(no subject)
Emerging from solitude to post that the union just might have got a contract today.
To recap: our contract negotiated in 2009 expired in August. Since April, the union (GEO) has been negotiating with the administration, but there had been no productive anything on any of the monetary issues, which are three:
--Health insurance: the university wanted to switch to playing a flat contribution to our insurance premiums, which meant any increase in cost would be passed directly to us. GEO wanted the university to pay an increased percentage of the premium during the school year, and start paying a percentage to cover us during the summer and to cover our dependents (both of which are currently entirely out of our pockets).
--Wages: right now, a TA with a 50% appointment (like, say, moi) makes a little over $14,000 before taxes. The university's finaid department estimates that the cost of living in Chambana for 9 months is over $16,000. Add in that many TAs don't even have 50% appointments, that some can't get part-time jobs outside of school and the rest don't want to (waves bye-bye at The Restaurant) and we are slightly pissed. The university wanted to fold grad employees into the Campus Wage Program, which gives them the sole right to decide what we earn, when (if) we get raises, and possibly even order furlough days.
--The big kahuna: tuition waivers. For those of you who are uninitiated, perhaps because you did you degree in a sane country: grad school is expensive as shit. Fortunately, many grad students get tuition waivers as part of a compensation package. For instance, because I TA two classes, I get a full tuition waiver plus a paycheck every month. Some departments only give "base rate" waivers, which cover the amount of in-state tuition, meaning if you're an out-of-state student you're on the hook for the difference (of several thousand dollars). Other departments don't grant any waivers and that is sad.
The sticking point in bargaining in 2009 and this year again was tuition waivers, because the university has refused to view them as part of our employee compensation and thus didn't think they belonged into the contract. In 2009 grad students actually went on strike for two days to get an agreement with the university that specifically protected the status quo on tuition waivers: departments couldn't change their current practices, whatever those were, without bargaining it through the GEO. Of course, the university then turned right around and did that, reducing waivers for students in the College of Fine and Applied Arts to base rate, and just a few weeks ago we got a ruling from the state Labor Relations Board that this shit was illegal and the university had to pay those students back....which they ignored. They also ignored an independent arbiter who told them they were being dickbags. Because, you see, waivers aren't part of compensation, and the university should have sole discretion in what happens to them. They kept insisting there was no plan to change the existing waiver structure so it didn't need to be written into the contract...but that's what they said in 2009, and that's what the say in the same bargaining session in April when their own legal counsel told GEO members that they saw grad students as a potential revenue source.
So, yeah.
This year: we voted to authorize a strike two weeks ago, and the strike committee met several times over break. The last two bargaining sessions with the federal mediator were scheduled for Monday and Tuesday of this week, but yesterday's session largely consisted of the university's team sitting around in caucus with no movement underway. If nothing happened today, we were absolutely prepared to call a strike immediately.
Today, after not even bothering to show up until 10:30, the university handed GEO an offer for a five-year contract explicitly protecting tuition waivers. They also pulled a complete 180 on the fucking-over of FAA, agreeing to pay back the difference between the full and base rate waivers with interest to affected students. Like, holy shit.
Of course there were downsides: this deal also included only a modest tweak of the existing health care system--no contributions from the university for summer term or dependents, but an increase in the percentage paid during the term--and a system of raises that, while significantly lower than what we had been bargaining for, still keeps us out of the Campus Wage Program. Plus, they were willing to make the wages retroactive to August 2012, meaning if this contract passes, I get a little bit of backpay. Actually, the biggest sticking point was the length--normally long contracts are good, but for a student-run organization, the amount of turnover we'll experience in five years will make future bargaining difficult. Plenty of people here now remember the 2009 strike; who will be left in 2017?
I stayed in the room while the GEO team talked it over. There was shouting and swearing. Some people wanted to hold out for better wages, because waivers are something they should be giving us anyway and the raises proposed don't even keep up with expected inflation. But if we pushed on wages, the university could've withdrawn its offer on waivers, and without the mediator there'd be no more negotiations until January. Did we want to risk losing waiver language by reaching for that and more? Were grad students willing to go into a protracted strike over just wages? If GEO was perceived as having lost--or worse, rejected--a deal on waivers, would the membership revolt?
It took all afternoon, but at 4:30--half an hour before the end of bargaining--the GEO team and the administration signed a tentative agreement. Members still have to pass it, but most people seem content with what we're getting, and with the fact that we're setting a damn strong precedents for other universities (HI CALLIE! ::waves::) and for our next contract in 2017. (And GEO already has committees for preparing for those negotiations, because there is nothing that can't be solved with a committee.)
To recap: our contract negotiated in 2009 expired in August. Since April, the union (GEO) has been negotiating with the administration, but there had been no productive anything on any of the monetary issues, which are three:
--Health insurance: the university wanted to switch to playing a flat contribution to our insurance premiums, which meant any increase in cost would be passed directly to us. GEO wanted the university to pay an increased percentage of the premium during the school year, and start paying a percentage to cover us during the summer and to cover our dependents (both of which are currently entirely out of our pockets).
--Wages: right now, a TA with a 50% appointment (like, say, moi) makes a little over $14,000 before taxes. The university's finaid department estimates that the cost of living in Chambana for 9 months is over $16,000. Add in that many TAs don't even have 50% appointments, that some can't get part-time jobs outside of school and the rest don't want to (waves bye-bye at The Restaurant) and we are slightly pissed. The university wanted to fold grad employees into the Campus Wage Program, which gives them the sole right to decide what we earn, when (if) we get raises, and possibly even order furlough days.
--The big kahuna: tuition waivers. For those of you who are uninitiated, perhaps because you did you degree in a sane country: grad school is expensive as shit. Fortunately, many grad students get tuition waivers as part of a compensation package. For instance, because I TA two classes, I get a full tuition waiver plus a paycheck every month. Some departments only give "base rate" waivers, which cover the amount of in-state tuition, meaning if you're an out-of-state student you're on the hook for the difference (of several thousand dollars). Other departments don't grant any waivers and that is sad.
The sticking point in bargaining in 2009 and this year again was tuition waivers, because the university has refused to view them as part of our employee compensation and thus didn't think they belonged into the contract. In 2009 grad students actually went on strike for two days to get an agreement with the university that specifically protected the status quo on tuition waivers: departments couldn't change their current practices, whatever those were, without bargaining it through the GEO. Of course, the university then turned right around and did that, reducing waivers for students in the College of Fine and Applied Arts to base rate, and just a few weeks ago we got a ruling from the state Labor Relations Board that this shit was illegal and the university had to pay those students back....which they ignored. They also ignored an independent arbiter who told them they were being dickbags. Because, you see, waivers aren't part of compensation, and the university should have sole discretion in what happens to them. They kept insisting there was no plan to change the existing waiver structure so it didn't need to be written into the contract...but that's what they said in 2009, and that's what the say in the same bargaining session in April when their own legal counsel told GEO members that they saw grad students as a potential revenue source.
So, yeah.
This year: we voted to authorize a strike two weeks ago, and the strike committee met several times over break. The last two bargaining sessions with the federal mediator were scheduled for Monday and Tuesday of this week, but yesterday's session largely consisted of the university's team sitting around in caucus with no movement underway. If nothing happened today, we were absolutely prepared to call a strike immediately.
Today, after not even bothering to show up until 10:30, the university handed GEO an offer for a five-year contract explicitly protecting tuition waivers. They also pulled a complete 180 on the fucking-over of FAA, agreeing to pay back the difference between the full and base rate waivers with interest to affected students. Like, holy shit.
Of course there were downsides: this deal also included only a modest tweak of the existing health care system--no contributions from the university for summer term or dependents, but an increase in the percentage paid during the term--and a system of raises that, while significantly lower than what we had been bargaining for, still keeps us out of the Campus Wage Program. Plus, they were willing to make the wages retroactive to August 2012, meaning if this contract passes, I get a little bit of backpay. Actually, the biggest sticking point was the length--normally long contracts are good, but for a student-run organization, the amount of turnover we'll experience in five years will make future bargaining difficult. Plenty of people here now remember the 2009 strike; who will be left in 2017?
I stayed in the room while the GEO team talked it over. There was shouting and swearing. Some people wanted to hold out for better wages, because waivers are something they should be giving us anyway and the raises proposed don't even keep up with expected inflation. But if we pushed on wages, the university could've withdrawn its offer on waivers, and without the mediator there'd be no more negotiations until January. Did we want to risk losing waiver language by reaching for that and more? Were grad students willing to go into a protracted strike over just wages? If GEO was perceived as having lost--or worse, rejected--a deal on waivers, would the membership revolt?
It took all afternoon, but at 4:30--half an hour before the end of bargaining--the GEO team and the administration signed a tentative agreement. Members still have to pass it, but most people seem content with what we're getting, and with the fact that we're setting a damn strong precedents for other universities (HI CALLIE! ::waves::) and for our next contract in 2017. (And GEO already has committees for preparing for those negotiations, because there is nothing that can't be solved with a committee.)