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.
No comments:
Post a Comment