Today, we'll be giving our responses to the admin's regrettable proposals of last week. Rumor is we're making as much movement in our counters as we can. Let's see if the admin can demonstrate some good faith negotiating. For once.
By way of reminder, the $290/hr clock is ticking! Come on down and hear tuition money being thrown away on cheap rhetorical tricks and pleonasm!
2:50 p.m. Everyone is still getting settled in, this building is completely segregated from the academic side of campus, which is likely no coincidence. Fancy Lawyer doesn't really seem to appreciate an audience.
Kicking things off with Article 9. The administration is rejecting our counter because they don't want to keep the records. They propose that the union keep the records. This is risible. It's not even a proposal, it's a request that the union perform the duties of the administration. Apparently adding one sheet of paper to a GTF's personnel file is "an undue administrative burden."
Fancy Lawyer is trying to do math off the top of his head. It's like watching a Tyrannosaur attempt to unfold a lawnchair.
We're responding that (1) we don't keep departmental records for the individual departments, plus some departments already keep these sheets in their files, and (2) we think without a required departmental follow-up, the Frac Sheets are pointless.
Fancy Lawyer makes an obtuse and long-winded distinction between "supervisor files" and "personnel files." We clarify that it seems from all observed cases of departments doing this, it will go into the personnel file. The admin is being incredibly obtuse about a minor record-keeping issue. It's clear they came here to stall on Article 9, so we have less time to spend on economic issues.
This is not bargaining. It's pedantic time-wasting.
We're proposing a separate file for each course. But apparently this is not good enough because (heaven forfend!!!!) someone will have to know how to go through those files. And this is apparently an undue work burden.
To. Thumb. A. File.
This is what we're negotiating. File sorting and storage. We don't have a contract, the admin's health care proposals have been regressive and posited in bad faith, and we're arguing about file-sorting and storage. This is ridiculous.
3: 08 p.m. We've been arguing about file sorting and storage for almost 20 minutes. WE DO NOT HAVE A CONTRACT AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FILE SORTING AND STORAGE.
Our lead wisely defers further discussion to our caucus time.
3:10 p.m. Moving on to our economic counters.
We're pointing out that the movement we're making today is the most movement we can make, based on our members's votes at the last membership meeting.
Article 18. We're conceding our fee proposal and proposing that summer fees remain the same.
Article 21. Wages. We reject the 3/3 proposal as insufficient to close the living wage gap in a timely manner. It would take until 2041 for us to close the living wage gap at 3%/yr. We point out that the university president himself has promised our compensation be improved quickly, and we're reasserting our 5.5/5.5 proposal.
Article 22. Fees. We're making big movement here. We're coming down from our zero fees proposal and proposing a return to the current system, i.e. the $61.00 cap. We're rejecting the percentage fee model. This would mark a $500K total concession on our part.
Moving on to Heath Care. We're reasserting our major dental proposal. We're backing down on vision, from doubling the benefit (currently $200/yr), and proposing that it be increased by $100. This is another concession.
We're rejecting the hard cap, but we reassert that the Trust cannot expand benefits away from the bargaining table. We reject the admin's proposal from last week on the grounds that the proposed package was punitive, regressive, and was a backdoor attempt to bust the Trust.
Paid Leave. We're moving certain leaves back into Article 27, per the admin's request. We're taking non-serious medical leave, jury duty, etc. out of the paid leave proposal. This is a concession.
We're keeping medical leave for conditions requiring a GTF to miss work for more than a week (not to exceed 6 weeks total per year), bereavement leave, and parental leave in the paid leave proposal.
We offer the admin the opportunity to ask questions. They begin with housecleaning issues surrounding contract language. We don't have a contract, but we do have semantic quibbling.
The admin is shocked (SHOCKED!) that GTFs are paying one another out of their own pockets to cover work when they have, say (as was the case with one member I know) they are hit by a car and literally cannot work. We've inserted language that takes that responsibility off the individual GTF and places it on the department to track hours and require reasonable workloads for GTFs who have had these sorts of issues.
3:30 p.m. Caucus time. Radio silence. In the meantime, enjoy this gif, symbolizing the admin team's performance:
4:05 p.m. Admin team still MIA.
4:07 p.m. Admin team has finally arrived. They want to TA Article 27, governing unpaid leave.
We're countering on Article 9, reasserting our last proposal, and pointing out we believe the admin can find administrative solutions to file storage and sorting. We also point out that they deleted language allowing the union to request an explanation from an employing unit or supervisor who refuses to use a Frac Sheet. Fancy Lawyer says it seems antithetical to the nature of a voluntary program. Figures a man who is consistently unable to provide justifications for the positions he takes, wishes this same liberty from honest and forthright discourse on his fellows.
Onto the financial package. They begin with "uncertainty" around the premiums. Fancy Lawyer is droning on about the dates of past bargaining sessions, to no apparent end. Hourly pay must be nice. He accuses us of not wanting to take on risk. He now asserts that the Trust is slowing things down and until the Trust can give certainty to the admin on health care cost, the admin can make no adjustments to their financial package. They refuse to make further movement from their offer of last week until the Trust has finished all their work.
The admin then further refuses to engage in any further bargaining sessions. This is bad faith bargaining 101.
We don't understand how the rise in premiums is such an impact to the university.
Fancy Lawyer now suggest our lead is trying to bankrupt the university.
They are refusing to bargain further on the economic package. We ask why they would be so irresponsible to refuse to move at this point in bargaining.
Fancy Lawyer interrupts our lead and says she is being irresponsible.
Our lead is now stating our timeline. She further states that now we will go to a meeting and offer the members a financial package that they have already rejected, as the best the admin can do. Our lead offers them the chance to make at least some offer.
Fancy Lawyer asserts we do have a contract. Then he refuses to make an further offers until the Trust is finished doing their job. He doesn't know how far the Trust is in that work, despite the fact that the admin team contains a Trust member.
The Ground Rules state that every attempt must be made to reach an agreement before the end of the current CBA. That date has passed. Fancy Lawyer asserts that we aren't moving, either, so the admin isn't breaking the ground rules. Seriously, this guy is one crappy lawyer.
We will now demonstrate to him that we are moving and they aren't. I doubt factual information will penetrate his veil of ideology and bullshit.
Fancy Lawyer asserts that meeting in the middle "is an irrational position." It's also irrational by his account that when one party isn't making movement in bargaining, that that be called bad faith bargaining.
Our lead points out yet again, that the admin is choosing to begin the next academic year without a ratified contract for our unit. THEY ARE CHOOSING THIS. We re-assert the President's own statement that the university increase the compensation for GTFs.
Fancy Lawyer says they are waiting for information, to find out if they have enough money. This is a lie. We have given them these figures, from the Trust. He tells this lie as a member of the Trust, named in the report, sits next to him.
We're done for today.
No comments:
Post a Comment