On the Concept of Irony

So 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.

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.

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.

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.

Sine labore nihil.

3:23 p.m. Our bargaining team is here.  2/5 of the university team in the room.

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.

3:32 p.m. Fancy Lawyer opening with economic proposals.  No, wait, he wants to talk about the CBA-gutting discipline and discharge changes.

More vague language "certain serious types of offenses."  At the university's discretion to create a taxonomy of offense, of course.

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.

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."

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.

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:

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.

We have packed this room with grad unionists.  A few faculty unionists among us.

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..."

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.

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.

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.

"Costly:" Kind of like paying a lawyer that doesn't know we're an AFT local half a million dollars to embarrass himself.

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.

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 already has this ability.  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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A photographic summation of the university's response to our economic proposals:

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.

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.

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.

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.

Heaven forfend.

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.

I think the administration needs a math GTF on call.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

THEY ARE NOW CLAIMING NOT TO BE AWARE OF THEIR TOTAL TUITION REVENUE. "THEY" ARE THE HEAVILY COMPENSATED LAWYER AND THE HEAD OF UNIVERSITY FINANCE.

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.

5:00 p.m. We're caucusing.  There are some pissed off GTFs in this room.  They have poked a hornets nest.

5:30 p.m. Done caucusing, calling the university back in. Aaaaaaaand we're back.

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.

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.

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.

"Budgets are also moral documents.  They are made by people who have choices." #GunsBlazing

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.

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.

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.

"Even if I did not have a child, the cost of living would far exceed my salary."

She's taken out loans.  The university is a loan mill nowadays, so they remain nonplussed.

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.

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 their entire stipend 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.

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.

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.

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 always had the right to shop for alternate plans.  They just have to do it through established channels.  Which is exactly what this union-busting lawyer doesn't want to do.

They're now asking us for numbers we asked them for.  Of course we once again provide them with their own data.

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.

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...

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.

Sorting out rooms for the remaining sessions now.  We're done here.  Thanks for following along!

Stages On Life's Way

Today, 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.

Why the anonymity?  Why are we not calling out names?

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.

See you back here at 3 p.m.

3:22 p.m.  Our bargaining team is here and in place.  Guess which bargaining team is nowhere to be found?

3:30 p.m.  We're supposed to be starting.  3/5 of the university team is here.  Maybe they need to organize.

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.

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.

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

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:

1.)  Don't have a child.

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.

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.

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.

The university lawyer won't even look the GTF in the eye.  It's like she isn't even there.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

4:25 p.m. Mostly procedural changes, record keeping, etc.

4:26 p.m. Some housecleaning changes to the insurance clause.  Not a lot of substance in the last few proposals.

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...

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.

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.

4:40 p.m. They want to have the ability to fingerprint GTFs.  Ok...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,

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.

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.

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."

5:42 p.m. Caucus over. Now we are going to discuss a few questions we had about their proposals.

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.

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.

Apparently, GTFs sometimes wear their "GTF hat" and at other times do not.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

5:56 p.m. The University wants a "describable factual basis" for the fact that "he" was high, including several symptoms that implicate "him." This will be discerned by "a Normal Rational Person"™.

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.

6:01 p.m. We are also concerned about how this policy will affect international GTF workers.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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!

You can also check out the GTFF's activity on Twitter at @GTFF_3544 and the larger conversation at #GTFF3544!