says "we've done a masterful job of playing this out in the media."
We point out that there's a $10M surplus just from the last year. We just want a tiny slice of that pie.
Fancy Lawyer says we're ignoring what "surplus" means. He's now implying that a surplus is not a surplus.
We are now asking what the administration considers a better use of funds than giving GTFs a living wage, adequate health care, and parental leave. We're now pointing out that there's been no transparency on how the money is being spent.
Fancy Lawyer now admits that the money for our contract has already been allocated and will not be added to, at all.
5:17 p.m. We're done. Next session TBD.
"Fancy Lawyer now admits that the money for our contract has already been allocated and will not be added to, at all."
ReplyDeleteIf this is true.... that's almost evidence of a refusal to bargain right there. Jeebus, that guy is dumb.