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.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
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.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Progress?
It has been a crazy few weeks for the bargaining team. Please forgive the lateness of this update.
First, we'd like to thank all the GTFs who filled the bargaining rooms the last two sessions. I have no doubt that the University got the message that GTFs are not giving up on bargaining just because the term is ending.
Second, the team has decided to have one last-ditch session with the University to see if we cannot wrap up bargaining before we are forced to call for a state mediator to help us resolve our disputes.
As for the last couple of sessions...the UO did make some movement on some of the issues that still divide the two sides, but they also re-emphasized that they believe that with the tight UO budget, their offers have been generous. Unfortunately, we do not share their view on this.
They are offering a 1% raise next year and no reduction of incidental fees. They are willing to cover 90% of the first 10% increase in the cost of health insurance and 100% of any increase over that. This would mean that costs for dependents and summer coverage would go up next year. (Exactly how much they would go up is up to the Health Care Trust). The real hurdle we face is that they want to offer us the same deal for next year, but have the two parties come back to the table and bargaining over how much we share of the cost of increases incurred by change to the plan forced by Health Care Reform.
Accepting these proposals almost certainly means that some GTFs will see an overall reduction in their take-home pay over the next two years. We think this is unacceptable and counter to one of the only things the two teams have been able to agree on -- that money in the pockets of GTFs is a good thing.
Additionally, the UO still insists that GTFs who graduate should not have access to subsidized insurance in the summer following their graduation. We continue to resist their attempts to eliminate this benefit. The elimination of this benefit would create huge paperwork problems for Lisa. Additionally, we feel that after years of service to the UO at poverty wages, one "extra" term of insurance subsidy is not too much to ask, especially given that the profession the UO trained you to go into has a built-in lag time between graduation and employment.
On the non-economic front, the UO offered some minor changes to their proposals, but remain firm on the proposition that departments should be allowed to fire or refuse to consider the applications of GTFs that they deem to be not making sufficient academic progress based on subjective judgments of individual faculty. In other words, they reject our proposition that departments must use objective measures when saying that GTFs are not making sufficient academic progress and taking away their jobs. The University still has not offered a credible reason why subjective, instead of objective, criteria is just, fair, or sensible, but they have made it clear this is something they are not going to bend on willingly.
They are also still resisting our proposal that departments have policies regarding the maximum number of students assigned to a teaching GTF. Unfortunately, the UO's argument against this proposal basically boils down to "it would be a pain in the ass for departments." This is an argument that we are reluctant to accept.
Lastly, the UO seems to be in complete agreement with us that departments have to follow the Collective Bargaining Agreement and rank all applicants based on the written criteria published in the departmental GDRSes. They seem to agree that these rankings lists should exist and be kept on file. They do not agree, however, that these ranking lists should be available to the GTFF should we feel that we need to file a grievance over the hiring practices of a department. They claim that an individual applicant's ranking in the hiring pool is part of their student record and unavailable to a third party such as a union. When we point out that this means we have no mechanism for enforcing the contract we all agree is right and good, they sort of shrug their shoulders and give us the ol' "whatareyougonnado?"
So what we have in the end is two sides that seem to have issues on which they are going to be extremely reluctant to bend. What this means for how this entire session gets wrapped up I do not yet know, but it should be interesting to say the least.
First, we'd like to thank all the GTFs who filled the bargaining rooms the last two sessions. I have no doubt that the University got the message that GTFs are not giving up on bargaining just because the term is ending.
Second, the team has decided to have one last-ditch session with the University to see if we cannot wrap up bargaining before we are forced to call for a state mediator to help us resolve our disputes.
As for the last couple of sessions...the UO did make some movement on some of the issues that still divide the two sides, but they also re-emphasized that they believe that with the tight UO budget, their offers have been generous. Unfortunately, we do not share their view on this.
They are offering a 1% raise next year and no reduction of incidental fees. They are willing to cover 90% of the first 10% increase in the cost of health insurance and 100% of any increase over that. This would mean that costs for dependents and summer coverage would go up next year. (Exactly how much they would go up is up to the Health Care Trust). The real hurdle we face is that they want to offer us the same deal for next year, but have the two parties come back to the table and bargaining over how much we share of the cost of increases incurred by change to the plan forced by Health Care Reform.
Accepting these proposals almost certainly means that some GTFs will see an overall reduction in their take-home pay over the next two years. We think this is unacceptable and counter to one of the only things the two teams have been able to agree on -- that money in the pockets of GTFs is a good thing.
Additionally, the UO still insists that GTFs who graduate should not have access to subsidized insurance in the summer following their graduation. We continue to resist their attempts to eliminate this benefit. The elimination of this benefit would create huge paperwork problems for Lisa. Additionally, we feel that after years of service to the UO at poverty wages, one "extra" term of insurance subsidy is not too much to ask, especially given that the profession the UO trained you to go into has a built-in lag time between graduation and employment.
On the non-economic front, the UO offered some minor changes to their proposals, but remain firm on the proposition that departments should be allowed to fire or refuse to consider the applications of GTFs that they deem to be not making sufficient academic progress based on subjective judgments of individual faculty. In other words, they reject our proposition that departments must use objective measures when saying that GTFs are not making sufficient academic progress and taking away their jobs. The University still has not offered a credible reason why subjective, instead of objective, criteria is just, fair, or sensible, but they have made it clear this is something they are not going to bend on willingly.
They are also still resisting our proposal that departments have policies regarding the maximum number of students assigned to a teaching GTF. Unfortunately, the UO's argument against this proposal basically boils down to "it would be a pain in the ass for departments." This is an argument that we are reluctant to accept.
Lastly, the UO seems to be in complete agreement with us that departments have to follow the Collective Bargaining Agreement and rank all applicants based on the written criteria published in the departmental GDRSes. They seem to agree that these rankings lists should exist and be kept on file. They do not agree, however, that these ranking lists should be available to the GTFF should we feel that we need to file a grievance over the hiring practices of a department. They claim that an individual applicant's ranking in the hiring pool is part of their student record and unavailable to a third party such as a union. When we point out that this means we have no mechanism for enforcing the contract we all agree is right and good, they sort of shrug their shoulders and give us the ol' "whatareyougonnado?"
So what we have in the end is two sides that seem to have issues on which they are going to be extremely reluctant to bend. What this means for how this entire session gets wrapped up I do not yet know, but it should be interesting to say the least.
Monday, May 3, 2010
What's going on with bargaining
I wish there was a lot to say, but there is not.
We've met with the UO twice since the break, to hear their proposals on both the economic articles and the non-economic articles.
Coming out of our firey pre-break session, the UO has been more willing to concede that we might have a point about some of the problems here at the UO, but they don't seem terribly interested in accepting our language or proposing new language to help solve the problem.
For instance, the UO is now willing to acknowledge that some GTFs might be asked/expected to overwork. In fact, they tell us some departments were already looking into the problem and still others agreed that it could be a problem. The UO's bargaining, however, would only go as far as saying that it was certainly a worthy topic of conversation and that perhaps more contract education at the departmental level would be in order.
They rejected our proposal that each department have a policy regarding the maximum number of students that can be assigned to a teaching GTF. They said they did so because our proposal would be an imperfect way to solve the problem, but, again, offered absolutely no alternative ways to approach the issue.
The UO took roughly the same approach to on the issue of criteria for satisfactory academic progress. Since December, we have been telling that UO that we think it is vital that the criteria for deciding whether a GTF is making satisfactory academic progress must be "specific and objective." As failure to maintain satisfactory academic progress is one of the very few reasons a GTF can be unilaterally fired and/or not have their application for work considered, we believe it is vital that these criteria be clear and straightforward.
Additionally, we have an experience from last year where a department on campus was leaving satisfactory academic progress up to the individual GTF's professor. Which could be theoretically fine, but it turns out that the department in question violated the heck out of their own hiring procedures and when called on it by the union, proceeded to claim that they were refusing to give work to certain graduate students because of lack of "satisfactory academic progress." The university asserted that since the determination as to whether the graduate student was making satisfactory academic progress was up to the advising professor, and it was an academic not labor decision, the GTFF could not question it. We were eventually successful in the grievance process, but we would, naturally, like to close this giant loophole in the hiring process.
The UO has no such desire. While they say that they, too, have no interest in making it possible for a department violate the contractual hiring procedures, then claim satisfactory academic progress, they have proposed no mechanism for doing so.
As far as economics, well, we don't really know what to say. The UO offered us raises of 1% and 3% over the next two years - which is what we proposed - no improvement on fees, and a health care proposal that was slightly better than their last proposal. The offered these proposals as a package, so we'd have to accept all or none. The they added a giant "BUT" into the conversation by letting us know that they were aware that Congress had passed health care reform and if that law had any impact on our health care plan, then their proposal would be null and void, even if we had already accepted it. In other words, we had to accept the entire package of proposals, but one part of their proposal might be void next fall and we'd need to re-bargain it.
As you can imagine, we did not accept this proposal and barely considered it a proposal at all.
We've met with the UO twice since the break, to hear their proposals on both the economic articles and the non-economic articles.
Coming out of our firey pre-break session, the UO has been more willing to concede that we might have a point about some of the problems here at the UO, but they don't seem terribly interested in accepting our language or proposing new language to help solve the problem.
For instance, the UO is now willing to acknowledge that some GTFs might be asked/expected to overwork. In fact, they tell us some departments were already looking into the problem and still others agreed that it could be a problem. The UO's bargaining, however, would only go as far as saying that it was certainly a worthy topic of conversation and that perhaps more contract education at the departmental level would be in order.
They rejected our proposal that each department have a policy regarding the maximum number of students that can be assigned to a teaching GTF. They said they did so because our proposal would be an imperfect way to solve the problem, but, again, offered absolutely no alternative ways to approach the issue.
The UO took roughly the same approach to on the issue of criteria for satisfactory academic progress. Since December, we have been telling that UO that we think it is vital that the criteria for deciding whether a GTF is making satisfactory academic progress must be "specific and objective." As failure to maintain satisfactory academic progress is one of the very few reasons a GTF can be unilaterally fired and/or not have their application for work considered, we believe it is vital that these criteria be clear and straightforward.
Additionally, we have an experience from last year where a department on campus was leaving satisfactory academic progress up to the individual GTF's professor. Which could be theoretically fine, but it turns out that the department in question violated the heck out of their own hiring procedures and when called on it by the union, proceeded to claim that they were refusing to give work to certain graduate students because of lack of "satisfactory academic progress." The university asserted that since the determination as to whether the graduate student was making satisfactory academic progress was up to the advising professor, and it was an academic not labor decision, the GTFF could not question it. We were eventually successful in the grievance process, but we would, naturally, like to close this giant loophole in the hiring process.
The UO has no such desire. While they say that they, too, have no interest in making it possible for a department violate the contractual hiring procedures, then claim satisfactory academic progress, they have proposed no mechanism for doing so.
As far as economics, well, we don't really know what to say. The UO offered us raises of 1% and 3% over the next two years - which is what we proposed - no improvement on fees, and a health care proposal that was slightly better than their last proposal. The offered these proposals as a package, so we'd have to accept all or none. The they added a giant "BUT" into the conversation by letting us know that they were aware that Congress had passed health care reform and if that law had any impact on our health care plan, then their proposal would be null and void, even if we had already accepted it. In other words, we had to accept the entire package of proposals, but one part of their proposal might be void next fall and we'd need to re-bargain it.
As you can imagine, we did not accept this proposal and barely considered it a proposal at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
