tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1136268154526891032024-03-05T12:13:06.989-08:00Hired Guns & Hired HelpNotes From the Bargaining TableAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10964701773789702019noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-113626815452689103.post-537601642969282014-07-10T10:39:00.003-07:002014-07-10T10:44:38.206-07:00Concluding Unscientific PostscriptPeople have been asking why there was no liveblog of the last--and what turned out to be the final--bargaining session.<br />
<br />
There was no liveblog because the admin team showed up unprepared to negotiate, which is an accurate description of their conduct for much of this bargaining cycle. So there was nothing to liveblog.<br />
<br />
There was just silence. So we are left to assume that they are either out of ideas or are tired of having their sophistries made public.<br />
<br />
Or perhaps it is both.<br />
<br />
Whatever the case, there will be no more bargaining, and therefore no more need for this chronicle. Thanks for the readers, the linkers, the objectors, and the detractors. We're in mediation now and a strike is a real possibility. <br />
<br />
We didn't want this. They did.<br />
<br />
We didn't refuse to bring actual figures to the table to discuss progressive proposals. They did.<br />
<br />
We didn't declare the impasse. They did.<br />
<br />
They didn't want people to hear what they said. We did.<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #252525; line-height: 21px;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">"He jumped in through the window, and just as he was jumping out, the others, who had been looking at him, were standing nearby. </span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #252525; line-height: 21px;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #252525; line-height: 21px;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Triumphantly holding some papers in his hands, he shouted, 'A manuscript by His Honor the Judge. If I have published his others, it is no more than my duty to publish this also. </span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #252525; line-height: 21px;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #252525; line-height: 21px;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Who am I? I am not worth asking about, for I am the least of all, and people make me very bashful by asking this question. I am the pure being and thus almost less than nothing. I am the pure being that is everywhere present but not yet noticeable, for I am continually being annulled. I am like the line with the arithmetic problem above and the answer below-who cares about the line? </span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #252525; line-height: 21px;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #252525; line-height: 21px;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">By myself, I am capable of nothing at all, for even the idea of tricking Victor out of the manuscript was not my own notion, but the very notion according to which I borrowed the manuscript, as thieves put it, was in fact borrowed from Victor. Now in publishing the manuscript, I again am nothing at all, for the manuscript belongs to the Judge, and in my nothingness I as publisher am only like a nemesis upon Victor, who presumably thought he had the right to publish it.'"</span></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10964701773789702019noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-113626815452689103.post-5491633735603928312014-06-20T12:56:00.001-07:002014-06-21T06:17:38.521-07:00Mene, Mene, Tekel, UpharsinWhen last we met, the administration had refused to bargain further on economic issues, so far as that bargaining involved meeting any of our bottom lines.<br />
<br />
Sine that time, our Trust has handed the university ~$500K by bargaining a much-improved healthcare package, without raising premiums.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Beginning with the FracCalc Sheet clause. They propose nothing new. We've already rejected this proposal, but Fancy Lawyer rehearses it nevertheless. <br />
<br />
Article 18: Summer Term. The admin is not bringing a new proposal here, either. Open-faced sandwich, high fees.<br />
<br />
On to economics.<br />
<br />
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 <i>are still not making a living wage</i>. 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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 <i>no other unit on campus</i> has a hard cap and never mind that we are <i>the cheapest group of state employees to insure in the state</i>, 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 <i>already</i> 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.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbnmJvFNb-vbxp33wOK-SHFFBoXt-cn2R2BDS7C4gzrAdeWPRsiydfUSN3zeRM_E7dBXUEqCiotU4vZqYqpYF2IqTiVTh86KdgLX2YxYinUMlM6PLf1PVfI4i2hkDIrM1NfhuemP7f78y3/s1600/stay_classy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbnmJvFNb-vbxp33wOK-SHFFBoXt-cn2R2BDS7C4gzrAdeWPRsiydfUSN3zeRM_E7dBXUEqCiotU4vZqYqpYF2IqTiVTh86KdgLX2YxYinUMlM6PLf1PVfI4i2hkDIrM1NfhuemP7f78y3/s1600/stay_classy.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Article 28. Absences. No new proposal from the admin. Flat rejection of paid leave.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
1:45 p.m. Caucusing. Radio silence. <br />
<br />
2:50 p.m. And we're back.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/6S9ecXWCBCc?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
Fancy Lawyer is not getting it. I can't tell if he's feigning stupidity or feigning competence.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
3:36 p.m. We're done. Stay tuned to FB for news on the next session.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10964701773789702019noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-113626815452689103.post-9174885314496504122014-05-23T16:04:00.002-07:002014-05-23T17:17:36.053-07:00Enten-Eller, or What Must Be DoneSo here we are.<br />
<br />
WHEN LAST WE MET, THE ADMINISTRATION HAD WALKED AWAY FROM THE TABLE.<br />
<br />
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...<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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 <i>at the time the workload issue occurs</i>.<br />
<br />
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."<br />
<br />
We're responding that our members want this information. <i>They</i> 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Fancy Lawyer now appears unclear on the proposal he just offered. I guess $290/hr just doesn't buy good help these days.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://media.tumblr.com/f6b93c4eb9720877349c2acf4caa26b2/tumblr_inline_mrk5qq8DiV1qz4rgp.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://media.tumblr.com/f6b93c4eb9720877349c2acf4caa26b2/tumblr_inline_mrk5qq8DiV1qz4rgp.gif" height="147" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
4:35 p.m. We've called the admin team back, let's see how long this takes. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
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.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://media.tumblr.com/1c729bcfb2eb758a05a9ba58728457a7/tumblr_inline_mp1zixZpKP1qz4rgp.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://media.tumblr.com/1c729bcfb2eb758a05a9ba58728457a7/tumblr_inline_mp1zixZpKP1qz4rgp.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Fancy Lawyer is also bizarrely conflating context with commentary. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
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 <i>at this very moment</i> 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.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
The admin is sticking to the claim that all it takes is a comment to have a record kept.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
We're offering to give them whatever information they wish to get our contract settled. <br />
<br />
Fancy Lawyer says he's never had a negotiation go to a strike vote, but "he knows people who have."<br />
<br />
This is the person the administration selected to pay $290/hr to represent them at the table.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
We're pointing out that the Trust is meeting Tuesday. Fancy Lawyer says the management team will gather after that and make a decision.<br />
<br />
Now Fancy Lawyer is backtracking and suggesting he didn't say what he clearly said because he didn't hear what he clearly heard.<br />
<br />
We're asking why information concerning ~$400K is so crucial when the administration never mentioned it until the end of term.<br />
<br />
Fancy Lawyer is returning to his obfuscatory pontificating about "risk."<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Fancy Lawyer says "we've done a masterful job of playing this out in the media."<br />
<br />
We point out that there's a $10M surplus just from the last year. We just want a tiny slice of that pie.<br />
<br />
Fancy Lawyer says we're ignoring what "surplus" means. He's now implying that a surplus is not a surplus. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
Fancy Lawyer now admits that the money for our contract has already been allocated and will not be added to, at all.<br />
<br />
5:17 p.m. We're done. Next session TBD.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10964701773789702019noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-113626815452689103.post-43451838151057198692014-05-14T14:41:00.001-07:002014-05-15T10:41:38.366-07:00Gjentagelsen, or Repetition (In A Minor Key)Here we are gathered together.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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!<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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."<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Jon-Stewart-Oh-My-God-MRW-Gif.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Jon-Stewart-Oh-My-God-MRW-Gif.gif" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Fancy Lawyer is trying to do math off the top of his head. It's like watching a Tyrannosaur attempt to unfold a lawnchair.</div>
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
This is not bargaining. It's pedantic time-wasting.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.nrcc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/tumblr_lupn9yCo8C1r3ovdbo1_250.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://www.nrcc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/tumblr_lupn9yCo8C1r3ovdbo1_250.gif" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
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.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
To. Thumb. A. File. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
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.</div>
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Our lead wisely defers further discussion to our caucus time.<br />
<br />
3:10 p.m. Moving on to our economic counters.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Article 18. We're conceding our fee proposal and proposing that summer fees remain the same.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
3:30 p.m. Caucus time. Radio silence. In the meantime, enjoy this gif, symbolizing the admin team's performance:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlEW5AjSolrjUaJGJRTQHGviVTWPLw1B8b7nSNxK7Ph3HbW3SgRpMkdz_p-nOUGLzxovk8-sF1uFdug1rA6tIm8PeonMeQ176ojzcg3wjo17zFr7YyXAT4QeXMrk1kZU-QCDflUHoov-Q/s400/cat-fail.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlEW5AjSolrjUaJGJRTQHGviVTWPLw1B8b7nSNxK7Ph3HbW3SgRpMkdz_p-nOUGLzxovk8-sF1uFdug1rA6tIm8PeonMeQ176ojzcg3wjo17zFr7YyXAT4QeXMrk1kZU-QCDflUHoov-Q/s400/cat-fail.gif" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
4:00 p.m. We're trying to find the admin team. They have gone missing. We only have 30 minutes of bargaining left, and they are nowhere to be found. Once again, the shameless time-wasting by the admin team today, <b><u><i>given that we have no contract</i></u></b>, is utterly disheartening.<br />
<br />
4:05 p.m. Admin team still MIA.<br />
<br />
4:07 p.m. Admin team has finally arrived. They want to TA Article 27, governing unpaid leave.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
The admin then further refuses to engage in any further bargaining sessions. This is bad faith bargaining 101.<br />
<br />
We don't understand how the rise in premiums is such an impact to the university.<br />
<br />
Fancy Lawyer now suggest our lead is trying to bankrupt the university.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Fancy Lawyer interrupts our lead and says she is being irresponsible.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
We're done for today.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://forusa.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/725px-width/images/blogs/20120109-remembering-1912-lawrence-labor-strike.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://forusa.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/725px-width/images/blogs/20120109-remembering-1912-lawrence-labor-strike.jpg" height="254" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10964701773789702019noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-113626815452689103.post-19139579275488762652014-05-09T15:00:00.000-07:002014-05-11T11:52:38.775-07:00In Which da Montefeltro Gives His CounselBack at it.<br />
<br />
GTFs filtering in, along with members of both teams. Fancy Lawyer is here, so the $290/hr clock is ticking. You can actually listen to the tuition dollars being spent!<br />
<br />
Today we'll hear from the admin in response the economic package we offered on Wednesday. Hopefully starting soon. Time is literally money right now.<br />
<br />
3:05 p.m. We're beginning with our counter on Article 9. Thanking admin for making movement. We want language that requires a department that participates in the Frac Sheet program to have meetings between the instructor and the GTF to discuss the workload calculated and worked. We also want language protecting the GTF in the case of an overload. Basically, we want the GTF to be able to ask to meet with an instructor about workload in a case where there is not necessarily a grievable overload, but there is a potential for such a workload.<br />
<br />
Fancy Lawyer answers this with some kind of vague ramble about how the files would be so esoterically organized and kept that this is an inefficient request. He closes by nonsequitrously suggesting the union keep those records. <br />
<br />
Fancy Lawyer wants the union to maintain departmental records for them. <br />
<br />
By Grapthar's Hammer, the admin side of the table can only think of processes in terms of efficiency. It's like someone downloaded every George Will column ever into their brains.<br />
<br />
Moving on. Not going to TA Article 9 today.<br />
<br />
3:16 p.m. Admin's financial package. They begin with the ridiculous total compensation sophistry. <br />
<br />
Article 17: Layoffs. They accept that we can not be laid off for low enrollment, but for performance or cost. So they backdoor in the low enrollment layoffs. Not clever.<br />
<br />
They reject that the admin be required to be honest in our offer letters and make it clear our contracts are not binding.<br />
<br />
Article 18: Summer Term. They are sticking with the percentage model of fee, which we've strongly rejected. They aren't getting the message, at all. They want a 90/10 split. <br />
<br />
HAHAHAHAHA, FANCY LAWYER REALLY IS A FUNNY GUY! He suggests fees fluctuate and "could go down." Legendary wit!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<object class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" data-thumbnail-src="https://ytimg.googleusercontent.com/vi/r_DwZfyXAXI/0.jpg" height="266" width="320"><param name="movie" value="https://youtube.googleapis.com/v/r_DwZfyXAXI&source=uds" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed width="320" height="266" src="https://youtube.googleapis.com/v/r_DwZfyXAXI&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
They are accepting no layoffs with low enrollment justifications. Our lead thanks them, but we're asking for clarification of the "for financial reasons," as this clearly backdoors in low enrollment layoffs. The admin claims this would only apply in the case where the university shutters a department. It's nice to know the university feels it needs those kinds of plans in place...<br />
<br />
They are accepting our proposal that notice for layoffs be moved from 15 days to 30 days prior. There's some discussion of how the tuition waiver for the term in which a member is laid off is to be handled.<br />
<br />
Article 21: Wages. They offer 3/3. By way of reminder, last time they offered 2.2/2.53. We've told them we won't move off 5.5/5.5. They are moving, but not enough.<br />
<br />
Not. Enough.<br />
<br />
They still want the the percentage model of fees, but a 90/10 split. If fees would really go down, moving to a percentage model would not feasible for the university. So clearly this is a money grab and this guy thinks we're dumb.<br />
<br />
They are agreeing to pay the CEVIS fee for international GTFs. This is a big move forward.<br />
<br />
Article 22: Health Care. Here we go. They are proposing that we can either (A) bargain over the total cost of the package or (B) we can argue over each benefit.<br />
<br />
<b><i><u>OPTION B IS A RETURN TO THE BUSTING OF THE TRUST LANGUAGE. IT WOULD GUT THE TRUST OF ANY POWER BEYOND SIMPLE ADMINISTRATION OF THE PLAN.</u></i></b><br />
<b><i><u><br /></u></i></b>
They're still trying to get a hard cap if we take (A), and they propose a 7% cap. Still regressive.<br />
<br />
If we take (B), they reject our leave proposals "for the reasons they've already given for rejecting" them. Which, by way of reminder, is that they can't give us leave because they've never given us leave, so they reassert that they cannot give us leave now because they already told us they couldn't give us leave because they've never given us leave and can't just start giving us leave now.<br />
<br />
Fancy Lawyer admits option (B) is punitive and that "those who use the health plan more would pay more."<br />
<br />
The admin pretty clearly wants to make our health care plan a profit engine for the university. They are proposing a health care plan that preys on the lowest-earning members on the campus. Our lead points this out. Fancy Lawyer literally scoffs at the notion that this plan victimizes the most-disadvantaged members of the university community. We point out that both (A) and (B) are intended to (1) place the risk of the health care plan onto the GTF, and (2) to gut our Trust. <br />
<br />
Fancy Lawyer admits they are trying to horse trade with wages. As if all our money comes from one pot. We've exposed this lie already, and like a dog returns to its vomit, the admin returns to the lie. We don't understand why the admin is insisting on cutting back when they are not in dire financial straits; indeed, they have a burgeoning surplus.<br />
<br />
Fancy Lawyer: "Why wait until the emergency to make the adjustments?"<br />
<br />
3:43 p.m.: We're going to caucus. <br />
<br />
4:24 p.m. We're back. Telling them we're hopeful on Article 9 and we're offering to TA on layoffs (Articles 17 & 20). They agree, Articles 17 & 20 are TA'd!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://patternoflife.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/tumblr_mh9h4kstqa1qhg3z2o1_400.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://patternoflife.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/tumblr_mh9h4kstqa1qhg3z2o1_400.gif" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
We're reiterating that we're not pleased with the wage and health care proposals, so we're going to be posing a series of questions, so that we can take the best information to our emergency members meeting.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
We point out that the fees are set by the admin, so the risk language doesn't make sense because the admin makes that risk: they set the fees. We fought hard to have a fee cap, and we won't horse trade with it, because paying more in fees is a de facto cut to wages. We point out that the admin could always not raise fees, thus eliminating the risk posed by increases in fees. We shouldn't share a risk created by the other party "sharing" the risk.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
We are also pointing out that once we agree to a percentage model for fees, we'd be condemning future GTFs to ballooning fees. </div>
<br />
We point out that the proposed health care plan(s) are both regressive and punitive, plus they angle back towards gutting the Trust. We point out that we're not asking to bargain benefits. We asked for an increase to the total amount so that we could add vision and dental. Once again, we could have just added those and passed the cost along to the university. We didn't. We brought it to the table to increase the pot.<br />
<br />
The admins' response is to propose to cut our benefits--and by cutting our benefits, they are de facto cutting our wages. We point out that we don't have a fund to dig into to supplement health care costs, because we are not being paid a living wage. We point out that both proposals amount to cutting benefits, and that, at a minimum, we will not approve any contract that cuts existing benefits, or allows the admin to do so, at will.<br />
<br />
Moving on to wages. We thank them for movement. We argue that if not for the de facto cut to wages posed by the health care and fee proposals, this movement would be much more positive. As it is, it looks paltry in comparison. With no inflation, the living wage gap won't close in under 5 years. With basic inflation, it would take almost double that amount of time.<br />
<br />
We're now addressing the moral question. We want to know how the university justifies denying people basic things like parental and medical leave. We want to know why the university believes it is the right thing to do, when they pay 70% of the people teaching 1/3 of FTE less than a living wage. We want to know if the admin feels that the package they have proposed goes towards fulfilling the educational mission of the university and how it reflects the university president's stated goal of improving compensation for GTFs.<br />
<br />
Fancy Lawyer isn't aware of the President's statement, <i>because he admits that statement was not included in the preparation for this bargaining cycle</i>. He basically just admitted that the university president played no role in the management meetings that prepped for this bargaining session. Add that to the growing list if things Fancy Lawyer should know, but doesn't. And add that to the growing list of things the university president should be doing, but doesn't.<br />
<br />
Fancy Lawyer can't define "fair," yet he invokes it as the operable evaluative standard in justifying their below-par packages.<br />
<br />
Fancy Lawyer says it's not them purposely treating us unfairly, it's just the university balancing priorities.<br />
<br />
GTFs are just collateral damage in the rush towards modernity, I guess.<br />
<br />
We're reiterating the President's statement and it's connection to the benchmarking report and asking them to confirm that was not a part of the preparation for this bargaining cycle. They confirm as much.<br />
<br />
Fancy Lawyer insinuates we should have been skeptical of the claims of a politician, i.e. the university president. For realz.<br />
<br />
We point out that it seems the university admins can't get on the same page, because the president says we ought to be paid fairly, and apparently some small group of admins is resisting that admonition.<br />
<br />
We are done for today.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10964701773789702019noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-113626815452689103.post-30774877861113774822014-05-07T12:33:00.000-07:002014-05-07T13:54:59.020-07:00In Which We Do the WorkHere we go again.<br />
<br />
When we last saw our heroes, they were being lowballed with a bad-faith package by a lawyer getting paid $290.00/hr. One wonders how the administration doesn't see the potential for a financial conflict of interest here. #LetTheLawyerGrade<br />
<br />
Just sayin.<br />
<br />
We're going to try and TA Article 10, governing workplace health & safety issues today, and we're going to try and get the administration to come back to earth from their insultingly regressive offer of last session.<br />
<br />
12:34 p.m. Kicking off with noneconomic proposals from the admin. The admin feels the need to "make us understand" the we have to clean up our messes in the kitchen areas. Seriously. $290/hr to be lectured about cleaning our room. This guy really is hilarious! We're proposing language the refers to the article(s) governing workload in the case that this housecleaning interferes with workload limits. They accept.<br />
<br />
12:42 p.m. Article 9, Workloads. They are countering the Frac Sheet proposals, and suggesting GTFs meet regularly with supervisors to monitor workloads. They suggest Frac Sheets as a voluntary trial program. They want to introduce clarifying language that specifies this refers to teaching requirements, not research requirements. The lawyer, seeing as he gets paid by the hour and therefore has no interest in timely solutions, is prattling on about streamlining administrative processes. As if the burgeoning administrative ranks here indicate that streamlining admin processes is in any way a priority...<br />
<br />
We're getting closer to an agreement, but we don't like the "voluntary" language. We also want language that allows the GTF to see the files/have access to the files. Still, there's movement here.<br />
<br />
12:50 p.m. Moving to our counters. Article 17, Appointment/Reappointments. We're accepting the administration's language governing summer tuition costs not being a basis for hiring decisions. We are rejecting the language governing layoffs, because it's redundant, given language in other articles. We are reasserting section 5 to state clearly that the contract offered is not a binding contract, i.e. that the years of funding offered are not guaranteed. The admin responds that they need specific examples of departments where the years offered are not fulfilled. It' hard to see how that's a response to the request for transparency we're making.<br />
<br />
We're accepting the language that allows a GTF to get a summer tuition waiver in order to graduate in summer term(s). No more "summer sandwich." Just "summer tuition waiver."<br />
<br />
12:55 p.m. Article 18, Fees. We're offering that summer fees remain the same and AY fees be dropped to $31/term. This is a concession from our "no fees" stance and our original stance on summer fees.<br />
<br />
12:57 p.m. Layoffs, we're reasserting our language to (1) prevent departments from laying off GTFs to save money, and (2) to ensure the admin and the department shoulders the risk for fluctuating enrollments, seeing as the GTF has no ability to control for fluctuations in enrollments, yet currently the GTF bears the whole burden for them. Layoffs of this sort are rare, so the proposed cost the university would be minimal, plus a working GTF is still providing surplus labor value to the university, because that GTF is likely still not making a living wage.<br />
<br />
1:00 p.m. Article 21, Wages. We are reasserting our 5.5% wage floor increase. Our members have indicated this is our No. 1 priority, and we assert that we will not back down from this proposal.<br />
<br />
1:01 p.m. Article 22, Tuition Waivers. We're re-inserting language that the admin make it clear exactly what fees the GTF is responsible for. We're also proposing our AY fees being lowered to $31/term, as a concession for our concession on summer fees.<br />
<br />
1:04 p.m. Moving on to Health Care. We're accepting the non-trust-busting language. <br />
<br />
We're reasserting the operating budget for the Trust be increased to $92K. Last offer from admin was $90K. <br />
<br />
We're returning our proposals for major dental and vision, and arguing the admin has thus far refused to discuss the substance of the proposals, and had instead simply rejected them. We are, however, inserting language that the university not be responsible for increase to any <i>non-bargained</i> benefit, but the university will be responsible for increases to the premiums due to bargained benefits, in accordance with the 95/5 split that <i>every other unit on campus</i> has in place. We don't understand why we would be a special case. We could have just added dental and vision under the current language and passed that cost along the the university. We didn't do that, and we're adding language that now prevents us from adding any non-bargained benefit. <br />
<br />
We are pointing out that the admin's last proposal was so regressive, that in a premium year like last year, where we had a 24% rate increase, the cost of insurance to an individual GTF increased from $62/term to $235/term. We are pointing out that the admin has basically proposed shedding their risk and placing it on the shoulders of the (on average) cheapest group of public employees to insure<i> in the entire state of Oregon</i>. The admin is not proposing to share risk; they are proposing to pass along their risk to other parties. We are arguing that our insertion of language protecting the university from us adding non-bargained benefit(s) should assure the university we are concentrating on keeping the cost of premiums down, while maintaining the risk-sharing 95/5 split currently in place in our contract, and the contract of every other unit on campus. We argue that a hard cap on premium increases is both regressive and unnecessary.<br />
<br />
In sum: the admin is trying to turn our health care package into a profit engine for the university.<br />
<br />
We are also reasserting the paid leave language. Once gain, the associated cost to the university of paid leave is roughly equal to the bonus paid to the basketball coach last month.<br />
<br />
We are now pointing out that the admin's economic proposals are clearly aimed at cost-cutting, when the university is not demonstrably in financial straits such that the admin needs to cut back on GTF salary and benefits. We point out the the package offered by the admin in the last session is actually a worse deal than we currently have. <br />
<br />
Or currently <i>had</i>, seeing as WE ARE CURRENTLY WITHOUT A CONTRACT, and the admin is <i>still proposing cutbacks</i>.<br />
<br />
1:20 p.m. Caucusing. Radio silence.<br />
<br />
1:50 p.m. And we're back. Just an update, so far today, Fancy Lawyer has cost the university $580 in tuition money.<br />
<br />
We're TA'ing Article 10. We're agreeing to try and TA Article 9 on Friday. The admin has no questions about our economic counters.<br />
<br />
<b>UPDATE: NEXT SESSION HAS BEEN CHANGED TO MEET FROM 3-5 IN FENTON 110. THERE MAY BE FURTHER UPDATES, CHECK THE FB GROUP.</b>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10964701773789702019noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-113626815452689103.post-202480375891000782014-04-25T15:04:00.004-07:002014-04-25T16:16:31.511-07:00Bargaining and NothingnessSo here we are.<br />
<br />
Last session, we expected counterproposals from the admin. Instead we were hectored about banalities for an hour and half and then stonewalled.<br />
<br />
This room is full of people who are working without a contract and are not happy about it.<br />
<br />
3:05 p.m. Fancy Lawyer sticking with the 10% increase to health care premiums lie to open. Not good.<br />
<br />
Article 23. Health insurance. Admin wants a 5% cap on premium increases. Previous offer was 10%. So they're actually making a worse offer than their previous offer. They do not get it. They are trying to horse trade with our wage demands. These people are beyond reasoning.<br />
<br />
They offer a ~$4K increase to their contributions to the health care plan.<br />
<br />
Article 21. 2% increase this year, 2.53% next. Not gonna happen, bud. They call this "fair and reasonable." Yes, and FOX News is "fair and balanced." They are, however, backing off the Trust-busting language.<br />
<br />
They are accepting language we inserted governing summer sandwich to protect GTFs who want to graduate in the summer, but want to keep the fee structure in the summer the same.<br />
<br />
They have agreed to itemized fees, but have rejected our fee proposal.<br />
<br />
They are accepting our proposal that precludes hiring decisions from being predicated on summer course registration, but changing the language. So not really accepting.<br />
<br />
They are refusing to include language in our offer letters that is honest about the fact that the contract is not binding.<br />
<br />
They are rejecting our layoff proposal. The administration is refusing to bear any of the burden for fluctuating enrollments.<br />
<br />
Article 27. Leave. The admin is reasserting the proposal we rejected. They reject all our paid leave proposals, citing that no employee working less than .5 FTE gets paid leave. Which is a fucking tautology, because they just refused a request for paid leave from about the only on-campus employees who work less than .5 FTE. So they can't give us paid leave because they have never given us paid leave. Worst. Lawyer. Ever.<br />
<br />
3:18 p.m. Fancy Lawyer doesn't know if lowering the admin proposal on health care by 5% is making it higher or lower. We're doing the math for him. The change in their wage proposal is an increase of ~$100K; the proposed premium cap, given trends would be a decrease in their proposal would be a net loss of $589K from their previous proposal. <br />
<br />
Fancy Lawyer says he understands the way we're looking at it. Apparently simple math is a hermeneutic exercise for this charlatan. He now uses the same argument we offered for our own health care proposals. Wow.<br />
<br />
Fancy Lawyer doesn't follow our pointing out his sophistry. His presence at the table is shame to his profession and the university. <br />
<br />
Now he's just creating contract language and figures out of whole cloth. <br />
<br />
Apparently it's part of our job to try and drive down health care premiums. So sayeth the lawyer. Who is being paid ~$250/hr.<br />
<br />
Our lead rightly points out that that the admin is trying to shift the burden of fluctuating premiums on to GTFs, because in years where premiums spike, we'd bear the burden, unlike every other unit on campus who have a strict 95/5 split with the admin. She also points out that this is a separate issue from our dental and leave proposals, and the admin is trying to conflate the two. Pwned.<br />
<br />
She now points out that despite them putting $100K into wages--which is less than they offer the baseketball coach in bennies every year--the proposed health care plan not only mitigates the wage proposal, but is actually a de facto cut to the health care plan.<br />
<br />
Fancy Lawyer's response is that we can always cut benefits in years where premiums spike. He is disgusting.<br />
<br />
Our lead points out that this is an entirely irresponsible way to manage a health care plan and still shifts the burden of fluctuating costs to the individual GTF.<br />
<br />
Our lead is roasting this high priced hack.<br />
<br />
I love that this poltroon is spouting Tea Party rhetoric with the regional president of our union in the room. The university is being embarrassed at the state level now.<br />
<br />
Out lead points out the proposed package is not good faith bargaining. She is interrupted by Fancy Lawyer, to whom apparently the maxims of mathematics do not apply.<br />
<br />
He's sticking with the "change the benefits to accommodate costs" line. I wonder how the admin might consider cutting their lawyer cost based on the diminishing returns they are getting from this stooge at the table.<br />
<br />
"Well, how valuable are those services you're using?" ~Fancy Lawyer<br />
<br />
3:40p.m. We're caucusing. Radio silence.<br />
<br />
4:16 p.m. We're walking out of the session in protest. Goodbye.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10964701773789702019noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-113626815452689103.post-23013002837663320232014-04-18T15:02:00.001-07:002014-04-18T17:34:15.279-07:00Striving for a more Equitable UO2:55 pm: Still getting settled for today's bargaining session in Lillis 112. Nice to see undergraduate support from Ducks Like You! Today is the last day to vote in the ASUO elections (voting closes at 4pm), and Ducks Like You is a great option for both grads and undergrads who care about the status of students and student workers at UO.<br />
<br />
3:05 pm: The University is offering a counter-proposal for drug testing. They want the ability to send GTFs who are not enrolled in the GTFF healthcare plan to University services. We want to look into finding other places GTFs can go if they feel uncomfortable with using the same services that their students might be using.<br />
<br />
3:12 pm: The University is clarifying that they do not want GTFs to clean their workspaces more than any other employee. They are saying that our FTE (full-time-equivalence) is related to tasks assigned to GTFs, and that cleaning could go beyond this allotment. Fancy Lawyer referred to GTFs as "a salaried professional" which seems to be a step up from his earlier portrayal of GTFs as mere recipients of UO's supreme beneficence.<br />
<br />
Please keep in mind though that our contract CLEARLY STATES that we should not be required to work over a specified number of hours.<br />
<br />
3:16 pm: We want the language about cleaning to include an emphasis on the fact that GTFs are employed under a specific FTE to avoid abuses of GTF working time. We think that GTFs should not be required to work more hours than they are paid for (like any other employee). This does not mean that GTFs shouldn't be tidy with their work-spaces; rather, it is about making sure that GTFs aren't working for free.<br />
<br />
3:22 pm: Fancy Lawyer is saying that FTE and GTF workloads are "a flexible system."<br />
<br />
3:26 pm: We are now discussing Article 21 concerning workload, which is not currently on the table for revision. Fancy Lawyer assumes that every GTF who works 5 minutes over FTE emptying a recycle bin will file a grievance, which has never happened. And because of this, the University does not want any language requiring grads to not go beyond their FTE hours in the cleaning and safe workspace clause.<br />
<br />
3:32 pm: The GTFF is looking at FTEs from a more structural perspective. Grads who are forced to work overtime are grads who do not have time to clean their work-spaces. If there is no time to do this, then FTEs are being constructed in an unsustainable way for that department. The idea that a GTF would grieve over taking recycling out for 5 minutes is a hobgoblin constructed to disrupt agreement over a straightforward article and slow down the bargaining process.<br />
<br />
3:41 pm: A GTF is currently talking about workload and fractional calculation sheets. Many courses are designed by professors in a way that makes GTFs unable to teach even close to their FTE hours, and GTFs are often expected to work for many hours beyond what they are paid. Fractional calculation sheets would provide a systematic way to ensure that GTFs are not forced to work for free.<br />
<br />
3:51 pm: Fancy Lawyer thinks that fractional calculation sheets would be too difficult to craft in an accurate way before the start of the term in the context of a research position, and wants to see what one looks like. One of our GTF representatives at the table has already been managing research time with their adviser, and this would be very doable.<br />
<br />
We are stressing that Fractional Calculation Sheets are a way to plan courses so that they do not result in grievances. This would avoid putting grads in an adversarial position when forced to grieve against the faculty who they depend upon for recommendations and positions.<br />
<br />
Fancy Lawyer has been pretending that GTFs want the ability to abuse the grievance system, when what we really want to do is prevent courses from requiring grievances in the first place. This would make UO a better place to work for both GTFs and the people who employ them, as foresight and accountability would be built into the process.<br />
<br />
We are stressing that being put into a position of having to grieve in order to attain equitable working conditions is a very difficult place for GTFs to be forced into. Fractional Calculations Sheets could be a continuing source of collaborative dialogue between GTFs and their bosses throughout the term that avoids abuse and contention.<br />
<br />
4:04 pm: We are also emphasizing that we have designed the language around Fractional Calculation Sheets to be flexible, which will encourage collaboration between GTFs and their bosses. GTFs can give feedback on the time that they spent on a course which will improve the situation of future GTFs who teach for that course.<br />
<br />
4:10 pm: The University is concerned about the time it will take to create Fractional Calculation Sheets, and how flexible they can be. They are still concerned about Fractional Calculation Sheets for research, but are admitting that they feel better about the idea after hearing the GTFF's descriptions at the table. We will provide the University with examples of Fractional Calculation Sheets that are currently in use by some departments at UO.<br />
<br />
4:14 pm: Jeff is acknowledging that the idea of Fractional Calculation Sheets is not very dissimilar from current GDRS requirements, and could provide a useful source of GTF feedback on courses. We are stressing that Fractional Calculation Sheets will be a source of conversation that is more specific for courses than the GDRS and will benefit both sides of the arrangement.<br />
<br />
4:17 pm: And then...Fancy Lawyers says perhaps Fractional Calculation Sheets might be "using an elephant gun to kill a mosquito." And perhaps this is how the abuse of our time looks to him: small.<br />
<br />
You know, I would be quite concerned about a mosquito if it was giant and able to suck all of the time from my life.<br />
<br />
4:23 pm: I would like to take a moment at this point to address *HOW COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS* it is that the University is spending THIS AMOUNT OF TIME addressing REALLY STRAIGHTFORWARD, reasonable proposals.<br />
<br />
I wonder how intentional this is. It will be easier for them to dismiss parental leave, healthcare, and wages IF WE NEVER GET TO TALK ABOUT IT.<br />
<br />
4:30 pm: As I write this, I realize that I am starting to catch the flu that has been going around among my students. I really wish we had sick leave, but I suppose I will have to do my standard procedure of sitting near a trash can and warning my students that I might throw up at some point during our discussion.<br />
<br />
4:34 pm: Still talking about Fractional Calculation Sheets. Oh, let's hear another "hypothetical example!" Story time with Fancy Lawyer.<br />
<br />
4:38 pm: There is going to be a roughly 10 minute caucus about the Article.<br />
<br />
4:40 pm: I would like to take this time to quickly thank everyone who made sure we had another full room of concerned GTFs and allies today! It's a beautiful day in a beautiful state, and nobody is forcing them to be here.<br />
<br />
4:50 pm: Caucus over. Discussing giving non-covered GTFs more options for drug & alcohol testing than going to a place where their students might also be.<br />
<br />
4:54 pm: It looks like we will TA the article on drug and alcohol testing.<br />
<br />
4:56 pm: We are expressing our concern about the University not giving us a counter on wages at this point in the term, as the Summer quickly approaches. We are wondering why this has not happened yet.<br />
<br />
4:58 pm: Fancy Lawyer is saying that this is the time of year that the University is putting together its 2015 budget. Apparently this means that "financial proposals are the last ones to get fixed" because the University will not know their financial situation "until late" in the year.<br />
<br />
Apparently our lack of knowledge about proposals based on the University's funds is because the University also doesn't know its own funds.<br />
<br />
5 pm: "Fiscal uncertainty is the primary factor", we are told.<br />
<br />
5:02 pm: The University is also still concerned about GTF healthcare premiums. They want the GTFF to pay for increases over 10%. They are saying the uncertainty about increases are their primary roadblock for approving anything (including wage increases).<br />
<br />
5:04 pm: Fancy Lawyer says "If we can agree on some way to cap healthcare costs...the University is more than willing to move that money over to...salary." Are we are being asked to choose between increased wages and increased healthcare (dental and vision)?<br />
<br />
5:13 pm: We are discussing healthcare premiums and caps.<br />
<br />
Fancy Lawyer: "The University's finances are tight." The room bursts into laughter.<br />
<br />
We are discussing the University's record endowment profits, and the continued inability to present us with evidence that the University is in such dire straits.<br />
<br />
5:17 pm: If the University is going to claim that it cannot afford anything, we want evidence of this.<br />
<br />
5:19 pm: The room just broke into applause for Amber, who will not put up with the University's continued inability to craft an argument and provide evidence for their inability to adjust their budget.<br />
<br />
5:22 pm: We are asking them to bring some counters next week, including their proposed healthcare cap. We would like to see movement in the bargaining process, and having concrete counters will allow this to happen. Enough of this vagueness! We need to work towards concrete movement at this point in the process, with concrete data to back it up.<br />
<br />
5:25 pm: Bargaining has concluded for the day. Now they are talking logistics for the next meeting. Because the EMU is being renovated, it is difficult to find rooms this term.<br />
<br />
5:25 pm: Thank you to Amber and the GTFF Bargaining Team for their hard work and perseverance!<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10964701773789702019noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-113626815452689103.post-68910009003571619482014-04-11T15:33:00.001-07:002014-04-11T17:26:54.027-07:00Mind the Gap, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Not Having A Contract3:28 p.m. We're here but the admin couldn't be bothered to request tables and chairs when they reserved the room. So maybe a drum circle session is in order.<br />
<br />
We're going to be talking living wage gap today. By way of reminder, 70% of our unit fall between $400 and $600 short of the university's own cost of living estimate, every single month. We've asked for a 6.1% raise to the minimum wage in an effort to close that gap. Our wage package would represent a 4.1% increase in total cost to the university over our current package. It would cost the university less than they pay the basketball coach. Their response so far has been a non-response. The money isn't there.<br />
<br />
But it's there for the basketball coach, to the tune of ~$1.8M/yr. <br />
<br />
It's there for the football coach at almost twice that number.<br />
<br />
It's there for the uninformed but highly compensated lawyer who can barely conceal his contempt for our organizer and cannot even extend her the common respect of letting her finish her sentences.<br />
<br />
But somehow it's not there for the 1400+ people who teach 31% of FTE. And now we're out of contract. #NoContractNoWork #MindTheGap<br />
<br />
3:41 p.m. We're going to offer some counters to the admin's non-responses to our economic proposals, but first we're going to offer some compromises on non-economic issues. We'll lead with layoffs and the move to Binding Contracts. We're going to speak first to our rationale behind trying to reform the layoff process. We're going to relent on demanding our contracts be binding because apparently the admin team have not read their Kripke or their J.L. Ritchie and don't understand rigid designators or the bindingness of promises. A GTF will now speak to the capriciousness with which certain departments administrate GTF contracts. This GTF was given a position ostensibly for an entire academic year. He was told less than 15 days before the beginning of Spring Term he would not given a GTF. It was grieved and won, but the point is that the policy is ambiguous to the point that GTFs can be put in a position where they could have their entire livelihood taken away with less than 2 week's notice.<br />
<br />
It's stultifying to think we have to justify why we think a contract should be binding. Yet, here we are.<br />
<br />
The highly paid lawyer's solution is to first claim our university can't be compared to comparator university's when it comes to financial policy. Which is strange considering that this is exactly what he does when it coems to the admin's justifying why they can't pay us a living wage. He now suggests that departments offer less GTF contracts until departments know what their enrollment numbers will be. So the response to "why can't are contracts be binding?" is "offer fewer people jobs." Excellent stuff from this astute scholar of the law.<br />
<br />
Interrupts our organizer for the first time today.<br />
<br />
We're re-inserting language protecting discriminated classes, specifically "color" and "HIV antibody status." It was originally included under "disability," but we would like to make this protection explicit. The lawyer can't understand why we want to make this explicit. We feel HIV antibody status is not intuitively included under "disability status," so we want it made explicit. It's a change we want for our members, and does not affect the way the admin administrates the disability policy. We're now arguing for the inclusion of "parental status" and "pregnancy" as separate classes, as well as "veteran's status", and we're citing state case law and Title VII case law in our rationale, because the admin has tried to argue these would frustrate legal interpretation. So we're pointing out federal and state cases where apparently better lawyers than this fellow interpreted these terms just fine.<br />
<br />
4:03 On to Article 10: Health, Safety & Work Environment. We're conceding the demand for kitchen facilities, since microwaves and coffee pots are too expensive for a place that just built a $100M training facility for its warrior class.<br />
<br />
We're couching this concession by adding language to Art. 10 that grants the GTF the right to refuse to work in an unsafe environment. The lawyer, in typical lawyerly fashion, wants to know "unsafe in whose eyes?" Which is obviously a productive way to negotiate with people who do not currently have a contract.<br />
<br />
We also want language added that compels the department to act when an unsafe work environment. The clause currently only requires a department to "attempt" to remedy such a situation.<br />
<br />
We've tried unsuccessfully to TA articles governing non-discrimination and safe workplaces, articles on which we made concessions. Absolutely no positive movement from the administration tea. #ShameYourselves<br />
<br />
4:12 p.m. We're beginning with economic issues. Article 16: Discipline & Layoffs: we're letting go of multi-year and binding contracts. This is a major concession because these were among the top-10 issues for our members. We're reproposing language preventing hiring decisions be made based on the desire of a GTF to take summer courses.<br />
<br />
We're reasserting the original language governing layoffs, which the admin wanted to change. We also want language inserted that makes it clear that our contracts are not considered binding by the university, the grad school, and the department.<br />
<br />
The lawyer wants more examples of GTFs being hired based on anticipated cost to the department. Again, this type of nitpicking is a productive way of negotiating with people who are currently working without a contract. #SaidNoOneEver<br />
<br />
We're asking for honesty and transparency in hiring decisions. The admin's response is to ask for varied examples and now they are speculating on hypotheticals. Maybe they are unaware that WE DO NOT HAVE A CONTRACT. <br />
<br />
4:24 p.m. And now for the tough stuff. Our lead is beginning by highlighting the utter lack of movement by the admin on these issues. We're pointing out that not only does the admin's proposal of a 1.5% raise not close the living wage gap, it actually makes it wider, because that raise is likely less than inflation. #MindTheGap<br />
<br />
Our lead pointing out that our comparator schools are at or near cost of living. Even Big State U up the road, dealing with the same state budgetary constraints, pay their employees enough that they are only $13/month short of CoL. Even after all this, we're making a concession to a 5.5% raise. This will not close the gap, but we're willing to concede a bit to show the admin we're earnest about getting a contract done. The total cost of this, over 2 years, would be $1.2M dollars.<br />
<br />
In other words, about $600K less than they pay the basketball coach.<br />
<br />
Fancy Lawyer suggest loans. Because going into debt to people who refuse to pay you a living wage is such a generous proposal.<br />
<br />
Moving onto health care. The increase to the current plan, given our dental and vision proposals, would be $647K/yr over the life of the contract. Put in perspective, that's less than they pay the baseball coach. We're also pointing out that our average increase to plan is ~13%/yr, not the 20%+ the admin has been alleging. <br />
<br />
On to parental leave. There were 5 births in the unit last year. If that's average, our proposal for parental leave would cost $27K/yr.<br />
<br />
More perspective: the admin just gave the basketball coach an extra $25K for the basketball team having made the NCAA tournament. So, there's money for the basketball coach to get a nice bonus (that is roughly equal to the yearly stipends of 2 GTFs at .40 FTE!), but there's no money for the GTFs who want to have a kid. #priorities<br />
<br />
Article 18: Summer Sandwich. We want language that clarifies an "academic year" is all 3 terms, we also want to clarify language governing what a GTF who arrives in the summer before the first fall term can do. The admin isn't clear on what defines an academic year. Given that they set the calendar, this is a troubling development. Again, one wonders if they realize they are addressing this stuff to a room full of people currently working without a contract.<br />
<br />
We're accepting the direct deposit language.<br />
<br />
On to tuition waivers. Housecleaning language.<br />
<br />
We're adding the names of the fees we're charged and the fees that are waived. The admin had excised them. We're citing cases where GTFs are unclear on what fees they are and are not obligated to pay. We're rejecting the admin's proposal to switch to a percentage system for fees. Our members are very insistent on this issue, and we aren't so stupid as not to realize that the percentage model for fees (a) removes the collectively bargained cap on fees and (b) is a recipe for skyrocketing fees. This is especially important considering the admin here loves to prop up their top-heavy financial structure by going into their student's pockets for fee monies.<br />
<br />
We're now explaining the extemporaneous fees charged to international students, and why we think the admin should reimburse the student for these fees. For instance, because it's a great recruiting tool.<br />
<br />
Hair-splitting from Fancy Lawyer. He wants to know if it applies to international students being recruited to come as a GTF or also to international students who come to the US as undergrads and then come here for grad school. We point out to him, since he can't be arsed to read, that our proposed language covers this distinction.<br />
<br />
4:57 p.m. Insurance and Paid Leave. The admin is trying to pry these apart, we're putting them back together. We gave the admin a dollar-for-dollar account for the increase to our plan. They rejected it with no rationale. We're asking for rationale and reasserting our previous proposal, but we are firm that we will accept no proposal that endangers the Health Care Trust. #DontBustTheTrust<br />
<br />
Pointing out that it's simply unethical to force an employee to either take a pay cut or come to work sick and/or injured.<br />
<br />
5:01 p.m. A GTFF rep from the healthcare trust is now reading a report detailing the actual cost to the university, as well as the history of the cost, of the health care plan. I cannot publish the details of this discussion, but they will be made public at some point.<br />
<br />
Fancy Lawyer once again can't be arsed to read, and is having info about premiums being read to him from the report he has in front of him.<br />
<br />
Admin team claims they're close but wants to caucus. Our lead is pointing out that time-wasting and the admin's proposals are going to be discussed with the entire membership at our membership meeting tonight.<br />
<br />
5:11 p.m. Fancy Lawyer droning on about the admin not knowing what the financial picture of the university. This type of obfuscation and palavering is neither impressive to us, nor do we accept it as a valid set of reasons for the admin's recalcitrance to respond to our proposals with data, transparency and honesty. <br />
<br />
They claim there is "room to move" in light of the Health Care Report.<br />
<br />
They are picking nits once again and claiming our total cost numbers don't match theirs. This difference is apparently in the thousands. Again, we do not have a contract. <br />
<br />
Apparently part of the difference is we didn't figure the "new" EMU fee. Recall that the admin loves to pay for pet projects out their student's pockets. We're talking about $18K here. In other words, $7K less than they just handed the basketball coach. But that's not all! There's going to be a "large fee increase next year!" Which neatly explain why they want to put us on a percentage fee model. We're an untapped revenue stream for continuing Nikeization of the campus.<br />
<br />
Covering all fees for GTFs enrolled in the summer would cost the university $100K. So 1/6 of the baseball coach's salary. Apparently this is exorbitant, but paying a coach 80% of his unit's revenue is, you know, a bargain.<br />
<br />
Tuition cost for summer would increase $200K over the life of the contract. So 1/3 of what they pay the baseball coach. Heaven forfend.<br /><br />5:26 p.m. And we're done. No movement. Next Friday, 3:30 p.m., 112 Lillis to hear the admin's counters.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10964701773789702019noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-113626815452689103.post-23449992453301667272014-03-21T15:33:00.004-07:002014-03-21T17:51:17.555-07:00The Eve of an Expired Contract3:31 p.m. This is the last bargaining session before the GTFF contract with the University expires. Though most policies remain in place after the contract is expired, this is still a very important meeting for both sides of the team. Still a good turnout even though a lot of GTFs are either working on grading or already out of town.<br />
<br />
3:35 p.m. They are going to open up by finishing (TAing) a few articles. This includes items such as wireless access and late pay.<br />
<br />
3:42 p.m. The University is neglecting the University's paid parental leave policies. They are asserting that GTFs are "first and foremost" students, and so should be satisfied with what they have. The University claims that the numbers that we provided them with are too uncertain and unpredictable, and that people who work our hours shouldn't have access to paid parental leave. The University wants to continue being an unsustainable place for GTF parents to work.<br />
<br />
3:50 p.m. The University is also denying paid sick and injury leave. We need to stop making University spaces hostile to the human body, folks. GTFs get sick and injured just like any other essential employee at the University, and deserve time to care for themselves in order to do their job effectively and safely.<br />
<br />
3:52 p.m. Our team lead, Amber: "I don't think we're looking for perfection, but we are looking for improvement."<br />
<br />
3:52 p.m. When Amber asks why the University cannot cover paid leave, Fancy Lawyer asks Amber if she would like to see the University go bankrupt. The University continues to deflect from honest questions with sensational, misdirecting exclamations.<br />
<br />
3:58 p.m. We are concerned about inconsistencies across leave policies, and how this creates an inequitable situation for many GTFs.<br />
<br />
4:03 p.m. The University is continuing to push for temporary student loans instead of seeing the need for employers to pay their employees on time. GTFs are employees of the University, and it is the responsibility of the University to figure out how to pay their employees by the agreed-upon dates.<br />
<br />
4:16 p.m. We are concerned about GTF confidentiality in cases where they are required to have counseling at UO, as undergraduate students use the same services and may be sitting in the same waiting room.<br />
<br />
4:21 p.m. We are now discussing GTF fractional calculation sheets. This would make time expectations for GTFs clear so that we can reduce the rampant unpaid overtime hours that GTFs are often forced to work.<br />
<br />
4:27 p.m. Fractional Calculation Sheets will help GTF supervisors as well, as they can be upfront and clear about how to manage their employees' time in relation to tasks such as researching articles or different types of grading. We think that transparency for GTFs and their supervisors will benefit both sides of our working arrangement.<br />
<br />
4:44 p.m. After a long discussion about the benefits of fractional calculation sheets, we are now taking a caucus.<br />
<br />
5:04 p.m. Caucus has ended. We are discussing wages now and the living wage gap. Increasing the wages of GTFs is not only the right thing to do, but also will make the University more competitive with recruiting grads.<br />
<br />
5:11 p.m. We are also discussing our healthcare proposals.<br />
<br />
5:17 p.m. We are discussing proposal costs. We are arguing that the University's wage model does not make UO competitive when recruiting graduate students, as prospective students have many institutions with far better benefits available to choose from. The ability to afford rent and groceries is a large part of prospective students' decisions.<br />
<br />
5:20: We have been discussing Summer fees. Our CBA says that all GTFs should have their tuition and fees treated the same during Summer as during other times of the year, but the University revealed that it does not actually waive these fees for GTFs across the board. This is a very big development that has a lot of GTFs upset at the University's actions. They are saying that it is too late for us to grieve this, due to a "difference in interpretation."<br />
<br />
5:24 p.m. UO is specifying that "We're not making money off of GTFs" when discussing costs. And yet, even ignoring such an offensive disposition, we teach 1/3 of the classes at UO. The University clearly sees us as a cheap force of labor, and yet they think they can distract away from our profitability when we ask for the wages and healthcare we need to live in Eugene and do our jobs. After all this time we also still haven't received clear money data from the University side of the table. As Fancy Lawyer says himself to our repeated requests, "I don't do math."<br />
<br />
So it seems that here, on the eve of our expired contract, the University wants to continue milking GTFs for all they are worth (while simultaneously claiming we are worth nothing), and do so without providing clear data for their justifications. And this is the grim note that we're ending on.<br />
<br />
5:29 p.m. Bargaining has concluded for the day. Thanks to the GTFF table team and to those who showed up for the Session!<br />
<br />
5:42 p.m. Things may look grim at the table, but it is only in one room, and the University is much larger. What will decide the next few months will be the work that is done outside the table to show the University that we are serious about our proposals.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10964701773789702019noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-113626815452689103.post-49196449935707296732014-03-14T15:33:00.002-07:002014-03-14T17:33:40.303-07:00In Which We Await the Response Which We Have Already Been Given3:32 p.m. Settling in, getting ready to go. Room is packed with members. Supposedly the admin will give us replies to our economic proposals. They have promised to be quick. It doesn't take long to say "no," I suppose.<br />
<br />
3:35 p.m. We're proposing to TA any articles that are close, then move on to discussion of the economic proposals, then follow that with a member speak-out. We're also proposing break-out groups. The admin is refusing to do the break-out groups. They're not prepared. Which is no surprise, because they either (a) have not been prepared this entire bargaining cycle or (b) have been prepared and are just being obstructive anytime we propose something that might require them to divulge information which puts to a lie their table-side blustering about health care and wages. Apparently they don't know which members of their team are "experts" in what topic. Top-notch organization. Although this lack of organization and initiative is pretty much what we've come to expect from this administration, on the whole. <br />
<br />
Our organizer is interrupted yet again by the pricey, yet admittedly unprepared and under-informed, lawyer.<br />
<br />
3:45 p.m. Still pressing for breakout groups. We're suggesting which members of the admin team would be best served to break out with our team members. Once again, we're forced to do Fancy Lawyer's job for him. Again, one wonders why the admin saw fit to invest such a sum in a person who has repeatedly proved to be little more than a rude, uninformed obfuscator of the issues, intent more on sprawling issues than solving them.<br />
<br />
3:46 p.m. We're going on to out counters. Article 16, Discipline & Discharge. We're proposing to TA it. The admin didn't know this was on the agenda. They don't seem to know a lot today. We've added language that says notice must be given 3 days prior to the actual processing of a termination. The admin wants to wait until after caucusing to TA.<br />
<br />
3:50 p.m. Moving on to Late Pay. We're accepting their proposals from last session, but we've added under (2) a change from "Graduate Student Loan Fund" to "Delayed Pay Fund." There's another name for the admin's system:<br />
<br />
Loansharking.<br />
<br />
But I suppose we can't add that sort of language to the contract. The admin is rejecting the language because it's a donor-named fund. And heaven forfend we offend <a href="http://www.uomatters.com/2014/03/uo-hires-eric-benjaminson-with-gabon-money.html" target="_blank">our illustrious donors</a>!<br />
<br />
3:53 p.m. On to Background Checks and Drug Testing. We're offering to TA the admin's last proposal on Background Checks. We're proposing that only the Dean of the Grad School, the Dean of the relevant college or the Unit Head be able to request a GTF take a drug test. We're also offering language consistent with the faculty contract that makes it more explicit that this article deals with us as employees.<br />
<br />
3:57 p.m. We're offering to hear counters from the admin, as well as the admin's responses to our requests for information regarding our economic proposals.<br />
<br />
Let's keep in mind here that the amount of money it would take to raise the minimum wage floor for 1400+ employees on campus is roughly equivalent to what the admin is paying one employee, to wit: <a href="http://www.uomatters.com/2013/06/uo-dumps-more-money-on-baseball.html" target="_blank">the baseball coach</a>.<br />
<br />
The admin is refusing to provide details on the money spent from the general fund on maintenance to the Jaqua Center, the president's office, and president's skybox. So our promised answer is no answer.<br />
<br />
They're blaming sequestration and defunding from the state. One wonders, then, why and how <a href="http://www.uomatters.com/tag/administrative-bloat" target="_blank">administrative bloat</a> rolls on.<br />
<br />
The increase in support proposed by the admin is less than they are <a href="http://www.uomatters.com/2014/02/vpfa-jamie-moffitts-transparent-reports-show-administrative-bloat.html" target="_blank">paying the basketball coach</a>. To put this in perspective, they are offering 1400+ employees less than they are paying one employee and acting like it's a generous offer.<br />
<br />
This lawyer would fail a Critical Thinking 101 class. He's not offering arguments. Even when asked to do so. We're arguing that we're talking about priorities. We offer his compensation as an example of the admin prioritizing outside legal counsel over paying GTFs. He says we don't get to have input on the General Counsel fund. We're saying we don't want input on who gets paid what from that fund. We're arguing about priorities, and this thick fellow doesn't get it. Seriously, remind me never to hire a lawyer from this firm. <br />
<br />
The admin's position is that what the admin spends on him is not appropriate for the table. Our organizer points out that this is a misrepresentation of our position. We are trying to ascertain the admin's priorities. He doesn't get it. We're not trying to offer any proposals that would alter the General Counsel Fund spending is administrated. But when we see spending on admin and General Counsel grow, and yet we're told there's no money to spent. Now the lawyer threatens to bury us under red tape. <br />
<br />
Bureaucracy is the last vestige of the incompetent.<br />
<br />
Our organizer calls this response "disappointing." I have a more severe word for it, one that the clergy dare not speak out loud.<br />
<br />
The admin lawyer just made it clear that they intend to drag our bargaining through spring term. they have no interest in settling our contract, which expires in 10 days. We make it clear that this is an unsatisfactory trajectory. It may even be a violation of the ground rules.<br />
<br />
4:15 p.m. We're offering to caucus. "If you're not willing to discuss your spending priorities here at the table, I can assure our members will be discussing them elsewhere." #Pwned<br />
<br />
4:20 p.m. We're caucusing. Our members are...incensed. A salient point is raised: if it's irrelevant for us to discuss how the admin is spending the university's money, then it seems irrelevant for the university to bring up the budget constraints, if they just going to claim that the evidence of said constraints is inappropriate for the bargaining table. They say they have constraints. We ask why. They say it's irrelevant to ask why. Rinse, repeat.<br />
<br />
4:42 p.m. We're honored to have to reps from the faculty union to sit at the table and speak in favor of our economic proposals. The faculty are pointing out that we are losing top-tier grad students every single term because of the embarrassingly low stipends, to the effect that departments are using non-essential departmental funds to increase GTF stipends--which is probably exactly what the admin would like. They further point out that fully-funded GTFs who are US citizens often take out loans to cover the shortfalls each term, even as the loans are not even available to non-citizen students. This is costing the university top-tier students, especially at the Ph.D level. A distinction has been struck between the moral issue--better wages are the right thing to--and the institutional issue--better wages make for a better university. It seems discontinuous in regards to both issues to ask students to attend the university and then compensate them in a manner that will make it harder for them to (a) complete their degrees in a timely fashion and (b) complete their degrees under financial hardship. The point both of the faculty reps is the admin is not doing a good job compensating grad students, and it's their responsibility to fix that problem. One faculty member points out that their program is lowest-paying program among R1 Ph.D-granting programs in that discipline in the U.S. This department is running their Ph.D program on departmental reserves. This is beyond negligence by the administration. <br />
<br />
4:56 p.m. Our organizer points out that in this room are not only members of our union, but also members of the faculty and staff unions, as well as members of local labor councils. Our organizer now points out that at State U, just up the road, grad employees come out $11.00/month ahead of cost of living. 70% of grad employees here come up $400-$600 short of cost of living, every single month.<br />
<br />
5:01 p.m. We're going back to Article 31: Ratification. Apparently, this issue is up in the air and depends on Our Wealthy Benefactor's hand-picked (and incoming) board of trustees vests the power of ratification. The admin wants to leave the contract language ambiguous. They say we don't get to pick who ratifies. Our organizer says that won't work. The overpaid lawyer interrupts her to tell her to stop interrupting him. Now he's bullying her. Well he's trying. He should know she doesn't scare. But misogynists who blinded by their own privilege relatively see their own downfall as it approaches. Now he claims this article isn't on the agenda. Well, then. We're refusing to TA the article.<br />
<br />
5:05 p.m. Article 16: Discipline and Discharge. The admin is removing a superfluous "the." And we've TA'd that article.<br />
<br />
5:07 p.m. On to Grievances, the admin wants changes to limitations on times and notification, we can't TA yet.<br />
<br />
5:12 p.m. The admin is accepting the problematic "loan" language associated with the late pay assistance offered by the grad school, they're going to try and work it out, but it's complicated by the donor issue.<br />
<br />
5:13 p.m. Article 27: our proposal combines 27 with other articles referencing/governing leave periods. We're accepting the admin's proposed changes, but we're adding back in the jury duty language to incorporate the no lost pay language with language that says leave due to jury duty cannot result in required makeup time. We feel that's an unreasonable and ultimately impractical demand. We're also adding the same language to the clause governing election days and immigration proceedings. For bereavement leave, we're trying to point out that being forced to take our own time to deal with a loss, and then be required to make up that time, seem cruel and unreasonable. For sick leave, we've added back in the language that sick leave be 6 weeks paid leave over a 12-month period. We're adjusting the language to reflect that this is work weeks, and adding definitional language. We've also reinserted the parental leave with our proposed language unchanged, as the admin has offered no guidance on what would be an appropriate amount of leave days. We've also reinserted the language governing covering, as the current system basically requires the member to work for free. Again, since the university has offered no guidance on what is a appropriate amount of compensation, we've not changed the language.<br />
<br />
A member will now speak to this issue and its impact on her life. The member was involved in a car accident last term. Her department is small, and the members teach every day. It cost her a week of work, and she felt compelled to go to work after that, even though she was still not well, because she didn't want to put her fellow workers over their workload any longer than a week, even though this was against the advice of her doctor. She was also prepping for her comps during this time, and so working with this injury placed what we feel is an undue burden on the member.<br />
<br />
We're acknowledging that there is a cost associated with this proposal, but we argue that the university should consider that cost worth not forcing a member to (a) work for free and/or (b) to force a member to work while they are physically unable to perform their work. Our organizer and the member point out that it seem odd for an employee to have to make their own arrangements if they are involved in an incident like this. We also feel that a fractional decrease in the situation to .20 FTE so that the health benefit is maintained, again places an undue burden on the GTF because it cuts their pay at a time when they have potentially ballooning expenses.<br />
<br />
Our organizer points out that at the University of Michigan that the sick leave policy is rarely used, and often used only cases like the one of which our member just spoke.<br />
<br />
5:30 p.m. We have offered the floor to the admin. They have nothing. We offer break-out groups again. They again refuse, citing an inability to organize themselves. And that's it for this session. <br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10964701773789702019noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-113626815452689103.post-9016756371712282462014-02-21T15:38:00.000-08:002014-02-24T09:40:51.598-08:00The Power of Mathematics and Logic3:36pm We are now settling, and today's round of Bargaining will commence shortly, which will include discussions about the numbers involved for living wages and major dental in comparison with the University's wealth.<br />
<br />
3:38pm: Bargaining will start by discussing Article 34. The University wants to be notified about changes to our dues form on the 15th of the month prior to the time the changes go into effect. They also would like to discuss Article 10, Section 1. The University wants to add that GTFs have a mutual responsibility for cleaning up GTF workspaces. Presumably because the University wants to be able to scold GTFs when spaces go without the kind of maintenance any worker might hope to have in their workspaces.<br />
<br />
3:46pm: The University also wants to add that the University should not be required to provide for health and safety beyond University workspaces. We are concerned that there is no language in place for a GTF to report being forced to work in an unsafe space.<br />
<br />
3:49pm: The University misread the our proposal to require safe workspaces. Apparently they thought that this would require them to fly in and transform any non-University spaces in which a GTF was working. All we want is to not be required to work in unsafe spaces. Ever heard of parsimony? Or argumentative charity? Or reading?<br />
<br />
3:58pm: Now Fancy Lawyer is talking about "GFTs." Graduate Fellow Teachers?<br />
<br />
4:04pm: We are discussing grievance steps. The University would prefer the President not to have to dirty his hands with personally attending meetings and wants to deny GTFs from moving to this stage. Of course, this could leave a GTF's livelihood hanging on the line, but won't somebody think of the poor President?<br />
<br />
4:15pm: Just had a long discussion about financial policies and their relationship to the state archivist.<br />
<br />
4:18pm: We are concerned about the University giving the President the final word on contracts rather than the Board of Trustees, which is usually the body that deals with contracts. You're the king? Well I didn't vote for you.<br />
<br />
4:20pm: Now we're digging into numbers. The University is reporting increases to the healthcare trust and say that this is "unsustainable." Maybe like a top-heavy university structure? They are saying that premium increases must be kept to no more than increases of 10%. Left out of the picture, as always, is the immense wealth that the University is sitting upon as they speak.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i.imgur.com/qUpR60n.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://i.imgur.com/qUpR60n.png" height="246" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
4:25pm: Fancy Lawyer said that the GTFF has the power to add healthcare plans in contrast to the helpless University. And that is their justification for capping trust increases at 10%. By using this rhetoric, are they admitting and committing to the GTFF having the ability to pick up Major Dental without their authorization? In previous bargaining sessions, we were given a flat-out "NO" on this idea, but now apparently (according to their language) it is us who have the power to say "YES."<br />
<br />
4:31pm: We have been discussing more numbers. The University is saying that increasing wages and adding major dental is unsustainable. We are asking where all the revenue from the UO Foundation endowment (most recently $553 million, a 13.8% annual return) goes.<br />
<br />
4:38pm: The University is claiming that it both has a deficit and a surplus, and that the surplus will be used to fill the deficit, with money left over. So wouldn't that make this...a surplus?<br />
<br />
4:45pm: The University side of the table has no idea what their "Unrestricted Gifts and Royalties" are being used for, which in 2013 was $2,177,408 with a $1,214,700 increase in one year. The maintenance of the University's Jaqua Center was also $2,753,225 in 2013, and we are wondering who is paying for that. The University, as always, does not know where this is coming from (for example, to what extent Academics is paying for the Jock Box). In any case, we can be rest assured that none of these magical, mysterious funds will be used for root canals.<br />
<br />
4:52pm: Here's a big one. The University said earlier (incorrectly) that our healthcare and living wages will cost 1.7 million for the University to cover. But this depends on assuming that ALL GTFs will receive the same wage. All the GTFF wants to do is bring wages up to a living standard, so not all wages would be adjusted the same rate.<br />
<br />
4:54pm: Hence, the GTFF found that the price for GTF living wages in 2014-2015 would actually run around $316,340. Coincidentally, the University President's Skybox Office in Autzen Stadium costs $375,000 every year! We could give grads living wages for less than UO is paying to give the President a shiny football office!<br />
<br />
5pm: The GTFF is reporting that we could cover BOTH living wages AND major dental for FAR LESS than the unrestricted funds given to academics. Increasing GTFs' wages and adding major dental will cost UNDER $1 million with room to spare.<br />
<br />
5:01pm: "The purpose of this university is academics and research...I would encourage you to look for the money." -- Our organizer, who is getting paid a fraction of this lawyer's salary to wipe the floor with him.<br />
<br />
5:02pm: Caucus beginning with the full room of GTFs applauding for our organizer. The room is packed with GTFs who are upset about the University privileging the most frivolous aspects of administration and Athletics over the lives of GTFs and the academic work they contribute to this campus.<br />
<br />
5:26pm: We were just informed by UO during our caucus that we have the room until 5:45pm, NOT 6:30pm as we projected, and were told to hurry our caucus along.<br />
<br />
5:33pm: Bargaining is continuing, and we are asking what their "GTF maintenance responsibility" clause will specifically involve. They are mentioning taking care of your own foodstuffs in the fridge and having rotations where people might agree to rotate responsibility. We are concerned about GTF workspaces in which GTFs have to clean and dust without compensation, and we are worried that this language will be used to require GTFs to do unpaid cleaning work beyond their cleaning their own foodstuffs. We are going to revisit this issue later to provide specific examples where GTFs are forced to work in unreasonably dirty work-spaces beyond their own responsibilities for care.<br />
<br />
5:43pm: They are now talking about the healthcare article and the University's assertion that the cost of the trust will go up by "41% in two years." The members of the GTFF trust fund are confused because this does not match their numbers, and are wondering about how the University arrived at this percentage.<br />
<br />
5:45pm: The University does not know how they arrived at this 41% projected figure for healthcare increases. They are using a system of "fiscal years" and making projections based on years with higher expenses. We are looking forward to viewing their specific data. We are concerned that they are incorrectly assuming costs will inevitably continue in this way.<br />
<br />
5:52pm: They are accusing the GTFF Trust of not making moves to keep price increases below 10%. We are saying that discussing Major Dental at the table is a move of good faith to discuss healthcare increases with the University, and that the GTFF has encouraged the trust to maintain caution with healthcare cost increases.<br />
<br />
5:57pm: We are planning to discuss wages next time. University side of the table says that getting major dental coverage makes no difference if cap prices are the same. People who need root canals beg to differ.<br />
<br />
5:58pm: Bargaining has ended. Thank you to the GTFF table team and everyone who showed up, and see you next week!<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10964701773789702019noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-113626815452689103.post-84635751773484416642014-02-14T15:32:00.002-08:002014-02-14T17:20:23.871-08:00Begrebet Angest3:30 p.m.: We're gathered. Crappy weather and bargaining being held in an arcane labyrinth of a classroom building has depressed turnout a bit. Waiting. <br />
<br />
3:38 p.m.: We're opening by proposing that we try and get straight on as many of the non-economic proposals done and dusted as possible.<br />
<br />
Fancy Lawyer is intoning about the admin's sincere desire to get current financial numbers to us ASAP. One might be led to wonder how a university functions without having access to it's own financial data.<br />
<br />
3:40 p.m.: We've closed one article, governing written notice of absence. One down. On to Article 4. The university wants to "approve" our union cards. We're proposing that we submit the forms to the university for review, but we get final say on what the GTF's dues rate/status will be. We are also proposing that changes to GTF status be processed in 14 business days, rather than the university's proposed 60 days. We also don't see why we need to fill out a new payroll deduction form every term. It seems excessive and no doubt it's a milquetoast attempt to make keeping up full membership status unnecessarily difficult. <br />
<br />
3:45 p.m.: We're asking for more information for why the university wants to tinker with the protected statuses in Article 8.<br />
<br />
On to Article 9. Health and Workplace Safety. Access to wireless and adequate workspace. We're making a modest concession that our workspaces are required only to be on par (in terms of cleanliness, size, etc.) with other workspaces in the same building/area. We're holding strong on the wireless access, though.<br />
<br />
Fancy Lawyer say they're gathering "as much information as fast as we can" on wireless issues on campus. He's now lecturing our organizer on the difficulties of providing wireless access. We have a $100M football facility, but we can't have wireless networked across campus.<br />
<br />
#Priorities<br />
<br />
On to kitchen facilities. The university has proposed that GTF have the same access as faculty in the workspace. We're countering that the GTFs have access to at least a sink, coffee maker, and microwave. The university wants us to numerate the spaces where this is an issue, clearly missing the point. The point is that the contract should contain language guaranteeing access to these facilities, regardless of how many workspaces on campus to which this issue currently applies. <br />
<br />
#MoneyForJockBoxButNotForCoffeePots<br />
<br />
Fancy Lawyer insists that we provide them with the actual locations. It's not entirely clear why this is our responsibility. We're telling them about one department, which, just this term, spent their own money to provide their GTFs with these items. We're emphasizing that we're trying to get language in that guarantees this access. The Head of University Finance doesn't know what a contradiction is, but that doesn't stop him from asserting that we've engaged one. Oh, wait. Now it's a "curiousity." Our organizer is explaining the nature of conditionals to him. It's not sinking in. The same person who last session could not provide us with current tuition revenue information (which is basically the sum total of his job requirements), is now picking nits over a f**king coffee pot. Apparently he can't grasp that where no kitchen facilities exist, they must be created. These would not be only for the GTF, but for all persons in the workspace. It's just that the language in our contract would guarantee their existence. This fellow is thick.<br />
<br />
Moving on. We're asking for language guaranteeing a safe workplace when GTFs are required to do work off campus. Fancy Lawyer tries to score points by asking if we want secure coffeeshops around campus. Our organizer deftly explains we're talking about conference travel, etc. This lawyer is stealing money. <br />
<br />
4:05 p.m.: Now that we've settled the volatile issue of coffee pots, we're moving on to "suppression of electronic information by the University about a GTF." We have language that basically guarantees FERPA rights for GTFs. The university wants to strike it, because they don't understand why it's there. Okey-dokey. On to some housecleaning issues, we're going to look into the FERPA language and a couple of small pieces governing workplace safety in the event of things like floods and fires.<br />
<br />
4:13 p.m.: Personnel Files. The university wants 5-day notice from the to view the personnel file. We don't understand why that should be the case, especially for people who need access to the file to make a hiring decision. <br />
<br />
We're trying to insert language protecting the personnel file from outside access without the permission of the GTF. The university <i>knows</i> that this is <i>never</i> used. The basis for this is anecdotal evidence from the last 7 years, by one person. Perhaps a lesson in the epistemology of belief is in order...or a lecture on Hume. <br />
<br />
#ThePluralOfAnecdoteIsNotData<br />
<br />
We're arguing that if a clause that protects GTFs is in the contract, it's there for a reason. Tossing it out for the reasons cited by the university seems capricious. Fancy Lawyer say they can't enforce a policy they don't understand. It's not clear how that functions as reply to our claims.<br />
<br />
More housecleaning.<br />
<br />
On to evaluations. We're moving to strike "where appropriate" because it implies there would be a circumstance under which a GTF would receive a poor evaluation with no timeframe for improvement, which further suggests if no timeframe need be given, the GTF could be terminated immediately. Fancy Lawyer doesn't know why that language was inserted. The university is really getting its money's worth from this fellow.<br />
<br />
4:23 p.m.: On to Grievances. We're accepting clarificatory changes to language. We're rejecting the proposal to strike the words "misinterpreted and improperly applied." We feel this language makes it clear to our members that <i>any</i> violation of our contract, even unintended consequences of well-meaning actions, are grieveable.<br />
<br />
4:27: On to Arbitration. Accepting more clarificatory language. <br />
<br />
4:30 p.m.: On to Discipline and Discharge. We're rejecting the language surrounding "restitution" for damage to university property. We feel the university already has this power outside of our CBA. <br />
<br />
We're asking for 3 days notice to the union before a GTF is terminated. The university wants us to clarify as regards retroactive terminations. We're clarifying that it's 3 days before the process begins, no matter what.<br />
<br />
We're trying to insert language around document retention. We want to the GTF to have the power to request destruction of the personnel file upon graduation. The university just admitted their current retention policy on the state OAR is in violation of our CBA. Wait, now they're saying the CBA can't be in violation of state law. The OAR isn't mentioned in the CBA. Fancy Lawyer says they can't agree to the language until they check the policy. We're sticking by our proposal, arguing that even if policy does or does not change to countermand this language, we want the language in the CBA.<br />
<br />
4:48 p.m.: We're putting off language around binding contracts until the economics proposals are revisited.<br />
<br />
4:50 p.m.: Article 30 is agreed on. Title change. Two down.<br />
<br />
Article 31. We're striking the language that says that the university president and not the Board of Trustees is ratifying our contract. We're reinserting the old "University of Oregon Board of Trustees" language.<br />
<br />
4:55 p.m.: We're rejecting the proposal to allow the university to stop providing printed copies of the CBA. We're proposing the university print 75 copies, and provide additional copies upon request by individual GTFs.<br />
<br />
5:00 p.m.: Some clarifying language to reflect the changes in the governance of the university. <br />
<br />
On to No Strikes or Walkouts. We're flatly rejecting the ridiculous suggestion that GTFs could be "requested" to perform the work of a striking work. If a GTF opts to do that work, they cannot go above a .49 FTE workload. <br />
<br />
We're done with our presentation. Caucusing now.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10964701773789702019noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-113626815452689103.post-71050526862306437262014-01-24T15:19:00.003-08:002014-01-25T01:31:38.015-08:00On the Concept of IronySo today we will focus on economic proposals, including our apparently "ridiculous" demand to be paid a living wage, as well as what we here at HG&HH are hearing are some flatly immoral proposals from the university regarding our healthcare package.<br />
<br />
Keep in mind that because our stipends are so laughably shoddy (more than 50% behind competitor universities in the case of most GTFs outside the hard sciences), that the university uses the collectively bargained and member-run health care trust as a recruitment tool. Apparently they've decided that the best way to lure the best and brightest grads to the the university is to neither pay them a living wage nor compensate for this lack of fair and adequate compensation with a decent health care plan.<br />
<br />
So now we wait to be told how we don't deserve to be paid a fair wage, as well as how taking the running of our health care plan out of our hands and placing it in the university's hands.<br />
<br />
In reality, this is a direct, duplicitous and craven attack on our ability to organize and recruit, as the university is well aware that we use the health care as a recruitment tool of our own. See you when the talking starts.<br />
<br />
<i>Sine labore nihil</i>.<br />
<br />
3:23 p.m. Our bargaining team is here. 2/5 of the university team in the room.<br />
<br />
3:30 p.m. GTFs slowly filing in, a couple of faculty union members have shown up, as well. Still waiting on one member of the university team.<br />
<br />
3:32 p.m. Fancy Lawyer opening with economic proposals. No, wait, he wants to talk about the CBA-gutting discipline and discharge changes.<br />
<br />
More vague language "certain serious types of offenses." At the university's discretion to create a taxonomy of offense, of course.<br />
<br />
We don't understand how the current provisos don't already allow UO the leeway they seem to want. Fancy Lawyer claims they are "clarificatory"changes. Now he admits it is indeed implicit in the article as currently written. <br />
<br />
3:35 p.m. Article 18, governing summer term, mostly clarifying language. They want summer session tuition waivers limited to courses "in furtherance of the degree." Once again, it's unclear who gets to judge which courses count. They want to "tighten the requirements" to get a summer tuition waiver, to no longer include GTFs who have not worked less than two quarters in the previous year and at least one in the following fall. We don't understand why this requirement needs to be tightened. They "aren't aware that there have been abuses, but there is the potential for abuses." <br />
<br />
This "won't have much impact." Clearly a lawyer who makes his money busting unions and defending tobacco companies is in a position to make such a claim.<br />
<br />
There it is: they want to be able to "collect" summer tuition from GTFs who do not/cannot enroll the following fall term. So, say you have a accident or get pregnant or have a family emergency and have to take leave, the university says:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<object class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" data-thumbnail-src="https://ytimg.googleusercontent.com/vi/5ydqjqZ_3oc/0.jpg" height="266" width="320"><param name="movie" value="https://youtube.googleapis.com/v/5ydqjqZ_3oc&source=uds" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed width="320" height="266" src="https://youtube.googleapis.com/v/5ydqjqZ_3oc&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object></div>
<br />
We've asked for no fees, the university responds by proposing to raise our fees. We want more dollars than they have to spend on us, says Fancy Lawyer. Maybe he could give us some of his 500,000 dollars.<br />
<br />
We have packed this room with grad unionists. A few faculty unionists among us.<br />
<br />
The university wants clear contractual language that prevents supervisors from advising students not to enroll in summer courses. Ah, but supervisors can "inform" GTF that their funding will be negatively affected by their enrolling in summer courses. Fancy Lawyer says this isn't coercion, it's "providing them with accurate financial information." Someone needs to inform him of the distinction between occurrent and dispositional coercion. "Awful nice grant you've got there, GTF. Be a damn shame if something happened to it..."<br />
<br />
3:49 p.m. Clarifying changes to Forced Reduction. Fancy Lawyer can't distinguish between a fee waiver--which he just refused to grant--and a tuition waiver. A person who actually works at the university fixes it for him. Basically, the university is reducing the number of terms waived. Under the current CBA, if a course is canceled, the GTF gets the tuition waiver for the term in which the course was canceled, as well as for the following term, regardless whether the course is canceled. The university does not want to guarantee the waiver that following term, unless the GTF is teaching. So we proposed, and the university moves backward. Fancy Lawyer just can't understand why the university should bear more responsibility for fluctuating enrollment than the GTF. Because we clearly tell people not to enroll in our classes and wish for them to be canceled so we can go frolic in the gumdrop forest with the bubblegum faeries.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/zKxjvpY-x5E?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
3:58 p.m. They want to make fees a percentage of our compensation package (which they still claim, risibly, to include their ever-skyrocketing tuition). So members making more money, pay more fees. This university loves nothing more than to rely on fees to support their tottering financial structure.<br />
<br />
4:00 p.m. They don't want to pay our premiums at the current rate (95%) if premiums are raised more than 10%. The university claims they were raised 22% last year. It's a "very costly" benefit, says Fancy Lawyer.<br />
<br />
"Costly:" Kind of like paying a lawyer that doesn't know we're an AFT local half a million dollars to embarrass himself.<br />
<br />
Our organizer asks where their figures came from. Fancy Lawyer does not know. Apparently the university did not properly plan and had to dip into the $51M surplus. No, on second thought, they admit that they did not have to do so.<br />
<br />
4:03 p.m. Here comes the health care proposal...Fancy Lawyer: "If the university can find the same health care at a lower cost, we get to switch." They are "exploring a self-payment plan." But this is all just subterfuge. The university <i>already has this ability</i>. They just have to run it through the Trust and collectively bargain the new plan. So they're not asking for anything they don't have; they're going after the GTFF Health and Welfare Trust. They say it's only potentially in their plans. But I think we can all see through the bullsh*t here: they want us to agree to language that would allow them to undemocratically eliminate the Trust. If there is one thing that will get every GTF on this campus to walk right out into the street, it is this issue. They don't understand why if they can give us the same benefits through different means, why we care about the means.<br />
<br />
Right now, we run our health care. They want to run it. Basically, they want us to hand control of our health care to a group of people who I wouldn't put in charge of building a birdhouse. With pre-cut pieces. And glue.<br />
<br />
They don't know if it would be a HMO or a PPO. They don't want to geographically restrict our coverage. Our organizer astutely points out that they are trying to circumvent both the Trust and the collective bargaining process by inserting language that would allow the university the change our coverage, at will, without consulting either with the Trust and/or without bargaining that change in plan. <br />
<br />
Bottom line: They want to be able to eliminate the Trust and change our plan outside of the collective bargaining process, and Fancy Lawyer man does not deny this when asked directly if such was the case.<br />
<br />
4:15 p.m. If a GTF has to go to through immigration procedures that last longer than a week, the university wants to reduce their FTE. The university doesn't seem to have any sort of plan for the GTF to make up that lost time, however.<br />
<br />
4:18 p.m. They are rejecting our proposal that a GTF be paid an extra fraction to cover for a sick GTF, as well as our proposal that a GTF be paid paternity leave.<br />
<br />
We are asking if the university understood the GTF who spoke last week, because they have no response to our proposal beyond saying "no." Their new answer: "Finances." We ask what that means. Once again, we're asking for too many dollars. I wonder how one person asking for 500,000 dollars is not asking too much, but 1400 people, almost half of whom are paid below the poverty line, asking for 6 weeks paid leave, is asking for too much.<br />
<br />
A photographic summation of the university's response to our economic proposals:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://static2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130912234224/fossilfighters/images/e/e2/How-about-no-bear.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://static2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130912234224/fossilfighters/images/e/e2/How-about-no-bear.jpg" height="190" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
The university estimates the cost of paid paternal leave to be up to $250K/yr. So about half of what they're paying this lawyer to be uninformed and hamfisted. One wonders how they can afford incompetence, but can't afford to protect parents who are GTFs.<br />
<br />
We're asking if they did demographic surveys to back up their data. They did not. So...no empirical basis for the $250K figure. This is what half a mil pays for nowadays. Hard to find good help, I guess.<br />
<br />
4:32 p.m. Fancy Lawyer bemoaning the "precipitous" drop in state funding. Anticipated punchline: GTFs are just going to have the bear the burden of this. Fancy Lawyers are apparently recession-proofed. We ask about the endowment and the general fund. Fancy Lawyer has no answers, but he gets backed up by the Head of University Finance. Who refuses to talk about the university finances. One might wonder just what this lawyer was brought here for, such is the dearth of his knowledge.<br />
<br />
Fancy Lawyer continues intoning about how the university governance is changing, and says they expect tuition to continue to rise 5%/yr. They feel like like they are capped on out of state tuition, and that if they increase it further, out of state enrollment will drop.<br />
<br />
Heaven forfend.<br />
<br />
Now they're blaming the faculty union and the classified staff collectively-bargained raises for not being able to give us raises. Our organizer asks for the percentages. Fancy Lawyer does not have the numbers. Our organizer kindly provides him with these numbers, which she has directly in front of her. The Head of University Finance can't decide if "at least" means a cap or a floor. Smashing stuff, this.<br />
<br />
I think the administration needs a math GTF on call.<br />
<br />
They now admit they gave across-the-board raises to the faculty and classified staff unions, and somehow they believe this has no bearing on whether they should give us a raise.<br />
<br />
4:48 p.m. Apparently, we have the ability to control the raises to our premiums. This is news to us. They are now summarily rejecting our proposals on raises to dental and vision coverage, again they say we're asking for too many dollars, but they admit they have no estimated figures of the cost of the changes. So they don't know how much it costs, they just know it costs too much.<br />
<br />
They have literally done no homework since our last session. They have no estimated costs for anything but paternal leave, but they have nevertheless rejected each of our economic proposals as too costly.<br />
<br />
Now we're being fed this f**king sophistry about how the tuition waiver is part of our pay, so raises in tuition are de facto raises to us. Remind me never to hire this guy to to be my lawyer.<br />
<br />
Our organizer points out that we generate revenue in the form of bringing in students via the classes we teach. We ask for the tuition brought in by classes taught by GTFs. Fancy Lawyer doesn't know. We tell him it's roughly 1/3 of total tuition revenue<br />
<br />
THEY ARE NOW CLAIMING NOT TO BE AWARE OF THEIR TOTAL TUITION REVENUE. "THEY" ARE THE HEAVILY COMPENSATED LAWYER AND <i>THE HEAD OF UNIVERSITY FINANCE</i>.<br />
<br />
This is tantamount to my students showing up to my class and me informing them that I have no idea about what they want me to teach. I'd be fired for that. Summarily, if Fancy Lawyer had his way.<br />
<br />
5:00 p.m. We're caucusing. There are some pissed off GTFs in this room. They have poked a hornets nest.<br />
<br />
5:30 p.m. Done caucusing, calling the university back in. Aaaaaaaand we're back.<br />
<br />
We're providing them with the numbers we asked them for re: dental and vision plan increases. We're also objecting to the notion that there's only a static amount of money for us, even as the university sees increases in revenue every year. <br />
<br />
Now we're supplying them with the tuition numbers they claimed not to have. FY2012 was over $301M dollars. Predicted $11M increase by end of FY2014. Fancy Lawyer man nonsequiturously asks if we want it all, interrupting our female organizer for the 18th time in 2 hours. She continues presenting. We believe the university's response to our proposals do not fit the goals in their own benchmarking report. We also want to know why the university cannot provide us with concrete numbers, especially where we find them easy to obtain.<br />
<br />
We're moving to the vision plan. A GTF will testify to the myriad problems with our vision benefit not meeting their needs. FYI, we get $200/yr for vision. This number was set a decade ago. Nowadays it barely covers the exam, let alone frames and lenses.<br />
<br />
"Budgets are also moral documents. They are made by people who have choices." #GunsBlazing<br />
<br />
This GTF pays $600/box for contacts, $114 dollars for lenses, $80-100 for frames. She has resorted to wearing the contacts for twice the recommended length of time. This has resulted in scratches to her eyes, and lenses falling out while she is driving. We offer the university the opportunity to question here. The university's questions revolve around how long she has been a GTF.<br />
<br />
We're returning to our wage proposal. Another GTF will testify to the difficulties confronted by the 70% of our members who are between $400-$600 dollars short of the university's own cost of living estimate. <br />
<br />
The GTF is a single parent, and is paying 1/3 of her salary every month for child care. On top this, she must eat, feed her child, clothe a growing child, pay for internet, rent, car costs, etc. Sadly, she is not a single case, or even an aberration. <br />
<br />
"Even if I did not have a child, the cost of living would far exceed my salary."<br />
<br />
She's taken out loans. The university is a loan mill nowadays, so they remain nonplussed. <br />
<br />
5:48 p.m. Our organizer points out that the paltry stipends, and open animosity towards grads asking for a living wage, is antithetical to the university's mission to attract the best and brightest to come and work here, most especially the callousness the university displays towards grads who are parents.<br />
<br />
5:50 p.m. We're emphasizing that the Trust means something to us. Its existence has value to us. We're talking about how the health care plan draws in prospective students. Last year, we had to make a decision due to GTFs with terminal illnesses spending <i>their entire stipend</i> on prescription drugs to treat their conditions. GTFs made the decision that we would cut alternative care visits in half to meet the needs of other members who were having a much harder time that the rest of us. The Trust matters because it gives us that power. It gives us autonomy. And we won't give that up. Period.<br />
<br />
Now we're pointing out that the university doesn't even have anyone dedicated to administering health care. Because we have someone competent and experienced, we relieve the burden from the university. Additionally, the GTFs on the plan, who currently control how our plan is administered, have a different set of interests in their health care plan than the university has. We're able to take care of problems quickly, and at the lowest level. Putting this in the hands of the university unnecessarily involves a lot of bureaucracy.<br />
<br />
Our organizer points out that if we were to agree to the proposed language, GTFs who require long-term care could have that coverage interrupted if/when the university switched our plan, and could even be forced to switch from seeing specialists they have been seeing for some time.<br />
<br />
We're emphasizing that the university's proposal amounts to little more than an attempt to eliminate the Trust and circumvent the collective bargaining process. The university has <i>always had the right to shop for alternate plans</i>. They just have to do it through established channels. Which is exactly what this union-busting lawyer doesn't want to do.<br />
<br />
They're now asking us for numbers we asked them for. Of course we once again provide them with their own data.<br />
<br />
We're pointing out how, via our administration of the Trust, we've actually driven down health care costs. We're using actual numbers and data. Fancy Lawyer has the same look in his eye your cat does when it realizes there's nothing under it's paw when it catches the laser pointer light. <br />
<br />
6:16 p.m. The Head of University Finance wants to know what transaction fees we pay for credit card transactions. Value added. #SaidNoOneEver Now he says he doesn't want the numbers. Our organizer points out, we'll bring whatever data they want to the table, and that we hope they reciprocate. We won't be holding our breath. Now he wants us to "look into" auto-enrollment. A convenient way to remove the need for union members to visit the union office...<br />
<br />
6:20 p.m. Fancy Lawyer blames his unpreparedness on us. "We're the front of a very large body, as are you, the difference is, our aren't behind us." That should tell him something. His smugness is nauseating.<br />
<br />
Sorting out rooms for the remaining sessions now. We're done here. Thanks for following along!Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10964701773789702019noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-113626815452689103.post-78424297182025671472014-01-17T12:40:00.001-08:002014-01-22T09:22:25.101-08:00Stages On Life's WayToday, we're going to be presenting the university with some actual facts--for which they asked!--about the economics of being a grad student here. This will largely come in the form of first-person testimony. We will record as much of this as we can here, so long as it preserves the anonymity of the speaker. <br />
<br />
Why the anonymity? Why are we not calling out names?<br />
<br />
Because we believe that the issues--and the university's antagonistic and callous responses to them--speak for themselves. Who is saying it is far less important than what is being said. <br />
<br />
See you back here at 3 p.m.<br />
<br />
3:22 p.m. Our bargaining team is here and in place. Guess which bargaining team is nowhere to be found?<br />
<br />
3:30 p.m. We're supposed to be starting. 3/5 of the university team is here. Maybe they need to organize.<br />
<br />
3:34 p.m. We're opening with leave. Parental issues leading the day. Starting with Article 27, governing sick leave. And the $500k/yr lawyer didn't bring his copy of the CBA to the table. So a delay in the middle of our statement. The university wants to know how a GTF at .49 FTE can cover for a sick GTF, because we're not allowed to be paid above .49. We're proposing either the supervisor take the work on, or the section be canceled for the day if there is no GTF in the dept. below .49. However, less than half of working GTFs are at .49, so the university's concern seems unfounded. One might think they're just picking nits. <br />
<br />
3:40 p.m. We're trying to create formal procedures to protect both the GTF and their students, in the case of major illness. We're inviting a counter-proposal from the university that accomplishes this goal. 75% of surveyed GTFs have had an illness requiring them to miss work. The university wants to know how many days these GTFs would have missed. Once we separate the flyshit from the pepper, we might have a bargaining session.<br />
<br />
3:45 p.m. On to parental leave. We're proposing the GTF be given paid paternity leave of 6 weeks, at a .2 fraction, in order to maintain their health benefit. Again, they want to know how many GTFs would be affected. We're going to have a GTF who is a parent testify to the difficulties of their experience as a GTF with a child. "We hope that you will realize that the policy decisions you make today have real outcomes for real people." #ThrowingHeat<br />
<br />
3:50 p.m. This GTF is killing it, pointing out the UO's ad hoc parental leave policy is at best problematic and at worst, explicitly discriminatory towards women. A GTF wanting to start a family is faced with 3 options:<br />
<br />
1.) Don't have a child. <br />
<br />
2.) Take a part-time load, making starting a family economically unfeasible, or work full-time (while pregnant) until the birth, then take 7 weeks unpaid leave, leaving the class one is currently teaching in the lurch.<br />
<br />
3.) Take a leave of absence and go on COBRA. COBRA benefits for this GTF would have cost the GTF $1000/month, or about 1/3 of this GTF's annual salary--all while they are not being paid.<br />
<br />
The GTF killing it again, showing how, with the ad hoc policy, the burden for arranging funding falls on the GTF and makes leave decisions dependent on factors beyond the GTF's control, i.e. changes in department heads, policies, etc. "At best, the lack of a policy make being a parent seem like an aberration for GTFs, at worst, it makes it seem like being a parent is a detriment to being a GTF." Just killing it.<br />
<br />
The university lawyer won't even look the GTF in the eye. It's like she isn't even there. <br />
<br />
4:00 p.m. The university's position is that we're only 3 month employees, asking for 12 weeks of leave, 6 paid. In reality, we are 2-5 year employees, asking for 12 weeks of leave, 6 paid. We're trying to change the rhetoric, the university is trying to draw selective endpoints. Either these past 4 years have been the longest three months of my life, or the university is trafficking in sophistry.<br />
<br />
4:02 p.m. The university is now going to present on their proposals for this session. Leading with arbitration, they don't want the arbitrator to be an employee of UO, GTFF, or AFT. We're asking if there has ever been an instance of this. The $500K/yr lawyer doesn't know that the GTFF is an AFT local.<br />
<br />
4:05 p.m. Conduct of hearings. The university wants a deadline for arbitrations to occur. They want to move from 15 days to 30 days to accomodate the busy schedules of all involved parties.<br />
<br />
4:07 p.m. Arbitration related to academic issues. The university wants the arbitrator to not be able to make a decision that exceeds the procedure in place in the CBA.<br />
<br />
4:08 p.m. Article 16. They want discipline to include limiting access to university facilities and property, as well as restitution. This sounds like a perfect excuse to ban people who speak out. My sense of this whole change is meant to broadly expand the university's disciplinary power over us, taking power both away from the department heads, as well as placing provisos inside the CBA that could undermine the protections in the CBA. The term "progressive discipline" keeps popping up. I feel like this is a power grab by the university over an entity they feel they cannot currently control. <br />
<br />
4:15 p.m. Ah, there it is. Pressed for an example, Fancy Lawyer man cites a "particularly defamatory or slanderous publication." Like, say for instance, this blog...<br />
<br />
4:16 p.m. Our organizer astutely points out that it seems the university wants to be able to summarily fire a GTF, who would then be forced to file a grievance after they've already been fired, which guts the protections afforded by the grievance procedure. There's also a problematic conflation in the language between a GTF being suspended and a GTF being fired for "some conduct." It seems the same conduct would warrant either discipline without distinguishing which acts warrant which punishment.<br />
<br />
4:18 Fancy Lawyer is trying desperately to explain how this process is not a circumvention of the grievance procedure...by describing exactly how the process circumvents the grievance procedure.<br />
<br />
4:25 p.m. Mostly procedural changes, record keeping, etc. <br />
<br />
4:26 p.m. Some housecleaning changes to the insurance clause. Not a lot of substance in the last few proposals.<br />
<br />
4:30 p.m. No strikes or lockouts. The university wants to have the ability to "request" that we perform the work of a striking employees. I'm sure this request will come without any undue pressure or coercion...<br />
<br />
4:33 p.m. Basically, the university doesn't want to increase a fraction to cover for sick leave or paternity leave, but they will increase a fraction to cover for a striking employee. Fancy Lawyer is trying to explain how we can't fund people out sick and why we can fund people out on strike. He needs a lesson in modal logic.<br />
<br />
This is priceless. Basically, the university sees the money not being spent on the wages of a striking employee as a slush fund for scabs. <br />
<br />
4:40 p.m. They want to have the ability to fingerprint GTFs. Ok...<br />
<br />
4:40 p.m. The university wants to institute drug testing, citing prohibitions against using drugs and alcohol on campus. Supposedly this drug testing would not be random, but could only occur when the university has a reason to believe a violation of the drug and alcohol policy has occurred. Fancy Lawyer cites a GTF showing up to work drunk as an example of an instance where a drug test could be demanded. However, he now admits the university does not even have an apparatus in place for this testing. Sounds like it will go through the Health Center. Which means student fees will have to fund it. University admins are masters of the unfunded mandate.<br />
<br />
4:46 p.m. Now we are going to discuss access to wireless on campus.We want full wireless access for grads across campus, especially since we live in 2014. We are clarifying that wireless doesn't have to be accessed in every single centimeter of campus. We just want grads to be able to use the Internet.<br />
<br />
4:50 p.m. GTFs from the music school are talking now about the effect of their lack of wireless access, which makes it harder to teach their classes. Music classes often require the use of Internet, and without wireless access GTFs and their undergraduate students are having a harder time conducting class. In less than a week, over 43 GTFs signed a paper demanding better wireless access so we can do our teaching work, and this is affecting many GTFs across campus.<br />
<br />
4:53 p.m. Music classes in particular require the use of a lot of media, so wireless access is crucial for both music teachers and their undergraduate students. A lot of students also do not have devices with ethernet ports, so wireless in particular is essential for conducting projects and sharing information. Music GTFs are often frustrated because they will go to a conference that tells them all the ways in which Internet media can enhance their courses, only to come back to UO and be unable to evolve their own courses due to lack of wireless access.<br />
<br />
4:56 p.m. Another music GTF is now explaining how lack of wireless access is creating more work for GTFs and makes their interaction with students, for example discussing grades in office hours, very difficult. Music GTFs may also have a lot of music samples on Blackboard (especially since it is helpful to be able to hear things when studying music) to help students with, but cannot access these due to lack of wireless Internet. Moving is impossible because the available alternative spaces are inappropriate or too noisy for meeting with students.<br />
<br />
5:01 p.m. We are pointing out how UO prides itself as a place that utilizes cutting edge technology for teaching and research, yet even today's basic technology is unavailable for many GTFs,<br />
<br />
5:02 p.m. Fancy Lawyer is telling us that we can't have wireless access because it is hard to install a "Wi-Fi thingy." The University acknowledges that wireless access is important, but doesn't want to bring us up to 2014 standards because that would be hard. They do acknowledge that they should update "certain critical places." Too bad acknowledgment isn't action.<br />
<br />
5:10 p.m. University admits that nobody knows how much providing GTF workspaces with wireless access would cost, which doesn't exactly inspire confidence in their claim that they cannot afford it. We are clarifying that we are not demanding complete and total wireless saturation on campus; we just want good wireless access for all GTFs where they are required to work.<br />
<br />
5:12 p.m. We are now planning to have a brief caucus. The head of our GTFF Bargaining Team wants to make sure that GTFs have a say in what is happening with the discussions at the table. Nice quote from our lead: "Your hands are tied by bureaucracy, our hands are tied by democracy."<br />
<br />
5:42 p.m. Caucus over. Now we are going to discuss a few questions we had about their proposals.<br />
<br />
5:42 p.m. We are asking what environments drug and alcohol testing will cover, especially since GTFs work in a variety of places (including home) and often go to conferences where alcohol consumption can be necessary for networking.<br />
<br />
The University is saying that drug and alcohol tests can be brought in "When work performance is affected." We are worried that research GTFs, who present their research at conferences as part of their paid GTF work, could be penalized and tested for consuming alcohol at conference social events.<br />
<br />
Apparently, GTFs sometimes wear their "GTF hat" and at other times do not. <br />
<br />
The University is specifying that the difference is between presenting as a scholar and as a GTF, and that social events at conferences can be classified as non-work related. They are also bringing up again that it involves drugs and alcohol "affecting your work performance." This seems problematically vague, especially since we do a lot of work in our own homes.<br />
<br />
5:48 p.m. We are asking for specifications about what constitutes a "controlled substance." The University is unsure if drugs such as Sudafed will be included in the definition. It's probably not a good policy if it is unclear whether GTFs are allowed to take cold medicine or not.<br />
<br />
We are also asking what will happen if marijuana usage is legalized in Eugene. The University's response: That the right to test will come from a situation that will lead a Reasonable Person™ to believe that alcohol or drug consumption is affecting work.<br />
<br />
Reasonable Person™ apparently doesn't give a damn if a GTF's work is affected by being sick or by receiving no leave support when they have a child.<br />
<br />
The University is saying that in the case of legalized marijuana, THC being in your system does not violate policies. It is only when THC is in your system AND your work hasn't been up to par, based on a situation-by-situation basis. Then they will use "the appropriate methodology." Vagueness and ambiguity of application abounds.<br />
<br />
5:56 p.m. The University wants a "describable factual basis" for the fact that <i>"</i>he"<i> </i>was high, including several symptoms that implicate "him." This will be discerned by "a Normal Rational Person"™.<br />
<br />
5:59 p.m. We are asking where the money for GTF drug and alcohol testing is going to come from. Of course there will be money for this, even though there's apparently no money for parental leave, sick leave, and wireless access. <br />
<br />
6:01 p.m. We are also concerned about how this policy will affect international GTF workers.<br />
<br />
6:04 p.m. We are objecting to GTFs being encouraged by their employers to cross picket lines and take the work of striking workers, and we are making sure to stand for a respectful relationship among workers on campus. GTFF members find this proposed policy very offensive to campus communities.<br />
<br />
Fancy Lawyer is stuck on repeat about GTFs not being required to do fill-in work for striking workers. This is beside the point: the reason why we reject this proposal is because the University is attempting to seduce some workers on campus into throwing other workers under the bus.<br />
<br />
The University is "hopeful" that there would never be any need for blood testing or filling in for striking workers. Nobody is hopeful that this statement actually means anything.<br />
<br />
6:11 p.m. Policy discussions are done, and now they are figuring out logistics for the next meeting. Thanks to the GTFF bargaining team for doing a great job at the table and to the GTFs who showed up to the meeting!<br />
<br />
The next session will focus heavily on economic proposals, such as our push for a liveable wage (according to the University's own definition). Hope to see you on Friday (1/24) next week!<br />
<br />
You can also check out the GTFF's activity on Twitter at @GTFF_3544 and the larger conversation at #GTFF3544!Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10964701773789702019noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-113626815452689103.post-9715686336805127402013-12-13T14:09:00.002-08:002013-12-13T18:30:09.505-08:00In Which The University Responds2:09: Took awhile for everything to get setup -- we're in the Ben Linder Room and needed more chairs, but now things are underway.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
2:27: The University wants to reduce the frequency of GTF evaluations. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
2:47: So far, the general response by UO to fairer GTF working conditions and wages:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/umDr0mPuyQc?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe> </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
2:49: Looks like the University wants to introduce language around drug tests and background checks.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
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.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
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.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
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. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
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.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
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.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:DontVertAlignCellWithSp/>
<w:DontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
<w:Word11KerningPairs/>
<w:CachedColBalance/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="267">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
</div>
<div class="separator">
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.</div>
<div class="separator">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator">
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!</div>
<div class="separator">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator">
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.</div>
<div class="separator">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator">
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. </div>
<div class="separator">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator">
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?</div>
<div class="separator">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator">
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.</div>
<div class="separator">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator">
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.</div>
<div class="separator">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator">
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?</div>
<div class="separator">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator">
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). </div>
<div class="separator">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator">
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.</div>
<div class="separator">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator">
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.</div>
<div class="separator">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator">
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.</div>
<div class="separator">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator">
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.</div>
<div class="separator">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator">
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. </div>
<div class="separator">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator">
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.</div>
<div class="separator">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator">
4:21: We are also concerned about how GTFs on parental leave
can receive health insurance if this is unpaid leave.</div>
<div class="separator">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator">
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.</div>
<div class="separator">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator">
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. </div>
<div class="separator">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator">
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. </div>
<div class="separator">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">4:30: Now they’re doing scheduling. We want a
day and time that can be a regular meeting. </span><br />
<br />
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.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10964701773789702019noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-113626815452689103.post-75265928732337852932013-11-22T13:28:00.000-08:002013-11-22T16:55:25.370-08:00Once More Unto the Breach...It all starts today. In a half hour, we'll be presenting our proposals. I'll be your fly on the wall...<br />
<br />
<b>1:59 p.m.:</b> About 40 GTFs in here, and a smattering of undergrads, as well. Nice turnout for this time on a Friday...<br />
<br />
<b>2:05 p.m.:</b> And. Here. We. Go. Wait, no, the Admin isn't ready. To sit still and listen.<br />
<br />
<b>2:15 p.m.:</b> Sustained stall by Admin finally over. Now we can begin. They've also already tried to sneak something in to their own proposals. Our organizer is all over it. We're leading with working conditions. Like, say for instance, the water pouring from the HVAC vent above the podium as I taught today.<br />
<br />
<b>2:20 p.m.:</b> On to access to kitchen facilities. Emphasis that we're not asking for a working kitchen, just small fridge, sink, and microwave. Can't wait for the strawmen the Admin spins from this one. <br />
<br />
<b>2:22 p.m.:</b> We're SRO here. <br />
<br />
<b>2:24 p.m.: </b>Access to campus wireless up next. Lots of basement classrooms lack this. Might also want to mention access to email--which we didn't have for 48 hours this week.<br />
<br />
<b>2:26 p.m.: </b>Paid parental leave. No, this is not 1913, it's 2013 and we're actually being forced to ask for paid paternal leave. Nice move to tie this into Admin's <a href="http://provost.uoregon.edu/sites/provost1.wc-sites.uoregon.edu/files/u3/benchmarking_PUBLIC20131104web.pdf" target="_blank">recent benchmark report</a>. Campus equity, people.<br />
<br />
<b>2:30 p.m.: </b>Paid Leave up next. The faces on the Admin side are the very picture of bemusement.<br />
<br />
<b>2:35 p.m.: </b>Last bit of Working Conditions: Nondiscrimination. We're trying to expand the protected groups to include: "color, familial status, parental status, sex, height, weight, citizenship status, veteran status, HIV antibody status, political belief, and membership in any social or political organization." I'm guessing the Admin will want to pare that list down, claiming it's already covered by existing AA/EEO statutes. Never you mind that the AA/EEO office here exists solely to insulate the Admin from legal action.<br />
<br />
<b>2:37 p.m.: </b>Binding Contracts. We're arguing that members should not be laid off due to enrollment issues.<br />
<br />
<b>2:40 p.m. </b>Workload issues. Members should be provided with a campus-wide, standardized form detailing expected duties and estimated times for each duty, form is signed by member and supervisor and kept on file in the office. <br />
<br />
<b>2:45 p.m.: </b>One of the big ones. On-time Pay. No, really. We have to ask for this. And they are appalled that we believe there ought to be penalties for them not paying us on time. This is especially an issue in the summer, but the first check of Fall term is notoriously late for many units. In a recent survey of members, 20% reported being paid late. The Admin's usual response is that members apply for a late pay loan (nevermind that assbackwardsness of going into the red with someone that didn't pay, which is forcing you to go into the red)...but the loan is often insufficient and is itself often late. A less polite person might call this loansharking. <br />
<br />
<b>2:50 p.m.: </b>Binding Lengths of Contracts. Heaven forfend we should ask that the contracts we sign be legally binding. The very nerve...<br />
<br />
<b>2:55 p.m.: </b>Health Care & Dental. Obligatory:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<object class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" data-thumbnail-src="http://img.youtube.com/vi/4xv_a3gwQIw/0.jpg" height="266" width="320"><param name="movie" value="http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/4xv_a3gwQIw&source=uds" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed width="320" height="266" src="http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/4xv_a3gwQIw&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object></div>
First up, raising vision coverage from $200 to $400. 57% of members surveyed use the plan; 62% of those members report that the plan is inadequate. Worth noting the $200 limit was set a decade ago. But as we know, over at the Admin building, inflation only works against us.<br />
<br />
DENTAL PLAN! We're looking to add Class III coverage at 70% and raise the annual cap from $1000 to $2000. 30% of members surveyed reported putting off dental procedures because of cost. Another 11% reported paying out-of-pocket. Making this change would result in a 0.082% increase in the annual operating budget. We could have gone for the full 0.1%, but we didn't want to appear greedy. <br />
<br />
<b>3:05 p.m.:</b> GTFs in Absentia. Again, another apparently galling attempt to get paid for the work we do, to be paid at an hourly rate, determined by Level I for each unit, per the unit-specific agreement(s).<br />
<br />
<b>3:07 p.m.: </b>Elimination of Fees. No waivers, no reimbursement. The Admin foots the bill. This will be a hard sell, but it is a little odd that a employee would have to give back a portion of their salary to the employer, with the rationale that the employer needs it to run the shop. <br />
<br />
<b>3:10 p.m.: </b>Summer Sandwich. We're asking that a summer tuition and fee waiver be granted whenever a member has an appointment with <b>any</b> fall, spring, or summer appointment. We're also inserting language that prohibits members from being discouraged from registering for summer due to Admin restricting funds to units, then passing cost of summer tuition along to each unit, instead of working in good faith within the confines of the CBA. Fees were capped at $61. Except in summer, because apparently there is some arbitrary modal distinction between summer fees and term fees.<br />
<br />
<b>3:15 p.m.: </b>Raising the Minimum Wage. Keep in mind just under half of our members make <b>below</b> the minimum wage. We're asking for a 6.1% over the next two years, which will bring us up to cost of living by 2016. Admin estimates cost of living here to be $1620.44/month. Take home pay for member at Level 1 base is $960.00/month. 36% of members surveyed have or are taking out loans. 46% of member surveyed reported borrowing money from friends and family. This is in site of members being themselves a revenue stream for Admin, due to fees and tuition, in addition to the surplus labor value generated by members teaching 31% of FTE. Again, this is likely to be painted as evidence of the enduring greed of a group of people who have the temerity to ask for a break-even wage.<br />
<br />
<b>3:25 p.m.: </b>Admin will caucus. Questions to possibly follow. <br />
<br />
<b>3:42 p.m.: </b>And...caucusing completed! University Bargaining team says: good info, folks. BUT we want more examples! What's up with the kitchen facilities? Details, details, details. But seriously, do they not know where our kitchens are? We do, and we're going to get them the info. They're gonna look for some numbers and then get back with proposal changes.<br />
<br />
<b>3:45 p.m.</b>: University Bargaining Team says: We will get you specific proposals for some articles and others...well, not so much. That would be hard. GTFF Team wants to start looking at Winter term scheduling and finding rooms because that's pretty helpful for having a meeting! Unlike the first meeting, which was scheduled by the University in a way that made a lot of the GTFF Table Team unable to show up! Looks like: Friday Dec. 13, Ben Linder, EMU 2-5pm. And...bargaining session finished for today!<br />
<br />
Next meeting will be SUPER important, as the University is going to say NO to our proposals, even though they said our data and presentations were great. Show up! Fill out the GTFF survey! Thanks to the GTFF Bargaining Team for doing a great job!!<br />
<br />
<br />See you on Friday the 13th! <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqUA9w64nxFM8ut-B7gLM97oqnIDfz6ncNPlomT5m9DbMPpYfqlyrp_a4qw7NVYvrJsCpYyk9bxHCJLV3L_ugVw7f4B3mHT5FJoXWAGU-qOXaLbNbQUdmGKUZsMilLr0lgaQzWTT1F6VGN/s1600/blackcat.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqUA9w64nxFM8ut-B7gLM97oqnIDfz6ncNPlomT5m9DbMPpYfqlyrp_a4qw7NVYvrJsCpYyk9bxHCJLV3L_ugVw7f4B3mHT5FJoXWAGU-qOXaLbNbQUdmGKUZsMilLr0lgaQzWTT1F6VGN/s320/blackcat.jpg" width="239" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10964701773789702019noreply@blogger.com0