Bargaining and Nothingness

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.