| Bargaining on June 3 and 4 |
| Monday, 14 June 2010 07:11 |
|
The Great Package Exchange
After weeks of difficult discussions over job security issues,
with little obvious progress, the LEO-UM contract negotiations
seemed to spring forward on June 3 and 4. Both teams presented
comprehensive package proposals, covering virtually every open
article. The packages revealed several areas of agreement.
However, significant areas of disagreement remained, most
notably in salary and benefits. Because each element of a
package is contingent upon the acceptance of all the other
elements, even one area of disagreement can bring the entire
package crashing down like a house of cards. With that important
caveat in mind, it is worth examining where the sides have
moved closer together and where they remain apart.
LEO and the administration have moved close together –
call it “hand-shake range” – on several issues, with clear
improvements over the current contract for bargaining unit
members. Specifically, the sides have almost (but because
of the nature of the package proposal system, not quite) come
to agreement on the following:
Appointments, Performance Evaluation and Layoff/Recall –
Throughout these negotiations, LEO has sought to
enhance job protections for lecturers, and several such
improvements have now appeared in the package proposals
of both sides. These include provisions to eliminate “blind-
siding” in major reviews, to allow longer appointments
(up to seven years), to streamline reviews after the second
major review, to improve the remediation process, and to
allow a special appeal of a failed remediation for lecturers
who have passed two major reviews. For the first time, the
Layoff/ Recall article would include a suggested definition
of EAP (expertise, ability and performance), the concept
which can trump seniority in layoff decisions.
Professional Development – The University package would
modestly increase the amounts of money allocated to lecturer
professional development on each campus.
Outstanding Lecturers – The sides have tentatively agreed
on the general outlines of a program to honor outstanding
lecturers.
Expanded Disability – Both packages include a provision
to extend the university’s Expanded Disability Plan to
Lecturers I with two or more years of service.
Special Case Appointments – Both sides had proposed
changes to this article, but both have now proposed
returning to current contract language, with a small
addition to improve reporting of special case appointments
to the Union.
No Strike –Similarly, both sides have now proposed
returning to current contract language.
In a couple of areas, the distance between the sides is difficult
to determine because only LEO covered the issue in its package.
One such area is that of modified duties for new parents; the
other is that of special provisions for international lecturers.
However, these issues have been extensively discussed in
informal, small group sessions; while there are signs of progress
on the modified duties issue, there seems to be little will to
improve the job security of international lectures.
LEO has put one other issue across the table, a Memorandum
of Understanding to reinstate the union’s vice president (see
attachment, IR Update). The administration has acknowledged
that this is a legally permissible subject of bargaining, but not a
mandatory one, and they have declined to bargain it. LEO has
also filed a grievance in the matter.
Finally, in a few key areas that both sides did cover in their
exchanged packages, they remain far apart – call it “shouting
range.” Not surprisingly, these are mostly monetary issues.
One is the issue of compensation for late course cancellations.
LEO has sought to have Lecturers I compensated at the same
level as other lecturers are when their courses are cancelled just
before or after the start of a semester. After all, a Lecturer I will
put in no less work than other teachers in preparing a course.
But the administration has thus far rejected equity in late
cancellation payments. On a larger scale, the administration has
also rejected – or at least ignored – the union’s call for equity in
salary increases, resulting in a significant gap between the salary
proposals of the two sides. It remains to be seen how the gap can
be closed. However, in its benefits proposal, the administration
has at least attempted to mitigate the hardships that the
university’s new benefits premium schedule imposes on part-time
lecturers (those with appointments between 50% and 79%)
by offering partial, temporary compensation to them. While
appreciating the gesture, LEO seeks more complete and enduring
protection for these vulnerable members of the bargaining unit.
Again, for the union, it comes down to questions of equity
and fairness.
We remain determined to bargain a contract that makes
significant gains on the old one and that reflects the concerns
and goals of the membership. Bargaining in the summer, when
most members are not employed by the university and are not
present, is difficult and so we are proceeding carefully. We hope
to change the end date of the agreement to avoid this problem in
the future, but the administration as so far shown no willingness
to move the date at all. If you are available, we welcome your
presence at bargaining and your voice in the LEO caucus.
|
