[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.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
