GTFs filtering in, along with members of both teams. Fancy Lawyer is here, so the $290/hr clock is ticking. You can actually listen to the tuition dollars being spent!
Today we'll hear from the admin in response the economic package we offered on Wednesday. Hopefully starting soon. Time is literally money right now.
3:05 p.m. We're beginning with our counter on Article 9. Thanking admin for making movement. We want language that requires a department that participates in the Frac Sheet program to have meetings between the instructor and the GTF to discuss the workload calculated and worked. We also want language protecting the GTF in the case of an overload. Basically, we want the GTF to be able to ask to meet with an instructor about workload in a case where there is not necessarily a grievable overload, but there is a potential for such a workload.
Fancy Lawyer answers this with some kind of vague ramble about how the files would be so esoterically organized and kept that this is an inefficient request. He closes by nonsequitrously suggesting the union keep those records.
Fancy Lawyer wants the union to maintain departmental records for them.
By Grapthar's Hammer, the admin side of the table can only think of processes in terms of efficiency. It's like someone downloaded every George Will column ever into their brains.
Moving on. Not going to TA Article 9 today.
3:16 p.m. Admin's financial package. They begin with the ridiculous total compensation sophistry.
Article 17: Layoffs. They accept that we can not be laid off for low enrollment, but for performance or cost. So they backdoor in the low enrollment layoffs. Not clever.
They reject that the admin be required to be honest in our offer letters and make it clear our contracts are not binding.
Article 18: Summer Term. They are sticking with the percentage model of fee, which we've strongly rejected. They aren't getting the message, at all. They want a 90/10 split.
HAHAHAHAHA, FANCY LAWYER REALLY IS A FUNNY GUY! He suggests fees fluctuate and "could go down." Legendary wit!
They are accepting our proposal that notice for layoffs be moved from 15 days to 30 days prior. There's some discussion of how the tuition waiver for the term in which a member is laid off is to be handled.
Article 21: Wages. They offer 3/3. By way of reminder, last time they offered 2.2/2.53. We've told them we won't move off 5.5/5.5. They are moving, but not enough.
Not. Enough.
They still want the the percentage model of fees, but a 90/10 split. If fees would really go down, moving to a percentage model would not feasible for the university. So clearly this is a money grab and this guy thinks we're dumb.
They are agreeing to pay the CEVIS fee for international GTFs. This is a big move forward.
Article 22: Health Care. Here we go. They are proposing that we can either (A) bargain over the total cost of the package or (B) we can argue over each benefit.
OPTION B IS A RETURN TO THE BUSTING OF THE TRUST LANGUAGE. IT WOULD GUT THE TRUST OF ANY POWER BEYOND SIMPLE ADMINISTRATION OF THE PLAN.
They're still trying to get a hard cap if we take (A), and they propose a 7% cap. Still regressive.
If we take (B), they reject our leave proposals "for the reasons they've already given for rejecting" them. Which, by way of reminder, is that they can't give us leave because they've never given us leave, so they reassert that they cannot give us leave now because they already told us they couldn't give us leave because they've never given us leave and can't just start giving us leave now.
Fancy Lawyer admits option (B) is punitive and that "those who use the health plan more would pay more."
The admin pretty clearly wants to make our health care plan a profit engine for the university. They are proposing a health care plan that preys on the lowest-earning members on the campus. Our lead points this out. Fancy Lawyer literally scoffs at the notion that this plan victimizes the most-disadvantaged members of the university community. We point out that both (A) and (B) are intended to (1) place the risk of the health care plan onto the GTF, and (2) to gut our Trust.
Fancy Lawyer admits they are trying to horse trade with wages. As if all our money comes from one pot. We've exposed this lie already, and like a dog returns to its vomit, the admin returns to the lie. We don't understand why the admin is insisting on cutting back when they are not in dire financial straits; indeed, they have a burgeoning surplus.
Fancy Lawyer: "Why wait until the emergency to make the adjustments?"
3:43 p.m.: We're going to caucus.
4:24 p.m. We're back. Telling them we're hopeful on Article 9 and we're offering to TA on layoffs (Articles 17 & 20). They agree, Articles 17 & 20 are TA'd!
We're reiterating that we're not pleased with the wage and health care proposals, so we're going to be posing a series of questions, so that we can take the best information to our emergency members meeting.
We point out that the fees are set by the admin, so the risk language doesn't make sense because the admin makes that risk: they set the fees. We fought hard to have a fee cap, and we won't horse trade with it, because paying more in fees is a de facto cut to wages. We point out that the admin could always not raise fees, thus eliminating the risk posed by increases in fees. We shouldn't share a risk created by the other party "sharing" the risk.
We are also pointing out that once we agree to a percentage model for fees, we'd be condemning future GTFs to ballooning fees.
We point out that the proposed health care plan(s) are both regressive and punitive, plus they angle back towards gutting the Trust. We point out that we're not asking to bargain benefits. We asked for an increase to the total amount so that we could add vision and dental. Once again, we could have just added those and passed the cost along to the university. We didn't. We brought it to the table to increase the pot.
The admins' response is to propose to cut our benefits--and by cutting our benefits, they are de facto cutting our wages. We point out that we don't have a fund to dig into to supplement health care costs, because we are not being paid a living wage. We point out that both proposals amount to cutting benefits, and that, at a minimum, we will not approve any contract that cuts existing benefits, or allows the admin to do so, at will.
Moving on to wages. We thank them for movement. We argue that if not for the de facto cut to wages posed by the health care and fee proposals, this movement would be much more positive. As it is, it looks paltry in comparison. With no inflation, the living wage gap won't close in under 5 years. With basic inflation, it would take almost double that amount of time.
We're now addressing the moral question. We want to know how the university justifies denying people basic things like parental and medical leave. We want to know why the university believes it is the right thing to do, when they pay 70% of the people teaching 1/3 of FTE less than a living wage. We want to know if the admin feels that the package they have proposed goes towards fulfilling the educational mission of the university and how it reflects the university president's stated goal of improving compensation for GTFs.
Fancy Lawyer isn't aware of the President's statement, because he admits that statement was not included in the preparation for this bargaining cycle. He basically just admitted that the university president played no role in the management meetings that prepped for this bargaining session. Add that to the growing list if things Fancy Lawyer should know, but doesn't. And add that to the growing list of things the university president should be doing, but doesn't.
Fancy Lawyer can't define "fair," yet he invokes it as the operable evaluative standard in justifying their below-par packages.
Fancy Lawyer says it's not them purposely treating us unfairly, it's just the university balancing priorities.
GTFs are just collateral damage in the rush towards modernity, I guess.
We're reiterating the President's statement and it's connection to the benchmarking report and asking them to confirm that was not a part of the preparation for this bargaining cycle. They confirm as much.
Fancy Lawyer insinuates we should have been skeptical of the claims of a politician, i.e. the university president. For realz.
We point out that it seems the university admins can't get on the same page, because the president says we ought to be paid fairly, and apparently some small group of admins is resisting that admonition.
We are done for today.
No comments:
Post a Comment