Session 4 March 2, 2007 1:30 PM to 4 PM

The fourth bargaining session between GEO and the University was a bit frustrating, as it became clear that the members of the University’s bargaining team had not done their homework before presenting their healthcare proposal, thereby slowing down the process due to a delay in getting necessary information. Despite this, some progress was made.

Article 35: As noted above, the University was unable to provide us with the information we needed to respond to their proposal on healthcare. Not only did this slow down the process – as it meant we were forced to wait until the next session to address this vital issue – it also indicated that the University made a proposal to eliminate all caps on co-pays without any idea of what impact this would have on those of us using the health insurance! Nevertheless, we remain hopeful that we’ll be able to take this up at the next session (on March 16) and that we’ll be able to reach a conclusion that maintains the great coverage we have.

Articles 3, 4, 22, 44: After noting that we were unable to discuss healthcare productively, the University made a package proposal. This means that we can’t pick and choose which parts of the proposal we like; we have to either accept the whole thing or make a counter proposal. Their proposal involved maintaining important language regarding the processing of dues deduction forms that gives the Union access to the information it needs to enforce the contract and ensure that the cost of representation is equally shared by all of our members (Article 3). The package also involved an amendment to their previous proposal regarding Family and Medical Leave that would make it possible for more of our members to access this benefit (Article 44). However, their package also contained a proposal designed to weaken our union. The University wants to decrease the number of GEO staff positions it funds from 4 to 1, thereby greatly decreasing the remaining staffs’ ability to represent the membership (Article 4). The University also ignored our proposals regarding increasing the minimum number of hours for which Teaching Associates are paid (Article 22). We’ll respond to these proposals at the next session on March 16.
Article 17: We presented a proposal to add “ethnicity” to the categories that qualify for Affirmative Action. We also proposed removing language that prevents us from going to binding arbitration over violations of the University’s Affirmative Action policy. We are awaiting the University’s response.

Article 23: Finally we presented a proposal regarding departmental appointment/ reappointment policies. It included language that would require departments to get input from graduate students regarding the process by which they distribute assistantships, as well as to post all available positions. Our proposal would also require departments to give graduate students meaningful information regarding their funding situations for the next semester in time to allow them to look for other funding if the department couldn’t promise them a position. We are awaiting the University’s response on this proposal.

Comments Off on Bargaining Update #4 3/2/07