The Power of Mathematics and Logic

3:36pm   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.

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.

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.

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?

3:58pm: Now Fancy Lawyer is talking about "GFTs." Graduate Fellow Teachers?

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?

4:15pm: Just had a long discussion about financial policies and their relationship to the state archivist.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

5:58pm: Bargaining has ended. Thank you to the GTFF table team and everyone who showed up, and see you next week!

Begrebet Angest

3:30 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.

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.

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.

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.

3:45 p.m.: We're asking for more information for why the university wants to tinker with the protected statuses in Article 8.

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.

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.

#Priorities

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.

#MoneyForJockBoxButNotForCoffeePots

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.

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.

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.

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.

We're trying to insert language protecting the personnel file from outside access without the permission of the GTF.  The university knows that this is never 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.

#ThePluralOfAnecdoteIsNotData

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.

More housecleaning.

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.

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 any violation of our contract, even unintended consequences of well-meaning actions, are grieveable.

4:27: On to Arbitration.  Accepting more clarificatory language.

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.

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.

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.

4:48 p.m.: We're putting off language around binding contracts until the economics proposals are revisited.

4:50 p.m.: Article 30 is agreed on. Title change. Two down.

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.

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.

5:00 p.m.: Some clarifying language to reflect the changes in the governance of the university.

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.

We're done with our presentation.  Caucusing now.