There was a charged negotiating session on Friday, 13 April. As you remember, four articles from our MOU (memorandum of understanding, IE contract) are open for renegotiation. These are Article 21-Salary, Article 24-Instructional Workload, Article 26-Release Time for UC-AFT Business, and Article 40-Duration. In short, these articles speak to what we are paid, how much work we do, what support the UC owes the Union, and how long the current contract will last.
The UC gave proposals on Articles 21 and 40. It still proposes that our contract be extended one more year (to 2011) with no opportunity to re-examine problem articles. In light of proposed changes to benefits and our total compensation, the Union finds that such a change would not be in our interest.
In terms of salary, the UC managed to convey the unfortunate attitude that we lecturers should be grateful to take salary increases called for by the compact (along the lines of two to four percent, depending on how much the legislature gives and how much the UC redirects to merit pools or other items). Through frank discussion, our bargaining team conveyed our dissatisfaction with such a proposal.
From this point, the bargaining session focused on discussion of salary and workload. The Union President, Bob Samuels, gave a presentation on workload problems and methods employed on several campuses to address these problems. By the end of these discussions, the UC indicated better understanding of our concerns.
The final topic of negotiations was the ground rules for negotiations. The UC had proposed language that might limit whom the Union could bring to the table and curtail our communication with our members and broader constituents. Our counter proposal was not received well because we cut some provisions the UC considers key. We will attempt to craft ground rules that address the UC's concerns without censoring ourselves.
The most positive news is that any scheduled COLA increases in October will apply to Lecturers as well as to Senate faculty. However, the two teams agreed to delay our next meeting until mid May in order to give both sides more time to craft counter proposals. Both sides hope to finish negotiations in the first part of summer, but we are still clearly in the opening stages.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Thanks, Ben...appreciate the updates!
Jennifer Ramos
From what I can see, we are in a bit of a chess game. I think our community needs to think a great deal about what concessions we must have to make this field a viable one for the long term (under the current structure, I am forced to ask such difficult questions of myself). Viability is critical for the health of the instructors, students, the field, and institution. I think, as a group, we also must come to some consensus regarding what sacrifices we are willing to make to achieve said viability. I suppose while negotiations are in process, these are important questions. Thank you for your diligence Ben.
Paul Beehler, Ph.D.
Lecturer of English
Post a Comment