Sine that time, our Trust has handed the university ~$500K by bargaining a much-improved healthcare package, without raising premiums.
We'll see if the administration is willing to bargain in good faith and honor their word that savings on healthcare could be added to compensation.
As a side note, to date Fancy Lawyer's firm has billed ~$17.5K for our bargaining. That amount would almost fund 2 GTFs at .20 FTE for a full year. But somehow we're the ones who need to make cuts...#Priorities
1:08 p.m. The admin team is finally complete, and we can begin. The admin team did not provide written copies of their proposals in a timely manner, so we're finishing up some math. This is not a positive sign of forward movement, but it's on par with what we've come to expect from this Fancy Lawyer-led admin team.
Fancy Lawyer begins the admin's presentation. He begins by conveying the University's thanks for our Trust having provided a healthcare package the decreases costs to the university. He notes it gives the university "flexibility." Because carrying around a $101M surplus apparently cripples them.
Beginning with the FracCalc Sheet clause. They propose nothing new. We've already rejected this proposal, but Fancy Lawyer rehearses it nevertheless.
Article 18: Summer Term. The admin is not bringing a new proposal here, either. Open-faced sandwich, high fees.
On to economics.
Salary. The admin offers a 6.1% raise for Level 1 minimums, and 3% increases for Levels II & III. This is not the bottom line we told the bargaining team we wanted the admin to meet. Additionally, it's a divisive package, and it ignores the fact that many GTFs at Level II are still not making a living wage. While this wage package is significant movement forward by the admin, they are simply exploiting a syntactical ambiguity in our proposal to bring another substandard salary proposal, cloaked as a reasonable proposal.
Tuition Waiver. The admin is sticking with the risible position that tuition increases are beyond their control and is counting the waiver as a cost to the university. They are once again claiming that a rise in tuition is a de facto raise for GTFs. This is sheer sophistry. It's beyond the pale that they still trot out this tired, dubious rhetorical sleight of hand. It's basically a veiled threat to yank the tuition waiver if we hold to our demands. More underhanded bargaining. We point out that these waivers were never up for bargaining.
Fees. Fancy Lawyer intones about the cost to the university of our fee cap, but they accept the fee cap at $61.00, and they also stick to their promise to pay the CEVIS fee for international students, but only those international students who teach their first term. It is not retroactive, and does not apply to international students who do not teach their first term. We're trying to get clear just on what sort of exigencies for international students this proposal covers.
Healthcare. The admin is still pleading risk and wishes to have a 10% hard cap on premiums for GTFs. Any year in which premiums go down, that drop in cost would be returned so that it could applied to premiums in a future term. Sure, it may not effect the GTFs working under the upcoming CBA; but once this structure is in place, GTFs will be perpetually at risk for drastic fee increases in years where premiums rise above 10%. Never mind that no other unit on campus has a hard cap and never mind that we are the cheapest group of state employees to insure in the state, the admin is sticking with their ultimately regressive health care proposal. They claim we do not want to share risk. Their proposal is just lawerly bloviating, intended only to minimize risk to the university and shift that burden on to the GTF, who, by way of reminder, is being paid $400-$600 per month below the living wage. So the admin's proposal is to shift risk to the party who can stand to bear it the least. We're already sharing risk unequally, because 77% of us are paid below a living wage. We can't absorb rises in health care costs, at all. We proposed that in exchange for their dropping the language instituting a cap, we would cede power to expand benefits outside of bargaining. They accepted our half of the concession and refused to honor our compromise with their half of the concession.
The HG&HH crew have a hard time seeing our members ever accepting a hard cap on premiums. This is a serious miscalculation by the admin team as to what they can sail past us. We haven't spoken to a single GTF on campus this cycle that is willing to accept this.
There's some proposed changes to billing language. The admin is accusing us of not providing student lists in time. This is due to the admin not processing things in a timely fashion and GTFs having had their insurance canceled. The proposed language gives both the union and the admin some flexibility with timelines.
Article 28. Absences. No new proposal from the admin. Flat rejection of paid leave.
Article 31. Authority. Our president is making a massive power grab, and the admin want the university president to be the one who approves our contract. Since we've existed, it's been the Board that ratifies, not the paid face of university development. They are refusing to bargain further on this proviso of Article 31. The admin's proposal, basically, is a unilateral change to our CBA, which would seem to be a clear violation of labor law. They're basically saying the Board delegated this authority to the President, and we don't get to bargain over it any further. They are proposing a change to the CBA and claiming that we have no right to bargain that change.
We are point out that the former university general counsel flatly lied to the Board when he stated that the university president has always approved our CBA. In reality, that's always been done by the Board. So yes, the Board delegated to the President. Because the President's legal beagle lied to the Board.
This administration is sending a clear message that they have no respect for our members' clear statement of our bottom lines. This economic package meets only one of our bottom lines--fees--and is almost regressive in terms of our other bottom line issues. They have given us an "improved" package, but this is a relative term. Improvements on a bad package that results in it remaining a bad package, does not make for a good, or even acceptable, package. We're still being asked to accept a bad deal. Add to that the fact that they are trying to force through a delegation of authority policy that unilaterally alters our CBA, a policy which was gotten on the back of a bald-faced lie, and you get the picture of an administration run amok, an administration that, in a desperate act of ambition, has completely lost its moral compass.
Article 33. Notice. The admin claims we can't bargain who receives notice of union bargaining matters because it doesn't impact our working conditions. This is to try and build an end-around into the CBA, because last week the Board slapped the president's hand for refusing to notify the Board about our bargaining this past academic year.
Article 35. Leave. No new proposal. Flat rejection. Fancy Lawyer states that it is a matter of policy not to provide leave to employees working at below .50 FTE. We're basically the only employees on campus working at that level. So, the sophistry persists. The law profession should be ashamed to have this huckster as a member.
1:45 p.m. Caucusing. Radio silence.
2:50 p.m. And we're back.
Our lead begins by pointing out that it is now summer term and we no longer have our full membership present on campus. Our lead thanks the admin for their movement for GTFs at Level I and the living wage. Our lead points out that the proposal still doesn't address GTFs at Level II and Level III who still won't be making a living wage. Our lead points out we're going to have to present this to our full membership in the fall and see what they say.
Our lead asks if the CEVIS fee reimbursement will apply to GTFs already here. The admin wonders if this is a retroactive proposal. Both sides will need to do some work on this issue.
In regards to the saber-rattling over tuition waivers. We have GTFs that sit on the Tuition and Fees Advisory Board. Graduate tuition was never addressed by that board. Fancy Lawyer claims the issue was brought up in bargaining to articulate the "proper" way to compensate GTFs. The admin team claims those grad students on the board could have brought it up, which is an complete non sequitur. Admin team says they are trying to present "real costs." Our lead again points out that its odd to bring up grad tuition as an impactful cost to the university at the bargaining table, and to not bring it up at all in meetings where the university actually decides on acceptable tuition rates. Fancy Lawyer now intones the sophistry that raises to tuition are de facto raises to GTFs. It's like a broken jukebox that only plays that one Engelbert Humperdinck 45.
Our lead now points out that while we did indeed win benefits from the provider that we had demanded at the table, also part of our bottom line was a "no cap" proviso, as well as paid leave, both of which are not met by the admin's proposal. Our lead further points out that any concession on our part has to be made with the approval of the general membership, and that meeting can't happen until the fall. We've been brought to this point by the admin's refusal to even begin negotiating economics issues until the end of the cycle, and then quitting after offering one package. We are open to continuing discussions through the summer, but we can't TA anything not meeting our bottom lines, and can't ratify anything we TA until the fall, because the admin team dragged their feet on economics throughout the term.
We're now pointing out that we offered a power vs. risk compromise, and the admin took our part of the compromise and refused to meet their own. We don't understand why the admin would make this kind of a proposal when the Trust just saved the university a large amount of money. Fancy Lawyer replies that they are "risk-splitting"and now is prattling on about rising health care costs as if this was an episode of Morning Joe. He claims the proposal of a premium cap is a way of "encouraging" the Trust to cut health care costs to the university. We point out that the premium caps proposed are basically a way of killing the Trust by other means. Instead of cutting off its head, they starve it to death, and by extension, kill our healthcare benefit. Our lead interjects that the cap and the bargaining benefits proviso don't really work together, so it's not clear why the admin decided to couple them in a proposal. Our lead points out that the university is trying to shift more risk onto those who cannot shoulder any more risk. Fancy Lawyer says this objection doesn't fit the proposed change. He then basically restates what our lead just said he was saying as a reason for him not saying what he was saying. This fellow is one seriously suspect barrister. Or maybe these sorts of dubious rhetorical tricks are what constitutes an effective lawyer. Either way, this fellow is pissing away tuition dollars on cheap talk and bluster. We're trying to point out that this basically would force us to cut benefits when premiums rise. Once those benefits are out of the plan, they could not be added back without being bargained. So it slowly erodes the plan. The admin's proposal is meant to choke the Trust and kill our plan. It is regressive bargaining.
Fancy Lawyer is not getting it. I can't tell if he's feigning stupidity or feigning competence.
We're proposing that language be included stating that any benefit that was ever included in the plan could be added back. Fancy Lawyer says no, not any benefit, just the benefits in the current agreement. So it's still meant to erode the plan. He keeps admitting to having proposed what he's denying he's proposed. It's like arguing with a child.
We're moving on to clarifying some language about returned premiums. The proposed language basically takes away from the Trust the power to determine how returned premiums would be applied, which strips the Trust of its ability to protect itself and GTFs who encounter unforeseen issues with payments. We are proposing that this language be clarified so that the Trust has final approval of the application of returned premiums.
It's quite clear that, as has been their position from the start, the administration wishes to bust the Trust and strip GTFs of their healthcare benefit.
We're offering to schedule another session. Fancy Lawyer says it'll have to be coordinated via email. We point out the the ground rules state we must attempt to schedule the next session at the current session. Fancy Lawyer wants a time frame. More feet-dragging by the admin team. Shameful.
We're ask if the President will be present at the management meetings before the next session. Fancy Lawyer says he will not, unless he decides to come of his own accord. We wonder why (1) as the President has stated that improving our compensation is a priority, why he would not attend these meetings and (2) why a person who has exhibited no interest in our bargaining, should be placed in charge of ratifying our contract, the process of defining which he has taken absolutely no role in.
Fancy Lawyer, ever the loyal boy, falls back on the Board of Trustees delegation of authority policy adoption at the recent BoT meeting. Our lead--unlike well-paid and untraveled Fancy Lawyer--was at the meeting, and our lead now points out that this delegation of authority policy is still very much in limbo at the Board level, and that the Board has formed a committee to modify that policy, so we can't TA an article structured around a policy that has not yet met with the full approval of the Board.
We're making the point that as the President isn't managing our bargaining, that President seems to be an illegitimate authority to approve our contract.
We're now asking Fancy Lawyer if his previous statement that "The GTF should not expect the stipend cover all living expenses" still stands. The admin's current proposal seems directed at accomplishing exactly that. We wonder if Fancy Lawyer finds a tension between his previous statement of university policy and the current offer. We wonder why they returned exactly to our initial proposal of 6.1%, which in hindsight seems cynical. Fancy Lawyer responds that making a living wage is not a bad thing, but it does not guide policy when it comes to GTF compensation. We wonder if the university thinks GTFs deserve a living wage. Fancy Lawyer responds that if the university had unlimited resources, they would pay us a living wage. We try to press the point. Fancy Lawyer is trying to shut down the entire line of questioning. He is not appreciating having his mendacity brought to the fore.
He now admits the 6.1% figure was selected not because the admin wanted to provide a living wage, but instead it was chosen in a cynical attempt to control the messaging on wages.
Our lead now issues a concluding statement that we are hopeful that we can reach agreement on some of the offered proposals, but we are very disappointed by the complete refusal to move on our paid leave proposals. Our lead notes that there have not even been creative counters offered on this issue by the admin. We are discouraged by this proposal, it is among our bottom lines, and the admin has simply refused to even make an attempt at negotiating on leave. Our lead warns the admin not to dally on this issue and then claim in the fall that they lack the time to deal with it. They have the time right now.
3:36 p.m. We're done. Stay tuned to FB for news on the next session.
