So here we are.
Last session, we expected counterproposals from the admin. Instead we were hectored about banalities for an hour and half and then stonewalled.
This room is full of people who are working without a contract and are not happy about it.
3:05 p.m. Fancy Lawyer sticking with the 10% increase to health care premiums lie to open. Not good.
Article 23. Health insurance. Admin wants a 5% cap on premium increases. Previous offer was 10%. So they're actually making a worse offer than their previous offer. They do not get it. They are trying to horse trade with our wage demands. These people are beyond reasoning.
They offer a ~$4K increase to their contributions to the health care plan.
Article 21. 2% increase this year, 2.53% next. Not gonna happen, bud. They call this "fair and reasonable." Yes, and FOX News is "fair and balanced." They are, however, backing off the Trust-busting language.
They are accepting language we inserted governing summer sandwich to protect GTFs who want to graduate in the summer, but want to keep the fee structure in the summer the same.
They have agreed to itemized fees, but have rejected our fee proposal.
They are accepting our proposal that precludes hiring decisions from being predicated on summer course registration, but changing the language. So not really accepting.
They are refusing to include language in our offer letters that is honest about the fact that the contract is not binding.
They are rejecting our layoff proposal. The administration is refusing to bear any of the burden for fluctuating enrollments.
Article 27. Leave. The admin is reasserting the proposal we rejected. They reject all our paid leave proposals, citing that no employee working less than .5 FTE gets paid leave. Which is a fucking tautology, because they just refused a request for paid leave from about the only on-campus employees who work less than .5 FTE. So they can't give us paid leave because they have never given us paid leave. Worst. Lawyer. Ever.
3:18 p.m. Fancy Lawyer doesn't know if lowering the admin proposal on health care by 5% is making it higher or lower. We're doing the math for him. The change in their wage proposal is an increase of ~$100K; the proposed premium cap, given trends would be a decrease in their proposal would be a net loss of $589K from their previous proposal.
Fancy Lawyer says he understands the way we're looking at it. Apparently simple math is a hermeneutic exercise for this charlatan. He now uses the same argument we offered for our own health care proposals. Wow.
Fancy Lawyer doesn't follow our pointing out his sophistry. His presence at the table is shame to his profession and the university.
Now he's just creating contract language and figures out of whole cloth.
Apparently it's part of our job to try and drive down health care premiums. So sayeth the lawyer. Who is being paid ~$250/hr.
Our lead rightly points out that that the admin is trying to shift the burden of fluctuating premiums on to GTFs, because in years where premiums spike, we'd bear the burden, unlike every other unit on campus who have a strict 95/5 split with the admin. She also points out that this is a separate issue from our dental and leave proposals, and the admin is trying to conflate the two. Pwned.
She now points out that despite them putting $100K into wages--which is less than they offer the baseketball coach in bennies every year--the proposed health care plan not only mitigates the wage proposal, but is actually a de facto cut to the health care plan.
Fancy Lawyer's response is that we can always cut benefits in years where premiums spike. He is disgusting.
Our lead points out that this is an entirely irresponsible way to manage a health care plan and still shifts the burden of fluctuating costs to the individual GTF.
Our lead is roasting this high priced hack.
I love that this poltroon is spouting Tea Party rhetoric with the regional president of our union in the room. The university is being embarrassed at the state level now.
Out lead points out the proposed package is not good faith bargaining. She is interrupted by Fancy Lawyer, to whom apparently the maxims of mathematics do not apply.
He's sticking with the "change the benefits to accommodate costs" line. I wonder how the admin might consider cutting their lawyer cost based on the diminishing returns they are getting from this stooge at the table.
"Well, how valuable are those services you're using?" ~Fancy Lawyer
3:40p.m. We're caucusing. Radio silence.
4:16 p.m. We're walking out of the session in protest. Goodbye.
Friday, April 25, 2014
Friday, April 18, 2014
Striving for a more Equitable UO
2:55 pm: Still getting settled for today's bargaining session in Lillis 112. Nice to see undergraduate support from Ducks Like You! Today is the last day to vote in the ASUO elections (voting closes at 4pm), and Ducks Like You is a great option for both grads and undergrads who care about the status of students and student workers at UO.
3:05 pm: The University is offering a counter-proposal for drug testing. They want the ability to send GTFs who are not enrolled in the GTFF healthcare plan to University services. We want to look into finding other places GTFs can go if they feel uncomfortable with using the same services that their students might be using.
3:12 pm: The University is clarifying that they do not want GTFs to clean their workspaces more than any other employee. They are saying that our FTE (full-time-equivalence) is related to tasks assigned to GTFs, and that cleaning could go beyond this allotment. Fancy Lawyer referred to GTFs as "a salaried professional" which seems to be a step up from his earlier portrayal of GTFs as mere recipients of UO's supreme beneficence.
Please keep in mind though that our contract CLEARLY STATES that we should not be required to work over a specified number of hours.
3:16 pm: We want the language about cleaning to include an emphasis on the fact that GTFs are employed under a specific FTE to avoid abuses of GTF working time. We think that GTFs should not be required to work more hours than they are paid for (like any other employee). This does not mean that GTFs shouldn't be tidy with their work-spaces; rather, it is about making sure that GTFs aren't working for free.
3:22 pm: Fancy Lawyer is saying that FTE and GTF workloads are "a flexible system."
3:26 pm: We are now discussing Article 21 concerning workload, which is not currently on the table for revision. Fancy Lawyer assumes that every GTF who works 5 minutes over FTE emptying a recycle bin will file a grievance, which has never happened. And because of this, the University does not want any language requiring grads to not go beyond their FTE hours in the cleaning and safe workspace clause.
3:32 pm: The GTFF is looking at FTEs from a more structural perspective. Grads who are forced to work overtime are grads who do not have time to clean their work-spaces. If there is no time to do this, then FTEs are being constructed in an unsustainable way for that department. The idea that a GTF would grieve over taking recycling out for 5 minutes is a hobgoblin constructed to disrupt agreement over a straightforward article and slow down the bargaining process.
3:41 pm: A GTF is currently talking about workload and fractional calculation sheets. Many courses are designed by professors in a way that makes GTFs unable to teach even close to their FTE hours, and GTFs are often expected to work for many hours beyond what they are paid. Fractional calculation sheets would provide a systematic way to ensure that GTFs are not forced to work for free.
3:51 pm: Fancy Lawyer thinks that fractional calculation sheets would be too difficult to craft in an accurate way before the start of the term in the context of a research position, and wants to see what one looks like. One of our GTF representatives at the table has already been managing research time with their adviser, and this would be very doable.
We are stressing that Fractional Calculation Sheets are a way to plan courses so that they do not result in grievances. This would avoid putting grads in an adversarial position when forced to grieve against the faculty who they depend upon for recommendations and positions.
Fancy Lawyer has been pretending that GTFs want the ability to abuse the grievance system, when what we really want to do is prevent courses from requiring grievances in the first place. This would make UO a better place to work for both GTFs and the people who employ them, as foresight and accountability would be built into the process.
We are stressing that being put into a position of having to grieve in order to attain equitable working conditions is a very difficult place for GTFs to be forced into. Fractional Calculations Sheets could be a continuing source of collaborative dialogue between GTFs and their bosses throughout the term that avoids abuse and contention.
4:04 pm: We are also emphasizing that we have designed the language around Fractional Calculation Sheets to be flexible, which will encourage collaboration between GTFs and their bosses. GTFs can give feedback on the time that they spent on a course which will improve the situation of future GTFs who teach for that course.
4:10 pm: The University is concerned about the time it will take to create Fractional Calculation Sheets, and how flexible they can be. They are still concerned about Fractional Calculation Sheets for research, but are admitting that they feel better about the idea after hearing the GTFF's descriptions at the table. We will provide the University with examples of Fractional Calculation Sheets that are currently in use by some departments at UO.
4:14 pm: Jeff is acknowledging that the idea of Fractional Calculation Sheets is not very dissimilar from current GDRS requirements, and could provide a useful source of GTF feedback on courses. We are stressing that Fractional Calculation Sheets will be a source of conversation that is more specific for courses than the GDRS and will benefit both sides of the arrangement.
4:17 pm: And then...Fancy Lawyers says perhaps Fractional Calculation Sheets might be "using an elephant gun to kill a mosquito." And perhaps this is how the abuse of our time looks to him: small.
You know, I would be quite concerned about a mosquito if it was giant and able to suck all of the time from my life.
4:23 pm: I would like to take a moment at this point to address *HOW COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS* it is that the University is spending THIS AMOUNT OF TIME addressing REALLY STRAIGHTFORWARD, reasonable proposals.
I wonder how intentional this is. It will be easier for them to dismiss parental leave, healthcare, and wages IF WE NEVER GET TO TALK ABOUT IT.
4:30 pm: As I write this, I realize that I am starting to catch the flu that has been going around among my students. I really wish we had sick leave, but I suppose I will have to do my standard procedure of sitting near a trash can and warning my students that I might throw up at some point during our discussion.
4:34 pm: Still talking about Fractional Calculation Sheets. Oh, let's hear another "hypothetical example!" Story time with Fancy Lawyer.
4:38 pm: There is going to be a roughly 10 minute caucus about the Article.
4:40 pm: I would like to take this time to quickly thank everyone who made sure we had another full room of concerned GTFs and allies today! It's a beautiful day in a beautiful state, and nobody is forcing them to be here.
4:50 pm: Caucus over. Discussing giving non-covered GTFs more options for drug & alcohol testing than going to a place where their students might also be.
4:54 pm: It looks like we will TA the article on drug and alcohol testing.
4:56 pm: We are expressing our concern about the University not giving us a counter on wages at this point in the term, as the Summer quickly approaches. We are wondering why this has not happened yet.
4:58 pm: Fancy Lawyer is saying that this is the time of year that the University is putting together its 2015 budget. Apparently this means that "financial proposals are the last ones to get fixed" because the University will not know their financial situation "until late" in the year.
Apparently our lack of knowledge about proposals based on the University's funds is because the University also doesn't know its own funds.
5 pm: "Fiscal uncertainty is the primary factor", we are told.
5:02 pm: The University is also still concerned about GTF healthcare premiums. They want the GTFF to pay for increases over 10%. They are saying the uncertainty about increases are their primary roadblock for approving anything (including wage increases).
5:04 pm: Fancy Lawyer says "If we can agree on some way to cap healthcare costs...the University is more than willing to move that money over to...salary." Are we are being asked to choose between increased wages and increased healthcare (dental and vision)?
5:13 pm: We are discussing healthcare premiums and caps.
Fancy Lawyer: "The University's finances are tight." The room bursts into laughter.
We are discussing the University's record endowment profits, and the continued inability to present us with evidence that the University is in such dire straits.
5:17 pm: If the University is going to claim that it cannot afford anything, we want evidence of this.
5:19 pm: The room just broke into applause for Amber, who will not put up with the University's continued inability to craft an argument and provide evidence for their inability to adjust their budget.
5:22 pm: We are asking them to bring some counters next week, including their proposed healthcare cap. We would like to see movement in the bargaining process, and having concrete counters will allow this to happen. Enough of this vagueness! We need to work towards concrete movement at this point in the process, with concrete data to back it up.
5:25 pm: Bargaining has concluded for the day. Now they are talking logistics for the next meeting. Because the EMU is being renovated, it is difficult to find rooms this term.
5:25 pm: Thank you to Amber and the GTFF Bargaining Team for their hard work and perseverance!
3:05 pm: The University is offering a counter-proposal for drug testing. They want the ability to send GTFs who are not enrolled in the GTFF healthcare plan to University services. We want to look into finding other places GTFs can go if they feel uncomfortable with using the same services that their students might be using.
3:12 pm: The University is clarifying that they do not want GTFs to clean their workspaces more than any other employee. They are saying that our FTE (full-time-equivalence) is related to tasks assigned to GTFs, and that cleaning could go beyond this allotment. Fancy Lawyer referred to GTFs as "a salaried professional" which seems to be a step up from his earlier portrayal of GTFs as mere recipients of UO's supreme beneficence.
Please keep in mind though that our contract CLEARLY STATES that we should not be required to work over a specified number of hours.
3:16 pm: We want the language about cleaning to include an emphasis on the fact that GTFs are employed under a specific FTE to avoid abuses of GTF working time. We think that GTFs should not be required to work more hours than they are paid for (like any other employee). This does not mean that GTFs shouldn't be tidy with their work-spaces; rather, it is about making sure that GTFs aren't working for free.
3:22 pm: Fancy Lawyer is saying that FTE and GTF workloads are "a flexible system."
3:26 pm: We are now discussing Article 21 concerning workload, which is not currently on the table for revision. Fancy Lawyer assumes that every GTF who works 5 minutes over FTE emptying a recycle bin will file a grievance, which has never happened. And because of this, the University does not want any language requiring grads to not go beyond their FTE hours in the cleaning and safe workspace clause.
3:32 pm: The GTFF is looking at FTEs from a more structural perspective. Grads who are forced to work overtime are grads who do not have time to clean their work-spaces. If there is no time to do this, then FTEs are being constructed in an unsustainable way for that department. The idea that a GTF would grieve over taking recycling out for 5 minutes is a hobgoblin constructed to disrupt agreement over a straightforward article and slow down the bargaining process.
3:41 pm: A GTF is currently talking about workload and fractional calculation sheets. Many courses are designed by professors in a way that makes GTFs unable to teach even close to their FTE hours, and GTFs are often expected to work for many hours beyond what they are paid. Fractional calculation sheets would provide a systematic way to ensure that GTFs are not forced to work for free.
3:51 pm: Fancy Lawyer thinks that fractional calculation sheets would be too difficult to craft in an accurate way before the start of the term in the context of a research position, and wants to see what one looks like. One of our GTF representatives at the table has already been managing research time with their adviser, and this would be very doable.
We are stressing that Fractional Calculation Sheets are a way to plan courses so that they do not result in grievances. This would avoid putting grads in an adversarial position when forced to grieve against the faculty who they depend upon for recommendations and positions.
Fancy Lawyer has been pretending that GTFs want the ability to abuse the grievance system, when what we really want to do is prevent courses from requiring grievances in the first place. This would make UO a better place to work for both GTFs and the people who employ them, as foresight and accountability would be built into the process.
We are stressing that being put into a position of having to grieve in order to attain equitable working conditions is a very difficult place for GTFs to be forced into. Fractional Calculations Sheets could be a continuing source of collaborative dialogue between GTFs and their bosses throughout the term that avoids abuse and contention.
4:04 pm: We are also emphasizing that we have designed the language around Fractional Calculation Sheets to be flexible, which will encourage collaboration between GTFs and their bosses. GTFs can give feedback on the time that they spent on a course which will improve the situation of future GTFs who teach for that course.
4:10 pm: The University is concerned about the time it will take to create Fractional Calculation Sheets, and how flexible they can be. They are still concerned about Fractional Calculation Sheets for research, but are admitting that they feel better about the idea after hearing the GTFF's descriptions at the table. We will provide the University with examples of Fractional Calculation Sheets that are currently in use by some departments at UO.
4:14 pm: Jeff is acknowledging that the idea of Fractional Calculation Sheets is not very dissimilar from current GDRS requirements, and could provide a useful source of GTF feedback on courses. We are stressing that Fractional Calculation Sheets will be a source of conversation that is more specific for courses than the GDRS and will benefit both sides of the arrangement.
4:17 pm: And then...Fancy Lawyers says perhaps Fractional Calculation Sheets might be "using an elephant gun to kill a mosquito." And perhaps this is how the abuse of our time looks to him: small.
You know, I would be quite concerned about a mosquito if it was giant and able to suck all of the time from my life.
4:23 pm: I would like to take a moment at this point to address *HOW COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS* it is that the University is spending THIS AMOUNT OF TIME addressing REALLY STRAIGHTFORWARD, reasonable proposals.
I wonder how intentional this is. It will be easier for them to dismiss parental leave, healthcare, and wages IF WE NEVER GET TO TALK ABOUT IT.
4:30 pm: As I write this, I realize that I am starting to catch the flu that has been going around among my students. I really wish we had sick leave, but I suppose I will have to do my standard procedure of sitting near a trash can and warning my students that I might throw up at some point during our discussion.
4:34 pm: Still talking about Fractional Calculation Sheets. Oh, let's hear another "hypothetical example!" Story time with Fancy Lawyer.
4:38 pm: There is going to be a roughly 10 minute caucus about the Article.
4:40 pm: I would like to take this time to quickly thank everyone who made sure we had another full room of concerned GTFs and allies today! It's a beautiful day in a beautiful state, and nobody is forcing them to be here.
4:50 pm: Caucus over. Discussing giving non-covered GTFs more options for drug & alcohol testing than going to a place where their students might also be.
4:54 pm: It looks like we will TA the article on drug and alcohol testing.
4:56 pm: We are expressing our concern about the University not giving us a counter on wages at this point in the term, as the Summer quickly approaches. We are wondering why this has not happened yet.
4:58 pm: Fancy Lawyer is saying that this is the time of year that the University is putting together its 2015 budget. Apparently this means that "financial proposals are the last ones to get fixed" because the University will not know their financial situation "until late" in the year.
Apparently our lack of knowledge about proposals based on the University's funds is because the University also doesn't know its own funds.
5 pm: "Fiscal uncertainty is the primary factor", we are told.
5:02 pm: The University is also still concerned about GTF healthcare premiums. They want the GTFF to pay for increases over 10%. They are saying the uncertainty about increases are their primary roadblock for approving anything (including wage increases).
5:04 pm: Fancy Lawyer says "If we can agree on some way to cap healthcare costs...the University is more than willing to move that money over to...salary." Are we are being asked to choose between increased wages and increased healthcare (dental and vision)?
5:13 pm: We are discussing healthcare premiums and caps.
Fancy Lawyer: "The University's finances are tight." The room bursts into laughter.
We are discussing the University's record endowment profits, and the continued inability to present us with evidence that the University is in such dire straits.
5:17 pm: If the University is going to claim that it cannot afford anything, we want evidence of this.
5:19 pm: The room just broke into applause for Amber, who will not put up with the University's continued inability to craft an argument and provide evidence for their inability to adjust their budget.
5:22 pm: We are asking them to bring some counters next week, including their proposed healthcare cap. We would like to see movement in the bargaining process, and having concrete counters will allow this to happen. Enough of this vagueness! We need to work towards concrete movement at this point in the process, with concrete data to back it up.
5:25 pm: Bargaining has concluded for the day. Now they are talking logistics for the next meeting. Because the EMU is being renovated, it is difficult to find rooms this term.
5:25 pm: Thank you to Amber and the GTFF Bargaining Team for their hard work and perseverance!
Friday, April 11, 2014
Mind the Gap, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Not Having A Contract
3:28 p.m. We're here but the admin couldn't be bothered to request tables and chairs when they reserved the room. So maybe a drum circle session is in order.
We're going to be talking living wage gap today. By way of reminder, 70% of our unit fall between $400 and $600 short of the university's own cost of living estimate, every single month. We've asked for a 6.1% raise to the minimum wage in an effort to close that gap. Our wage package would represent a 4.1% increase in total cost to the university over our current package. It would cost the university less than they pay the basketball coach. Their response so far has been a non-response. The money isn't there.
But it's there for the basketball coach, to the tune of ~$1.8M/yr.
It's there for the football coach at almost twice that number.
It's there for the uninformed but highly compensated lawyer who can barely conceal his contempt for our organizer and cannot even extend her the common respect of letting her finish her sentences.
But somehow it's not there for the 1400+ people who teach 31% of FTE. And now we're out of contract. #NoContractNoWork #MindTheGap
3:41 p.m. We're going to offer some counters to the admin's non-responses to our economic proposals, but first we're going to offer some compromises on non-economic issues. We'll lead with layoffs and the move to Binding Contracts. We're going to speak first to our rationale behind trying to reform the layoff process. We're going to relent on demanding our contracts be binding because apparently the admin team have not read their Kripke or their J.L. Ritchie and don't understand rigid designators or the bindingness of promises. A GTF will now speak to the capriciousness with which certain departments administrate GTF contracts. This GTF was given a position ostensibly for an entire academic year. He was told less than 15 days before the beginning of Spring Term he would not given a GTF. It was grieved and won, but the point is that the policy is ambiguous to the point that GTFs can be put in a position where they could have their entire livelihood taken away with less than 2 week's notice.
It's stultifying to think we have to justify why we think a contract should be binding. Yet, here we are.
The highly paid lawyer's solution is to first claim our university can't be compared to comparator university's when it comes to financial policy. Which is strange considering that this is exactly what he does when it coems to the admin's justifying why they can't pay us a living wage. He now suggests that departments offer less GTF contracts until departments know what their enrollment numbers will be. So the response to "why can't are contracts be binding?" is "offer fewer people jobs." Excellent stuff from this astute scholar of the law.
Interrupts our organizer for the first time today.
We're re-inserting language protecting discriminated classes, specifically "color" and "HIV antibody status." It was originally included under "disability," but we would like to make this protection explicit. The lawyer can't understand why we want to make this explicit. We feel HIV antibody status is not intuitively included under "disability status," so we want it made explicit. It's a change we want for our members, and does not affect the way the admin administrates the disability policy. We're now arguing for the inclusion of "parental status" and "pregnancy" as separate classes, as well as "veteran's status", and we're citing state case law and Title VII case law in our rationale, because the admin has tried to argue these would frustrate legal interpretation. So we're pointing out federal and state cases where apparently better lawyers than this fellow interpreted these terms just fine.
4:03 On to Article 10: Health, Safety & Work Environment. We're conceding the demand for kitchen facilities, since microwaves and coffee pots are too expensive for a place that just built a $100M training facility for its warrior class.
We're couching this concession by adding language to Art. 10 that grants the GTF the right to refuse to work in an unsafe environment. The lawyer, in typical lawyerly fashion, wants to know "unsafe in whose eyes?" Which is obviously a productive way to negotiate with people who do not currently have a contract.
We also want language added that compels the department to act when an unsafe work environment. The clause currently only requires a department to "attempt" to remedy such a situation.
We've tried unsuccessfully to TA articles governing non-discrimination and safe workplaces, articles on which we made concessions. Absolutely no positive movement from the administration tea. #ShameYourselves
4:12 p.m. We're beginning with economic issues. Article 16: Discipline & Layoffs: we're letting go of multi-year and binding contracts. This is a major concession because these were among the top-10 issues for our members. We're reproposing language preventing hiring decisions be made based on the desire of a GTF to take summer courses.
We're reasserting the original language governing layoffs, which the admin wanted to change. We also want language inserted that makes it clear that our contracts are not considered binding by the university, the grad school, and the department.
The lawyer wants more examples of GTFs being hired based on anticipated cost to the department. Again, this type of nitpicking is a productive way of negotiating with people who are currently working without a contract. #SaidNoOneEver
We're asking for honesty and transparency in hiring decisions. The admin's response is to ask for varied examples and now they are speculating on hypotheticals. Maybe they are unaware that WE DO NOT HAVE A CONTRACT.
4:24 p.m. And now for the tough stuff. Our lead is beginning by highlighting the utter lack of movement by the admin on these issues. We're pointing out that not only does the admin's proposal of a 1.5% raise not close the living wage gap, it actually makes it wider, because that raise is likely less than inflation. #MindTheGap
Our lead pointing out that our comparator schools are at or near cost of living. Even Big State U up the road, dealing with the same state budgetary constraints, pay their employees enough that they are only $13/month short of CoL. Even after all this, we're making a concession to a 5.5% raise. This will not close the gap, but we're willing to concede a bit to show the admin we're earnest about getting a contract done. The total cost of this, over 2 years, would be $1.2M dollars.
In other words, about $600K less than they pay the basketball coach.
Fancy Lawyer suggest loans. Because going into debt to people who refuse to pay you a living wage is such a generous proposal.
Moving onto health care. The increase to the current plan, given our dental and vision proposals, would be $647K/yr over the life of the contract. Put in perspective, that's less than they pay the baseball coach. We're also pointing out that our average increase to plan is ~13%/yr, not the 20%+ the admin has been alleging.
On to parental leave. There were 5 births in the unit last year. If that's average, our proposal for parental leave would cost $27K/yr.
More perspective: the admin just gave the basketball coach an extra $25K for the basketball team having made the NCAA tournament. So, there's money for the basketball coach to get a nice bonus (that is roughly equal to the yearly stipends of 2 GTFs at .40 FTE!), but there's no money for the GTFs who want to have a kid. #priorities
Article 18: Summer Sandwich. We want language that clarifies an "academic year" is all 3 terms, we also want to clarify language governing what a GTF who arrives in the summer before the first fall term can do. The admin isn't clear on what defines an academic year. Given that they set the calendar, this is a troubling development. Again, one wonders if they realize they are addressing this stuff to a room full of people currently working without a contract.
We're accepting the direct deposit language.
On to tuition waivers. Housecleaning language.
We're adding the names of the fees we're charged and the fees that are waived. The admin had excised them. We're citing cases where GTFs are unclear on what fees they are and are not obligated to pay. We're rejecting the admin's proposal to switch to a percentage system for fees. Our members are very insistent on this issue, and we aren't so stupid as not to realize that the percentage model for fees (a) removes the collectively bargained cap on fees and (b) is a recipe for skyrocketing fees. This is especially important considering the admin here loves to prop up their top-heavy financial structure by going into their student's pockets for fee monies.
We're now explaining the extemporaneous fees charged to international students, and why we think the admin should reimburse the student for these fees. For instance, because it's a great recruiting tool.
Hair-splitting from Fancy Lawyer. He wants to know if it applies to international students being recruited to come as a GTF or also to international students who come to the US as undergrads and then come here for grad school. We point out to him, since he can't be arsed to read, that our proposed language covers this distinction.
4:57 p.m. Insurance and Paid Leave. The admin is trying to pry these apart, we're putting them back together. We gave the admin a dollar-for-dollar account for the increase to our plan. They rejected it with no rationale. We're asking for rationale and reasserting our previous proposal, but we are firm that we will accept no proposal that endangers the Health Care Trust. #DontBustTheTrust
Pointing out that it's simply unethical to force an employee to either take a pay cut or come to work sick and/or injured.
5:01 p.m. A GTFF rep from the healthcare trust is now reading a report detailing the actual cost to the university, as well as the history of the cost, of the health care plan. I cannot publish the details of this discussion, but they will be made public at some point.
Fancy Lawyer once again can't be arsed to read, and is having info about premiums being read to him from the report he has in front of him.
Admin team claims they're close but wants to caucus. Our lead is pointing out that time-wasting and the admin's proposals are going to be discussed with the entire membership at our membership meeting tonight.
5:11 p.m. Fancy Lawyer droning on about the admin not knowing what the financial picture of the university. This type of obfuscation and palavering is neither impressive to us, nor do we accept it as a valid set of reasons for the admin's recalcitrance to respond to our proposals with data, transparency and honesty.
They claim there is "room to move" in light of the Health Care Report.
They are picking nits once again and claiming our total cost numbers don't match theirs. This difference is apparently in the thousands. Again, we do not have a contract.
Apparently part of the difference is we didn't figure the "new" EMU fee. Recall that the admin loves to pay for pet projects out their student's pockets. We're talking about $18K here. In other words, $7K less than they just handed the basketball coach. But that's not all! There's going to be a "large fee increase next year!" Which neatly explain why they want to put us on a percentage fee model. We're an untapped revenue stream for continuing Nikeization of the campus.
Covering all fees for GTFs enrolled in the summer would cost the university $100K. So 1/6 of the baseball coach's salary. Apparently this is exorbitant, but paying a coach 80% of his unit's revenue is, you know, a bargain.
Tuition cost for summer would increase $200K over the life of the contract. So 1/3 of what they pay the baseball coach. Heaven forfend.
5:26 p.m. And we're done. No movement. Next Friday, 3:30 p.m., 112 Lillis to hear the admin's counters.
We're going to be talking living wage gap today. By way of reminder, 70% of our unit fall between $400 and $600 short of the university's own cost of living estimate, every single month. We've asked for a 6.1% raise to the minimum wage in an effort to close that gap. Our wage package would represent a 4.1% increase in total cost to the university over our current package. It would cost the university less than they pay the basketball coach. Their response so far has been a non-response. The money isn't there.
But it's there for the basketball coach, to the tune of ~$1.8M/yr.
It's there for the football coach at almost twice that number.
It's there for the uninformed but highly compensated lawyer who can barely conceal his contempt for our organizer and cannot even extend her the common respect of letting her finish her sentences.
But somehow it's not there for the 1400+ people who teach 31% of FTE. And now we're out of contract. #NoContractNoWork #MindTheGap
3:41 p.m. We're going to offer some counters to the admin's non-responses to our economic proposals, but first we're going to offer some compromises on non-economic issues. We'll lead with layoffs and the move to Binding Contracts. We're going to speak first to our rationale behind trying to reform the layoff process. We're going to relent on demanding our contracts be binding because apparently the admin team have not read their Kripke or their J.L. Ritchie and don't understand rigid designators or the bindingness of promises. A GTF will now speak to the capriciousness with which certain departments administrate GTF contracts. This GTF was given a position ostensibly for an entire academic year. He was told less than 15 days before the beginning of Spring Term he would not given a GTF. It was grieved and won, but the point is that the policy is ambiguous to the point that GTFs can be put in a position where they could have their entire livelihood taken away with less than 2 week's notice.
It's stultifying to think we have to justify why we think a contract should be binding. Yet, here we are.
The highly paid lawyer's solution is to first claim our university can't be compared to comparator university's when it comes to financial policy. Which is strange considering that this is exactly what he does when it coems to the admin's justifying why they can't pay us a living wage. He now suggests that departments offer less GTF contracts until departments know what their enrollment numbers will be. So the response to "why can't are contracts be binding?" is "offer fewer people jobs." Excellent stuff from this astute scholar of the law.
Interrupts our organizer for the first time today.
We're re-inserting language protecting discriminated classes, specifically "color" and "HIV antibody status." It was originally included under "disability," but we would like to make this protection explicit. The lawyer can't understand why we want to make this explicit. We feel HIV antibody status is not intuitively included under "disability status," so we want it made explicit. It's a change we want for our members, and does not affect the way the admin administrates the disability policy. We're now arguing for the inclusion of "parental status" and "pregnancy" as separate classes, as well as "veteran's status", and we're citing state case law and Title VII case law in our rationale, because the admin has tried to argue these would frustrate legal interpretation. So we're pointing out federal and state cases where apparently better lawyers than this fellow interpreted these terms just fine.
4:03 On to Article 10: Health, Safety & Work Environment. We're conceding the demand for kitchen facilities, since microwaves and coffee pots are too expensive for a place that just built a $100M training facility for its warrior class.
We're couching this concession by adding language to Art. 10 that grants the GTF the right to refuse to work in an unsafe environment. The lawyer, in typical lawyerly fashion, wants to know "unsafe in whose eyes?" Which is obviously a productive way to negotiate with people who do not currently have a contract.
We also want language added that compels the department to act when an unsafe work environment. The clause currently only requires a department to "attempt" to remedy such a situation.
We've tried unsuccessfully to TA articles governing non-discrimination and safe workplaces, articles on which we made concessions. Absolutely no positive movement from the administration tea. #ShameYourselves
4:12 p.m. We're beginning with economic issues. Article 16: Discipline & Layoffs: we're letting go of multi-year and binding contracts. This is a major concession because these were among the top-10 issues for our members. We're reproposing language preventing hiring decisions be made based on the desire of a GTF to take summer courses.
We're reasserting the original language governing layoffs, which the admin wanted to change. We also want language inserted that makes it clear that our contracts are not considered binding by the university, the grad school, and the department.
The lawyer wants more examples of GTFs being hired based on anticipated cost to the department. Again, this type of nitpicking is a productive way of negotiating with people who are currently working without a contract. #SaidNoOneEver
We're asking for honesty and transparency in hiring decisions. The admin's response is to ask for varied examples and now they are speculating on hypotheticals. Maybe they are unaware that WE DO NOT HAVE A CONTRACT.
4:24 p.m. And now for the tough stuff. Our lead is beginning by highlighting the utter lack of movement by the admin on these issues. We're pointing out that not only does the admin's proposal of a 1.5% raise not close the living wage gap, it actually makes it wider, because that raise is likely less than inflation. #MindTheGap
Our lead pointing out that our comparator schools are at or near cost of living. Even Big State U up the road, dealing with the same state budgetary constraints, pay their employees enough that they are only $13/month short of CoL. Even after all this, we're making a concession to a 5.5% raise. This will not close the gap, but we're willing to concede a bit to show the admin we're earnest about getting a contract done. The total cost of this, over 2 years, would be $1.2M dollars.
In other words, about $600K less than they pay the basketball coach.
Fancy Lawyer suggest loans. Because going into debt to people who refuse to pay you a living wage is such a generous proposal.
Moving onto health care. The increase to the current plan, given our dental and vision proposals, would be $647K/yr over the life of the contract. Put in perspective, that's less than they pay the baseball coach. We're also pointing out that our average increase to plan is ~13%/yr, not the 20%+ the admin has been alleging.
On to parental leave. There were 5 births in the unit last year. If that's average, our proposal for parental leave would cost $27K/yr.
More perspective: the admin just gave the basketball coach an extra $25K for the basketball team having made the NCAA tournament. So, there's money for the basketball coach to get a nice bonus (that is roughly equal to the yearly stipends of 2 GTFs at .40 FTE!), but there's no money for the GTFs who want to have a kid. #priorities
Article 18: Summer Sandwich. We want language that clarifies an "academic year" is all 3 terms, we also want to clarify language governing what a GTF who arrives in the summer before the first fall term can do. The admin isn't clear on what defines an academic year. Given that they set the calendar, this is a troubling development. Again, one wonders if they realize they are addressing this stuff to a room full of people currently working without a contract.
We're accepting the direct deposit language.
On to tuition waivers. Housecleaning language.
We're adding the names of the fees we're charged and the fees that are waived. The admin had excised them. We're citing cases where GTFs are unclear on what fees they are and are not obligated to pay. We're rejecting the admin's proposal to switch to a percentage system for fees. Our members are very insistent on this issue, and we aren't so stupid as not to realize that the percentage model for fees (a) removes the collectively bargained cap on fees and (b) is a recipe for skyrocketing fees. This is especially important considering the admin here loves to prop up their top-heavy financial structure by going into their student's pockets for fee monies.
We're now explaining the extemporaneous fees charged to international students, and why we think the admin should reimburse the student for these fees. For instance, because it's a great recruiting tool.
Hair-splitting from Fancy Lawyer. He wants to know if it applies to international students being recruited to come as a GTF or also to international students who come to the US as undergrads and then come here for grad school. We point out to him, since he can't be arsed to read, that our proposed language covers this distinction.
4:57 p.m. Insurance and Paid Leave. The admin is trying to pry these apart, we're putting them back together. We gave the admin a dollar-for-dollar account for the increase to our plan. They rejected it with no rationale. We're asking for rationale and reasserting our previous proposal, but we are firm that we will accept no proposal that endangers the Health Care Trust. #DontBustTheTrust
Pointing out that it's simply unethical to force an employee to either take a pay cut or come to work sick and/or injured.
5:01 p.m. A GTFF rep from the healthcare trust is now reading a report detailing the actual cost to the university, as well as the history of the cost, of the health care plan. I cannot publish the details of this discussion, but they will be made public at some point.
Fancy Lawyer once again can't be arsed to read, and is having info about premiums being read to him from the report he has in front of him.
Admin team claims they're close but wants to caucus. Our lead is pointing out that time-wasting and the admin's proposals are going to be discussed with the entire membership at our membership meeting tonight.
5:11 p.m. Fancy Lawyer droning on about the admin not knowing what the financial picture of the university. This type of obfuscation and palavering is neither impressive to us, nor do we accept it as a valid set of reasons for the admin's recalcitrance to respond to our proposals with data, transparency and honesty.
They claim there is "room to move" in light of the Health Care Report.
They are picking nits once again and claiming our total cost numbers don't match theirs. This difference is apparently in the thousands. Again, we do not have a contract.
Apparently part of the difference is we didn't figure the "new" EMU fee. Recall that the admin loves to pay for pet projects out their student's pockets. We're talking about $18K here. In other words, $7K less than they just handed the basketball coach. But that's not all! There's going to be a "large fee increase next year!" Which neatly explain why they want to put us on a percentage fee model. We're an untapped revenue stream for continuing Nikeization of the campus.
Covering all fees for GTFs enrolled in the summer would cost the university $100K. So 1/6 of the baseball coach's salary. Apparently this is exorbitant, but paying a coach 80% of his unit's revenue is, you know, a bargain.
Tuition cost for summer would increase $200K over the life of the contract. So 1/3 of what they pay the baseball coach. Heaven forfend.
5:26 p.m. And we're done. No movement. Next Friday, 3:30 p.m., 112 Lillis to hear the admin's counters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)