...but we're not foolin!
Some updates:
1) Paulette Granberry Russell, from the Office of Inclusion, expressed how mandatory reporting is essentially about limiting our risk as educators. The biggest concerns she has about us not being mandatory reporters is that it opens us up to risk if our students then experience additional violence that we could have stopped by reporting it. Despite our repeated efforts to point out that mandartory reporting revictimizes the victim, and that most people on campus are not equipped to navigate the nuances of helping a survivor who comes to us in good faith of confidentiality, they maintain their position. We offered an alternative to mandatory reporting that would provide victims with the same information the university proports to wanting to provide, but her concerns were that research doesn't support our alternative. We then offered to provide that research. We provided a story explaining how a colleague was in an abusive relationship and fell out of contact. The issue was subject to mandatory reporting because there was a need to go through channels to check up on the person. Without malice, the email issued to the victim was not vague, and her abuser had access to the email. This created a situation that was extremely unsafe for the victim, and is an unfortunate reality that MSU hasn't offered the promise of a solution to, yet requires us to comply and 'trust' that they will do the right thing for a victim that isn't necessarily ready to deal with yet. The issue was tabled.
2) We continued discussing anti-discrimination language. It is becoming increasingly clear that both MSU and the GEU want to protect our students, and we're moving toward the ability to validate marginalized voices in our contract language. GEU wants your stories if you have felt discriminated against during your TA appointments at MSU. Especially if SIRS forms become part of our merit evaluation - like MSU proposes - we need protections from our students discrimination and from those above us.
3) MSU STILL HAS NOT PROVIDED US with a number for wage compensation. Their platform, due today, still has "TBD" for our compensation package. When pressed, we were told that there was only 'so much pie' and they were waiting on healthcare numbers from Aetna to offer us compensation. We have proposed a 29% increase in our wages so that we can be competitive with the top quartile in the Big10. If our football team was in the bottom, no one would be happy, so why should the people who spend the most time educating our undergraduates, doing a substantial portion of the research that gives MSU the prestige it has, be compensated so poorly? Why is there so 'little pie?' Go Green and Show Us the Green! We have been assured that that number will come sometime after a series of meetings scheduled over the next two weeks. But why do we have to have our platform ready, with numbers and well researched, on time? We're not paid to bargain the contract, but MSU negotiators are.
4) We made progress on language in employee leave time, and in other language.
The bargaining process is like a dance. There's a bunch of arguing the best phrasing, speaking in coded language, and maintaining respect, since in the end we both want TAs to work and feel safe when they do. We may have very different definitions of what we think graduate students need to feel safe in their jo, in their workplace, and in their representation, but we do want those things. Our lead negotiators dance...that's the only way to describe it...with MSU, and its a precarious waltz. Please talk to a bargaining team member to learn about why this is so important, why you need to get involved, and what you can do to support your GEU. Your compensation, your happiness at MSU, and your colleagues depend on it.
#GEUisU
#StandUpForTHIS
No comments:
Post a Comment