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.