June 5, 2024

Thank you to all who attended open bargaining on Wednesday! We saw more members than we have in several sessions (including some new faces!), and the Administrative Table Team definitely noticed and felt the pressure. Those present got to see us sign our sixth tentative agreement (TA) at the end of the session. We hope to keep seeing such great, supportive turnouts for the rest of the summer.

We opened today’s bargaining session (our 11th since beginning in February) with a statement from Spokesperson Ashley Farmer that reminded the Administrative Table Team that “we have been bargaining for ~100 days, and, while we have produced two comprehensive proposals, we have yet to see the Employer’s full proposal that includes economics.” Admin Spokesperson Mark Bennett replied that they will present economic counters after we finish negotiating non-economic proposals. Ashley also reminded the Admin team that while administrators and their attorney are paid to attend, UFISU Table Team and member-observers are volunteers giving up part of their summer to negotiate our first contract.

Bennett then presented the Admin team’s counter on Union Dues, which they had revised to largely match the language from our most recent counter. After responding to a few questions from Ashley, it was our turn to present counters. We developed two packages (which we on the Table Team and Big Bargaining Group affectionately refer to as the “Mini Package” and “Monster Package”); the Mini Package contained articles on Union Rights and Identification of Union Representatives, and the Monster Package contained articles on Non-Discrimination, Disability Accommodation, Gender Expression and Transition, Grievance and Arbitration, and Discipline and Dismissal.

First came the Mini Package. Our language on Union Rights is similar to theirs with few substantive differences. However, the Admin team has repeatedly put a section in their counters that states we have to identify our union representatives to them. We contend that this is a management right, not a union right, and so does not belong in this proposal. After explaining this several times and them still including it, we pulled from their language to develop a separate article on Identification of Union Representatives. There are some minor differences between our proposed article and their proposed section.

Next up was the “Monster,” starting with Non-Discrimination. A dozen versions have crossed the table since we submitted our comprehensive proposal back in late February, and we now have nearly identical language except for one substantive line: they want to preclude us from filing grievances based on discrimination and let the Office of Equal Opportunity and Access (OEOA) handle these cases. We hold that we should be able to grieve such instances and conditions. Our counter was identical to our last from May. Bennett had no questions for us.

We are also yet to receive counters on Disability Accommodations or Gender Expression and Transition, despite both being present in our first two comprehensive proposals. In re-submitting them here, we answered questions and clarified language based on Admin’s response to our first two submissions. Bennett had several questions for us on Disability Accommodations, focusing on two sentences that seemed to cause a redundancy and discussing temporary disabilities in a way that seemed to fundamentally misunderstand the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). He stated that under the ADA, ISU is under no obligation to provide reasonable accommodations to faculty with temporary disabilities, such as an injury or other impairment that is expected to heal without lasting impacts. Ashley cited legal interpretations of the ADA that explain that the law does not specify the amount of time someone has a disability, only that a condition must be “sufficiently severe” to warrant an accommodation. Bennett also questioned our clause that ISU will no longer ask faculty with permanent and long-term disabilities to submit documentation as frequently as they currently are required to. He scoffed at this, stating that this leaves no pathway for ISU to initiate conversations with disabled faculty to ensure that current accommodations are not causing “undue hardship” to the university to provide. Ashley replied that ISU could initiate these conversations whenever they want to as long as they don’t task faculty with the burden of proving their disability each time. Bennett had no questions on Gender Expression and Transition.

The bulk of the Monster Package was taken up by Grievance and Arbitration and Discipline and Dismissal. Ashley explained that many areas of our counter reflect the Admin TT’s language from their previous counter, which should bring us in line with each other on key areas. However, Bennett was still dissatisfied that we had solved the “forum shopping” problem he’s pointed out before. He is concerned that our proposal, as written, would allow a faculty member to, in a hypothetical scenario involving discrimination, both file a suit with the Illinois Department of Human Rights (IDHR) and also file a grievance at ISU, getting, in his words, “two bites at the apple.” We think our language is clear. Bennett also asked why we selected five as the number of names to be included on a list of potential arbitrators instead of seven, explaining that many well-known arbitrators have retired and there are several untested newer arbitrators available, so seven would allow more space for arbitrator recognition. Ashley responded that we aren’t persuaded that seven would be better than five; indeed, we are wary of ISU being able to choose only arbitrators that they know and have had prior business with.

Discipline and Dismissal also garnered questions. We made substantial changes to reflect a progressive discipline model that will give our members more protection. We clearly outlined disciplinary steps, the process for meeting with employees prior to discipline, and how to designate a faculty review panel that will make disciplinary recommendations to the Provost. We also specify that if the Provost goes against this panel’s recommendation, they must explain why in writing. Bennett was concerned by our opening sentence (“The Employer shall not take disciplinary action against an Employee for conduct, unless substantially related to the fitness of the Employee to engage in teaching, scholarship/creative production, librarianship, service, or other assigned duties”) crafting hypothetical scenarios to test the boundaries of “substantial.” Many of these hypotheticals seemed implausible, including one referencing domestic abuse; to our knowledge, ISU is not currently able to discipline for such actions outside of work and/or off university property. We would certainly condemn any such action, but we maintain that our members should not be disciplined for activities that are not connected to their role as employees at ISU. Bennett also asked about our clause specifying that all records pertaining to an employee’s discipline case would be purged from their personnel records eighteen months after an investigation concludes unless they showed a pattern of repeated behaviors. He gave another hypothetical scenario related to discrimination, stating that if an employee goes to IDHR to file a discrimination claim, then IDHR may ask OEOA to supply records of previous discipline cases to determine historical patterns. Ashley replied that our article does not prevent OEOA from maintaining redacted discipline files for this purpose.

After discussing these packages, we broke for caucus, during which time members who were present expressed their frustration with Bennett and the Admin team’s responses to some of our proposals, particularly the one on Disability Accommodations. Members shared stories of the ways their “temporary disabilities” were either accommodated easily by moving classes online, or were disregarded, resulting in great difficulty and embarrassment to one member who had to scoot down her lecture hall’s stairs on her rear to get to the podium so she could teach. During this caucus, Ashley also held a lengthy sidebar with Bennett to discuss the Union Dues article.

This sidebar paid off because after caucus, our Table Team returned with a counter to the Admin’s proposal on Union Dues, which mirrored their language almost exactly with only one minor difference in the first sentence. Bennett and Ashley signed a TA on this article at 4:27pm, our sixth so far. Bennet explained that the Admin team did not have any counters for us from either package but that they planned to have responses at our next session; we note that this does not guarantee they will have counters then, but that they may come with more questions and/or hypothetical scenarios for us to address. He noted that they also owe us a response on Personnel Files, on which we presented a counter at the previous session.

We’ll be on a short hiatus for much of the rest of this month, but we won’t be resting on our laurels. The Table Team and Big Bargaining Group will be working throughout this time to prepare more proposals and counters to present on June 28 (9am-5pm in SSB 130). If you’re looking for a bargaining fix during this time, let us know – we have lots to do on the Contract Action Team (CAT) and Big Bargaining Group (BBG), and the Table Team is always looking for input from our members. We are grateful, as always, for your support and trust.