LEOunion.org

The two sides met again on Friday, March 5, holding informal discussions throughout the day.  

Much of the focus was on the union's proposal to revise the appointments article.  The discussion of what happens after a lecturer passes the second major review seemed productive.   The two sides apparently agree that endless major reviews are not helpful, but are still searching for a viable alternative on which they can agree. There was also discussion, perhaps less productive, of the union's proposals that initial L1 appointments be for one year when the unit anticipates needing the lecturer for a year, and that LIVs should all have appointments of the same length (between the first and second major review) to avoid the problem that some individuals  have to wait two extra years for their second 7% raise.   Finally, the two sides discussed LEO's proposal to give adjunct and intermittent lecturers a chance to earn presumption of renewal. 

The union also responded to management's questions about proposed changes to the layoff/ recall article. LEO has proposed that units should be required to define "expertise, ability and performance" relative to their fields before using those concepts in layoff and recall decisions (as opposed to simply using seniority).  Management asked the union to draft a set of example criteria, and the union agreed to do so.

The administration addressed LEO's questions about rumored layoffs in Ann Arbor, confirming that various LSA departments are indeed considering changes that would lead to job loss for lecturers.   However, no decisions have been reached.  The union was assured that it and affected lecturers will be notified as soon as the decision is made.  The contractual deadline for notifying L1 and L2s for the fall sememster appointments is April 30. 

Finally, the union responded to the administration's benefits proposal.  That proposal is simply to apply the benefits plan developed by the University's select committee (COSHB) to the LEO bargaining unit. Having already noted the regressive, unfair nature of the COSHB plan, and having received no salary proposal from the administration by which to measure the total financial impact on bargaining unit members, LEO could only say at this point that it does not accept the administration's benefits proposal.

(The adminstration may provide some salary information at the bargaining session on March 12, although in what form and to what extent is not clear.)