August 23, 2024
Today we agreed to an MOU on Facilities Improvements!
We are moving closer and closer on important topics such as Discipline, Health and Safety, and Facilities, however we are still holding ground on topics that are important to our members. UFISU presented our third comprehensive proposal since February. We are frustrated that the administration is not bringing economic proposals to the table yet, when our bargaining team has no problems working on multiple proposals at once.
UFISU’s Lead Spokesperson Ashley Farmer presented our counter-proposal on Health and Safety, Facilities, and a Memorandum of Understanding on Facilities Improvements. We are agreeing to the employer’s MOU on Facilities Improvements, and due to this we made some additional changes and deletions to our proposals on Health and Safety and Facilities. In our Health and Safety counter-proposal, the major changes include that the employer recognizes their responsibility to make reasonable provisions for the health and safety of Employees, to enforce compliance with Federal and State laws, and to maintain sound operating practices (which may include safety training deemed appropriate). In our Facilities counter-proposal major changes are that the employer will provide adequate equipment and materials, as well as instructional, office, and laboratory facilities, with the understanding that faculty have a reasonable expectation of privacy and security when we do our jobs. The counter-proposal also notes that employees will be consulted about their computing needs, and if an employee requests to have their teaching or research space reassigned, there will be a written response from their department chair or school director. This is meant to increase the likelihood that supervisors will take these requests seriously and attempt to meet them when feasible.
Administration Spokesperson Mark Bennett gave possible bargaining dates for September and October, then presented a single counter-proposal on Discipline. This included some small language changes to match ours. They continue to reject language about which framing of “just cause” to use, but our language on suspension and dismissal is now in alignment. MB is still regularly trying to come up with examples of disruptions that the administration would not be able to address without a provision that administration could immediately and without process remove faculty members engaging in “severe disruption.” But “severe disruption” is vague language and the inclusion of such a provision, we feel, would allow the administration free reign to penalize and discipline faculty for actions that can be dealt with through the process that we are otherwise in agreement upon. We then caucused for half an hour.
After coming back from caucus, we confirmed bargaining dates for September and October. We also introduced the remaining articles we’ve gotten no progress on from the administration, including articles related to Workload, Salary, and Funds for Travel and Professional Development. Dr. Ashley Farmer framed the introduction of the Comprehensive Proposal by mentioning the changes to working conditions currently happening in colleges and departments across campus. She noted we are not trying to stop them but that colleges and departments need to check with the union, especially in cases of class size, class duration, and other long standing working conditions at ISU.
Ashley went through our changes to proposals in our Comprehensive Proposal. The majority included small language changes related to past agreements, because the administration has still not responded to these proposals. MB continues to be hung up on aspects of our disability proposal. He has issues specifically with our efforts to remove the need to continually provide documentation for faculty who have a permanent disability. He claimed we are not following the law and that only doctors are capable of speaking to reasonable disability accommodations.
Dr. Natalie Shaheen, Assistant Professor in the Department of Special Education, was in attendance and educated Mark Bennett about how disability accommodations work and who is best qualified to verify reasonable accommodations. We also provided MB with an example of why our name change policy is so important, by presenting him with a piece of university mail that one of our team member’s recently received with their dead name on it. It is clear the university has work to do both on disability and name changes to ensure all members receive equitable treatment.
Talking through our counter-proposal on Management Rights, Ashley noted the administration’s proposal was a clear attempt to claw back rights from the union. We believe their proposal, as written, could give the university a loophole to undermine the contract. MB says this premise is false because of their line saying that except where this agreement modifies it. Our language closely matches what NIU, CSU, EIU, and Governor’s State, just to name a few, have in their contracts. We are holding on to our position because we believe the university’s proposal is attempting a gross overreach of control.
As we moved into economic issues, MB claims that there continue to be weighty issues that need to be bargained before the administration shares its financial counter-proposals. We have made great progress on the non-economic proposals, so there is now a limited amount of topics to discuss. MB’s response was “What would you like to bargain instead?” Ashley noted that the faculty are capable of juggling multiple balls at once. She reiterated that these are important issues and our members are currently affected by the university’s attempts to push new changes in working conditions, while we are still waiting for them to address working conditions in bargaining. It’s clear from their actions that they believe they can quantify our work, so NOW is the time to bargain for it.
We received questions about our workload policy. MB wanted to know where our numbers in the policy came from. Dr. Julien Corven, table team member and Assistant Professor in Mathematics, stated that he used the current policy that defines 1.0 FTE as the equivalent to 12 credit hours per semester or 24 credit hours per year. Dr. Keith Pluymers, table team member and Associate Professor in History, stated that when he was hired, he was told the workload was a 4/4 with one of those “classes” being devoted to service and research, meaning a faculty member taught a 3/3 along with expectations of research and service. Both Julien and Keith noted that our appointment letters now say the same faculty member would have 60% teaching with the remaining 40% divided between service and research. MB continually pressed on the math involved with Julien and Keith, with both stating we had to pick some place to start so we used the numbers provided by university policy and the appointment letters issued to faculty each August. MB additionally had questions related to how service counted towards the Credit Hour Equivalents (CHEs) system we proposed.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, MB really had no comments on our resubmitted salary and travel and professional development funds proposals, despite how important these are to our members.
We ended the day by signing a Memorandum of Understanding that will commit the administration to installing locks on ALL classroom doors within 5 years, as well as to make progress on all-gender restrooms and lactation spaces. This makes our 13th TA to date.
We confirmed our next bargaining session will take place on Wednesday from 9am-5pm in the Student Services Building 130. Come see what happens in bargaining, and be a part of the process! See you there!