Your Guarantee of Truthiness: All UO Matters bargaining posts are publicly fact-checked by Geller and Rudnick’s secret team of well paid consultants.
How well paid? Gottfredson wants me to pay to find out. I asked for the most recent 3 months of invoices on June 11, eventually got an estimate of $214.50. I paid it on July 18 (thanks for the donations) and still haven’t even had a response from PRO Lisa Thornton on when the documents will be ready. The Oregon AG says 2 weeks is typically a reasonable time frame, start to finish, and the DOJ generally produces legal invoices in one or two days.
I’m also still unable to find out how Randy Geller’s office is reviewing or auditing the invoices Rudnick submits to UO. 2 months, and the PR Office has come up with delay after delay. Who wouldn’t want this info to be public?
And Hubin’s office is still sitting on Jim Bean’s latest contract, which I requested July 19th. Because this will show that President Gottfredson has money to spend on UO administrators, but not on UO faculty?
Disclaimer: My opinion of what people said or were thinking but were too polite to say. Nothing is a quote unless in quotes.
Synopsis:
Prologue, from session XXX (Session XXXI was canceled).
- After actively participating in the discussion about Deb Carver, the admin team now seems to be claiming that the union team and UO Matters may have violated UO’s respectful workplace policy by repeating criticisms of Carver, originally raised by union members from the library – criticisms which Rudnick, and I believe Gleason, repeated word for word during the discussion without raising any objections. And Rudnick is a lawyer, specializing in labor law?
- Admin’s last proposal was for 10.5% raises (spread over last year and the 2 years of the contract), and for many faculty the first raises since 2007. The union counter was 14.5%. Despite the fact that all the financial news broke UO’s way, the UO administration proposal for today is also for 10.5%. Never give an inch, as Hank Stamper used to say.
- Gleason and Rudnick went ballistic when the union brought up the Senate resolution on ending athletic subsidies.
Cast: The usuals plus 5 faculty observers working away on their laptops. Congrats on that acceptance dude – awesome paper.
Live-blog:
I got here a little late, apparently there was a TV crew from KVAL present, they got a bit of video, Rudnick made a self effacing joke about getting her picture on the cover of Rolling Stone or maybe it was the RG, they left and bargaining began.
Art 10, Academic Classification and Rank.
Rudnick reads through. No need for committee on classification, it’s all about job duties not performance, and it OK to make it grievable. Adjuncts can petition for permanent after equivalent of two FTE years. Cecil finds a few problems, good discussion w/ Rudnick. Admin now willing to give faculty access to UO email for 2 terms after they leave UO – subject, of course, to Geller’s notorious “Information Assets” article.
Admin Counter: “Assignment of Professional Responsibilities”
Pratt: Stipends, workload, course assignments? Rudnick: That’s part of the department’s local control. Pratt: We want to make clear that they are responsible for a policy on these things. Blandy: In the contract, or just a reminder to departments to do it? Pratt: This seems important enough we don’t want it neglected. Nothing insidious, just want in on the list.
Rudnick: Since overloads are voluntary, faculty can say no, contract already says we can’t discipline then for refusing this, so real need for this here. Gleason looks disappointed. Cecil and Rudnick continue with productive discussion of how to get the language to protect faculty on this. Rudnick: Seems sensible, we’ll talk about it when we caucus. Cecil, OK. Very reasonable, helpful discussion.
Caucus til 2:50 or so. Termination w/o cause and contracts still to come. They’re back.
Mauer: We accept your counter on health and safety. Rudnick: “Kate, out that in the bargaining notes.” UO is tanking notes? Hmm.
Cecil: Art 2: On the classification issue – instructor, vs. a lecturer teaching grad classes. How about “can petition for reclassification no earlier than after 2 academic years”. That way if they don’t have the resume, etc., provost can tell them that, come back 2 years later. If they do, great. Rudnick: How about 2 years at 0.4 FTE or equivalent? Cecil: Interesting. Suppose you’ve got a PhD but have been classified as a research assistant, rather than as associate. They also have to wait? Rudnick: Hmm, well consider what to do here and get back to you.
Art 25, Termination without cause, admin counter:
Lots of changes from the faculty proposal, should be interesting. Discussion begins with a moment of silence for Bennington College faculty.
.
.
.
Cecil: Wow, lots to talk about. Rudnick: Governance of the university is not a subject for bargaining, whilst termination is. Anyway, um, we crossed out the stuff at the beginning and focus on “termination without cause”. E.g. a decision to terminate an academic program, or financial exigency. We do not plan on having to do this, since Moffitt is sitting on a huge pile of reserves. Effective July 1 2014, since that’s when the board takes over. We’ll give 30 days notice, and talk about it.
We do not believe that governance should be enshrined in a contract. We want faculty input limited to state law and the board’s rules.
Cecil: What are those rules. Rudnick: I don’t know, they will be developed by JH, not to be bargained over.
Mauer: Is the new board going to change something? Rudnick: I don’t know, there’s no board now. Mauer: Huh? of course there is. You want there to be no effective provisions on this for a year? Why doesn’t that reasoning apply to everything we’re bargaining about? Rudnick: Because this article talks specifically about declaring financial exigency and the board’s role.(Like, Moffitt’s tornado?). Cecil: What would happen if UO tried to terminate without cause now? Apply OAR’s and OUS rules? Rudnick: I guess.
Mauer: What are the limitations on you terminating someone for “reallocation of resources”. Rudnick waffles. Davidson: What I’m getting out of this is there are no limitations. If you eliminate a position, you can terminate a professor. Rudnick: Yes. A department can decide to move money from NTTF’s in order to hire more TTF’s, and fire those NTTFs. But not TTF’s.
Mauer: Please tell us more. Rudnick: Must follow policies of some sort, but the board sets the policies. Cecil: Suppose the gov appoints a board that wants to eliminate ethnic and women’s studies. The declare financial exigency, as he says, happened at Wisconsin. Can they under this language? Rudnick: Yes. The board needs to follow UO policy, but it sets UO policy so that shouldn’t be much of a problem.
Rudnick: The solution is not for the faculty union to get involved, it’s keeping any limits out of the contract. WTF? We do allow you to grieve a layoff if you feel the declaration of exigency was fraudulent. Cecil: Why not spell out the process? Rudnick: Because I’ve been told not to give up any of the board’s powers.
Mauer: As I read this, you have many ways you could eliminate programs and fire people without even declaring exigency. Blandy: That’s the way I read it too. Rudnick: Sec 2 deals with that.
Cecil: So at the moment, board declares exigency, Pres terminates programs?
Rudnick: That’s right. Let me go through the rest of it. Sec 3, we agree that you could maybe grieve if you thought the declaration of exigency was not the real reason for the firings. Sec 5 says TTF’s get at least a year’s notice via an email to your UO address. Refusing an offer of reappointment to a new job in the same unit you lose right to reemployment, etc.
Mauer: Maybe I don’t understand. Go back to top. Article covers 5 diff situations, including “curtailment of a program”. I read this to then be enough to allow UO to fire faculty. Rudnick: Yes, if the prereq’s regarding financial or educational reasons were met.
Davidson: Sounds like you are saying there are only two grounds: exigency or educational reasons. Rudnick: Yes. Terms of article still must be met. Many reallocations will occur that do not meet the tests in the article and therefore will not result in firings.
Mauer: What protections for TTF’s v. NTTF’s. Rudnick: Maybe something got dropped, you’re right this doesn’t make sense. Mauer: And for TTFs – how are they selected for firing? Rudnick: Admins will select based on teaching, research record, all the things that tenured people do. Mauer: Suppose the program is curtailed, and the admin decides it’s better staffed with NTTF’s? Rudnick: I suppose that’s possible. Mauer: And that would be grievable and arbitrable? Rudnick: Yes, thought we could fight that.
Yvonne: What happened to part C in your original draft on TTF’s? Rudnick: Whoops, let me check on that?
Cecil: What are differences between this and current OARs? Rudnick: Yes, until we get a board at which point there are no OARs. (Really?) Cecil: I’m reading the OAR’s, and there’s lots of language you’ve taken out about shared governance, consulting faculty, senate. Rudnick: Whatever. Cecil: So not accept our language requiring President to the consult with the Senate and union? Rudnick: You set up this stuff about hearing and meetings, which we are not willing to negotiate on.
Rudnick: We want the governance structure of The University to determine decisions about closing programs, and we do not want the Senate included in that governance structure, so it’s not going in the contract! Cecil starts rattling off stuff about faculties current rights in the OAR’s. This article seems much less thorough than the OAR’s. We will need to take this back, rewrite it, and counter-propose. Because we are bargaining here over some pretty important stuff.
Davidson: As I read this UO could and probably will rewrite these procedures in the middle of a contract. The protections you right here seem illusory. Rudnick: Too bad. Governance is a matter for the PRESIDENT and the BOARD and the faculty but WE ARE NOT GOING TO ENSHRINE IT IN THE CONSTITUTION. The board is not going to bargain with the faculty on this!
Cecil: Supposing we restrict this to bargaining about lay-offs? We give up the Board’s right to eliminate romance languages and replace it with sports product design – but we keep the right to bargain about layoffs. You might not want to, but can we? Rudnick: You cannot grieve whether or not there is a financial exigency, and you cannot bargain over the procedures. Cecil: I see where this is going. Can we bargain over the resulting layoffs? Rudnick: You can bargain over who gets laid off. That’s it. We will not bargain over financial and educational decisions that lead to layoffs and we will not allow the contract to ensure Senate or union participation.
Cecil: Would you be willing to agree to a meeting or conferral with the faculty before layoffs? I ask because our language which you’ve cut, proposed involving the Senate. Apparently the Senate is repugnant to you. Would you consider some other process for conferral?
Rudnick: Go lobby the faculty member of the board. We will not negotiate management rights!
Cecil: Come on, we’re just asking for a couple of public hearings before the university dismantles an academic program.
Rudnick: It’s 4:28. You said you want to bring a guest tomorrow? Mauer: Yes, Ernie Benjamin from AAUP, probably after lunch. Rudnick: OK.
Here’s hoping they’re off doing a secret deal for 14%. Spread over 4 years, 8 for many faculty, it’s not as much as it sounds. Gets us close to the Lariviere plan though, even if a few years late.
Are you joking? 14% over 4 years? If the union caves to that extent they are on some pretty thin ice in my department.
My understanding, The started at 16%, University went to 10%, the came back with 14.X%. I agree 14% is still low, but is more than 6% over three years, which is probably what we would have had without the contract.
I don’t think so. The admins got 3.5 percent last fall, and will likely get 3.5 next fall, and the fall after that. That’s 10.5. That means the union needs at least 10.5+ dues=12 or more to even break even. Plus they got their raises sooner, and the amount we are getting backdated is only 1.5 maybe to last Sept. and they got to last September at 3.5.
I would say given the fact that we have had to wait so long to get the raise, 13 percent or more is the bare minimum.
16 percent or strike.
is Cecil retreating out of public view to compromise with the administration? I’d like to be able to point to at least see one real, genuine benefit that we could not have picked up without the union. If he comes back with some “we met in the middle” soft stuff I’ll go from a union supporter to joining those who have doubted the union’s merit from the beginning.
If we are battling lawyers, why don’t we hire lawyers too?
Are you insinuating that Randy Geller is not competently representing the best interests of The University?
UO Matters refers Great Bennington College Purge of 1994.
Who remembers the initial union backers arguing for our support by telling us that the constitution would thereby become a legal document, a component part of our working conditions? The Senate would be stronger with the union.
Fail.
I hope they are planning to increase my monetary compensation sufficiently to offset this.
The reality is that without a strike the union has zilch bargaining power. Without a strike there is no incentive for the admin to close the salary gap with the union. The arguing will just go on and on…
For the umpti-bazillionth time, United Academics has not relinquished the right to strike. As a conciliatory gesture, the union’s bargaining team offered to forgo striking as part of a comprehensive, collective bargaining agreement. But until that agreement is signed and ratified, all options are on the table. They way admin has been misbehaving lately, I shouldn’t be surprised if the UA bargaining team withdrew the offer.
Let’s see it then. At the moment, it’s off the table. Even more than out 16 percent.
I think Rudnick’s team is out for most of August. By the time bargaining restarts in Sept they’ll be under even more pressure to sign a CBA. Even more so in late Sept, Oct when the faculty are back in force. Best to just wait out this stubbornness and get a better deal on raises and governance then. Meanwhile the union has gained a lot of concessions on technical stuff. If there’s still no deal when classes start, the faculty can start with a symbolic strike on the first friday of classes, when it will only affect a few lectures.
Yes, everyone needs to calm down. It’s a process of back and forth and will inevitably include some nonsense on both sides. There are still plenty of ways to move for the union.
I can see the end now: As this keeps dragging on and on, at some point down the road the Admin will truly be able to say that there is not enough money left for increased salaries — because HLGR got it all at their lofty hourly rates representing the Admin in the union negotiations.
So – how will these raises work? Would a September tenure/promotion salary bump of 8 (or 10)% be COMBINED with the ATB and merit increases? Or will the promotion bump be calculated after or before the other raises? How does that work? It seems unfair, if one happens to be promoted the same year as one of these rare raises, to combine the raises. Does anyone know about this? If they are combined, could we negotiate to calculate them serially?
My guess is the promotion raises will be based on salary as of June. Since some of the ATB increases will be proactive, the base for June should reflect that. Of course this is in a sane world!