Session #12: Sticking Points
Today, the College came to bargaining with counterproposals on Workload, Course Assignments, Employee Records, and Prohibition on Discrimination and Harassment, and with a Memorandum of Understanding on Artificial Intelligence. As always, you can find all of the passed proposals at the bargaining table on our tracker here. We had some important, clarifying conversation on Employment Records and Course Scheduling, but we are still faced with several important sticking points with the College. Here’s what you need to know:
Workload: The College is maintaining their proposed courseload increase to five courses. Our Bargaining Committee understands this is a fundamental issue for our unit and is committed to holding the line. We know that our working conditions are student learning conditions and an increase in courseload will make us less available to provide student support.
Prohibition on Discrimination and Harassment (PDH): Our conversation heated up during our back-and-forth on PDH. The College’s counterproposal, at first glance, appeared to show movement by agreeing to a grievance process, in the College’s proposal the grievance process only applies to discrimination and harassment based on protected categories and only from individuals acting on behalf of the College. Additionally, the process is undermined by the stipulation that the grievance “be held in abeyance” – meaning the grievance is put on hold – for 120 days while the College’s processes the grievance according to internal policy. This stipulation in effect renders the grievance process useless for four months. We need a grievance process so that our members can get immediate support. If a colleague is being harassed, they shouldn’t have to wait four months to get a remedy.
After caucus, our bargaining committee countered on PDH, reasserting our position regarding the grievance process. In the ensuing discussion, we were disappointed to see a persistent misunderstanding and confusion about what we are asking for. The College’s bargaining team continues to make the false claim that our proposal circumvents an investigation. It is and always has been our position that the grievance process is separate and compatible with an investigation, that its goal is to provide a pathway for immediate, non-punitive remedies. To close the conversation, we directed the College’s team to other contracts that include a grievance process for discrimination and harassment, and we hope the College will move towards us in setting a gold standard for protecting women and upholding equity in Higher Ed. (You can find these contracts in the attached “Go to the Sources” document.)
The College also passed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on AI: This memorandum stipulates that, “subject to approval from the Agenda Committee of Academic Council, a BUE shall be eligible to participate on the Artificial Intelligence Working Group. In exchange, the Union will withdraw its proposal on AI and will not propose any further articles in this area.” The proposal in question is simple: it states that a BUE cannot be replaced by AI. BUEs should be able to serve in the AI Working Group, but making that service contingent on withdrawing our proposal undermines the sincerity of their MOU. The Bargaining Committee is considering our options—respond to this email if you have thoughts or feedback!
At this stage in bargaining, we are reaching some agreement – and the sticking points are emerging as well. Our bargaining team is fortified by the support of our unit and the solidarity of our tenure line colleagues. And as always, we are guided by the principle that faculty working conditions are student learning conditions. What we win, we win together – come to the teach-in to learn more, to stay engaged, to show support, and to get this done!
Your presence is valuable - please come to the teach-in on Thursday, October 24th from 4:30 - 6pm in Founders 120. RSVP appreciated, but not required.