Progress?

It has been a crazy few weeks for the bargaining team. Please forgive the lateness of this update.

First, we'd like to thank all the GTFs who filled the bargaining rooms the last two sessions. I have no doubt that the University got the message that GTFs are not giving up on bargaining just because the term is ending.

Second, the team has decided to have one last-ditch session with the University to see if we cannot wrap up bargaining before we are forced to call for a state mediator to help us resolve our disputes.

As for the last couple of sessions...the UO did make some movement on some of the issues that still divide the two sides, but they also re-emphasized that they believe that with the tight UO budget, their offers have been generous. Unfortunately, we do not share their view on this.

They are offering a 1% raise next year and no reduction of incidental fees. They are willing to cover 90% of the first 10% increase in the cost of health insurance and 100% of any increase over that. This would mean that costs for dependents and summer coverage would go up next year. (Exactly how much they would go up is up to the Health Care Trust). The real hurdle we face is that they want to offer us the same deal for next year, but have the two parties come back to the table and bargaining over how much we share of the cost of increases incurred by change to the plan forced by Health Care Reform.

Accepting these proposals almost certainly means that some GTFs will see an overall reduction in their take-home pay over the next two years. We think this is unacceptable and counter to one of the only things the two teams have been able to agree on -- that money in the pockets of GTFs is a good thing.

Additionally, the UO still insists that GTFs who graduate should not have access to subsidized insurance in the summer following their graduation. We continue to resist their attempts to eliminate this benefit. The elimination of this benefit would create huge paperwork problems for Lisa. Additionally, we feel that after years of service to the UO at poverty wages, one "extra" term of insurance subsidy is not too much to ask, especially given that the profession the UO trained you to go into has a built-in lag time between graduation and employment.

On the non-economic front, the UO offered some minor changes to their proposals, but remain firm on the proposition that departments should be allowed to fire or refuse to consider the applications of GTFs that they deem to be not making sufficient academic progress based on subjective judgments of individual faculty. In other words, they reject our proposition that departments must use objective measures when saying that GTFs are not making sufficient academic progress and taking away their jobs. The University still has not offered a credible reason why subjective, instead of objective, criteria is just, fair, or sensible, but they have made it clear this is something they are not going to bend on willingly.

They are also still resisting our proposal that departments have policies regarding the maximum number of students assigned to a teaching GTF. Unfortunately, the UO's argument against this proposal basically boils down to "it would be a pain in the ass for departments." This is an argument that we are reluctant to accept.

Lastly, the UO seems to be in complete agreement with us that departments have to follow the Collective Bargaining Agreement and rank all applicants based on the written criteria published in the departmental GDRSes. They seem to agree that these rankings lists should exist and be kept on file. They do not agree, however, that these ranking lists should be available to the GTFF should we feel that we need to file a grievance over the hiring practices of a department. They claim that an individual applicant's ranking in the hiring pool is part of their student record and unavailable to a third party such as a union. When we point out that this means we have no mechanism for enforcing the contract we all agree is right and good, they sort of shrug their shoulders and give us the ol' "whatareyougonnado?"

So what we have in the end is two sides that seem to have issues on which they are going to be extremely reluctant to bend. What this means for how this entire session gets wrapped up I do not yet know, but it should be interesting to say the least.