October 2, 2024
“Good morning - it's your turn. If you want to start with economic proposals…” UFSIU Co-Lead Spokesperson Dr. Ashley Farmer
“Nope, I have non-economic proposals.” Administration Spokesperson Mark Bennett
Wednesday’s bargaining session opened at 9am with another reminder from UFSIU’s Co-Lead Spokesperson Dr. Ashley Farmer that the Administration still has failed to respond to our economic proposals. For those keeping track, that’s seven months and four days since we first proposed them. Instead, Administration Spokesperson Mark Bennett passed counters on “Faculty Appointment, Salary, Promotion, and Tenure” and “Disability Accommodations” across the table.
In the former, the Administration continues to reject our proposed language on financial support for newly hired international faculty. Our proposal acknowledges that international faculty face a greater financial burden when they begin working, and we are asking that the employer cover fees for Labor Certification (PERM), Immigrant Petition, and Adjustment of Status, and any other US Citizenship and Immigration Office (USCIS) mandated procedural fees. Based on member input, our proposal would also hold the employer accountable if HR makes a mistake in processing USCIS paperwork, causing a faculty member to hire a lawyer. In such cases, the employer would be obliged to pay the attorney’s fees for the affected faculty member. We see these requests as reasonable: if we want to hire international faculty (which we do!), then we should be able to support them to be able to legally work in the US.
We were pleased to see that the Administration moved closer to our position in other parts of their Faculty Appointment, Salary, Promotion, and Tenure proposal, although this movement also comes with caveats.
First, they agreed that a faculty member could ask that a faculty advocate be present during any appeals relating to ASPT procedures (we had proposed union representation), but they tied this presence to existing ASPT policies. We found this to be dangerous because ASPT policies can change, and we signed a tentative agreement (TA) on an article that acknowledges the interpretation of areas of our collective bargaining agreement that reference policy could change if that policy changes.
Second, in response to our proposed language in Evaluations where we specify that anonymous student feedback (our semesterly teaching evaluations) cannot be used as the sole reason someone is disciplined or denied tenure, the Administration made some movement. They added language from our ASPT policy that at least three forms of teaching evidence, only one of which can be student evaluations, should be included. However, during caucus members of our Table Team found the full context of this in our ASPT policy, in which this statement appears and noted that in the policy it continues on to indicate that there is “mounting research highlighting the biases and limitations inherent in such student reaction surveys” (p. 91), which is exactly the issue we are seeking to address in this language.
Third, in Evaluation, we have also accepted language from the Administration that all faculty must be presented with any materials on which they may be evaluated by December 23rd, and in this counter they modified that with “normally by” then, which we feel provides wiggle room to not meet that deadline. Our productivity reports are due on January 5, and we maintain that faculty deserve to have ample time to respond to any unexpected materials on which they may be evaluated.
Finally, the Administration modified a paragraph in a section called Dispute Resolution that clarifies faculty can grieve an ASPT related decision only if they believe the process has in some way been violated.
Next, the Administration’s counter on “Disability Accommodations” was, to quote Table Team member Keith Pluymers, “the okayest counter we’ve received yet.” We are still far apart on some key areas, but in this counter they mirrored some of our language that states that ISU faculty with medically documented permanent disabilities need not resubmit their medical documentation. We have members who have reported having to do this despite federal guidance to employers to not request this. However, they modified our provision with language that suggests the employer could reevaluate whether the faculty member is still a qualified individual with a disability. It is not the employer’s role to determine if someone has a disability, only if the person is qualified with or without reasonable accommodation. This counter Administration also edited its prior use of “medical issue” with “physical or mental impairments.” This is language in both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Illinois Department of Human Rights (IDHR) and may seem acceptable. But given past conversations at the table about disability, Co-Lead Spokesperson Ashley Farmer asked if such phrasing would include immunocompromised folks. Bennett responded that he wasn’t sure, positing that such determination would be on a case-by-case basis. Though this is technically true (all reasonable accommodation processes are case-by-case), it is yet another time at the table when Administration seems to question the legitimacy of being immunocompromised as a disability. This most recent counter also still does not include any proactive measures (our proposal language would necessitate the creation of a funded task force that would work on increasing accessibility on campus) and it is still not grievable, the latter of which we see as a key pathway to faculty recourse if ISU’s accommodations process does not provide them the support they need to work.
Bennett ended the Administration’s round by acknowledging that they have several non-economic counters in their court still:
“Non-Discrimination” and “Name Changes”: They are holding their position that part of Non-Discrimination should not be grievable, and that Name Changes does not belong in a collective bargaining agreement.
“Management Rights”: They are holding to their previous position. Bennett stated that the Administration is not convinced by our arguments to move towards our position.
“Professional Ethics”: The Administration maintains that this article does not belong in a collective bargaining agreement.
“Entire Agreement”: Bennett, stating that it is boilerplate language, does not understand why we have not TA’d this article yet. After caucus Ashley explained that we will be amenable to signing it after we have the entire agreement on the table, including economic proposals.
“Program Reorganization”: Bennett asked if this proposal was meant to augment or replace current ISU policy. After caucus, Ashley answered that it would augment it.
Then it was our turn to present counters on “Grievance and Arbitration” and “Layoffs.” For the most part, we held our position on Grievance and Arbitration because we are not compelled by the Administration’s arguments to move towards their position. As a reminder for readers, this article is one of the most important ones in our collective bargaining agreement: it is the way we hold ISU accountable to following our contract. Ashley clarified that some of the language we are holding on is because we believe it clarifies our members’ protections more clearly. Other areas are a bit more sticky, however.
The Administration has proposed that the first step of the grievance process is a mandated informal step with a faculty member’s direct supervisor (department chair or school director), but we believe that mandating an informal process makes it formal. Instead, our proposal encourages faculty members to seek resolution outside of the grievance process within a 30-day window.
The Administration has proposed that, if a grievance moves to arbitration, two separate arbitrators may be required: one to determine the arbitrability of a grievance, and another to determine a remedy. We are holding that one arbitrator can do both, in part because logistically it can take a long time to secure two arbitrators, thus extending a grievance process by weeks or months.
After presenting this counter, Bennett scolded us, saying, “as chief spokesperson, I don’t think you took our counter on grievance proposals very seriously. I get the impression that it was just a couple tweaks and let’s put it back in their court. We’ve raised some serious issues.” However, we have also raised serious issues that the Admin has not accounted for in their counters on this proposal. In addition, we find such a statement disingenuous when we have received several counters from the Administration that have made few or no changes despite our raising serious concerns.
Next, Ashley presented our counter on “Layoffs,” which previously was titled “Staff Reduction Procedures.” For the most part, we made movement towards the Administration in areas where we were functionally in agreement; most of this involved rewording for clarification. Some changes were more substantial.
Under Recall Rights, we originally proposed that ISU would maintain a list of laid off individuals for four years, to be recalled if their position became available again. The Administration proposed two, but we find this to be too short a timeframe. However, we countered with three years.
Under Rights Upon Reinstatement, we had originally proposed that reinstated faculty would be credited with any sick leave they had accumulated before being laid off, but the Administration explained that this gets paid out upon layoff and is beyond ISU’s control. In this counter we instead proposed that reinstated faculty would be credited an additional forty hours of Personal Plus Time in the first year they are reinstated.
Finally, in this same section, we clarified and modified our proposal that if a faculty member is laid off, any courses they had taught in the previous three years (in or original proposal this was five years) cannot be assigned to any instructors not in our bargaining unit; if the course had also been taught by someone not in our bargaining unit, then the ratio of bargaining unit to non-bargaining unit instruction must be maintained. Keith also explained why we added explicit protections for Milner Library faculty, citing a previous ISU Admin communication that implied ISU might strip them of their faculty status and replace them with Civil Service (as is being done at Western Illinois University). Keith also presented a letter from the Milner Library faculty expressing their concerns.
At this point, we broke for a caucus from 10:18 am until 11:40 am, during which time members from each team had a sidebar about Grievance and Arbitration.
Upon return, we presented a counter on “Appointment Procedures, Promotion and Tenure, and Evaluation”. We made significant movement towards the Administration proposal in areas where we were functionally in agreement, but held on some key areas:
We are holding to our proposal that supports international faculty.
We accepted their language about a faculty advocate, specifying that it could be a union representative, but we rejected language referencing ASPT policies.
We retitled a section for Dispute Resolution and modified language to clarify our stance on the appeals process in cases where the Provost gives a negative tenure decision after majority approval from DFSC/SFSC and CFSC.
We held to our position for student evaluations but clarified that they cannot be the sole measure for discipline or year-end evaluations.
We held on our position that faculty should receive at least two-days’ notice of formal teaching observations, and that they should be able to reschedule an observation if a chosen day will not give a representative view of their teaching and/or would disrupt student learning. Ashley explained at the table that we might be amenable to removing disruption (which the Administration rejected in their counter) if they agreed to extend the notification timeline so faculty would have a chance to explain the observation to their class, or if they agreed that a request to reschedule an observation would be honored.
We accepted language that materials used in year-end evaluations would “normally” be provided by December 23rd, with the caveat that they be provided no later than December 31st so that faculty have time to account for them in their productivity reports.
Next session, Ashley will once again remind Bennett that we are still waiting for economic proposals, and we hope that will be the day he finally brings us some. The more members we have at bargaining, the more pressure the Administration will feel to respond, and the more likely that they will do so, so please come out, even if only for an hour (the first and last hours are the most impactful). We look forward to seeing you next week!