In Which The University Responds

2:09: Took awhile for everything to get setup -- we're in the Ben Linder Room and needed more chairs, but now things are underway.

2:15: University is doing PR stuff. They "appreciate the spirit" of our approaches, but want to make them more "manageable." University does not want to support a living wage salary increase. They do not think that this compensation would be appropriate, even though the costs would be negligible, and are justifying this with the opportunity that they offer graduate students through positions. Apparently, the fact that this opportunity includes wages that many GTF workers struggle to live on is irrelevant to them. The University NEEDS our work, but they're pretending that it's a one-way street of them benefiting us through our work.

2:20: The University does not want to take further steps to make sure that GTFs aren't asked to work more hours than they are paid, because this would be too hard.

2:22: The University says it is not practical for all GTF workspaces to have access to Internet in their offices, because apparently this is still the 1980s.

2:27: The University wants to reduce the frequency of GTF evaluations.

2:29:  The University also does not want students to be guaranteed the length of funding they are TOLD THEY WILL HAVE when they are accepted at UO. Told that you would be covered for four years, and then in your third year have funding pulled away? Tough luck, says the University.

2:31: The University does not want to make a policy where departments are not allowed to discourage GTFs from enrolling in Summer class, even though this is perfectly allowable for GTFs to do. They just want to keep it on the down-low and handle it on a case-by-case basis, allowing it to continue behind the scenes.

2:35: The University does not want to accept the proposed GTF salary increase They also do not want to officially acknowledge when GTFs cover for other GTFs who have to miss a class. GTFs already cover for other GTFs, but they just do not want to acknowledge it officially.

2:40: The University is rejecting the following paid leaves for GTFs: medical, sickness, and death in a family. UO says: Don't get sick or have a family, folks! It also looks like paid parental leave is being rejected too, but I'm going to wait until I have clear information about this to confirm it.

2:47: So far, the general response by UO to fairer GTF working conditions and wages:

 

2:49: Looks like the University wants to introduce language around drug tests and background checks.

2:50: University is unable to respond about Healthcare proposals (such as Major Dental Coverage) yet. Because "money doesn't grow on trees." Teeth don't grow on trees either, buddy.

2:52: We're asking for a written statement about their counter-proposals. They have to ask if they can do that. I mean, we gave them a whole detailed PowerPoint presentation and we're mostly getting vague statements with vague rationales, but I guess the University just doesn't have time to give us clear information right off the bat.

2:55: Yep, looks like they generally want to reject the general proposals of GTFs getting ANY paid leave. Even though GTFs are typically in an age group most likely to start a family, apparently the University doesn't want us to be able to do that. And since they are rejecting wage increases, having a baby as a GTF can financially destroy you, as you will not be paid during that time. 

2:57: Caucusing right now. The general air in the room amongst members is one of disappointment and annoyance. The University does not seem to want to support their GTF workers.

3pm: I want to take this time to quickly thank everyone who showed up today. A lot of people are away for Break, but we still have a good amount of people showing up.

3:18: The Union hands out blue cards for GTFs to sign if they would like to voluntarily become full members of the GTFF. Apparently the University wants a say in what is on these blue cards, or maybe may want people do it electronically so they are dissuaded from going into the Union office and getting more information from Union staff and volunteers.

3:28: Lost Internet access. I’ll be typing into an offline document and then upload when wireless is letting me in again. Good thing that this is not my office and I don’t have any undergraduate e-mails to respond to!

3:35: Caucus over. Now our side of the table will be asking for clarifications. Why do we need University approval for our blue cards? University side responds: we don’t know, we’ll have to check.

3:38: We are also wondering why the University wanted to eliminate certain categories from a proposal about non-discrimination. University: “Do you know of an example where someone was discriminated against based on HIV-status?” REALLY? The University does not understand what it means to discriminate against someone with “certain characteristics” because in some circumstances these warrant “different treatment.” This is a very unsettling response. 

3:41: Regarding the implementation of time sheets that will make sure GTFs are not forced to work over-time, the University does not want to make every department conform to “a single process” that would “impose” on different parts of the University that has different needs. The University wants to avoid “unnecessary centralization.” Shouldn’t GTFs not being worked overtime be relevant across the board though?

3:43: Now we are asking about the University saying it is not practical to provide basic food appliances (such as mini-fridges, which are also useful for storing insulin and breast milk). The University does not think that kitchen access has been a problem, so they want more information about that.

3:47: We want more information about the prices of providing GTF workers with wireless access on campus. The University will hopefully provide those numbers.

3:50: The University does not want a penalty for not being able to provide GTF workers workspaces within a length of time. We want to know where GTFs will work if they are not provided a space. University: it depends on the GTF. The University does not know what GTFs will do about meetings with Undergrads in that situation, but wants a specific example of this situation occuring. I guess planning ahead for things isn’t enough when it involves GTF workers?

4:03: We are not sure why the University thinks it is unreasonable to have a policy where graduate programs are not allowed to attempt to coerce students into not taking Summer classes, especially because the Collective Bargaining Agreement says we have should have Summer funding. We also do not understand why better Summer coverage is not practical, considering that it used to have better coverage (and the University is loaded with cash). 

4:06: We think that layoffs should be covered by the University because the University has MUCH more money to deal with their fluctuations than graduate students, who might be forced out of the University by a layoff when they cannot afford to attend anymore. Students should be guaranteed the length of coverage they were told they would have. If a course does not get enough enrollments, that is not the GTF’s fault, especially since it was the Department who put that position forward. 2 weeks notice on a layoff can completely destroy a graduate student financially. We would like a clear counter-proposal about this.

4:10: The University said that the financial aid’s office report on the cost of a living wage is irrelevant, and we want to know why. University: “The GTFs’ wages are not intended to insure to the GTF that all their living expenses will be covered.” Apparently this is because of the market! They think they are “helping the GTFs” but don’t mention how we are essential and CHEAP for the University to hire. We’re letting them know that it is not okay for them to discount our contribution to the University.

4:13: University responds: “This is a mutually beneficial operation.” They are saying that they did not mean to imply this is a “one-way street.” Our response is that since our contributions are so valued, our living conditions need to be taken into account. We bring in a ton of tuition revenue, and we want to be able to pay rent and buy groceries. We think our living wage proposal is reasonable because we are using the living wage numbers that the University Financial Aid Office provided.

4:16: We are confused that the University dismissed all paid leave because “6/12 weeks is unfeasible.” But this is not what we asked for – we said 6 weeks per year, not 6 weeks per 12 weeks. This is just like what Staff and Faculty are allowed to do, for example, if they have a baby.

4:18: We are disappointed with the outright “No” given to us by the University about paid leave. Our members are going to be extremely unhappy. To tell us that we don’t deserve any paid leave at all is very frustrating. 

4:20: They are discussing the ins-and-outs of GTFs covering for other GTFs. The question would be how to actualize this policy in light of other employment policies about GTFs. But, once again, this has already been occurring; the question is whether the University will be able to acknowledge it.

4:21: We are also concerned about how GTFs on parental leave can receive health insurance if this is unpaid leave.

4:23: We think that we should have access to physical copies of Collective Bargaining Agreements because we can actually physically bring them with us when we have a dispute. Our members find them very useful. The University does not want to pay for this paper.

4:26: The University wants to figure out the bargaining schedule for next term. They want us to consider what we can get out of the way so we can focus on the more contentious issues. 

4:28: We want copies of their proposals so they can’t pull stuff up out of the blue on us in the next meeting. We can’t make any concessions unless we have clear proposals. 

4:30: Now they’re doing scheduling. We want a day and time that can be a regular meeting. 

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.

Once 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...

1:59 p.m.: About 40 GTFs in here, and a smattering of undergrads, as well.  Nice turnout for this time on a Friday...

2:05 p.m.: And. Here. We. Go. Wait, no, the Admin isn't ready. To sit still and listen.

2:15 p.m.: 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.

2:20 p.m.: 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.

2:22 p.m.: We're SRO here.

2:24 p.m.: 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.

2:26 p.m.: 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 recent benchmark report.  Campus equity, people.

2:30 p.m.: Paid Leave up next.  The faces on the Admin side are the very picture of bemusement.

2:35 p.m.: 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.

2:37 p.m.: Binding Contracts. We're arguing that members should not be laid off due to enrollment issues.

2:40 p.m. 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.

2:45 p.m.: 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.

2:50 p.m.: Binding Lengths of Contracts.  Heaven forfend we should ask that the contracts we sign be legally binding.  The very nerve...

2:55 p.m.: Health Care & Dental.  Obligatory:

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.

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.

3:05 p.m.: 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).

3:07 p.m.: 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.

3:10 p.m.: Summer Sandwich. We're asking that a summer tuition and fee waiver be granted whenever a member has an appointment with any 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.

3:15 p.m.: Raising the Minimum Wage.  Keep in mind just under half of our members make below 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.

3:25 p.m.: Admin will caucus. Questions to possibly follow.

3:42 p.m.: 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.

3:45 p.m.: 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!

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!!


See you on Friday the 13th!