[We wanted to get you all information as soon as possible, so this post is being put up as we write it. Forgive its partial nature and be sure to check back for updates. You can click on (most of) the links for a more in depth discussion of the issue.]
Despite bargaining being stalled, we have made some progress at the table, both in the economic realm and on non-economics.
There are still eight issues on which the UO and the GTFF do not agree. There are four things we want and four things they want.
What the GTFF wants:
Objective Criteria for Satisfactory Academic Progress: Departments would be required to use only objective criteria for firing or refusing to hire a GTF based on academic progress. The UO wants to retain their right to use subjective judgments to fire and/or refuse to hire GTFs.
Fees: A $25 reduction of the amount we pay for the incidental fee and the elimination of course fees. The UO's proposals would not change the current language on fees. No reduction of the incidental fee, no change to the policy on course fees.
Contract Enforcement: Access to departmental rankings lists for the purposes of prosecuting grievances. The UO does not accept our language.
Maximum Class Size: Departments would be required to state in the GDRSes the maximum number of students assigned to a teaching GTF. The UO rejects this proposal.
What the UO wants:
Loss of Summer Insurance: GTFs who graduate in Spring term would no long be eligible for the summer subsidy. We say no to this take-back.
Future of GTFF Health Insurance: The UO would like to form a joint committee to explore the future of GTFF health insurance behind closed doors. We have rejected this proposal as unnecessary.
Health Care Costs: The UO wants to pay only 90% of the first 10% increase in the cost of health insurance costs and 100% of all costs increases over 10%. We propose that they pay 95% of the first 10% increase in the cost of health insurance costs and 100% of all costs increases over 10%.
More Bargaining, More Costs: The UO would like the parties to meet in the summer of 2011 to bargain over splitting cost increases that result from changes to our health insurance plan mandated by Congress through health care reform. We think these changes should be considered part of the base plan and fall under our other health care agreement.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Objective Criteria for Satisfactory Academic Progress
Last year, some of our colleagues in the Art Department came to the GTFF with a complaint about how the Art Department had conducted the hiring for the 2010-11 academic year. Art had pledged to give preference to students more advanced in the program, but had not offered GTF appointments to several third-year Art students in favor of giving appointments to newer students instead.
The GTFF, on behalf of the Art students, filed a grievance that basically said "What the hey?" After weeks of back-and-forth with the University, they finally decided that they did not give appointments to three or four of our brothers and sisters because they were not making satisfactory academic progress (SAP). Most departments reserve the right to not give appointments to students who are not making satisfactory academic progress. This is all well and good. We did, however, ask that the Art Department prove that these students we're not making satisfactory academic progress. Tthe University counter-asserted that they didn't have to prove anything, as the Art GDRS stated that SAP would be based on a subjective judgment of the supervising faculty member.
In essence, the UO claimed that departments could either fire or refuse to hire GTFs based on the subjective judgment of the faculty and the GTFF had no right to ask for proof of lack of SAP. We feel that this is unacceptable. We do not believe that any worker at the UO should be fired or any student have their application refused without some sort of rational explanation.
We have remained steadfast in our proposal that departments be allowed to only use objective criteria - gpa, limits on the number of incompletes, exam completion by a certain time, etc. - when determining if a student is making satisfactory academic progress. Only by having stated measurements that all parties can know can a GTF know if their job is at risk and that they will be treated fairly.
The UO, conversely, believes that departments should have every right to make subjective judgments and reject any argument from us that implies that any department or professor might act from anything but purely academic motives. They strongly feel that our proposal would encroach on their academic prerogatives - in this case the ability to fire someone without explanation based on subjective judgment.
This is a very contentious issue, as it comes down to a fundamental conflict in labor-management relations; the University wants to reserve the right to fire or refuse to hire GTFs and use the excuse of lack of satisfactory academic progress, while the Union wants to protect the workers from the potentially random decisions of their bosses.
The GTFF, on behalf of the Art students, filed a grievance that basically said "What the hey?" After weeks of back-and-forth with the University, they finally decided that they did not give appointments to three or four of our brothers and sisters because they were not making satisfactory academic progress (SAP). Most departments reserve the right to not give appointments to students who are not making satisfactory academic progress. This is all well and good. We did, however, ask that the Art Department prove that these students we're not making satisfactory academic progress. Tthe University counter-asserted that they didn't have to prove anything, as the Art GDRS stated that SAP would be based on a subjective judgment of the supervising faculty member.
In essence, the UO claimed that departments could either fire or refuse to hire GTFs based on the subjective judgment of the faculty and the GTFF had no right to ask for proof of lack of SAP. We feel that this is unacceptable. We do not believe that any worker at the UO should be fired or any student have their application refused without some sort of rational explanation.
We have remained steadfast in our proposal that departments be allowed to only use objective criteria - gpa, limits on the number of incompletes, exam completion by a certain time, etc. - when determining if a student is making satisfactory academic progress. Only by having stated measurements that all parties can know can a GTF know if their job is at risk and that they will be treated fairly.
The UO, conversely, believes that departments should have every right to make subjective judgments and reject any argument from us that implies that any department or professor might act from anything but purely academic motives. They strongly feel that our proposal would encroach on their academic prerogatives - in this case the ability to fire someone without explanation based on subjective judgment.
This is a very contentious issue, as it comes down to a fundamental conflict in labor-management relations; the University wants to reserve the right to fire or refuse to hire GTFs and use the excuse of lack of satisfactory academic progress, while the Union wants to protect the workers from the potentially random decisions of their bosses.
Bargaining in Summer 2011
In addition to the health care cost increases that GTFs will almost certainly face over the next two years, the UO would also like us to go back to the table in the summer of 2011 to bargain over more cost increases.
Right now, our health care plan covers, well, everything that our health care plan covers. We call this the "base plan." Each year, the GTFF Trust has PacificSource price out the costs of various benefit improvements. Even though we go through this process, we rarely ask for them at the table, as they cost "additional" money and the University has been very reluctant to pay for "additional" items.
One thing we did fight for recently was an increase to our low annual cap on total benefit costs. You may remember that we tried to raise our annual cap from $150,000 to $1 million - so that the GTFF plan was good enough to allow people to apply for a federal subsidy for children - but no dice, we were only able to raise the cap to $250,000.
Well, this year, as you know, Congress passed the health care reform and some of the provisions of the law will impact our health insurance plan. The most obvious one being an elimination of annual caps on benefits. There may be others. Interpretation of the law is still being done and it is safe to say that no one really knows what is going to happen and, more importantly, how much it will cost.
The UO wants us to sit down in the summer of 2011, when we'd ideally know how much the changes to our plan that have mandated by Congress are going to cost, and bargain over which party pays what. The UO thinks this would only be fair, given that we traditionally only bargain over the cost of the "base plan" and additional changes are usually seen as costs over-and-above the base plan.
We, however, feel strongly that the GTFF is already agreeing to pay additional cost for health insurance next year and we cannot enter into an agreement that guarantees that we will have some unknown, but fixed, amount in increased costs AND some unknown and unfixed amount of increased costs.
We feel that any changes to the plan mandated by Congress be considered part of the "base plan" as neither party is necessarily asking that they be included in the plan.
We feel strongly that a two-year deal should be a two-year deal and GTFs have some security. The UO's proposal would be unsecure and almost require that GTFs have some unknown cost increases to health care coming their way in the 2011-12 academic year.
Right now, our health care plan covers, well, everything that our health care plan covers. We call this the "base plan." Each year, the GTFF Trust has PacificSource price out the costs of various benefit improvements. Even though we go through this process, we rarely ask for them at the table, as they cost "additional" money and the University has been very reluctant to pay for "additional" items.
One thing we did fight for recently was an increase to our low annual cap on total benefit costs. You may remember that we tried to raise our annual cap from $150,000 to $1 million - so that the GTFF plan was good enough to allow people to apply for a federal subsidy for children - but no dice, we were only able to raise the cap to $250,000.
Well, this year, as you know, Congress passed the health care reform and some of the provisions of the law will impact our health insurance plan. The most obvious one being an elimination of annual caps on benefits. There may be others. Interpretation of the law is still being done and it is safe to say that no one really knows what is going to happen and, more importantly, how much it will cost.
The UO wants us to sit down in the summer of 2011, when we'd ideally know how much the changes to our plan that have mandated by Congress are going to cost, and bargain over which party pays what. The UO thinks this would only be fair, given that we traditionally only bargain over the cost of the "base plan" and additional changes are usually seen as costs over-and-above the base plan.
We, however, feel strongly that the GTFF is already agreeing to pay additional cost for health insurance next year and we cannot enter into an agreement that guarantees that we will have some unknown, but fixed, amount in increased costs AND some unknown and unfixed amount of increased costs.
We feel that any changes to the plan mandated by Congress be considered part of the "base plan" as neither party is necessarily asking that they be included in the plan.
We feel strongly that a two-year deal should be a two-year deal and GTFs have some security. The UO's proposal would be unsecure and almost require that GTFs have some unknown cost increases to health care coming their way in the 2011-12 academic year.
Maximum Class Size
The GTFF would like departments to state the maximum number of students that can be assigned to a teaching GTF. This is a pretty milquetoast proposal. We are not trying to set limits, we are just asking that departments set limits.
We firmly believe that as enrollment grows and money declines, there will be a natural inclination by departments to increase the number of students per class. While this is not an ideal situation for any of the teaching faculty, we believe that there is not much difference lecturing to a class of 100 or 150. There is a tremendous difference between grading for 100 students and grading for 150. There is a tremendous difference between having 30 students in your lab and 50 students. There is a big difference between a "discussion" section that actually has numbers to discuss something and having 50 students in your section.
The University has asserted several arguments to counter our basic assertions. They have argued that GTFs are limited to a certain number of hours based on their FTE, so they don't need to worry about the number of students they are assigned. They have argued that the essential mission of the university is to educate undergraduates, therefore it is implausible to think that a department would ever assign a GTF more students than he or she could properly educate within the hours limits. They have argued that, in reality, the number of students per GTF in the College of Arts and Science has been going down(!) over the last few years (the UO was asked to prove this assertion. To date, they have not done so.)
Unfortunately, we feel that these assertions and the UO's flat refusal to even consider that a department be required to come up with their own limits further demonstrates that the UO has no idea what being a GTF at the UO is like.
We hope that our proposal will spark a discussion within departments about the proper limits for GTFs. We recognize that every department is different and a one-size-fits-all approach would not work. The UO, so far, is unwilling to even begin to engage in a reasonable way on this issue.
We firmly believe that as enrollment grows and money declines, there will be a natural inclination by departments to increase the number of students per class. While this is not an ideal situation for any of the teaching faculty, we believe that there is not much difference lecturing to a class of 100 or 150. There is a tremendous difference between grading for 100 students and grading for 150. There is a tremendous difference between having 30 students in your lab and 50 students. There is a big difference between a "discussion" section that actually has numbers to discuss something and having 50 students in your section.
The University has asserted several arguments to counter our basic assertions. They have argued that GTFs are limited to a certain number of hours based on their FTE, so they don't need to worry about the number of students they are assigned. They have argued that the essential mission of the university is to educate undergraduates, therefore it is implausible to think that a department would ever assign a GTF more students than he or she could properly educate within the hours limits. They have argued that, in reality, the number of students per GTF in the College of Arts and Science has been going down(!) over the last few years (the UO was asked to prove this assertion. To date, they have not done so.)
Unfortunately, we feel that these assertions and the UO's flat refusal to even consider that a department be required to come up with their own limits further demonstrates that the UO has no idea what being a GTF at the UO is like.
We hope that our proposal will spark a discussion within departments about the proper limits for GTFs. We recognize that every department is different and a one-size-fits-all approach would not work. The UO, so far, is unwilling to even begin to engage in a reasonable way on this issue.
Health Insurance Costs
Over the last 10 years, the cost of health insurance has risen dramatically. In the summer of 2000, the UO and the GTFF reached an agreement where the UO would pay the vast majority of the health insurance costs which had risen to ~$1 million. Today, the health insurance plan costs closer to $5.5 million. The UO has paid for all of the increase over the years. The rates to GTFs for summer coverage and dependents have not increased since the Fall of 2000.
We knew going into bargaining that it was time for GTFs to share in some of the pain of the increasing health care costs. We indicated to the UO that this was our intention going into bargaining. The proposals from both parties have centered on how much of an increase GTFs would see and how it would be calculated.
One of the major hurdles both parties face is that we have to figure out a way to bargain how much each party will pay of an increase when we don't yet know what that increase will be. This makes bargaining health care, understanding what's happening in bargaining, and (believe you me) explaining what is happening with health care bargaining rather complicated.
The framework in which the two parties are bargaining is something like this:
The UO will pay x percentage of the first 10% increase in the cost of health insurance costs and 100% of all costs increases over 10%.
0r put another way:
The current cost of the heath care plan is $5.5 million. If costs go up 10%, then the two parties will need to come up with an additional $550,000 next year to maintain benefits. We are bargaining over how much of that $550,000 each party will contribute. Anything over a 10% increase will automatically be paid by the University.
The UO has proposed that they pay 90% of the first 10% increase, or $495,000 of the $550,000, leaving $55,000 for GTFs to pay.
The GTFF has proposed that the UO pay 95% of the first 10% increase, or $522,500 of the $550,000, leaving $27,500 for GTFs to pay.
Both parties, at this point, want this to be a two year agreement. This means that if costs rise again next year there will be additional costs for GTFs.
While the differences between the proposals may seem small, it is important to keep in mind that we are talking about taking money out of GTF pockets. Any money subtracted from net take home pay is a detriment to our brothers and sisters.
We knew going into bargaining that it was time for GTFs to share in some of the pain of the increasing health care costs. We indicated to the UO that this was our intention going into bargaining. The proposals from both parties have centered on how much of an increase GTFs would see and how it would be calculated.
One of the major hurdles both parties face is that we have to figure out a way to bargain how much each party will pay of an increase when we don't yet know what that increase will be. This makes bargaining health care, understanding what's happening in bargaining, and (believe you me) explaining what is happening with health care bargaining rather complicated.
The framework in which the two parties are bargaining is something like this:
The UO will pay x percentage of the first 10% increase in the cost of health insurance costs and 100% of all costs increases over 10%.
0r put another way:
The current cost of the heath care plan is $5.5 million. If costs go up 10%, then the two parties will need to come up with an additional $550,000 next year to maintain benefits. We are bargaining over how much of that $550,000 each party will contribute. Anything over a 10% increase will automatically be paid by the University.
The UO has proposed that they pay 90% of the first 10% increase, or $495,000 of the $550,000, leaving $55,000 for GTFs to pay.
The GTFF has proposed that the UO pay 95% of the first 10% increase, or $522,500 of the $550,000, leaving $27,500 for GTFs to pay.
Both parties, at this point, want this to be a two year agreement. This means that if costs rise again next year there will be additional costs for GTFs.
While the differences between the proposals may seem small, it is important to keep in mind that we are talking about taking money out of GTF pockets. Any money subtracted from net take home pay is a detriment to our brothers and sisters.
Committee to Explore the Future of GTFF Health Insurance
Over the last 10 years, the cost of health insurance has risen dramatically. In the summer of 2000, the UO and the GTFF reached an agreement where the UO would pay the vast majority of the health insurance costs which had risen to ~$1 million. Today, the health insurance plan costs closer to $5.5 million.
Health insurance reform will also have a big impact on the future of GTFF health insurance (see here for more on that issue) and both parties expect the cost of our health insurance plan to keep rising.
The UO has proposed that we form a joint committee that would be tasked with examining the GTFF health care plan with an eye toward finding some cost savings and/or looking at ways to alter benefits in the new health care climate.
The GTFF has rejected this proposal as unnecessary. We have been in bargaining with the UO over health care since June 2009 and they could have/can propose any change to the health care plan that they would like. They have not made any such proposals.
We believe that the UO would like to form this committee so that they can suggest changes to our plan that they are very reluctant to make in public during bargaining. Moreover, we suspect that they believe that GTFs assigned to a committee might be easier to sway than the GTFs who volunteer to be on the bargaining team.
Because there is no real upside to us participating on such a committee, we have rejected the UO's proposal.
Health insurance reform will also have a big impact on the future of GTFF health insurance (see here for more on that issue) and both parties expect the cost of our health insurance plan to keep rising.
The UO has proposed that we form a joint committee that would be tasked with examining the GTFF health care plan with an eye toward finding some cost savings and/or looking at ways to alter benefits in the new health care climate.
The GTFF has rejected this proposal as unnecessary. We have been in bargaining with the UO over health care since June 2009 and they could have/can propose any change to the health care plan that they would like. They have not made any such proposals.
We believe that the UO would like to form this committee so that they can suggest changes to our plan that they are very reluctant to make in public during bargaining. Moreover, we suspect that they believe that GTFs assigned to a committee might be easier to sway than the GTFs who volunteer to be on the bargaining team.
Because there is no real upside to us participating on such a committee, we have rejected the UO's proposal.
Contract Enforcement
Currently, our Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the UO requires that all departments create criteria by which all applications will be judged. Applicants are supposed to be ranked according to these criteria and GTF positions awarded to the applicants that best match the criteria. Only after the GTFs are awarded are departments supposed to try to match successful applicants with the actual class/job they are best suited for.
We at the GTFF strongly believe that this process is honored more in the breach than in the practice. Almost every department has a different way of applying their criteria and many ignore them altogether. We don't need to tell you that not all GTF positions are handed out according to a neutral set of criteria. You know how your department works. Some professors have more influence, some sub-disciplines get more funding than others, some grads don't get positions because they are unpopular/disruptive/(dare we say it?)women/minorities/any other extraneous excuse departments come up with.
We strongly believe that we must work to end these practices and get departments to adhere to contract language that already exists.
In the beginning we ask for two things, that graduate students who apply for positions in a department, but fail to get them, be allowed to know their rank in the applicant pool and get a written statement as to why they were unsuccessful in obtaining an appointment.
Our goal was twofold. If a department knew that applicants could ask for their rank and a statement, they would be forced to actually do the ranking instead of handing out GTF jobs to the favored few. Moreover, graduate students could know if they stood any chance of getting a job in the coming term (if one GTF leaves or declines an appointment, then the job should go to the next person on the list. Assignments (actual classes) can be juggled for best fit, but the GTF award itself should go to the next ranked applicant) and could plan accordingly. The requirement that the department give them a written statement would put departments on record as to their reasons for their ranking and could be evidence should a grievance arise.
The UO rejected our initial proposals. They argued that to tell applicants their rank would be a violation of FERPA, as knowing your rank could lead you to guess other people's rank. They rejected the idea that applicants could get a written statement as unnecessary, given that graduate students could simply ask their professors why they did not get a GTF position and then could have a good talk about ways to be a better graduate student.
Unfortunately, this incident did more to expose that the GTFF and the UO have fundamentally different understanding of how graduate school and GTF positions at the UO work than anything else.
Over time, we have shaved the proposals down to giving failed applicants the right to talk with the department head about their application and the GTFF's right to request the rankings list of a department, should a grievance about the hiring procedure in a department come up. Because we make it a policy not to file extraneous grievances (and have a good history to back that up), we believe that this request is reasonable. Plus, it will still help us accomplish our goal of making departments actually do the rankings and have a list on file should it become an issue.
Oddly enough (or not, if you follow bargaining closely), the UO argues that our proposal is unnecessary because departments are already required by Oregon law to make and keep these very types of lists. Why the UO cannot accept our language just to make us happy remains a mystery.
(We recognize that this explanation of why the UO won't accept our language is unsatisfactory. You don't have to tell us, but this is the best they can offer. We have proposed language that says "Each department and employing unit will keep a copy of the applicant rankings on file. In the event of a grievance related to hiring procedures, this document will be made available to the Union and the University." The University has proposed, "Each department and hiring unit must maintain GTF search records in accordance with Oregon Administrative Rules governing personnel files for student employees."
Now, they tell us there language is just as good as our language and the OARs totally require them to maintain the rankings lists and that they will have no problem sharing it with us, respecting the FERPA law. We, however, believe that our much more direct and specific language is better.
If this seems like an issue that has a reasonable solution just sitting there, well, then, we can't really disagree, but sometimes these things are harder than they look.)
We at the GTFF strongly believe that this process is honored more in the breach than in the practice. Almost every department has a different way of applying their criteria and many ignore them altogether. We don't need to tell you that not all GTF positions are handed out according to a neutral set of criteria. You know how your department works. Some professors have more influence, some sub-disciplines get more funding than others, some grads don't get positions because they are unpopular/disruptive/(dare we say it?)women/minorities/any other extraneous excuse departments come up with.
We strongly believe that we must work to end these practices and get departments to adhere to contract language that already exists.
In the beginning we ask for two things, that graduate students who apply for positions in a department, but fail to get them, be allowed to know their rank in the applicant pool and get a written statement as to why they were unsuccessful in obtaining an appointment.
Our goal was twofold. If a department knew that applicants could ask for their rank and a statement, they would be forced to actually do the ranking instead of handing out GTF jobs to the favored few. Moreover, graduate students could know if they stood any chance of getting a job in the coming term (if one GTF leaves or declines an appointment, then the job should go to the next person on the list. Assignments (actual classes) can be juggled for best fit, but the GTF award itself should go to the next ranked applicant) and could plan accordingly. The requirement that the department give them a written statement would put departments on record as to their reasons for their ranking and could be evidence should a grievance arise.
The UO rejected our initial proposals. They argued that to tell applicants their rank would be a violation of FERPA, as knowing your rank could lead you to guess other people's rank. They rejected the idea that applicants could get a written statement as unnecessary, given that graduate students could simply ask their professors why they did not get a GTF position and then could have a good talk about ways to be a better graduate student.
Unfortunately, this incident did more to expose that the GTFF and the UO have fundamentally different understanding of how graduate school and GTF positions at the UO work than anything else.
Over time, we have shaved the proposals down to giving failed applicants the right to talk with the department head about their application and the GTFF's right to request the rankings list of a department, should a grievance about the hiring procedure in a department come up. Because we make it a policy not to file extraneous grievances (and have a good history to back that up), we believe that this request is reasonable. Plus, it will still help us accomplish our goal of making departments actually do the rankings and have a list on file should it become an issue.
Oddly enough (or not, if you follow bargaining closely), the UO argues that our proposal is unnecessary because departments are already required by Oregon law to make and keep these very types of lists. Why the UO cannot accept our language just to make us happy remains a mystery.
(We recognize that this explanation of why the UO won't accept our language is unsatisfactory. You don't have to tell us, but this is the best they can offer. We have proposed language that says "Each department and employing unit will keep a copy of the applicant rankings on file. In the event of a grievance related to hiring procedures, this document will be made available to the Union and the University." The University has proposed, "Each department and hiring unit must maintain GTF search records in accordance with Oregon Administrative Rules governing personnel files for student employees."
Now, they tell us there language is just as good as our language and the OARs totally require them to maintain the rankings lists and that they will have no problem sharing it with us, respecting the FERPA law. We, however, believe that our much more direct and specific language is better.
If this seems like an issue that has a reasonable solution just sitting there, well, then, we can't really disagree, but sometimes these things are harder than they look.)
Spring GTFs Off of Summer Insurance
As it stands now, if a GTF has summer insurance, he or she is eligible for the summer tuition subsidy. It has been this way for at least the last 10 years.
In negotiations, the UO has asserted that GTFs who graduate in the Spring term were never meant to be eligible for the summer insurance subsidy and that the last 10 years have just been an administrative error.
The UO has produced absolutely no evidence that GTFs who graduate in the summer were ever not meant to be eligible for the summer subsidy, despite repeated requests from us that they do so.
About 200 GTFs who graduate in the Spring term receive the summer subsidy. At about $600 each, that would be about $120,000 the UO would like to take out of the pockets of newly minted Doctors and Masters and put into their own.
We have resisted the UO's proposals to end this subsidy on multiple grounds, including the paperwork issues that would be involved, the incentive it would create for GTFs to delay their graduation until the Summer term, and, well, we just can't see a reason to take money out of the pockets of people who earn poverty-level wages.
In negotiations, the UO has asserted that GTFs who graduate in the Spring term were never meant to be eligible for the summer insurance subsidy and that the last 10 years have just been an administrative error.
The UO has produced absolutely no evidence that GTFs who graduate in the summer were ever not meant to be eligible for the summer subsidy, despite repeated requests from us that they do so.
About 200 GTFs who graduate in the Spring term receive the summer subsidy. At about $600 each, that would be about $120,000 the UO would like to take out of the pockets of newly minted Doctors and Masters and put into their own.
We have resisted the UO's proposals to end this subsidy on multiple grounds, including the paperwork issues that would be involved, the incentive it would create for GTFs to delay their graduation until the Summer term, and, well, we just can't see a reason to take money out of the pockets of people who earn poverty-level wages.
Fees
Incidental fees: Over the past 10 years the GTFF was been working to eliminate the amount we pay in fees. We believe that there should be a true tuition waiver that fees are just tuition by another name. We recognize that demanding the immediate elimination of fees would be too big of a financial burden for the UO, so we have been chipping away at fees, moving from putting a cap on how much they could grow in 2002 (the cap was at $275 per term) down to today's level of $150 per term.
Course fees: While the GTFF has no major issue with departments charging fees for materials that are used in the class itself, we believe that many departments are charging fees that have nothing to do with materials and are just a way to get a little bit of extra money out of the pockets of graduate students. For instance the College of Education was charging a $100 per credit for to take research credits.
To their credit, the UO listened to us during bargaining and seems to have initialed something of a crack down on departments who were charging extraneous fees. Still, we believe that fees are part of tuition and should be included in the tuition waiver.
Course fees: While the GTFF has no major issue with departments charging fees for materials that are used in the class itself, we believe that many departments are charging fees that have nothing to do with materials and are just a way to get a little bit of extra money out of the pockets of graduate students. For instance the College of Education was charging a $100 per credit for to take research credits.
To their credit, the UO listened to us during bargaining and seems to have initialed something of a crack down on departments who were charging extraneous fees. Still, we believe that fees are part of tuition and should be included in the tuition waiver.
Economic Progress
So far we have agreed with the University on a few economic issues. The two parties have no signed off on these issues, so technically they are open for discussion/modification although neither party has indicated that they want to disturb the issues on which we are in agreement.
Wages: We have agreed that there should be a 1% raise to the minimum wage next year and a 3% raise to the minimum wage in the 2011-12 academic year.
Not all GTFs will receive this raise, as about 50% of GTFs work in departments that pay more than the minimum wage. Although it is our understanding that departments receive the amount of the minimum wage from the University, which includes the annual raise amounts, the departments that pay above the minimum are under no obligation to pass along this raise and many choose not to.
Thus, when we calculate how much it will cost the UO to raise the minimum wage 1%, we calculate how much more the UO will be obligated to put in the pockets of GTFs. The cost of a 1% raise is roughly $80,000 a year.
Fees: The two parties have agreed to eliminate resource (aka departmental) fees in the coming year.
This was the GTFF's number one goal for this round of bargaining, so this is a big achievement. It was accomplished because the UO is moving to a model where colleges and/or departments will be able to set their own tuition rates. The resources fees will now be included in tuition and will be waived for GTFs.
Even though both parties have agreed that there will be no more resource fees, we have a major disagreement about what this agreement will cost the UO. We calculate that GTFs paid roughly $88,000 in resource fees last year, so eliminating resource fees for GTFs cost the UO $88,000.
The UO argues that all the new tuition levels above the base rate of tuition this year should properly be considered fees that might have been imposed on GTFs this year, but are not because of the new tuition model. Therefore, they calculate that GTFs are going to be receiving on the order of $750,000 worth of new benefits. We strongly reject this argument.
Wages: We have agreed that there should be a 1% raise to the minimum wage next year and a 3% raise to the minimum wage in the 2011-12 academic year.
Not all GTFs will receive this raise, as about 50% of GTFs work in departments that pay more than the minimum wage. Although it is our understanding that departments receive the amount of the minimum wage from the University, which includes the annual raise amounts, the departments that pay above the minimum are under no obligation to pass along this raise and many choose not to.
Thus, when we calculate how much it will cost the UO to raise the minimum wage 1%, we calculate how much more the UO will be obligated to put in the pockets of GTFs. The cost of a 1% raise is roughly $80,000 a year.
Fees: The two parties have agreed to eliminate resource (aka departmental) fees in the coming year.
This was the GTFF's number one goal for this round of bargaining, so this is a big achievement. It was accomplished because the UO is moving to a model where colleges and/or departments will be able to set their own tuition rates. The resources fees will now be included in tuition and will be waived for GTFs.
Even though both parties have agreed that there will be no more resource fees, we have a major disagreement about what this agreement will cost the UO. We calculate that GTFs paid roughly $88,000 in resource fees last year, so eliminating resource fees for GTFs cost the UO $88,000.
The UO argues that all the new tuition levels above the base rate of tuition this year should properly be considered fees that might have been imposed on GTFs this year, but are not because of the new tuition model. Therefore, they calculate that GTFs are going to be receiving on the order of $750,000 worth of new benefits. We strongly reject this argument.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Side note on increased hc costs
How this would be split between dependents and summer is yet to be determined, but roughly 50%-50% is most likely. There are 1000 GTFs on the health insurance in the summer, so figure a $27.50 increase in the cost of summer coverage.
Strike FAQ
Q: Are we going out on strike?
A: No. Not this summer. Not without several votes. Not until September at the very earliest and not feasibly until December.
Q: Why are the bargaining team and the GTFF talking about a strike now? Isn't it premature?
A: The bargaining team is not talking about a strike now. The bargaining team is discussing what would happen if a strike became necessary. The bargaining team is reacting to the stale nature of bargaining and the UO's seeming reluctance to engage with us. When thinking about the bargaining process, the team realized that a strike could be a possibility a way down the road.
We hope that if the GTFF did hold a strike vote, this would demonstrate to the UO that GTFs are serious about what they need to get at the bargaining table and the UO would be more reasonable in their proposals.
Q: If the GTFF goes out on strike will I lose my tuition waiver, health care, and pay?
A: It is extremely unlikely. We do not want to make absolute promises about what might happen months from now, but when other graduate employee unions have gone out on strike, they have not lost their benefits.
It is not likely that the GTFF would ever engage in an indefinite strike. This is not a really practical way for graduate employees to demonstrate that the university needs their labor. Grad unions typically go out on strike for two days to a week, or go out on strike during finals, when their labor is needed most. These short, high-impact strikes have the benefits of a longer strike, without the drawbacks that GTFs fear.
Long-term strikes attempt to cost the employer more money than would be spent by meeting the workers' demands. This is not really practical in a university setting. Instead, our goal would be to disrupt the placid routine of the university, leveraging how much professors and students rely on GTFs to get them to put pressure on the university. Additionally, universities as a rule, and the UO in particular, hate negative publicity. This is a tool we would use.
Moreover, the university is not a centralized system. If you didn't go into work tomorrow, say you were sick, your professor might know, but the UO administration is not keeping tabs and they have no way of doing so. All this is by way of saying that if went out on strike for a week, the UO would have no way of knowing who went out and who did not, and no real way of punishing you for it. Not to say that this is a promise that it could never happen, but the UO would have to rely on individual professors and departments to report on their GTFs and this is not likely to happen.
Q: Isn't the bargaining team taking talk of a strike lightly?
A: No. Simply no. We recognize what a strike would mean. Even a short one. We are members just like you. We have families, mortgages, rent, car payments, dogs, and daughters. In short, lives. We have papers to grade, projects to finish, experiments to conduct, research to do. In short, jobs. In our spare time, we are also students.
We harbor no fantasies of revolution. We don't want to storm any barricades. We were charged with the job of getting GTFs what they need to live their lives. We were given priorities by the membership. We simply feel that the threat of a strike, a successful strike vote, and, ultimately, a member-approved strike are all tools that we could use to get those things. Higher wages, lower fees, adequate health care.
As the bylaws stand now, those tools are taken out of our hands. That is why were are starting a long conversation.
Q: Can the leadership or the bargaining team just call a strike at any time?
A: No. Any strike would have to be called for by the membership. We are a very proud member-run union. Hundreds of GTFs would have to vote to authorize a strike.
Also, even if hundreds of GTFs vote to authorize a strike, the Executive Board of the GTFF would still have to vote to do it. If the Board felt support was weak, even if they had legal authorization, they probably would choose not to call the strike. A strike no one honors is the worst possible outcome.
The state of Oregon also has many laws that regulate how and when a public employee union can strike. The two parities have to bargain for 150 days before either side can declare "impasse." Then there is a period of mediation. If mediation fails, there is a 30-day cooling off period. Only then could a public employee union strike. And, at the GTFF, only after the membership vote to authorize it and the Executive Board calls for it.
Lastly, it would never be in the interest of the GTFF to hold a stealth strike. Not only does a union need member support, but the threat of a strike is a tool at the table and we would be talking very loudly if we were in a position when a strike was imminent.
Q: What is the process for going out on strike, should it become necessary?
1. The bargaining team would have to believe that negotiations were at a standstill.
2. The Executive Board would have to agree and call for a strike authorization vote.
3. The Executive Council would have to agree and call for a strike authorization vote.
4. The membership would have to vote. At least 30% of the bargaining unit would have to cast ballots, with 60% voting 'yes.'
5. The Executive Board would have to vote to actually call the strike, but could only do so legally after all state laws are complied with. The Executive Board would have to weigh the number of votes cast, the strength of people's passion about the issues, the impact a strike would have, and whether they thought a strike would positively impact bargaining, which is the goal.
Q: Has the GTFF ever gone out on strike?
A: No. The GTFF has never gone out on strike. In fact, the last time we can find evidence of a GTFF strike vote was 1977.
Q: Aren't there other things we could do besides striking?
A: Yes. The bargaining team and the GTFF leadership will be exploring many ways to put pressure on the UO without resorting to a strike. Maybe it can't be said enough, no one wants to go out on strike. We will engage in a variety of actions and activities before any strike, or even before a strike vote is taken.
We find ourselves in the position of having to put pressure on the UO to get them to improve their proposals, so we will explore many avenues of pressure throughout the coming months.
Some things other grad unions have done:
1. Grade Strike: Withholding grades at the end of a term by even one day past the deadline demonstrates to the university how much they would lose if the grades were held permanently.
2. 'A' Strike: The idea here is to give all your students an 'A' for the term. The students are happy, you, technically, did your job, and the university, again, sees exactly how much they rely on GTFs to do a professional job, despite non-professional wages.
3. Informational Picket: Pretty self-explanatory. GTFs would walk picket lines and pass out info encouraging students, faculty, and classified staff to contact the administration and encourage them to work with the union to strike an acceptable deal.
4. 'Blue' Flu: Named for the police, but appropriate for our union, this would be an action where everyone called in sick one day.
5: Empty Campus Day: We did this in 2004. We encouraged all of our summer GTFs to teach their classes off campus. It caused a certain amount of disruption at the university and they settled with us the next day.
6: 'Credit' Strike: We threatened to do this in 2000. The state pays the university by the number of credit hours students sign up for. Most departments on campus encourage GTFs to sign up for a full load of 16 credits. GTFs are only required to sign up for 9 credits. The university would stand to lose a significant sum of money if GTFs only signed up for the required nine credits. This action is tough though, because once the money is lost, there is no getting it back. Departments suffer as well, and we want to keep the profs on our side.
There are a number of tactics we will discuss and explore. A strike is a last resort option. It would only happen after other things have been tried. Moreover, we sincerely hope that the threat of a strike would be enough to help the UO see that compromising with the GTFF is in their interest.
Q: Are there compromises at the table that could be made that would make a strike unnecessary?
A: There very likely are several avenues of compromise that can be explored. The GTFF bargaining team has tried to make it clear to the UO that we want to explore these options. At this time, the last word from the UO is that they are unwilling to explore compromises.
Q: As teachers, don't we have an obligation to our students and doesn't that obligation outweigh any consideration of benefits?
A: Everyone takes their obligation to students seriously. If, however, we let that obligation outweigh all others, then the university really has us in a pickle. We will have to accept whatever they put on the table, no matter how poor it is. It is also important to ask what obligation the university has to its workers. As it stands now, GTFs earn sub-poverty wages, pay back 6% of their salaries in fees, and increasingly face the possibility of financial ruin if something dreadful should happen to them medically.
Each GTFF member would have to weigh their obligation to their students, their professor, their research, their department against their obligations to themselves, their colleagues, their fellow workers, and future generations of GTFs.
There are no easy answers. There are possibly no 'right' answers. That's why we have votes and that's why we take these issues seriously.
Q: Could international students get in trouble for striking?
A: No. Strikes are legal in Oregon. The GTFF will only conduct a legal strike, if the membership votes to authorize one. We, do, however, recognize that international students have particular concerns and will seek to address them as challenges arise.
Q: Will research assistants have to abandon their research and experiments if the union goes on strike?
A: Again, we can't know what might happen months from now, but the leadership recognizes that research GTFs are often working on their own dissertation materials and would have extra incentives to not abandon that work.
Other grad unions that have faced these issues have issued "campus passes" in exchange for volunteering for picket duty or other vital work. The GTFF would probably attempt to arrange a similar system.
Q: Would there be some sort of strike pay?
A: Hopefully a long strike would not be necessary, as it is not practical, so no one would have to worry about lost pay, but it not really feasible for the GTFF to promise any sort of strike pay. We don't have the resources.
A: No. Not this summer. Not without several votes. Not until September at the very earliest and not feasibly until December.
Q: Why are the bargaining team and the GTFF talking about a strike now? Isn't it premature?
A: The bargaining team is not talking about a strike now. The bargaining team is discussing what would happen if a strike became necessary. The bargaining team is reacting to the stale nature of bargaining and the UO's seeming reluctance to engage with us. When thinking about the bargaining process, the team realized that a strike could be a possibility a way down the road.
We hope that if the GTFF did hold a strike vote, this would demonstrate to the UO that GTFs are serious about what they need to get at the bargaining table and the UO would be more reasonable in their proposals.
Q: If the GTFF goes out on strike will I lose my tuition waiver, health care, and pay?
A: It is extremely unlikely. We do not want to make absolute promises about what might happen months from now, but when other graduate employee unions have gone out on strike, they have not lost their benefits.
It is not likely that the GTFF would ever engage in an indefinite strike. This is not a really practical way for graduate employees to demonstrate that the university needs their labor. Grad unions typically go out on strike for two days to a week, or go out on strike during finals, when their labor is needed most. These short, high-impact strikes have the benefits of a longer strike, without the drawbacks that GTFs fear.
Long-term strikes attempt to cost the employer more money than would be spent by meeting the workers' demands. This is not really practical in a university setting. Instead, our goal would be to disrupt the placid routine of the university, leveraging how much professors and students rely on GTFs to get them to put pressure on the university. Additionally, universities as a rule, and the UO in particular, hate negative publicity. This is a tool we would use.
Moreover, the university is not a centralized system. If you didn't go into work tomorrow, say you were sick, your professor might know, but the UO administration is not keeping tabs and they have no way of doing so. All this is by way of saying that if went out on strike for a week, the UO would have no way of knowing who went out and who did not, and no real way of punishing you for it. Not to say that this is a promise that it could never happen, but the UO would have to rely on individual professors and departments to report on their GTFs and this is not likely to happen.
Q: Isn't the bargaining team taking talk of a strike lightly?
A: No. Simply no. We recognize what a strike would mean. Even a short one. We are members just like you. We have families, mortgages, rent, car payments, dogs, and daughters. In short, lives. We have papers to grade, projects to finish, experiments to conduct, research to do. In short, jobs. In our spare time, we are also students.
We harbor no fantasies of revolution. We don't want to storm any barricades. We were charged with the job of getting GTFs what they need to live their lives. We were given priorities by the membership. We simply feel that the threat of a strike, a successful strike vote, and, ultimately, a member-approved strike are all tools that we could use to get those things. Higher wages, lower fees, adequate health care.
As the bylaws stand now, those tools are taken out of our hands. That is why were are starting a long conversation.
Q: Can the leadership or the bargaining team just call a strike at any time?
A: No. Any strike would have to be called for by the membership. We are a very proud member-run union. Hundreds of GTFs would have to vote to authorize a strike.
Also, even if hundreds of GTFs vote to authorize a strike, the Executive Board of the GTFF would still have to vote to do it. If the Board felt support was weak, even if they had legal authorization, they probably would choose not to call the strike. A strike no one honors is the worst possible outcome.
The state of Oregon also has many laws that regulate how and when a public employee union can strike. The two parities have to bargain for 150 days before either side can declare "impasse." Then there is a period of mediation. If mediation fails, there is a 30-day cooling off period. Only then could a public employee union strike. And, at the GTFF, only after the membership vote to authorize it and the Executive Board calls for it.
Lastly, it would never be in the interest of the GTFF to hold a stealth strike. Not only does a union need member support, but the threat of a strike is a tool at the table and we would be talking very loudly if we were in a position when a strike was imminent.
Q: What is the process for going out on strike, should it become necessary?
1. The bargaining team would have to believe that negotiations were at a standstill.
2. The Executive Board would have to agree and call for a strike authorization vote.
3. The Executive Council would have to agree and call for a strike authorization vote.
4. The membership would have to vote. At least 30% of the bargaining unit would have to cast ballots, with 60% voting 'yes.'
5. The Executive Board would have to vote to actually call the strike, but could only do so legally after all state laws are complied with. The Executive Board would have to weigh the number of votes cast, the strength of people's passion about the issues, the impact a strike would have, and whether they thought a strike would positively impact bargaining, which is the goal.
Q: Has the GTFF ever gone out on strike?
A: No. The GTFF has never gone out on strike. In fact, the last time we can find evidence of a GTFF strike vote was 1977.
Q: Aren't there other things we could do besides striking?
A: Yes. The bargaining team and the GTFF leadership will be exploring many ways to put pressure on the UO without resorting to a strike. Maybe it can't be said enough, no one wants to go out on strike. We will engage in a variety of actions and activities before any strike, or even before a strike vote is taken.
We find ourselves in the position of having to put pressure on the UO to get them to improve their proposals, so we will explore many avenues of pressure throughout the coming months.
Some things other grad unions have done:
1. Grade Strike: Withholding grades at the end of a term by even one day past the deadline demonstrates to the university how much they would lose if the grades were held permanently.
2. 'A' Strike: The idea here is to give all your students an 'A' for the term. The students are happy, you, technically, did your job, and the university, again, sees exactly how much they rely on GTFs to do a professional job, despite non-professional wages.
3. Informational Picket: Pretty self-explanatory. GTFs would walk picket lines and pass out info encouraging students, faculty, and classified staff to contact the administration and encourage them to work with the union to strike an acceptable deal.
4. 'Blue' Flu: Named for the police, but appropriate for our union, this would be an action where everyone called in sick one day.
5: Empty Campus Day: We did this in 2004. We encouraged all of our summer GTFs to teach their classes off campus. It caused a certain amount of disruption at the university and they settled with us the next day.
6: 'Credit' Strike: We threatened to do this in 2000. The state pays the university by the number of credit hours students sign up for. Most departments on campus encourage GTFs to sign up for a full load of 16 credits. GTFs are only required to sign up for 9 credits. The university would stand to lose a significant sum of money if GTFs only signed up for the required nine credits. This action is tough though, because once the money is lost, there is no getting it back. Departments suffer as well, and we want to keep the profs on our side.
There are a number of tactics we will discuss and explore. A strike is a last resort option. It would only happen after other things have been tried. Moreover, we sincerely hope that the threat of a strike would be enough to help the UO see that compromising with the GTFF is in their interest.
Q: Are there compromises at the table that could be made that would make a strike unnecessary?
A: There very likely are several avenues of compromise that can be explored. The GTFF bargaining team has tried to make it clear to the UO that we want to explore these options. At this time, the last word from the UO is that they are unwilling to explore compromises.
Q: As teachers, don't we have an obligation to our students and doesn't that obligation outweigh any consideration of benefits?
A: Everyone takes their obligation to students seriously. If, however, we let that obligation outweigh all others, then the university really has us in a pickle. We will have to accept whatever they put on the table, no matter how poor it is. It is also important to ask what obligation the university has to its workers. As it stands now, GTFs earn sub-poverty wages, pay back 6% of their salaries in fees, and increasingly face the possibility of financial ruin if something dreadful should happen to them medically.
Each GTFF member would have to weigh their obligation to their students, their professor, their research, their department against their obligations to themselves, their colleagues, their fellow workers, and future generations of GTFs.
There are no easy answers. There are possibly no 'right' answers. That's why we have votes and that's why we take these issues seriously.
Q: Could international students get in trouble for striking?
A: No. Strikes are legal in Oregon. The GTFF will only conduct a legal strike, if the membership votes to authorize one. We, do, however, recognize that international students have particular concerns and will seek to address them as challenges arise.
Q: Will research assistants have to abandon their research and experiments if the union goes on strike?
A: Again, we can't know what might happen months from now, but the leadership recognizes that research GTFs are often working on their own dissertation materials and would have extra incentives to not abandon that work.
Other grad unions that have faced these issues have issued "campus passes" in exchange for volunteering for picket duty or other vital work. The GTFF would probably attempt to arrange a similar system.
Q: Would there be some sort of strike pay?
A: Hopefully a long strike would not be necessary, as it is not practical, so no one would have to worry about lost pay, but it not really feasible for the GTFF to promise any sort of strike pay. We don't have the resources.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)