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!
Friday, April 18, 2014
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.
Friday, March 21, 2014
The Eve of an Expired Contract
3:31 p.m. This is the last bargaining session before the GTFF contract with the University expires. Though most policies remain in place after the contract is expired, this is still a very important meeting for both sides of the team. Still a good turnout even though a lot of GTFs are either working on grading or already out of town.
3:35 p.m. They are going to open up by finishing (TAing) a few articles. This includes items such as wireless access and late pay.
3:42 p.m. The University is neglecting the University's paid parental leave policies. They are asserting that GTFs are "first and foremost" students, and so should be satisfied with what they have. The University claims that the numbers that we provided them with are too uncertain and unpredictable, and that people who work our hours shouldn't have access to paid parental leave. The University wants to continue being an unsustainable place for GTF parents to work.
3:50 p.m. The University is also denying paid sick and injury leave. We need to stop making University spaces hostile to the human body, folks. GTFs get sick and injured just like any other essential employee at the University, and deserve time to care for themselves in order to do their job effectively and safely.
3:52 p.m. Our team lead, Amber: "I don't think we're looking for perfection, but we are looking for improvement."
3:52 p.m. When Amber asks why the University cannot cover paid leave, Fancy Lawyer asks Amber if she would like to see the University go bankrupt. The University continues to deflect from honest questions with sensational, misdirecting exclamations.
3:58 p.m. We are concerned about inconsistencies across leave policies, and how this creates an inequitable situation for many GTFs.
4:03 p.m. The University is continuing to push for temporary student loans instead of seeing the need for employers to pay their employees on time. GTFs are employees of the University, and it is the responsibility of the University to figure out how to pay their employees by the agreed-upon dates.
4:16 p.m. We are concerned about GTF confidentiality in cases where they are required to have counseling at UO, as undergraduate students use the same services and may be sitting in the same waiting room.
4:21 p.m. We are now discussing GTF fractional calculation sheets. This would make time expectations for GTFs clear so that we can reduce the rampant unpaid overtime hours that GTFs are often forced to work.
4:27 p.m. Fractional Calculation Sheets will help GTF supervisors as well, as they can be upfront and clear about how to manage their employees' time in relation to tasks such as researching articles or different types of grading. We think that transparency for GTFs and their supervisors will benefit both sides of our working arrangement.
4:44 p.m. After a long discussion about the benefits of fractional calculation sheets, we are now taking a caucus.
5:04 p.m. Caucus has ended. We are discussing wages now and the living wage gap. Increasing the wages of GTFs is not only the right thing to do, but also will make the University more competitive with recruiting grads.
5:11 p.m. We are also discussing our healthcare proposals.
5:17 p.m. We are discussing proposal costs. We are arguing that the University's wage model does not make UO competitive when recruiting graduate students, as prospective students have many institutions with far better benefits available to choose from. The ability to afford rent and groceries is a large part of prospective students' decisions.
5:20: We have been discussing Summer fees. Our CBA says that all GTFs should have their tuition and fees treated the same during Summer as during other times of the year, but the University revealed that it does not actually waive these fees for GTFs across the board. This is a very big development that has a lot of GTFs upset at the University's actions. They are saying that it is too late for us to grieve this, due to a "difference in interpretation."
5:24 p.m. UO is specifying that "We're not making money off of GTFs" when discussing costs. And yet, even ignoring such an offensive disposition, we teach 1/3 of the classes at UO. The University clearly sees us as a cheap force of labor, and yet they think they can distract away from our profitability when we ask for the wages and healthcare we need to live in Eugene and do our jobs. After all this time we also still haven't received clear money data from the University side of the table. As Fancy Lawyer says himself to our repeated requests, "I don't do math."
So it seems that here, on the eve of our expired contract, the University wants to continue milking GTFs for all they are worth (while simultaneously claiming we are worth nothing), and do so without providing clear data for their justifications. And this is the grim note that we're ending on.
5:29 p.m. Bargaining has concluded for the day. Thanks to the GTFF table team and to those who showed up for the Session!
5:42 p.m. Things may look grim at the table, but it is only in one room, and the University is much larger. What will decide the next few months will be the work that is done outside the table to show the University that we are serious about our proposals.
3:35 p.m. They are going to open up by finishing (TAing) a few articles. This includes items such as wireless access and late pay.
3:42 p.m. The University is neglecting the University's paid parental leave policies. They are asserting that GTFs are "first and foremost" students, and so should be satisfied with what they have. The University claims that the numbers that we provided them with are too uncertain and unpredictable, and that people who work our hours shouldn't have access to paid parental leave. The University wants to continue being an unsustainable place for GTF parents to work.
3:50 p.m. The University is also denying paid sick and injury leave. We need to stop making University spaces hostile to the human body, folks. GTFs get sick and injured just like any other essential employee at the University, and deserve time to care for themselves in order to do their job effectively and safely.
3:52 p.m. Our team lead, Amber: "I don't think we're looking for perfection, but we are looking for improvement."
3:52 p.m. When Amber asks why the University cannot cover paid leave, Fancy Lawyer asks Amber if she would like to see the University go bankrupt. The University continues to deflect from honest questions with sensational, misdirecting exclamations.
3:58 p.m. We are concerned about inconsistencies across leave policies, and how this creates an inequitable situation for many GTFs.
4:03 p.m. The University is continuing to push for temporary student loans instead of seeing the need for employers to pay their employees on time. GTFs are employees of the University, and it is the responsibility of the University to figure out how to pay their employees by the agreed-upon dates.
4:16 p.m. We are concerned about GTF confidentiality in cases where they are required to have counseling at UO, as undergraduate students use the same services and may be sitting in the same waiting room.
4:21 p.m. We are now discussing GTF fractional calculation sheets. This would make time expectations for GTFs clear so that we can reduce the rampant unpaid overtime hours that GTFs are often forced to work.
4:27 p.m. Fractional Calculation Sheets will help GTF supervisors as well, as they can be upfront and clear about how to manage their employees' time in relation to tasks such as researching articles or different types of grading. We think that transparency for GTFs and their supervisors will benefit both sides of our working arrangement.
4:44 p.m. After a long discussion about the benefits of fractional calculation sheets, we are now taking a caucus.
5:04 p.m. Caucus has ended. We are discussing wages now and the living wage gap. Increasing the wages of GTFs is not only the right thing to do, but also will make the University more competitive with recruiting grads.
5:11 p.m. We are also discussing our healthcare proposals.
5:17 p.m. We are discussing proposal costs. We are arguing that the University's wage model does not make UO competitive when recruiting graduate students, as prospective students have many institutions with far better benefits available to choose from. The ability to afford rent and groceries is a large part of prospective students' decisions.
5:20: We have been discussing Summer fees. Our CBA says that all GTFs should have their tuition and fees treated the same during Summer as during other times of the year, but the University revealed that it does not actually waive these fees for GTFs across the board. This is a very big development that has a lot of GTFs upset at the University's actions. They are saying that it is too late for us to grieve this, due to a "difference in interpretation."
5:24 p.m. UO is specifying that "We're not making money off of GTFs" when discussing costs. And yet, even ignoring such an offensive disposition, we teach 1/3 of the classes at UO. The University clearly sees us as a cheap force of labor, and yet they think they can distract away from our profitability when we ask for the wages and healthcare we need to live in Eugene and do our jobs. After all this time we also still haven't received clear money data from the University side of the table. As Fancy Lawyer says himself to our repeated requests, "I don't do math."
So it seems that here, on the eve of our expired contract, the University wants to continue milking GTFs for all they are worth (while simultaneously claiming we are worth nothing), and do so without providing clear data for their justifications. And this is the grim note that we're ending on.
5:29 p.m. Bargaining has concluded for the day. Thanks to the GTFF table team and to those who showed up for the Session!
5:42 p.m. Things may look grim at the table, but it is only in one room, and the University is much larger. What will decide the next few months will be the work that is done outside the table to show the University that we are serious about our proposals.
Friday, March 14, 2014
In Which We Await the Response Which We Have Already Been Given
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.
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.
Friday, February 21, 2014
The Power of Mathematics and Logic
3:36pm We are now settling, and today's round of Bargaining will commence shortly, which will include discussions about the numbers involved for living wages and major dental in comparison with the University's wealth.
3:38pm: Bargaining will start by discussing Article 34. The University wants to be notified about changes to our dues form on the 15th of the month prior to the time the changes go into effect. They also would like to discuss Article 10, Section 1. The University wants to add that GTFs have a mutual responsibility for cleaning up GTF workspaces. Presumably because the University wants to be able to scold GTFs when spaces go without the kind of maintenance any worker might hope to have in their workspaces.
3:46pm: The University also wants to add that the University should not be required to provide for health and safety beyond University workspaces. We are concerned that there is no language in place for a GTF to report being forced to work in an unsafe space.
3:49pm: The University misread the our proposal to require safe workspaces. Apparently they thought that this would require them to fly in and transform any non-University spaces in which a GTF was working. All we want is to not be required to work in unsafe spaces. Ever heard of parsimony? Or argumentative charity? Or reading?
3:58pm: Now Fancy Lawyer is talking about "GFTs." Graduate Fellow Teachers?
4:04pm: We are discussing grievance steps. The University would prefer the President not to have to dirty his hands with personally attending meetings and wants to deny GTFs from moving to this stage. Of course, this could leave a GTF's livelihood hanging on the line, but won't somebody think of the poor President?
4:15pm: Just had a long discussion about financial policies and their relationship to the state archivist.
4:18pm: We are concerned about the University giving the President the final word on contracts rather than the Board of Trustees, which is usually the body that deals with contracts. You're the king? Well I didn't vote for you.
4:20pm: Now we're digging into numbers. The University is reporting increases to the healthcare trust and say that this is "unsustainable." Maybe like a top-heavy university structure? They are saying that premium increases must be kept to no more than increases of 10%. Left out of the picture, as always, is the immense wealth that the University is sitting upon as they speak.
4:25pm: Fancy Lawyer said that the GTFF has the power to add healthcare plans in contrast to the helpless University. And that is their justification for capping trust increases at 10%. By using this rhetoric, are they admitting and committing to the GTFF having the ability to pick up Major Dental without their authorization? In previous bargaining sessions, we were given a flat-out "NO" on this idea, but now apparently (according to their language) it is us who have the power to say "YES."
4:31pm: We have been discussing more numbers. The University is saying that increasing wages and adding major dental is unsustainable. We are asking where all the revenue from the UO Foundation endowment (most recently $553 million, a 13.8% annual return) goes.
4:38pm: The University is claiming that it both has a deficit and a surplus, and that the surplus will be used to fill the deficit, with money left over. So wouldn't that make this...a surplus?
4:45pm: The University side of the table has no idea what their "Unrestricted Gifts and Royalties" are being used for, which in 2013 was $2,177,408 with a $1,214,700 increase in one year. The maintenance of the University's Jaqua Center was also $2,753,225 in 2013, and we are wondering who is paying for that. The University, as always, does not know where this is coming from (for example, to what extent Academics is paying for the Jock Box). In any case, we can be rest assured that none of these magical, mysterious funds will be used for root canals.
4:52pm: Here's a big one. The University said earlier (incorrectly) that our healthcare and living wages will cost 1.7 million for the University to cover. But this depends on assuming that ALL GTFs will receive the same wage. All the GTFF wants to do is bring wages up to a living standard, so not all wages would be adjusted the same rate.
4:54pm: Hence, the GTFF found that the price for GTF living wages in 2014-2015 would actually run around $316,340. Coincidentally, the University President's Skybox Office in Autzen Stadium costs $375,000 every year! We could give grads living wages for less than UO is paying to give the President a shiny football office!
5pm: The GTFF is reporting that we could cover BOTH living wages AND major dental for FAR LESS than the unrestricted funds given to academics. Increasing GTFs' wages and adding major dental will cost UNDER $1 million with room to spare.
5:01pm: "The purpose of this university is academics and research...I would encourage you to look for the money." -- Our organizer, who is getting paid a fraction of this lawyer's salary to wipe the floor with him.
5:02pm: Caucus beginning with the full room of GTFs applauding for our organizer. The room is packed with GTFs who are upset about the University privileging the most frivolous aspects of administration and Athletics over the lives of GTFs and the academic work they contribute to this campus.
5:26pm: We were just informed by UO during our caucus that we have the room until 5:45pm, NOT 6:30pm as we projected, and were told to hurry our caucus along.
5:33pm: Bargaining is continuing, and we are asking what their "GTF maintenance responsibility" clause will specifically involve. They are mentioning taking care of your own foodstuffs in the fridge and having rotations where people might agree to rotate responsibility. We are concerned about GTF workspaces in which GTFs have to clean and dust without compensation, and we are worried that this language will be used to require GTFs to do unpaid cleaning work beyond their cleaning their own foodstuffs. We are going to revisit this issue later to provide specific examples where GTFs are forced to work in unreasonably dirty work-spaces beyond their own responsibilities for care.
5:43pm: They are now talking about the healthcare article and the University's assertion that the cost of the trust will go up by "41% in two years." The members of the GTFF trust fund are confused because this does not match their numbers, and are wondering about how the University arrived at this percentage.
5:45pm: The University does not know how they arrived at this 41% projected figure for healthcare increases. They are using a system of "fiscal years" and making projections based on years with higher expenses. We are looking forward to viewing their specific data. We are concerned that they are incorrectly assuming costs will inevitably continue in this way.
5:52pm: They are accusing the GTFF Trust of not making moves to keep price increases below 10%. We are saying that discussing Major Dental at the table is a move of good faith to discuss healthcare increases with the University, and that the GTFF has encouraged the trust to maintain caution with healthcare cost increases.
5:57pm: We are planning to discuss wages next time. University side of the table says that getting major dental coverage makes no difference if cap prices are the same. People who need root canals beg to differ.
5:58pm: Bargaining has ended. Thank you to the GTFF table team and everyone who showed up, and see you next week!
3:38pm: Bargaining will start by discussing Article 34. The University wants to be notified about changes to our dues form on the 15th of the month prior to the time the changes go into effect. They also would like to discuss Article 10, Section 1. The University wants to add that GTFs have a mutual responsibility for cleaning up GTF workspaces. Presumably because the University wants to be able to scold GTFs when spaces go without the kind of maintenance any worker might hope to have in their workspaces.
3:46pm: The University also wants to add that the University should not be required to provide for health and safety beyond University workspaces. We are concerned that there is no language in place for a GTF to report being forced to work in an unsafe space.
3:49pm: The University misread the our proposal to require safe workspaces. Apparently they thought that this would require them to fly in and transform any non-University spaces in which a GTF was working. All we want is to not be required to work in unsafe spaces. Ever heard of parsimony? Or argumentative charity? Or reading?
3:58pm: Now Fancy Lawyer is talking about "GFTs." Graduate Fellow Teachers?
4:04pm: We are discussing grievance steps. The University would prefer the President not to have to dirty his hands with personally attending meetings and wants to deny GTFs from moving to this stage. Of course, this could leave a GTF's livelihood hanging on the line, but won't somebody think of the poor President?
4:15pm: Just had a long discussion about financial policies and their relationship to the state archivist.
4:18pm: We are concerned about the University giving the President the final word on contracts rather than the Board of Trustees, which is usually the body that deals with contracts. You're the king? Well I didn't vote for you.
4:20pm: Now we're digging into numbers. The University is reporting increases to the healthcare trust and say that this is "unsustainable." Maybe like a top-heavy university structure? They are saying that premium increases must be kept to no more than increases of 10%. Left out of the picture, as always, is the immense wealth that the University is sitting upon as they speak.
4:25pm: Fancy Lawyer said that the GTFF has the power to add healthcare plans in contrast to the helpless University. And that is their justification for capping trust increases at 10%. By using this rhetoric, are they admitting and committing to the GTFF having the ability to pick up Major Dental without their authorization? In previous bargaining sessions, we were given a flat-out "NO" on this idea, but now apparently (according to their language) it is us who have the power to say "YES."
4:31pm: We have been discussing more numbers. The University is saying that increasing wages and adding major dental is unsustainable. We are asking where all the revenue from the UO Foundation endowment (most recently $553 million, a 13.8% annual return) goes.
4:38pm: The University is claiming that it both has a deficit and a surplus, and that the surplus will be used to fill the deficit, with money left over. So wouldn't that make this...a surplus?
4:45pm: The University side of the table has no idea what their "Unrestricted Gifts and Royalties" are being used for, which in 2013 was $2,177,408 with a $1,214,700 increase in one year. The maintenance of the University's Jaqua Center was also $2,753,225 in 2013, and we are wondering who is paying for that. The University, as always, does not know where this is coming from (for example, to what extent Academics is paying for the Jock Box). In any case, we can be rest assured that none of these magical, mysterious funds will be used for root canals.
4:52pm: Here's a big one. The University said earlier (incorrectly) that our healthcare and living wages will cost 1.7 million for the University to cover. But this depends on assuming that ALL GTFs will receive the same wage. All the GTFF wants to do is bring wages up to a living standard, so not all wages would be adjusted the same rate.
4:54pm: Hence, the GTFF found that the price for GTF living wages in 2014-2015 would actually run around $316,340. Coincidentally, the University President's Skybox Office in Autzen Stadium costs $375,000 every year! We could give grads living wages for less than UO is paying to give the President a shiny football office!
5pm: The GTFF is reporting that we could cover BOTH living wages AND major dental for FAR LESS than the unrestricted funds given to academics. Increasing GTFs' wages and adding major dental will cost UNDER $1 million with room to spare.
5:01pm: "The purpose of this university is academics and research...I would encourage you to look for the money." -- Our organizer, who is getting paid a fraction of this lawyer's salary to wipe the floor with him.
5:02pm: Caucus beginning with the full room of GTFs applauding for our organizer. The room is packed with GTFs who are upset about the University privileging the most frivolous aspects of administration and Athletics over the lives of GTFs and the academic work they contribute to this campus.
5:26pm: We were just informed by UO during our caucus that we have the room until 5:45pm, NOT 6:30pm as we projected, and were told to hurry our caucus along.
5:33pm: Bargaining is continuing, and we are asking what their "GTF maintenance responsibility" clause will specifically involve. They are mentioning taking care of your own foodstuffs in the fridge and having rotations where people might agree to rotate responsibility. We are concerned about GTF workspaces in which GTFs have to clean and dust without compensation, and we are worried that this language will be used to require GTFs to do unpaid cleaning work beyond their cleaning their own foodstuffs. We are going to revisit this issue later to provide specific examples where GTFs are forced to work in unreasonably dirty work-spaces beyond their own responsibilities for care.
5:43pm: They are now talking about the healthcare article and the University's assertion that the cost of the trust will go up by "41% in two years." The members of the GTFF trust fund are confused because this does not match their numbers, and are wondering about how the University arrived at this percentage.
5:45pm: The University does not know how they arrived at this 41% projected figure for healthcare increases. They are using a system of "fiscal years" and making projections based on years with higher expenses. We are looking forward to viewing their specific data. We are concerned that they are incorrectly assuming costs will inevitably continue in this way.
5:52pm: They are accusing the GTFF Trust of not making moves to keep price increases below 10%. We are saying that discussing Major Dental at the table is a move of good faith to discuss healthcare increases with the University, and that the GTFF has encouraged the trust to maintain caution with healthcare cost increases.
5:57pm: We are planning to discuss wages next time. University side of the table says that getting major dental coverage makes no difference if cap prices are the same. People who need root canals beg to differ.
5:58pm: Bargaining has ended. Thank you to the GTFF table team and everyone who showed up, and see you next week!
Friday, February 14, 2014
Begrebet Angest
3:30 p.m.: We're gathered. Crappy weather and bargaining being held in an arcane labyrinth of a classroom building has depressed turnout a bit. Waiting.
3:38 p.m.: We're opening by proposing that we try and get straight on as many of the non-economic proposals done and dusted as possible.
Fancy Lawyer is intoning about the admin's sincere desire to get current financial numbers to us ASAP. One might be led to wonder how a university functions without having access to it's own financial data.
3:40 p.m.: We've closed one article, governing written notice of absence. One down. On to Article 4. The university wants to "approve" our union cards. We're proposing that we submit the forms to the university for review, but we get final say on what the GTF's dues rate/status will be. We are also proposing that changes to GTF status be processed in 14 business days, rather than the university's proposed 60 days. We also don't see why we need to fill out a new payroll deduction form every term. It seems excessive and no doubt it's a milquetoast attempt to make keeping up full membership status unnecessarily difficult.
3:45 p.m.: We're asking for more information for why the university wants to tinker with the protected statuses in Article 8.
On to Article 9. Health and Workplace Safety. Access to wireless and adequate workspace. We're making a modest concession that our workspaces are required only to be on par (in terms of cleanliness, size, etc.) with other workspaces in the same building/area. We're holding strong on the wireless access, though.
Fancy Lawyer say they're gathering "as much information as fast as we can" on wireless issues on campus. He's now lecturing our organizer on the difficulties of providing wireless access. We have a $100M football facility, but we can't have wireless networked across campus.
#Priorities
On to kitchen facilities. The university has proposed that GTF have the same access as faculty in the workspace. We're countering that the GTFs have access to at least a sink, coffee maker, and microwave. The university wants us to numerate the spaces where this is an issue, clearly missing the point. The point is that the contract should contain language guaranteeing access to these facilities, regardless of how many workspaces on campus to which this issue currently applies.
#MoneyForJockBoxButNotForCoffeePots
Fancy Lawyer insists that we provide them with the actual locations. It's not entirely clear why this is our responsibility. We're telling them about one department, which, just this term, spent their own money to provide their GTFs with these items. We're emphasizing that we're trying to get language in that guarantees this access. The Head of University Finance doesn't know what a contradiction is, but that doesn't stop him from asserting that we've engaged one. Oh, wait. Now it's a "curiousity." Our organizer is explaining the nature of conditionals to him. It's not sinking in. The same person who last session could not provide us with current tuition revenue information (which is basically the sum total of his job requirements), is now picking nits over a f**king coffee pot. Apparently he can't grasp that where no kitchen facilities exist, they must be created. These would not be only for the GTF, but for all persons in the workspace. It's just that the language in our contract would guarantee their existence. This fellow is thick.
Moving on. We're asking for language guaranteeing a safe workplace when GTFs are required to do work off campus. Fancy Lawyer tries to score points by asking if we want secure coffeeshops around campus. Our organizer deftly explains we're talking about conference travel, etc. This lawyer is stealing money.
4:05 p.m.: Now that we've settled the volatile issue of coffee pots, we're moving on to "suppression of electronic information by the University about a GTF." We have language that basically guarantees FERPA rights for GTFs. The university wants to strike it, because they don't understand why it's there. Okey-dokey. On to some housecleaning issues, we're going to look into the FERPA language and a couple of small pieces governing workplace safety in the event of things like floods and fires.
4:13 p.m.: Personnel Files. The university wants 5-day notice from the to view the personnel file. We don't understand why that should be the case, especially for people who need access to the file to make a hiring decision.
We're trying to insert language protecting the personnel file from outside access without the permission of the GTF. The university knows that this is never used. The basis for this is anecdotal evidence from the last 7 years, by one person. Perhaps a lesson in the epistemology of belief is in order...or a lecture on Hume.
#ThePluralOfAnecdoteIsNotData
We're arguing that if a clause that protects GTFs is in the contract, it's there for a reason. Tossing it out for the reasons cited by the university seems capricious. Fancy Lawyer say they can't enforce a policy they don't understand. It's not clear how that functions as reply to our claims.
More housecleaning.
On to evaluations. We're moving to strike "where appropriate" because it implies there would be a circumstance under which a GTF would receive a poor evaluation with no timeframe for improvement, which further suggests if no timeframe need be given, the GTF could be terminated immediately. Fancy Lawyer doesn't know why that language was inserted. The university is really getting its money's worth from this fellow.
4:23 p.m.: On to Grievances. We're accepting clarificatory changes to language. We're rejecting the proposal to strike the words "misinterpreted and improperly applied." We feel this language makes it clear to our members that any violation of our contract, even unintended consequences of well-meaning actions, are grieveable.
4:27: On to Arbitration. Accepting more clarificatory language.
4:30 p.m.: On to Discipline and Discharge. We're rejecting the language surrounding "restitution" for damage to university property. We feel the university already has this power outside of our CBA.
We're asking for 3 days notice to the union before a GTF is terminated. The university wants us to clarify as regards retroactive terminations. We're clarifying that it's 3 days before the process begins, no matter what.
We're trying to insert language around document retention. We want to the GTF to have the power to request destruction of the personnel file upon graduation. The university just admitted their current retention policy on the state OAR is in violation of our CBA. Wait, now they're saying the CBA can't be in violation of state law. The OAR isn't mentioned in the CBA. Fancy Lawyer says they can't agree to the language until they check the policy. We're sticking by our proposal, arguing that even if policy does or does not change to countermand this language, we want the language in the CBA.
4:48 p.m.: We're putting off language around binding contracts until the economics proposals are revisited.
4:50 p.m.: Article 30 is agreed on. Title change. Two down.
Article 31. We're striking the language that says that the university president and not the Board of Trustees is ratifying our contract. We're reinserting the old "University of Oregon Board of Trustees" language.
4:55 p.m.: We're rejecting the proposal to allow the university to stop providing printed copies of the CBA. We're proposing the university print 75 copies, and provide additional copies upon request by individual GTFs.
5:00 p.m.: Some clarifying language to reflect the changes in the governance of the university.
On to No Strikes or Walkouts. We're flatly rejecting the ridiculous suggestion that GTFs could be "requested" to perform the work of a striking work. If a GTF opts to do that work, they cannot go above a .49 FTE workload.
We're done with our presentation. Caucusing now.
3:38 p.m.: We're opening by proposing that we try and get straight on as many of the non-economic proposals done and dusted as possible.
Fancy Lawyer is intoning about the admin's sincere desire to get current financial numbers to us ASAP. One might be led to wonder how a university functions without having access to it's own financial data.
3:40 p.m.: We've closed one article, governing written notice of absence. One down. On to Article 4. The university wants to "approve" our union cards. We're proposing that we submit the forms to the university for review, but we get final say on what the GTF's dues rate/status will be. We are also proposing that changes to GTF status be processed in 14 business days, rather than the university's proposed 60 days. We also don't see why we need to fill out a new payroll deduction form every term. It seems excessive and no doubt it's a milquetoast attempt to make keeping up full membership status unnecessarily difficult.
3:45 p.m.: We're asking for more information for why the university wants to tinker with the protected statuses in Article 8.
On to Article 9. Health and Workplace Safety. Access to wireless and adequate workspace. We're making a modest concession that our workspaces are required only to be on par (in terms of cleanliness, size, etc.) with other workspaces in the same building/area. We're holding strong on the wireless access, though.
Fancy Lawyer say they're gathering "as much information as fast as we can" on wireless issues on campus. He's now lecturing our organizer on the difficulties of providing wireless access. We have a $100M football facility, but we can't have wireless networked across campus.
#Priorities
On to kitchen facilities. The university has proposed that GTF have the same access as faculty in the workspace. We're countering that the GTFs have access to at least a sink, coffee maker, and microwave. The university wants us to numerate the spaces where this is an issue, clearly missing the point. The point is that the contract should contain language guaranteeing access to these facilities, regardless of how many workspaces on campus to which this issue currently applies.
#MoneyForJockBoxButNotForCoffeePots
Fancy Lawyer insists that we provide them with the actual locations. It's not entirely clear why this is our responsibility. We're telling them about one department, which, just this term, spent their own money to provide their GTFs with these items. We're emphasizing that we're trying to get language in that guarantees this access. The Head of University Finance doesn't know what a contradiction is, but that doesn't stop him from asserting that we've engaged one. Oh, wait. Now it's a "curiousity." Our organizer is explaining the nature of conditionals to him. It's not sinking in. The same person who last session could not provide us with current tuition revenue information (which is basically the sum total of his job requirements), is now picking nits over a f**king coffee pot. Apparently he can't grasp that where no kitchen facilities exist, they must be created. These would not be only for the GTF, but for all persons in the workspace. It's just that the language in our contract would guarantee their existence. This fellow is thick.
Moving on. We're asking for language guaranteeing a safe workplace when GTFs are required to do work off campus. Fancy Lawyer tries to score points by asking if we want secure coffeeshops around campus. Our organizer deftly explains we're talking about conference travel, etc. This lawyer is stealing money.
4:05 p.m.: Now that we've settled the volatile issue of coffee pots, we're moving on to "suppression of electronic information by the University about a GTF." We have language that basically guarantees FERPA rights for GTFs. The university wants to strike it, because they don't understand why it's there. Okey-dokey. On to some housecleaning issues, we're going to look into the FERPA language and a couple of small pieces governing workplace safety in the event of things like floods and fires.
4:13 p.m.: Personnel Files. The university wants 5-day notice from the to view the personnel file. We don't understand why that should be the case, especially for people who need access to the file to make a hiring decision.
We're trying to insert language protecting the personnel file from outside access without the permission of the GTF. The university knows that this is never used. The basis for this is anecdotal evidence from the last 7 years, by one person. Perhaps a lesson in the epistemology of belief is in order...or a lecture on Hume.
#ThePluralOfAnecdoteIsNotData
We're arguing that if a clause that protects GTFs is in the contract, it's there for a reason. Tossing it out for the reasons cited by the university seems capricious. Fancy Lawyer say they can't enforce a policy they don't understand. It's not clear how that functions as reply to our claims.
More housecleaning.
On to evaluations. We're moving to strike "where appropriate" because it implies there would be a circumstance under which a GTF would receive a poor evaluation with no timeframe for improvement, which further suggests if no timeframe need be given, the GTF could be terminated immediately. Fancy Lawyer doesn't know why that language was inserted. The university is really getting its money's worth from this fellow.
4:23 p.m.: On to Grievances. We're accepting clarificatory changes to language. We're rejecting the proposal to strike the words "misinterpreted and improperly applied." We feel this language makes it clear to our members that any violation of our contract, even unintended consequences of well-meaning actions, are grieveable.
4:27: On to Arbitration. Accepting more clarificatory language.
4:30 p.m.: On to Discipline and Discharge. We're rejecting the language surrounding "restitution" for damage to university property. We feel the university already has this power outside of our CBA.
We're asking for 3 days notice to the union before a GTF is terminated. The university wants us to clarify as regards retroactive terminations. We're clarifying that it's 3 days before the process begins, no matter what.
We're trying to insert language around document retention. We want to the GTF to have the power to request destruction of the personnel file upon graduation. The university just admitted their current retention policy on the state OAR is in violation of our CBA. Wait, now they're saying the CBA can't be in violation of state law. The OAR isn't mentioned in the CBA. Fancy Lawyer says they can't agree to the language until they check the policy. We're sticking by our proposal, arguing that even if policy does or does not change to countermand this language, we want the language in the CBA.
4:48 p.m.: We're putting off language around binding contracts until the economics proposals are revisited.
4:50 p.m.: Article 30 is agreed on. Title change. Two down.
Article 31. We're striking the language that says that the university president and not the Board of Trustees is ratifying our contract. We're reinserting the old "University of Oregon Board of Trustees" language.
4:55 p.m.: We're rejecting the proposal to allow the university to stop providing printed copies of the CBA. We're proposing the university print 75 copies, and provide additional copies upon request by individual GTFs.
5:00 p.m.: Some clarifying language to reflect the changes in the governance of the university.
On to No Strikes or Walkouts. We're flatly rejecting the ridiculous suggestion that GTFs could be "requested" to perform the work of a striking work. If a GTF opts to do that work, they cannot go above a .49 FTE workload.
We're done with our presentation. Caucusing now.
Friday, January 24, 2014
On the Concept of Irony
So today we will focus on economic proposals, including our apparently "ridiculous" demand to be paid a living wage, as well as what we here at HG&HH are hearing are some flatly immoral proposals from the university regarding our healthcare package.
Keep in mind that because our stipends are so laughably shoddy (more than 50% behind competitor universities in the case of most GTFs outside the hard sciences), that the university uses the collectively bargained and member-run health care trust as a recruitment tool. Apparently they've decided that the best way to lure the best and brightest grads to the the university is to neither pay them a living wage nor compensate for this lack of fair and adequate compensation with a decent health care plan.
So now we wait to be told how we don't deserve to be paid a fair wage, as well as how taking the running of our health care plan out of our hands and placing it in the university's hands.
In reality, this is a direct, duplicitous and craven attack on our ability to organize and recruit, as the university is well aware that we use the health care as a recruitment tool of our own. See you when the talking starts.
Sine labore nihil.
3:23 p.m. Our bargaining team is here. 2/5 of the university team in the room.
3:30 p.m. GTFs slowly filing in, a couple of faculty union members have shown up, as well. Still waiting on one member of the university team.
3:32 p.m. Fancy Lawyer opening with economic proposals. No, wait, he wants to talk about the CBA-gutting discipline and discharge changes.
More vague language "certain serious types of offenses." At the university's discretion to create a taxonomy of offense, of course.
We don't understand how the current provisos don't already allow UO the leeway they seem to want. Fancy Lawyer claims they are "clarificatory"changes. Now he admits it is indeed implicit in the article as currently written.
3:35 p.m. Article 18, governing summer term, mostly clarifying language. They want summer session tuition waivers limited to courses "in furtherance of the degree." Once again, it's unclear who gets to judge which courses count. They want to "tighten the requirements" to get a summer tuition waiver, to no longer include GTFs who have not worked less than two quarters in the previous year and at least one in the following fall. We don't understand why this requirement needs to be tightened. They "aren't aware that there have been abuses, but there is the potential for abuses."
This "won't have much impact." Clearly a lawyer who makes his money busting unions and defending tobacco companies is in a position to make such a claim.
There it is: they want to be able to "collect" summer tuition from GTFs who do not/cannot enroll the following fall term. So, say you have a accident or get pregnant or have a family emergency and have to take leave, the university says:
We've asked for no fees, the university responds by proposing to raise our fees. We want more dollars than they have to spend on us, says Fancy Lawyer. Maybe he could give us some of his 500,000 dollars.
We have packed this room with grad unionists. A few faculty unionists among us.
The university wants clear contractual language that prevents supervisors from advising students not to enroll in summer courses. Ah, but supervisors can "inform" GTF that their funding will be negatively affected by their enrolling in summer courses. Fancy Lawyer says this isn't coercion, it's "providing them with accurate financial information." Someone needs to inform him of the distinction between occurrent and dispositional coercion. "Awful nice grant you've got there, GTF. Be a damn shame if something happened to it..."
3:49 p.m. Clarifying changes to Forced Reduction. Fancy Lawyer can't distinguish between a fee waiver--which he just refused to grant--and a tuition waiver. A person who actually works at the university fixes it for him. Basically, the university is reducing the number of terms waived. Under the current CBA, if a course is canceled, the GTF gets the tuition waiver for the term in which the course was canceled, as well as for the following term, regardless whether the course is canceled. The university does not want to guarantee the waiver that following term, unless the GTF is teaching. So we proposed, and the university moves backward. Fancy Lawyer just can't understand why the university should bear more responsibility for fluctuating enrollment than the GTF. Because we clearly tell people not to enroll in our classes and wish for them to be canceled so we can go frolic in the gumdrop forest with the bubblegum faeries.
3:58 p.m. They want to make fees a percentage of our compensation package (which they still claim, risibly, to include their ever-skyrocketing tuition). So members making more money, pay more fees. This university loves nothing more than to rely on fees to support their tottering financial structure.
4:00 p.m. They don't want to pay our premiums at the current rate (95%) if premiums are raised more than 10%. The university claims they were raised 22% last year. It's a "very costly" benefit, says Fancy Lawyer.
"Costly:" Kind of like paying a lawyer that doesn't know we're an AFT local half a million dollars to embarrass himself.
Our organizer asks where their figures came from. Fancy Lawyer does not know. Apparently the university did not properly plan and had to dip into the $51M surplus. No, on second thought, they admit that they did not have to do so.
4:03 p.m. Here comes the health care proposal...Fancy Lawyer: "If the university can find the same health care at a lower cost, we get to switch." They are "exploring a self-payment plan." But this is all just subterfuge. The university already has this ability. They just have to run it through the Trust and collectively bargain the new plan. So they're not asking for anything they don't have; they're going after the GTFF Health and Welfare Trust. They say it's only potentially in their plans. But I think we can all see through the bullsh*t here: they want us to agree to language that would allow them to undemocratically eliminate the Trust. If there is one thing that will get every GTF on this campus to walk right out into the street, it is this issue. They don't understand why if they can give us the same benefits through different means, why we care about the means.
Right now, we run our health care. They want to run it. Basically, they want us to hand control of our health care to a group of people who I wouldn't put in charge of building a birdhouse. With pre-cut pieces. And glue.
They don't know if it would be a HMO or a PPO. They don't want to geographically restrict our coverage. Our organizer astutely points out that they are trying to circumvent both the Trust and the collective bargaining process by inserting language that would allow the university the change our coverage, at will, without consulting either with the Trust and/or without bargaining that change in plan.
Bottom line: They want to be able to eliminate the Trust and change our plan outside of the collective bargaining process, and Fancy Lawyer man does not deny this when asked directly if such was the case.
4:15 p.m. If a GTF has to go to through immigration procedures that last longer than a week, the university wants to reduce their FTE. The university doesn't seem to have any sort of plan for the GTF to make up that lost time, however.
4:18 p.m. They are rejecting our proposal that a GTF be paid an extra fraction to cover for a sick GTF, as well as our proposal that a GTF be paid paternity leave.
We are asking if the university understood the GTF who spoke last week, because they have no response to our proposal beyond saying "no." Their new answer: "Finances." We ask what that means. Once again, we're asking for too many dollars. I wonder how one person asking for 500,000 dollars is not asking too much, but 1400 people, almost half of whom are paid below the poverty line, asking for 6 weeks paid leave, is asking for too much.
A photographic summation of the university's response to our economic proposals:
The university estimates the cost of paid paternal leave to be up to $250K/yr. So about half of what they're paying this lawyer to be uninformed and hamfisted. One wonders how they can afford incompetence, but can't afford to protect parents who are GTFs.
We're asking if they did demographic surveys to back up their data. They did not. So...no empirical basis for the $250K figure. This is what half a mil pays for nowadays. Hard to find good help, I guess.
4:32 p.m. Fancy Lawyer bemoaning the "precipitous" drop in state funding. Anticipated punchline: GTFs are just going to have the bear the burden of this. Fancy Lawyers are apparently recession-proofed. We ask about the endowment and the general fund. Fancy Lawyer has no answers, but he gets backed up by the Head of University Finance. Who refuses to talk about the university finances. One might wonder just what this lawyer was brought here for, such is the dearth of his knowledge.
Fancy Lawyer continues intoning about how the university governance is changing, and says they expect tuition to continue to rise 5%/yr. They feel like like they are capped on out of state tuition, and that if they increase it further, out of state enrollment will drop.
Heaven forfend.
Now they're blaming the faculty union and the classified staff collectively-bargained raises for not being able to give us raises. Our organizer asks for the percentages. Fancy Lawyer does not have the numbers. Our organizer kindly provides him with these numbers, which she has directly in front of her. The Head of University Finance can't decide if "at least" means a cap or a floor. Smashing stuff, this.
I think the administration needs a math GTF on call.
They now admit they gave across-the-board raises to the faculty and classified staff unions, and somehow they believe this has no bearing on whether they should give us a raise.
4:48 p.m. Apparently, we have the ability to control the raises to our premiums. This is news to us. They are now summarily rejecting our proposals on raises to dental and vision coverage, again they say we're asking for too many dollars, but they admit they have no estimated figures of the cost of the changes. So they don't know how much it costs, they just know it costs too much.
They have literally done no homework since our last session. They have no estimated costs for anything but paternal leave, but they have nevertheless rejected each of our economic proposals as too costly.
Now we're being fed this f**king sophistry about how the tuition waiver is part of our pay, so raises in tuition are de facto raises to us. Remind me never to hire this guy to to be my lawyer.
Our organizer points out that we generate revenue in the form of bringing in students via the classes we teach. We ask for the tuition brought in by classes taught by GTFs. Fancy Lawyer doesn't know. We tell him it's roughly 1/3 of total tuition revenue
THEY ARE NOW CLAIMING NOT TO BE AWARE OF THEIR TOTAL TUITION REVENUE. "THEY" ARE THE HEAVILY COMPENSATED LAWYER AND THE HEAD OF UNIVERSITY FINANCE.
This is tantamount to my students showing up to my class and me informing them that I have no idea about what they want me to teach. I'd be fired for that. Summarily, if Fancy Lawyer had his way.
5:00 p.m. We're caucusing. There are some pissed off GTFs in this room. They have poked a hornets nest.
5:30 p.m. Done caucusing, calling the university back in. Aaaaaaaand we're back.
We're providing them with the numbers we asked them for re: dental and vision plan increases. We're also objecting to the notion that there's only a static amount of money for us, even as the university sees increases in revenue every year.
Now we're supplying them with the tuition numbers they claimed not to have. FY2012 was over $301M dollars. Predicted $11M increase by end of FY2014. Fancy Lawyer man nonsequiturously asks if we want it all, interrupting our female organizer for the 18th time in 2 hours. She continues presenting. We believe the university's response to our proposals do not fit the goals in their own benchmarking report. We also want to know why the university cannot provide us with concrete numbers, especially where we find them easy to obtain.
We're moving to the vision plan. A GTF will testify to the myriad problems with our vision benefit not meeting their needs. FYI, we get $200/yr for vision. This number was set a decade ago. Nowadays it barely covers the exam, let alone frames and lenses.
"Budgets are also moral documents. They are made by people who have choices." #GunsBlazing
This GTF pays $600/box for contacts, $114 dollars for lenses, $80-100 for frames. She has resorted to wearing the contacts for twice the recommended length of time. This has resulted in scratches to her eyes, and lenses falling out while she is driving. We offer the university the opportunity to question here. The university's questions revolve around how long she has been a GTF.
We're returning to our wage proposal. Another GTF will testify to the difficulties confronted by the 70% of our members who are between $400-$600 dollars short of the university's own cost of living estimate.
The GTF is a single parent, and is paying 1/3 of her salary every month for child care. On top this, she must eat, feed her child, clothe a growing child, pay for internet, rent, car costs, etc. Sadly, she is not a single case, or even an aberration.
"Even if I did not have a child, the cost of living would far exceed my salary."
She's taken out loans. The university is a loan mill nowadays, so they remain nonplussed.
5:48 p.m. Our organizer points out that the paltry stipends, and open animosity towards grads asking for a living wage, is antithetical to the university's mission to attract the best and brightest to come and work here, most especially the callousness the university displays towards grads who are parents.
5:50 p.m. We're emphasizing that the Trust means something to us. Its existence has value to us. We're talking about how the health care plan draws in prospective students. Last year, we had to make a decision due to GTFs with terminal illnesses spending their entire stipend on prescription drugs to treat their conditions. GTFs made the decision that we would cut alternative care visits in half to meet the needs of other members who were having a much harder time that the rest of us. The Trust matters because it gives us that power. It gives us autonomy. And we won't give that up. Period.
Now we're pointing out that the university doesn't even have anyone dedicated to administering health care. Because we have someone competent and experienced, we relieve the burden from the university. Additionally, the GTFs on the plan, who currently control how our plan is administered, have a different set of interests in their health care plan than the university has. We're able to take care of problems quickly, and at the lowest level. Putting this in the hands of the university unnecessarily involves a lot of bureaucracy.
Our organizer points out that if we were to agree to the proposed language, GTFs who require long-term care could have that coverage interrupted if/when the university switched our plan, and could even be forced to switch from seeing specialists they have been seeing for some time.
We're emphasizing that the university's proposal amounts to little more than an attempt to eliminate the Trust and circumvent the collective bargaining process. The university has always had the right to shop for alternate plans. They just have to do it through established channels. Which is exactly what this union-busting lawyer doesn't want to do.
They're now asking us for numbers we asked them for. Of course we once again provide them with their own data.
We're pointing out how, via our administration of the Trust, we've actually driven down health care costs. We're using actual numbers and data. Fancy Lawyer has the same look in his eye your cat does when it realizes there's nothing under it's paw when it catches the laser pointer light.
6:16 p.m. The Head of University Finance wants to know what transaction fees we pay for credit card transactions. Value added. #SaidNoOneEver Now he says he doesn't want the numbers. Our organizer points out, we'll bring whatever data they want to the table, and that we hope they reciprocate. We won't be holding our breath. Now he wants us to "look into" auto-enrollment. A convenient way to remove the need for union members to visit the union office...
6:20 p.m. Fancy Lawyer blames his unpreparedness on us. "We're the front of a very large body, as are you, the difference is, our aren't behind us." That should tell him something. His smugness is nauseating.
Sorting out rooms for the remaining sessions now. We're done here. Thanks for following along!
Keep in mind that because our stipends are so laughably shoddy (more than 50% behind competitor universities in the case of most GTFs outside the hard sciences), that the university uses the collectively bargained and member-run health care trust as a recruitment tool. Apparently they've decided that the best way to lure the best and brightest grads to the the university is to neither pay them a living wage nor compensate for this lack of fair and adequate compensation with a decent health care plan.
So now we wait to be told how we don't deserve to be paid a fair wage, as well as how taking the running of our health care plan out of our hands and placing it in the university's hands.
In reality, this is a direct, duplicitous and craven attack on our ability to organize and recruit, as the university is well aware that we use the health care as a recruitment tool of our own. See you when the talking starts.
Sine labore nihil.
3:23 p.m. Our bargaining team is here. 2/5 of the university team in the room.
3:30 p.m. GTFs slowly filing in, a couple of faculty union members have shown up, as well. Still waiting on one member of the university team.
3:32 p.m. Fancy Lawyer opening with economic proposals. No, wait, he wants to talk about the CBA-gutting discipline and discharge changes.
More vague language "certain serious types of offenses." At the university's discretion to create a taxonomy of offense, of course.
We don't understand how the current provisos don't already allow UO the leeway they seem to want. Fancy Lawyer claims they are "clarificatory"changes. Now he admits it is indeed implicit in the article as currently written.
3:35 p.m. Article 18, governing summer term, mostly clarifying language. They want summer session tuition waivers limited to courses "in furtherance of the degree." Once again, it's unclear who gets to judge which courses count. They want to "tighten the requirements" to get a summer tuition waiver, to no longer include GTFs who have not worked less than two quarters in the previous year and at least one in the following fall. We don't understand why this requirement needs to be tightened. They "aren't aware that there have been abuses, but there is the potential for abuses."
This "won't have much impact." Clearly a lawyer who makes his money busting unions and defending tobacco companies is in a position to make such a claim.
There it is: they want to be able to "collect" summer tuition from GTFs who do not/cannot enroll the following fall term. So, say you have a accident or get pregnant or have a family emergency and have to take leave, the university says:
We've asked for no fees, the university responds by proposing to raise our fees. We want more dollars than they have to spend on us, says Fancy Lawyer. Maybe he could give us some of his 500,000 dollars.
We have packed this room with grad unionists. A few faculty unionists among us.
The university wants clear contractual language that prevents supervisors from advising students not to enroll in summer courses. Ah, but supervisors can "inform" GTF that their funding will be negatively affected by their enrolling in summer courses. Fancy Lawyer says this isn't coercion, it's "providing them with accurate financial information." Someone needs to inform him of the distinction between occurrent and dispositional coercion. "Awful nice grant you've got there, GTF. Be a damn shame if something happened to it..."
3:49 p.m. Clarifying changes to Forced Reduction. Fancy Lawyer can't distinguish between a fee waiver--which he just refused to grant--and a tuition waiver. A person who actually works at the university fixes it for him. Basically, the university is reducing the number of terms waived. Under the current CBA, if a course is canceled, the GTF gets the tuition waiver for the term in which the course was canceled, as well as for the following term, regardless whether the course is canceled. The university does not want to guarantee the waiver that following term, unless the GTF is teaching. So we proposed, and the university moves backward. Fancy Lawyer just can't understand why the university should bear more responsibility for fluctuating enrollment than the GTF. Because we clearly tell people not to enroll in our classes and wish for them to be canceled so we can go frolic in the gumdrop forest with the bubblegum faeries.
3:58 p.m. They want to make fees a percentage of our compensation package (which they still claim, risibly, to include their ever-skyrocketing tuition). So members making more money, pay more fees. This university loves nothing more than to rely on fees to support their tottering financial structure.
4:00 p.m. They don't want to pay our premiums at the current rate (95%) if premiums are raised more than 10%. The university claims they were raised 22% last year. It's a "very costly" benefit, says Fancy Lawyer.
"Costly:" Kind of like paying a lawyer that doesn't know we're an AFT local half a million dollars to embarrass himself.
Our organizer asks where their figures came from. Fancy Lawyer does not know. Apparently the university did not properly plan and had to dip into the $51M surplus. No, on second thought, they admit that they did not have to do so.
4:03 p.m. Here comes the health care proposal...Fancy Lawyer: "If the university can find the same health care at a lower cost, we get to switch." They are "exploring a self-payment plan." But this is all just subterfuge. The university already has this ability. They just have to run it through the Trust and collectively bargain the new plan. So they're not asking for anything they don't have; they're going after the GTFF Health and Welfare Trust. They say it's only potentially in their plans. But I think we can all see through the bullsh*t here: they want us to agree to language that would allow them to undemocratically eliminate the Trust. If there is one thing that will get every GTF on this campus to walk right out into the street, it is this issue. They don't understand why if they can give us the same benefits through different means, why we care about the means.
Right now, we run our health care. They want to run it. Basically, they want us to hand control of our health care to a group of people who I wouldn't put in charge of building a birdhouse. With pre-cut pieces. And glue.
They don't know if it would be a HMO or a PPO. They don't want to geographically restrict our coverage. Our organizer astutely points out that they are trying to circumvent both the Trust and the collective bargaining process by inserting language that would allow the university the change our coverage, at will, without consulting either with the Trust and/or without bargaining that change in plan.
Bottom line: They want to be able to eliminate the Trust and change our plan outside of the collective bargaining process, and Fancy Lawyer man does not deny this when asked directly if such was the case.
4:15 p.m. If a GTF has to go to through immigration procedures that last longer than a week, the university wants to reduce their FTE. The university doesn't seem to have any sort of plan for the GTF to make up that lost time, however.
4:18 p.m. They are rejecting our proposal that a GTF be paid an extra fraction to cover for a sick GTF, as well as our proposal that a GTF be paid paternity leave.
We are asking if the university understood the GTF who spoke last week, because they have no response to our proposal beyond saying "no." Their new answer: "Finances." We ask what that means. Once again, we're asking for too many dollars. I wonder how one person asking for 500,000 dollars is not asking too much, but 1400 people, almost half of whom are paid below the poverty line, asking for 6 weeks paid leave, is asking for too much.
A photographic summation of the university's response to our economic proposals:
We're asking if they did demographic surveys to back up their data. They did not. So...no empirical basis for the $250K figure. This is what half a mil pays for nowadays. Hard to find good help, I guess.
4:32 p.m. Fancy Lawyer bemoaning the "precipitous" drop in state funding. Anticipated punchline: GTFs are just going to have the bear the burden of this. Fancy Lawyers are apparently recession-proofed. We ask about the endowment and the general fund. Fancy Lawyer has no answers, but he gets backed up by the Head of University Finance. Who refuses to talk about the university finances. One might wonder just what this lawyer was brought here for, such is the dearth of his knowledge.
Fancy Lawyer continues intoning about how the university governance is changing, and says they expect tuition to continue to rise 5%/yr. They feel like like they are capped on out of state tuition, and that if they increase it further, out of state enrollment will drop.
Heaven forfend.
Now they're blaming the faculty union and the classified staff collectively-bargained raises for not being able to give us raises. Our organizer asks for the percentages. Fancy Lawyer does not have the numbers. Our organizer kindly provides him with these numbers, which she has directly in front of her. The Head of University Finance can't decide if "at least" means a cap or a floor. Smashing stuff, this.
I think the administration needs a math GTF on call.
They now admit they gave across-the-board raises to the faculty and classified staff unions, and somehow they believe this has no bearing on whether they should give us a raise.
4:48 p.m. Apparently, we have the ability to control the raises to our premiums. This is news to us. They are now summarily rejecting our proposals on raises to dental and vision coverage, again they say we're asking for too many dollars, but they admit they have no estimated figures of the cost of the changes. So they don't know how much it costs, they just know it costs too much.
They have literally done no homework since our last session. They have no estimated costs for anything but paternal leave, but they have nevertheless rejected each of our economic proposals as too costly.
Now we're being fed this f**king sophistry about how the tuition waiver is part of our pay, so raises in tuition are de facto raises to us. Remind me never to hire this guy to to be my lawyer.
Our organizer points out that we generate revenue in the form of bringing in students via the classes we teach. We ask for the tuition brought in by classes taught by GTFs. Fancy Lawyer doesn't know. We tell him it's roughly 1/3 of total tuition revenue
THEY ARE NOW CLAIMING NOT TO BE AWARE OF THEIR TOTAL TUITION REVENUE. "THEY" ARE THE HEAVILY COMPENSATED LAWYER AND THE HEAD OF UNIVERSITY FINANCE.
This is tantamount to my students showing up to my class and me informing them that I have no idea about what they want me to teach. I'd be fired for that. Summarily, if Fancy Lawyer had his way.
5:00 p.m. We're caucusing. There are some pissed off GTFs in this room. They have poked a hornets nest.
5:30 p.m. Done caucusing, calling the university back in. Aaaaaaaand we're back.
We're providing them with the numbers we asked them for re: dental and vision plan increases. We're also objecting to the notion that there's only a static amount of money for us, even as the university sees increases in revenue every year.
Now we're supplying them with the tuition numbers they claimed not to have. FY2012 was over $301M dollars. Predicted $11M increase by end of FY2014. Fancy Lawyer man nonsequiturously asks if we want it all, interrupting our female organizer for the 18th time in 2 hours. She continues presenting. We believe the university's response to our proposals do not fit the goals in their own benchmarking report. We also want to know why the university cannot provide us with concrete numbers, especially where we find them easy to obtain.
We're moving to the vision plan. A GTF will testify to the myriad problems with our vision benefit not meeting their needs. FYI, we get $200/yr for vision. This number was set a decade ago. Nowadays it barely covers the exam, let alone frames and lenses.
"Budgets are also moral documents. They are made by people who have choices." #GunsBlazing
This GTF pays $600/box for contacts, $114 dollars for lenses, $80-100 for frames. She has resorted to wearing the contacts for twice the recommended length of time. This has resulted in scratches to her eyes, and lenses falling out while she is driving. We offer the university the opportunity to question here. The university's questions revolve around how long she has been a GTF.
We're returning to our wage proposal. Another GTF will testify to the difficulties confronted by the 70% of our members who are between $400-$600 dollars short of the university's own cost of living estimate.
The GTF is a single parent, and is paying 1/3 of her salary every month for child care. On top this, she must eat, feed her child, clothe a growing child, pay for internet, rent, car costs, etc. Sadly, she is not a single case, or even an aberration.
"Even if I did not have a child, the cost of living would far exceed my salary."
She's taken out loans. The university is a loan mill nowadays, so they remain nonplussed.
5:48 p.m. Our organizer points out that the paltry stipends, and open animosity towards grads asking for a living wage, is antithetical to the university's mission to attract the best and brightest to come and work here, most especially the callousness the university displays towards grads who are parents.
5:50 p.m. We're emphasizing that the Trust means something to us. Its existence has value to us. We're talking about how the health care plan draws in prospective students. Last year, we had to make a decision due to GTFs with terminal illnesses spending their entire stipend on prescription drugs to treat their conditions. GTFs made the decision that we would cut alternative care visits in half to meet the needs of other members who were having a much harder time that the rest of us. The Trust matters because it gives us that power. It gives us autonomy. And we won't give that up. Period.
Now we're pointing out that the university doesn't even have anyone dedicated to administering health care. Because we have someone competent and experienced, we relieve the burden from the university. Additionally, the GTFs on the plan, who currently control how our plan is administered, have a different set of interests in their health care plan than the university has. We're able to take care of problems quickly, and at the lowest level. Putting this in the hands of the university unnecessarily involves a lot of bureaucracy.
Our organizer points out that if we were to agree to the proposed language, GTFs who require long-term care could have that coverage interrupted if/when the university switched our plan, and could even be forced to switch from seeing specialists they have been seeing for some time.
We're emphasizing that the university's proposal amounts to little more than an attempt to eliminate the Trust and circumvent the collective bargaining process. The university has always had the right to shop for alternate plans. They just have to do it through established channels. Which is exactly what this union-busting lawyer doesn't want to do.
They're now asking us for numbers we asked them for. Of course we once again provide them with their own data.
We're pointing out how, via our administration of the Trust, we've actually driven down health care costs. We're using actual numbers and data. Fancy Lawyer has the same look in his eye your cat does when it realizes there's nothing under it's paw when it catches the laser pointer light.
6:16 p.m. The Head of University Finance wants to know what transaction fees we pay for credit card transactions. Value added. #SaidNoOneEver Now he says he doesn't want the numbers. Our organizer points out, we'll bring whatever data they want to the table, and that we hope they reciprocate. We won't be holding our breath. Now he wants us to "look into" auto-enrollment. A convenient way to remove the need for union members to visit the union office...
6:20 p.m. Fancy Lawyer blames his unpreparedness on us. "We're the front of a very large body, as are you, the difference is, our aren't behind us." That should tell him something. His smugness is nauseating.
Sorting out rooms for the remaining sessions now. We're done here. Thanks for following along!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)