3:32 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.
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.
Our organizer is interrupted yet again by the pricey, yet admittedly unprepared and under-informed, lawyer.
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.
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.
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:
Loansharking.
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 our illustrious donors!
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.
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.
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: the baseball coach.
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.
They're blaming sequestration and defunding from the state. One wonders, then, why and how administrative bloat rolls on.
The increase in support proposed by the admin is less than they are paying the basketball coach. 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.
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.
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.
Bureaucracy is the last vestige of the incompetent.
Our organizer calls this response "disappointing." I have a more severe word for it, one that the clergy dare not speak out loud.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
5:05 p.m. Article 16: Discipline and Discharge. The admin is removing a superfluous "the." And we've TA'd that article.
5:07 p.m. On to Grievances, the admin wants changes to limitations on times and notification, we can't TA yet.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment