Thread by @GTFF_3544

GTFF is negotiating with UO again today! While our Bargaining Team is at the table, our rank-and-file members will be sitting in at Johnson Hall to put pressure directly on UO Admin in support of our collective demands.

We'll have bargaining updates soon, but for now, some pics:

The sit-in is meant to send a clear message to university leaders directly from GTFF members: we are overworked, underpaid, and ready to strike if UO keeps stalling on a fair contract that meets GE needs!

Okay, after some time caucusing this morning, we are starting negotiations. No mediator today (our assigned mediator is currently tied up in the @pdxteachers strike; solidarity to our friends at PAT!)

UO will start. They're bringing non-economic articles to begin.

@pdxteachers UO starting with a Letter of Agreement entitled "Tuition Waiver and Oregon Paid Family & Medical Leave"

The LOA would allow GEs to continue getting tuition waivers while taking Oregon Paid Leave. UO is proposing that it would sunset in June 2025.

@pdxteachers Article 29 (Paid/Unpaid Absences).

UO in agreement with most of the stuff from our last pass, but they've crossed out our proposal to increase Unpaid Family/Medical Leave to 18 wks and a few other paragraphs...

@pdxteachers As a reminder, GTFF proposed increasing this from 12 wks as a compromise for running Paid Leave Oregon concurrently with our previously-negotiated Unpaid Family/Medical Leave...

@pdxteachers ...Our stance is GEs should be able to get more time on leave by combining PLO and unpaid FML, as this unpaid FML is a previously negotiated benefit that should be maintained in addition to the state's new creation of the PLO program.

@pdxteachers UO now presenting a counter on Expense Reimbursements. They're crossing most of our language around required timelines, arguing that late reimbursements was a staffing issue that "won't be as much of an issue in the future" + language could be grieved without a specific timeline.

GTFF countering Article 22 (Salary)

Last session, UO sent us a reconfiguration of 22 that would equalize the three GE tiers (GE I, GE II, GE III) rather than using the "GE min" & "across the board" structure we've been bargaining over for 8 months

See next tweet for more info..

“Minimum GE Salary’' refers to the lowest rate UO can pay a GE (i.e. salary floor)

“Across the Board” increases are the cost of living adjustments applied to the salaries of GEs. Some depts pay GEs at rates above the min rates...

...First, “Across the Board” increases are applied; if the new rate is less than the minimum, the GE rate would be raised to the new minimum.

FTE stands for “Full Time Equivalent", or the percentage of a 40hr wk that GEs work. For example, a .49 FTE translates to about half-time (0.49 is the current FTE cap).

Keep in mind, grads must also work many hours to remain in good academic standing to be eligible for GEs.

GEs are paid at different levels according to experience, and advance in pay as they advance in their programs. GE I is the lowest level of pay, and GE III is the highest.

GTFF is concerned that UO's proposed restructuring around the GE levels in Article 22 would help incoming GEs (GE level I) at a cost to GEs who have been here dealing with low wages for longer (GE levels II and III)...

GTFF: "We are not going to be trading recruitment for retention. That's a mandate from our membership... It's not a viable trade-off. So the numbers we've proposed here plug the numbers we would find acceptable for your formatting of the structure..."

"...This restructuring would slightly increase the total cost of the package (~$1.2 million). That's what it would take for us to do this model, given the interest of our members. It's a potentially workable model, but it would take a lot more to make it work..."

"...UO's last salary proposal was totally insufficient for the Across the Board & GE III levels."

That context in mind, GTFF is bringing two versions of 22 today, which are both mediation proposals.

In version 1 of 22, we kept the original structure for offers:

Year 1 - 20.50% to min GE, 13% Across the Board
Year 2 - 11% to min, 8% ATB
Year 3 - 7.75% to min GE, 6% ATB

In version 2, we used UO's reformatted structure for GE levels, at the numbers we would find acceptable:

Year 1 - Min GE I (37.20%); Min GE II (21.44%); Min GE III (15%); ATB (13%)
Y2 - Min GE I, GE II, GE III (11.75%); ATB (8%)
Y3 - Min GE I, GE II, GE III (7.75%); ATB (6%)

UO asking questions about this proposal, and why GTFF is saying there would need to be a lot more money for the restructuring to work...

GTFF: There's two pieces. Across the Boards have to go up, we can't have people losing ground. The second piece is because you gave GE IIIs a 5% increase in your last offer, and that doesn't even break even for that group...

...So if we were to level the GE levels, we'd have to start with making sure all levels get at least to the rate of inflation and a small raise. Then adjust the levels I and II to even them out. So it would raise all the levels."

UO: A lot of what we were hearing in bargaining is that the focus is on the lowest paid members. That was the interest of this proposal -- pulling up the bottom. I felt that was a strong interest for GTFF.

GTFF: There was no change for ATB on your last proposal. There's interest in bringing up the floor, but we're not going to trade half our bargaining unit off for that. We're not going to put all the money with the incoming group at the expense of people who have been here.

GTFF: We are interested in folks at the bottom, specifically the minimums at all three levels. But when we think about raising the floor, we're talking about everyone at min rate going up, regardless of GE level...

GTFF: ...we have to hit a point where people haven't lost a ton of value in what their labor is worth due to inflation...

UO: Most of the bargaining unit above minimums did receive an increase last year, regardless of UO's obligation to do so. We want to clarify that.

GTFF: We believe that some departments gave GEs a raise last year, but many departments did not.

We've asked UO for a copy of their data on this to see if there are disparities across depts or areas.

GTFF is still working on Article 17.

UO saying they're intending to package all the economic articles in the next pass. UO also saying they're struggling with the summer term article (19) but that won't be part of the package, they just want to chat about it.

UO wants to know more about our ideas with FTE in 17 before they can work more on 19.

UO: Is there a specific dept or individual at the core of concerns in article 17 in terms of funding offers & external funding counting or not? Is it for a super specific situation?

GTFF: No... it's not a hypothetical or individual issue. The change in UO's shifting practices for funding in the time people have been here, we want to make sure those people are protected. It's a body of people within our unit...

GTFF: ...Historically, depts had more flexibility around the funding and how they dealt with GE funding from other depts. People did this earlier in their career knowing they'd need more time to finish, and then UO changed their policies. So we're looking to protect those people.

Teams breaking for caucus time to prepare more offers

Our members are still at Johnson Hall, supporting Bargaining Team's demands at the table!

Members are doing political ed from Labor Notes "How to Strike & Win", giving testimony on their experiences, and talking about the history of sit-ins as a political tactic.

Teams are back!

UO is starting with Article 29 (Summer Term)

UO: Unfortunately, looks like hourly GE positions won't work for us. So we are withdrawing that...

UO: Previously, we've agreed to increase the FTE for instructional summer GEs, agreed to international GE summer eligibility for Grad Asst Fund... We want to maintain current summer fees. Agreed to GTFF's language on summer tuition waivers, penalties for rescinding GE appts late.

GTFF: What's the rationale for diff summer fees?

UO: I don't know. I'm sure there was a rationale in the past.

GTFF: The only argument we got was there's fewer students paying tuition during summer, so UO needs more money... but there's no difference in how much work happens.

UO now presenting a financial package of Article 17 (Appointments), 23 (Tuition Waiver), 24 (Health Insurance), 22 (Salary)

UO has reiterated their restructuring of GE levels, but with slightly higher amounts for the Across the Board proposals (Year 1 - 4%, Year 2 - 3%, Year 3 - 3%)

This doesn't address what GTFF previously explained about restructuring. The GE III number hasn't moved at all.

UO: Well these are just expectations of your members. You're not setting your numbers based on a budget. These are the best numbers in UO's history.

GTFF: We've also seen the worst inflation in decades. These proposals are based on what our members need to survive....

GTFF: ...Our members will not vote to ratify a contract at the numbers you're bringing. That's not an arbitrary expectation we have created; voting for or against contract ratification is our members' legal right.

UO: Our constraint is our budget. Numbers, dollars. Your members have an expectation level we can't meet.

GTFF: Well we think you can. You had a $37 million rollover in General Fund last year. Record enrollments again this year, record fundraising...

GTFF: ...This university is in a pretty healthy financial system. That says nothing about other places where money is going -- vanity projects, administrative salaries, athletics, etc. It is our position that UO has the money. We understand you don't want to do it...

GTFF: ...But we are convinced the money is there based on UO's own financial statements. If workers & unions simply accepted the argument that the employer doesn't think they have the money, workers would never get anywhere. The money is there, GEs just are not a priority for UO.

UO: This is the most lucrative contract on the table ever for GTFF.

GTFF: Sincere question: how do we possibly sell to our members, salary increases that leave them in a worse financial situation than they were in years prior because of inflation? ...

GTFF: ...We've laid out the inflation issue, cost of living, competitiveness... The UO gets zillions of dollars in grants and donations, all earmarked for projects, none of it for the general fund for actual educational purposes. These institutional structures are unacceptable.

GTFF: 90% of our members voted and 97% said strike. We're not going to try to convince our members this is acceptable. This is the worst financial situation for low-wage workers in decades...

GTFF: You're trying to raise the offer amount for recruitment. But you're asking our members to give people who just arrived the greatest gains, and everyone else who has suffered wage declines for years, to vote in favor of a plan that doesn't address their own living standards.

UO: You're proposing we shift everyone's thinking on campus about how we should pay half-time employment or less. It's a considerable shift. You're saying, let's pay them more money than what is typically paid for a half-time position. You're shifting the expectations of GEs...

GTFF: We do not think of GEs as part-time. We know they are officially, but it is not feasible for anyone to get a second job because of their obligations to stay in good standing as a student in order to be a GE...

GTFF: ...Research GEs work full-time on research, but only get paid. Teaching GEs teach and do research, and only get paid for half of that. These student requirements are a condition of our employment. The part-time limit is something UO puts on us...

GTFF: Our unit cannot be treated like other units because we have to be both. We are working 40+ hours to make sure we meet student requirements in order to be eligible to work as a GE. We're not part-time.

GTFF: ...Graduate labor is not something that ends at 19.5 hours. It takes all of our time and commitment. We need to be paid at wages that are liveable. We can argue morals all day long...

GTFF: ...But we are telling you as a union, that if UO does not seriously increase the money, you're going to face a crisis. It's not sustainable. It's not going to work. This is the chance to do the necessary and painful movement it takes to avoid the crisis that's coming.

Whew. After this last round of heated exchanges, teams are caucusing. Hoping to come back to swap counters again at 6pm.

It's about 8:30pm and the teams are back in the room to negotiate further. GTFF has a significant package deal to offer; sounds like UO doesn't have anything else right now.

GTFF starting with a new Letter of Agreement to address a sticking point from Article 17.

The LOA creates a carveout for GEs who secured a GE appointment in a dept outside their original hiring dept, and had this GE counted against their funding years in the original dept...

For GEs matriculated before 22-23, the original hiring department would return at least one year of funding to the GE, in order to address prior lack of clarity/consistency on this funding policy for affected GEs. Our new contract will clarify these policies for future GEs.

GTFF now presenting the LOA on Paid Leave Oregon + Tuition Waivers from earlier today. It would make GEs on PLO eligible to continue receiving waivers.

We're agreeing to UO's terms, aside from the sunset date. We want it to be extended through the end of our contract, not 2025.

UO: If it ends in 2025, we can have an intentional conversation about it. I'm worried if it gets added to the contract, we may lose sight of it. Nobody knows who will be at the table next. Our intent is to provide it, but we want guard rails bc we don't know what it'll look like.

GTFF now passing a major package of 17, 19, 23, 24, 29, Expense Reimbursements, the new LOA on inter-departmental funding, and a small portion of 22.

We'll walk through it step by step since there's so much here.

Keep in mind, the goal of packages is to be able to "trade" demands from various articles with each other, with the goal of creating an overall exchange that is acceptable to each side.

17 (Appointments/Reappointments)

GTFF: In this package, we're proposing to move off the "no hire zone" with the FTE gap. Agreeing to move section 8 to the LOA.

Article 19 (Summer Term)

Accepting UO's struck language for hourly GEs, since they aren't interested in providing benefits for those positions. Striking UO's change to summer tuition waiver eligibility.

S6 - Summer fees would be $61 (same as academic year) rather than 65% fees.

Article 23 (Tuition Waiver)

GTFF: If UO agreed to the rest of the package, GTFF would agree to return to status quo on academic year fees.

Article 24 (Health Insurance)

GTFF compromising with an 85/15 summer insurance contribution split (from 80/20) -- potentially big win for GEs with dependents on our insurance

GTFF giving slightly adjusted increases for health insurance administrative costs

Article 29 (Paid/Unpaid Absences)

GTFF shifting to 16wks Unpaid Family/Medical Leave (reduced from 18wks in last pass) to run concurrently with 12wks of Paid Leave Oregon.

Great for GEs to have paid leave now (rather than unpaid) but we still want a few weeks extra unpaid leave

Expense Reimbursements

GTFF moving off specific timelines for reimbursements, with the caveat that late reimbursements will still be subject to the grievances process

Article 22 (Salary) - Contingent on agreement to rest of package, GTFF moving off demands for an additional FTE raise and late pay fees. However, we could still use the grievance process to create financial penalties for late pay, and we have done so successfully in the past.

GTFF: We tried to package all the remaining articles, aside from salaries, in a way that would allow us to get important things that are in reach, while also making fair compromises that would make this package acceptable to UO as-is.

GTFF also passing back a counter for Article 22 salary numbers (separate from the package).

GTFF not engaging with UO's restructuring around GE levels (after UO showed earlier today that they're not interested in our numbers).

GTFF's new numbers would be:

Year 1 - 20% to min GE salary, 13% Across the Board
Year 2 - 10% to min, 7.75% ATB
Year 3 - 7.75% to min GE, 5.75% ATB

GTFF: We don't think your restructuring is viable. If you introduced it earlier in bargaining, maybe we could have gone back and forth. But your numbers were too far off what we would need for that to work. We hope the movement we made in the package will balance our asks here.

UO: So, the concept we proposed before to bring up the GE I... that's not what you want to do?

GTFF: It won't be workable at your numbers. Our members aren't interested in that.

[Reminder: the high GE I numbers would come at an expense to fair raises for GE III]

UO: ...but our numbers would provide a sizeable increase for a good chunk of GEs.

GTFF: It's our job to increase salaries for all GEs. It doesn't seem like UO is in the position to make that restructuring work for the people who have been here the longest.

GTFF: We moved off some of our other asks in the package because we gave up a good chunk in the package to make more space and money to put into salaries.

UO: I get the concept and appreciate the movement. But you're still outside of our range.

GTFF: Sounds like a problem... your range is not a realistic range for what is necessary in this contract. You have our counter. It's 9pm. Is this something you want to turn around tonight?

UO: We'll need some time to caucus and discuss.

Teams are breaking.

Okay! Guess UO's team needs more time to make decisions about our last offers. We're calling it for the night, so we're outta here without a clear resolution on the last pass. We'll be sending them more dates/times for future sessions, hopefully tie up some of these loose ends.

@threadreaderapp unroll