Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Do you feel safe?
It's funny how the University can somehow find ways to look so foolish at the table. For example, they can argue that it isn't perfectly reasonable to expect that we work in a safe and healthy place, and that we have the tools and supplies needed to do the job THEY hired us to do. It's not that they don't think that these things are important in the abstract (well maybe they do and maybe they don't), but somehow they can find a way to simultaneously call us the "best and the brightest" and at the same time imply that we can't be trusted to be 'reasonable' in defining what is a safe and healthy space. "Surely" they argue "shouldn't their be some sort of objective standard by which we can say this person has made a reasonable determination that they feel unsafe." Huh, 'I feel unsafe,' now please tell me if my feelings are valid and have met the University-determined threshold so I can know if I am being 'reasonable' or not. Sounds perfectly logical to me.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
As a bargaining team member who has never done this before, I have to say last session was the most interesting one yet. I thought our economic proposals might have generated a stir from the University's side, but somehow our non-economic proposals caused more of a commotion. Dave has done a nice job describing it in vague terms. Needless to say I look forward to the session(s) where some of these topic will come up again. I would also like to mention how nice it is to have supporters come, especially when the University tries to say something outrageous.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Best and the Brightest
One of the advantages of not being over-the-top with our rhetoric or demands is that when the university goes over-the-top with their rhetoric, they look like asses. Oh, I am sure that we cross the line sometimes and I am sure that University administrators are so far removed that they honestly think that $8000 a year sounds like a perfectly reasonable wage. Our members, however, take a very different view don't believe that asking for, say fee relief, is over-the-top. But when University administrators start condescending, our members go nuts.
I think a key here is that many grad unionist are very new to the union (because of the constant turnover) and even newer to bargaining. Usually grad unionists are only familiar with unions from what they know in the popular culture and the popular culture has not been good for unions as of late, so they kind of expect the union to be all high demands, fiery rhetoric and strike talk from day one. In other words, they expect their union to be unreasonable. We very deliberately do not live up to these expectations. One of the ways we do this, of course, is by surveying our members to find out what they want from bargaining and what they think is reasonable, then not setting our opening bargaining proposals much above that. We also do a thorough job of presenting the rationale behind our proposals to our members. We say, yeah, a 10% raise sounds like a lot, but your comparators earn more, the average wage is below the poverty line, you qualify for food stamps, the UO financial aid office says it costs more than you earn to attend the university, and you do 30% of the instructional work on campus, but get only 15% of the instructional pay. We do the same for all of our proposals. We sum it up in the mantra, "Never put anything on the table you don't believe in."
So, while our proposals may ask for a lot and we may know they UO can't afford everything we ask for, the proposals make sense and they have a solid basis. The same with our rhetoric. We show that GTFs, on average, earn below the poverty line. We say that it is shameful that the UO cannot make sure that all of its employees are not living in poverty. We don't dwell on it and we don't accuse the actual people across from us as being at fault or not caring about this. Hell, I want them to agree with me that it is bad and help us fix it. What the GTFF does not do is make it out like GTFs are starving to death. GTFs are poor--yes. GTFs struggle financially--yes. GTFs make difficult financial choices--yes. GTFs are living in cardboard boxes under overpasses--no. We don't compare ourselves to sweatshop labor. We religiously avoid references to slavery. We keep third-world workers out of our bargaining table presentations.
We do all of these things so that when the University decides to unleash a little sarcasm, blithely dismiss our proposals, condescend to the point of mockery, then they, as I said before, tend to look like asses. And, as much fun as that can be, the important thing is that it gets the membership on our side and fired up. It literally can convert a union skeptic into a leader in one afternoon. And all those people go out and tell their friends and the next thing you know your union is organizing. We've all heard that the bosses are the best organizers. Definitely true, and that's why we love having members come to bargaining, because you never know when the other side is going to go ahead and do all your organizing work for you.
I think a key here is that many grad unionist are very new to the union (because of the constant turnover) and even newer to bargaining. Usually grad unionists are only familiar with unions from what they know in the popular culture and the popular culture has not been good for unions as of late, so they kind of expect the union to be all high demands, fiery rhetoric and strike talk from day one. In other words, they expect their union to be unreasonable. We very deliberately do not live up to these expectations. One of the ways we do this, of course, is by surveying our members to find out what they want from bargaining and what they think is reasonable, then not setting our opening bargaining proposals much above that. We also do a thorough job of presenting the rationale behind our proposals to our members. We say, yeah, a 10% raise sounds like a lot, but your comparators earn more, the average wage is below the poverty line, you qualify for food stamps, the UO financial aid office says it costs more than you earn to attend the university, and you do 30% of the instructional work on campus, but get only 15% of the instructional pay. We do the same for all of our proposals. We sum it up in the mantra, "Never put anything on the table you don't believe in."
So, while our proposals may ask for a lot and we may know they UO can't afford everything we ask for, the proposals make sense and they have a solid basis. The same with our rhetoric. We show that GTFs, on average, earn below the poverty line. We say that it is shameful that the UO cannot make sure that all of its employees are not living in poverty. We don't dwell on it and we don't accuse the actual people across from us as being at fault or not caring about this. Hell, I want them to agree with me that it is bad and help us fix it. What the GTFF does not do is make it out like GTFs are starving to death. GTFs are poor--yes. GTFs struggle financially--yes. GTFs make difficult financial choices--yes. GTFs are living in cardboard boxes under overpasses--no. We don't compare ourselves to sweatshop labor. We religiously avoid references to slavery. We keep third-world workers out of our bargaining table presentations.
We do all of these things so that when the University decides to unleash a little sarcasm, blithely dismiss our proposals, condescend to the point of mockery, then they, as I said before, tend to look like asses. And, as much fun as that can be, the important thing is that it gets the membership on our side and fired up. It literally can convert a union skeptic into a leader in one afternoon. And all those people go out and tell their friends and the next thing you know your union is organizing. We've all heard that the bosses are the best organizers. Definitely true, and that's why we love having members come to bargaining, because you never know when the other side is going to go ahead and do all your organizing work for you.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Long time, no post
It has been a long time, but bargaining really only got cooking last Friday.
The GTFF presented our economic proposals to the UO. It went about as can be expected. We gave them a little presentation, they asked questions, we gave them our proposals. It's possible that some of you think that perhaps bargaining is a no stop give-and-take of conversation studded with proposal, counter-proposal, and further counter-proposals until the two sides come to some agreement. It may work that way somewhere, but it does not work that way here at the UO. Here we propose, they caucus to ponder, they return to tell us that they need more pondering time, then next time we see them they inform us that our proposals were unacceptable. Well, sometimes they counter propose, but it is not really a two way engagement of ideas/rhetoric. We do the same to them though. It can be really frustrating to throw out four or five really good reasons why your proposal makes good sense, only to never have any of those ideas engaged with. But like I say, we do it to them as well, so I can't complain.
Our economic proposals were quite hefty. We asked for a lot. (but then GTFs deserve a lot, natch.)
For wages, we asked for 10% raises over two years. This is what GTFs got in the last contract and the contract in 2002 (I think it was 2002, prove me wrong). So, for us, a 10% raise request is not a huge deal. It may be to the UO, but not for us.
On fees, we went for it all. Complete fee relief. All fees for GTFs, gone. I must say the UO's reaction to this proposal was muted at best. I had hinted earlier in the session that it was coming, but I expected more out of them than the placidity than I got. Maybe that means they are already on board.
We also asked for a child care benefit. I gave some impassioned words about how we have had language in the contract for the last seven-and-a-half years where the University and the Union have totally agreed that child care is totally important and something must be done, but nothing has gotten done. I vowed that this would end this year and something would get done.
All-in-all, we asked for something more than a million and something less than 2 million dollars in new/expanded benefits. The UO currently spends roughly $14 million a year on GTFs, so a 10% or so increase. Not over the top.
We also proposed a neat little solution to the problem of GTFs getting paid late. We proposed that if a GTF signs his or her contract 10 working days before the start of the term and that GTF does not receive their check on time, then the GTF gets an automatic $100 credit in their student account and another $100 every 5 days the check is not available.
This Friday, we offer the rest of our proposals, then on February 1st the UO responds with their economic proposals. Keep an eye on the GTFF webpage for room and time.
Here's a copy of our presentation to the UO. This information helped inform our proposals.
The GTFF presented our economic proposals to the UO. It went about as can be expected. We gave them a little presentation, they asked questions, we gave them our proposals. It's possible that some of you think that perhaps bargaining is a no stop give-and-take of conversation studded with proposal, counter-proposal, and further counter-proposals until the two sides come to some agreement. It may work that way somewhere, but it does not work that way here at the UO. Here we propose, they caucus to ponder, they return to tell us that they need more pondering time, then next time we see them they inform us that our proposals were unacceptable. Well, sometimes they counter propose, but it is not really a two way engagement of ideas/rhetoric. We do the same to them though. It can be really frustrating to throw out four or five really good reasons why your proposal makes good sense, only to never have any of those ideas engaged with. But like I say, we do it to them as well, so I can't complain.
Our economic proposals were quite hefty. We asked for a lot. (but then GTFs deserve a lot, natch.)
For wages, we asked for 10% raises over two years. This is what GTFs got in the last contract and the contract in 2002 (I think it was 2002, prove me wrong). So, for us, a 10% raise request is not a huge deal. It may be to the UO, but not for us.
On fees, we went for it all. Complete fee relief. All fees for GTFs, gone. I must say the UO's reaction to this proposal was muted at best. I had hinted earlier in the session that it was coming, but I expected more out of them than the placidity than I got. Maybe that means they are already on board.
We also asked for a child care benefit. I gave some impassioned words about how we have had language in the contract for the last seven-and-a-half years where the University and the Union have totally agreed that child care is totally important and something must be done, but nothing has gotten done. I vowed that this would end this year and something would get done.
All-in-all, we asked for something more than a million and something less than 2 million dollars in new/expanded benefits. The UO currently spends roughly $14 million a year on GTFs, so a 10% or so increase. Not over the top.
We also proposed a neat little solution to the problem of GTFs getting paid late. We proposed that if a GTF signs his or her contract 10 working days before the start of the term and that GTF does not receive their check on time, then the GTF gets an automatic $100 credit in their student account and another $100 every 5 days the check is not available.
This Friday, we offer the rest of our proposals, then on February 1st the UO responds with their economic proposals. Keep an eye on the GTFF webpage for room and time.
Here's a copy of our presentation to the UO. This information helped inform our proposals.
Article 21 [Salary]
Almost there ~ Stay on target
Background facts:
Based on D-list given to the GTFF on
| | Month | Term | Academic Yr |
| Average GTF Minimum Wage | $923.65 | $2,770.95 | $8,312.85 |
| Average Wage | $1,142.69 | $3,428.07 | $10,284.21 |
| Average Minimum FTE | | .3673 | |
| Average FTE | | .4029 | |
| | | | |
| GTFs earning minimum | 558 | | |
| GTFs earning above minimum | 529 | | |
1. Comparator Data
GTF wages are roughly 9.5% behind those of our official comparators.
2. Poverty
The average GTF earns $10,284 or just above the poverty line. The average GTF earning the minimum wage earns $8,313 or $1897 less than the poverty line.
2007 HHS Poverty Guidelines
| Persons | 48 Contiguous | | |
| 1 | $10,210 | $12,770 | $11,750 |
| 2 | 13,690 | 17,120 | 15,750 |
| 3 | 17,170 | 21,470 | 19,750 |
| 4 | 20,650 | 25,820 | 23,750 |
SOURCE: Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 15,
3. Food stamps
According to the State of
4. UO calculations
Based on information found at http://financialaid.uoregon.edu/Cost.htm
| | Monthly | Academic Year | Full Year |
| | | | |
| Monthly: Rent, $440, Food, $293, Utilities, $139 | $872 | $7,848 | $10,464 |
| Books and Supplies | $87.50 | $1,050 | $1,050 |
| Personal Expenses | $277 | $2,496 | $3,328 |
| Minimum Fees | $69 | $618 | $618 |
| Total | $1,306 | $12,012 | $15,460 |
| UO Recommended Laptop (Law students) | | | $1,650 |
The average GTF earns $163 less per month than the UO estimated cost of attendance. The average GTF who earns the minimum earns $382 less per month than the UO’s estimated cost of attendance. The average GTF who earns the minimum earns about half of the yearly cost of living for attending the UO.
5. Ratio of labor to pay
Based on information from 2006 found at: http://rm.uoregon.edu/pi_2006_sum_report
| | 03-04 | 04-05 | 05-06 |
| GTF FTE | 389.4 | 397.1 | 394.1 |
| Total Instructional FTE | 1226.3 | 1231.2 | 1242.2 |
| | 31.75% | 32.25% | 31.73% |
| | | | |
| GTF Salary | $8,975,282 | $9,174,258 | $9,286,078 |
| Total Instructional Salaries | $59,640,816 | $60,096,489 | $63,792,741 |
| | 15.05% | 15.27% | 14.56% |
Article 22[Fees]
Onerous ~ Burdensome
1. Membership
Fee relief was voted the number #1 goal of the membership of the GTFF in every survey we did.
In the past year, many departments that did not raise their wages because they did not have to. This means that hundreds of GTFs saw no increase in benefits, despite the fact that inflation caused real wages to go down by 3% or so.
2. Give backs
| Type of Fee | Fee |
| Resource Fee | $206 |
| Matriculation Fee | $250 |
| Studio-based Art & Architecture Fee | $125 |
| Non Studio-based Art & Architecture Fee | $75 |
| Computer Science | $125 |
| LCB | $600 |
| Music | $100 |
| Education | $50 |
Source: http://www.ous.edu/dept/budget/files/AY07%20Fee%20Book_Rev_072507.pdf
Our estimation is that GTFs pay roughly $1,033,000 in fees to the UO every year. These fees represent a return to the UO of approximately 11% of the total salary earned by GTFs.
The minimum amount of fees a GTF pays is $618 per year. This represents 6% of the average GTF’s annual salary and 7.4% of the annual salary of a GTF who earns the average minimum wage.
Fall fees are particularly burdensome because the first check most GTFs collect are half-checks. A new GTF who earns the minimum average would have a fee bill of at least $456 due October 1, while collecting a $462 check.
3. Fee Reform
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)