Here is a beautiful roundup of the 3+ meetings that have already happened in bargaining. We haven't yet moved from non-economic issues (like parking, access to breastfeeding locations, diversity and harassment language, etc) to fiscal issues (like our stipends), but the bargaining team has put together a lovely update for us all. Scroll for the full update, or just check out the bolded highlights.
And remember, if you want to attend a meeting and see how this stuff goes down in person, we'd love to have you stand (or sit, technically) in solidarity with us across from MSU administrators. Tomorrow we begin bargaining economic issues, so if you have free time and want to sit in on a meeting, please let us know!
At our first bargaining meeting we established ground rules. The university pushed to rush the
process by asking us to submit our full proposal at the following meeting. We found this
unfeasible in part because we needed considerable amounts of information from the university
and in part because we are trying to develop our bargaining plans with the feedback from all
TAs. The university also made rules that limit the openness of the bargaining process. That said,
we secured a space for up to two outside observers in each bargaining session and we can add
members (even if you can only come once) to the bargaining team. If you are interested in
coming, please let us know; having numbers at the table lets the university know that we care
enough to push our proposals through!
- We need numbers sitting across the table from MSU to be heard. Will you come to a bargaining session?
In the following sessions we exchanged non-economic proposals including language updating
our contract for Right to Work, expanding our access to parking, guaranteeing spaces for
breastfeeding mothers to express breast milk, improving our anti-discrimination language,
requiring better data from the university, and guaranteeing reimbursement for Mental Health
First Aid, first aid, AED, and CPR training.
Many members have expressed concern that they do not have the training to help a student
experiencing a mental or physical health crisis. The American College Health Association
reports that eight percent of college students seriously consider suicide in any given year and
suicide remains the second leading cause of death for people ages 15 to 34. The numbers of
students (both graduate and undergraduate) who struggle with mental illnesses is heart-rending.
When students approach us with their concerns, we need to be able to support them from a place
of compassion and knowledge as we direct them to appropriate resources. Responding in time
during a physical health crisis is equally important. While the university is equipped with
Automatic External Defibrillators (AED), few of us know how to use them. Heart disease is the
fifth leading cause of death for the same age group. Mental Health First Aid, CPR, and AED
training should be available and free for those who want to volunteer their time learning how to
help keep our students, coworkers, faculty, and staff safe on campus. The Office of Employee
Relations (OER) initially implied that this should be considered as part of our compensation
package and that if we want reimbursement for these trainings we should ask for less elsewhere
in our contract. When asked directly if they thought we should trade our raises for the safety of
students they backed away from using this as an economic bargaining chip, but their interest in
this proposal remains non-committal.
Our anti-discrimination proposal expands the categories protected in our contract to include
(among other things) pregnancy status, gender identity, and gender expression. University
responses to this have been, frankly, comical. The university insists that because some of these
categories are covered either by university policy or law they should not be in our contract.
When we explain that we want to help build on the university’s vision of diversity as listed in the
policy, they imply that wanting this in our contract reflects a lack of trust. They have expressed
concern that our proposal will hurt the feelings of those who wrote the language for the
university policy. Instead, the university would like to remove all anti-discrimination language
from the contract and replace it with a requirement that employers follow university policy and
law. They claim that for anti-discrimination language, “less is more.” Given the challenges any
attempt to expand the Elliot Larsen Civil Rights Act to cover LGBT issues has faced, this is
inadequate.
- MSU doesn't want to expand our anti-discrimination language in the contract since it is 'law.' However, many graduate students have the ability to file a grievance, but not the time or $ to file litigation. Wouldn't it be better to resolve issues in-house? And show the world that MSU won't tolerate discrimination? We think 'Yes.' Do you?
In order to protect the inclusion of breast-feeding mothers in the workplace, we have pushed for
language requiring employing units to provide access to any spaces available for other categories
of employees and to provide sanitary, private spaces in our office buildings and buildings where
we teach. While the Affordable Care Act protects these rights, we would like them to be in our
contract so that it is easier for breast-feeding mothers to explain their needs to supervisors (with
as little awkwardness as possible) and so that any problems can be managed with a grievance
procedure instead of lawsuits. Surprisingly, the university is digging in its heels on this. They
maintain that the spaces are already available. However, as we start a survey of available rooms
on campus it is becoming clear that many are inadequate or inaccessible because of outdated
information. Some of the listed spaces included on the family resource page are not private (one
had a picture window without coverings facing a student dorm), some are used for other
purposes i.e. as copy rooms, and some of the contacts listed for access to locked rooms are
outdated. One of the representatives from the Office of Employee Relations suggested that new
mothers should spend their maternity leave planning for these issues. New mothers should not
have to spend maternity leave exploring campus to insure that university policy is, in fact,
carried out.
Because this is our first Right to Work contract, we have had to radically shift contract language
for fee-payers. We are trying to establish a new category of voluntary fee-payer for those
members of our bargaining unit who would still like to contribute to the services provided by the union but do not want to become full members. The university also proposed language, but
without the fee-payer status. Given that other unions on campus have built this language into
their contracts, it seems unlikely that the university will raise too much opposition to our
proposal.
The university has also submitted a variety of proposals. In addition to updating the contract for
Right to Work and changing our anti-discrimination language, they are looking to remove
requirements that employing departments notify us in a timely manner about our employment
status for upcoming semesters, and change the dates and language of our employment period.
The university’s suggestion that we eliminate our employment notification dates will not provide
the necessary financial stability and planning time for graduate students. Currently, many
departments respond to the requirement that they notify TAs of their employment status by April
19th by simply telling all applicants that there is no position available for them and then rehiring
later. They say this is because they are unable to know which classes will have high enough
enrollment for a teaching assistantship. Enrollment information is often available late in the
summer so we have started a conversation about changing the notification into a two part
system- an earlier date ensuring that applicants have a position as a teaching assistant and a later
date confirming the specific course number. We are interested in your thoughts on this idea. If
we were to propose a solution along these lines, how would the later notification of course
specifics affect you?
The university’s other important, non-economic proposal would change the language of our
compensation in the contract from stipend to salary and adjust the pay periods for each semester so that they do not overlap in the middle. Their concern about the overlapping dates stems from the overlap grievances that university settled with GEU in the last year. Rather than updating their payroll system to handle two TA-ships at the same time, they would like (it seems) to pay us by course. They claim that the current contract language of “salary” requires that we be paid
for as long as we work while “stipend” would allow the end of pay date to precede the
completion of work. We are concerned about the way these proposals categorize our work and
will continue to research the effects they might have.
Conversations on all of these topics will continue as we work to negotiate our economic
proposals. Each group will submit their economic proposals in negotiating sessions on
Wednesday, March 18. In addition to making our proposal for health insurance and raises, we
will propose childcare stipends and access to dining halls at faculty rates among other things. All
new proposals (not including counter-proposals) must be submitted by April 1 so if you have
ideas for language you don’t see here or would like to be involved in drafting contract language
please send us an email!
- TOMORROW we begin economic bargaining! Send positive vibes, or come out in solidarity!
Finally, we will submit a letter of understanding to the university removing our status as
mandatory reporters until the system has been improved. At present the university has designated
all employees (including research and teaching assistants) as mandatory reporters of sexual
assault and relationship violence. While we all want the university to be aware of the extent of
sexual assault on campus and begin appropriate investigations, we fear that the overlap of
categories as both students and employees will confuse the reporting process and that
designation of all employees as mandatory reporters will create an environment in which
students feel unable to approach teachers because they are not ready to report. Having safe
spaces to share their experiences and the ability to communicate the effect it has on their
coursework is necessary for survivors’ well being and their ability to succeed at MSU. Anything
that impedes that will be detrimental to survivors and make it more difficult to direct them to
campus resources. Anything that promotes silence is not an option. Teaching assistants can then
have a voice in improving he reporting process and creating a system that allows us to help our
students.
Throughout the bargaining process the bargaining team needs to know what your bottom line is. What would make an acceptable raise? What are acceptable conditions for those returning from maternity leave? What do you need to be an effective educator? Stewards will be reaching out to learn what it is that you are unwilling to move on for this contract. Furthermore, we need to
make plans to make refusal to move by the university untenable. Bargaining works because of
things that happen outside the room. Rallies or grade-ins may be necessary to make the public
aware of the work we do and the issues we care about. If you have ideas or are willing to
participate- let us know!
What will you stand for?
In Solidarity,
Your bargaining team
No comments:
Post a Comment