3/6/2013: Lots of talk today about how the faculty should respond to Gottfredson’s 2% merit pay ultimatum. This 2% will be our total merit pay increase for what, the past 5 years, plus the next 2? It’s been so long I’ve forgotten. I think that works out to about $120 per year on average for merit.
The union is currently surveying members about how to respond. Actually, looks like they took the high road a surveyed all the bargaining unit, members or not. (Email them at info at uauoregon.org and join up so you get a vote in the official elections later.)
I’m no behavioral economist, but my advice is to engage system 2
My personal take is that the cost of rejecting this insult cannot be higher than a 3 month delay in the retroactive 1% of pay. Gottfredson says we get that in May, but if we say no we will almost certainly get it in July with the contract. Hard to see how he can admit he has the money now, then call take-backey later.
And given all the crap JH has been spending money on – cop SUV’s, Jock Box, Mac Court, administrators, NCAA lawyers, Bean’s sabbatical – my guess is that the union will have no problem demonstrating that UO can afford to make a reasonable merit proposal, and will be able to get one at the table. So the likely benefits of rejection are high.
So, maybe just go with the system 1 response:
They offer, you refuse, everyone’s happy.
You’re no union propagandist either, right?
Now settle down, kids… Look. Don’t buy into it. What lawyers want to do is push your buttons so you do something stupid. Outright rejection would be stupid. It just gives the admin PR advantage. “Greedy public sector loafers. We offered them a raise, but no. It wasn’t enough!” What we need to do is hit them back on their button – shared governance. We issue a counter-ultimatum. “OK, we’ll accept this raise, if you recognize the validity of the UO constitution within the contract… (and whatever other governance goodies we want to add in). Oh, and you have a week to decide or the offer’s off the table.” If they refuse, we say, “They rejected shared governance.” If they accept we walk away with a raise (admittedly paltry) for the starving masses and governance for the policy wonks – win/win. Slam dunk!
The interests of Research NTTF aren’t particularly well represented by the faculty senate, and they’ve had stagnant/declining pay for 4+ years.
I don’t think that argument is going to sound so win/win to them.
Re. the Constitution and shared governance: The UO has a Constitution, and governance within that framework appears to be working — pretty well considering its novelty. Under State Board Rules, any changes made to that Constitution must be ratified by both Prexy and the Statutory Faculty. Thus, I don’t see that recognizing the validity of the Constitution is a meaningful issue for negotiation. Am I missing something?
The union wants to control it.
Have you noticed that the constitution has not been signed by Gottfredson? Why is backing the constitution with legally enforceable grievance procedures anything other than strengthening faculty hands in shared governance? Old Man, you keep treating the union as if it was some outside entity. Wake up, we are it, it is our (read: faculty) union! Add another tool to faculty governance because one of them, the senate, could use some back up on occasion and over some matters.
I agree that recognition of the Constitution in the CBA would only strengthen it – this is standard practice in many Union contracts. But, the new President does not have to sign the Constitution. The IMD says that a new president can change it but does not require it be ratified by new president. By default, it remains in place as ratified by previous president if new president offers no changes. Someone correct me if that is the wrong read on this.
The union leadership will own the grievance/arbitration procedure; not individuals or the Senate, which has policy input authority not statutorily provided to the union.
I disagree. I see no reason to overlap union structures on Senate structures. Also you forget the Senate includes many who are not members of UAUO. The constitution of committees varies by committee. But students, classified staff, OAs, and others participate in the Senate and its functions. For UAUO, which represents only one subgroup of those represented by the Senate to claim ownership of the Senate’s governance structures is inappropriate.
Faculty grievance procedures may be different, though presumably faculty outside the bargaining unit cannot be expected to grieve within union structures, and by law alternatives must be provided. Some of the grievance mechanisms now under the Senate originate as OAR directives and so cannot be willy-nilly eliminated.
I see no benefit whatsoever the enshrining the constitution within the CBA.
In the past, the President was obliged (by IMD-123, I think) to define the scope of Faculty governance (although DF never did). That IMD was demolished by the State Board a few years ago. The following statement is now Board Policy:
“(8) The statement of internal governance is subject to review and amendment when a new institution president assumes office or at other such times provided for in the internal governance statement. Any amendment to the statement of internal governance will be subject to ratification by the relevant institutional body or bodies and the institution president.”
Thus, In order for our existing Constitution to be amended, both Prexy and Faculty must ratify the changes. I can’t imagine the Faculty ratifying a weaker Constitution, and Prexy has shown every sign of being willing to work within the Constitution we have (which is an excellent one).
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
I am no lawyer but the way the initial legislation seems to read is when the booser’s board takes over all OAR, ORS, and every law and rule you have been hanging your hat for the last 60 years cease to exist, or at least become nothing more binding than a turn of the century french novel; kind of like this union contract, and your constitutional shared governance, and current faculty handbook. o
Sacre bleu!
The union better get me more from the administration than I’m paying them in dues.
You fucking whiners. You’re lucky to have jobs. Life’s too short.
Take this job and shove and shove it, eh? OK, go ahead and quit then.
Oh that U of O Matters would take his blog and shove it!
Did you get a kick out of that one, Jim? Did you send a link to Mike over that one? What a clever boy you are union man.
Yeah cause the only person who thinks U of O Matters is full of it has the last name Bean….
Thank god all you whiny, erudite fucktards are resigning. Now the rest of us can focus our energies on our students.
Careful, that can get you arrested. This ain’t the Vatican.