The bargaining session with the university on March 12 2007 saw disagreement on the crucial issues of paid leave for graduate employees and on transparency in appointment/reappointment policies in departments。

The session began with an agreement （in fact our first signed tentative agreement of this bargaining cycle）on the inclusion of ethnicity as a criterion in the article on non-discrimination。 The university suggested using ‘ethnic origin’ instead， and we agreed。

However, the university then rejected both our packaged proposals where we responded to the university‘s attack on the union’s staff position and also included several of our counter-proposals， including a proposal on paid bereavement and parental leave and on an arbitration procedure in case the university reneged on our current procedure of processing GEO dues forms.

After a caucus， the university‘s team rejected our packages， but in a minor concession, they proposed to fund two GEO staff positions instead of their original proposal of cutting the union staff to one. On the issue of arbitration over the processing of GEO forms, the university proposed an expedited grievance procedure instead of an arbitration。 On the question of paid leave however， the university rejected our proposal outright without any response。 On being asked what it was about the proposal that was not acceptable to them， they said that it wasn‘t the time-frame but the concept of paid leave itself: they did not think that graduate employees should have the right to seek paid leave.\

After a brief caucus， we presented our response to the issue of dues forms： we agreed to the university‘s proposal on an expedited grievance procedure instead of arbitration provided that the university notified us of any change in procedure well in advance， and that they do not discontinue current procedure while the grievance process is taking place。

On the issue of paid leave， we tried to reason with the university that graduate employees， as workers， as equally entitled to paid parental and bereavement leave。 We offered to negotiate over the number of days that we were asking for， and indicated we were willing to accept a reduction。 However， the university‘s team indicated that they were ideologically opposed to any kind of paid leave whatever。 When asked whether they did not believe that graduate students who would become parents while still working， or who unexpectedly lost a loved one were as entitled to take paid time off work to deal with these situations as any other university employee， the university‘s response was telling： they argued that such issues are best resolved informally，that we should depend on the benevolence and magnanimity of our professors and supervisors to allow us to take time off， but that they would not like it codified in a contract。 This type of response continued the university’s fondness for solutions involving individual generosity on the part of the administration towards graduate students。 We argued that only a commitment to codify these agreements in the contract will ensure that apply equally to all grad employees rather than haphazard instances of individual benevolence for a few favored employees。 The issue remained unresolved， with the university taking a ideological opposition to the concept and unwilling to offer any counter-proposal。

We then reminded the university‘s team that we were still waiting for information on Article 17 （limits on health insurance co-payments）and for a response on Article 23 （transparency in appointment and reappointment policies）。 They did not have any information on the former， and rejected our proposal on the latter。 Their argument for rejecting it was that appointment and reappointment policies should be left to the individual department and should not be dictated by us。We pointed out that we were in no way asking to dictate policies： we were merely asking that each department clarify their policies and procedure – whatever they may be – according to certain definite criteria， so that potential employees would know what chance they had of an assistantship and it would be clear why an employee was or was not hired for a particular position。The university responded that the current procedure of publishing these policies on the provost’s website was adequate。 We pointed out that these policies as they existing are vague to the point of being meaningless， and that the lack of any mandatory criteria meant that they had absolutely no real use to graduate students seeking assistantships。On this issue also， the university refused to offer any alternatives， and concluded that any further transparency would harmful to their constituents。

Our next session is currently for Friday March 23 2007 at 1。30 PM。

Comments Off on Bargaining Update #5 3/12/2007