October 8, 2024
Dr. Ashley Farmer, UFISU Co-Lead: “We’ll see you at our bargaining session next week, which by the way is Tice’s birthday. Mine is also the day before, and Victor’s is the day after. Keith’s was just the other day. Do you know what would be a great gift for our birthdays? Economic proposals.”
Tuesday’s session opened at 9am with Ashley asking once again if the Admin have economic counters ready for us. Once again, Mark Bennett (Atty for ISU) responded curtly, “no.” We’re now at seven months and eleven days since our first comprehensive proposal.
We passed one proposal across the table: a reintroduction of Scheduling. We have included this article in our previous comprehensives, and it is the only remaining non-economic proposal with which ISU Admin has not yet engaged. We restated our main points, emphasizing that the intent of this article is to codify a scheduling process that prioritizes our members’ needs, expertises, and scheduling preferences–including giving all faculty a guaranteed one day a week without teaching that we can dedicate to research–while also providing guidance for how to respond to unexpected scheduling shifts (such as canceled courses or sudden personnel shifts) in ways that maintain equity for impacted faculty. Bennett asked several questions that demonstrated a lack of basic understanding for how our scheduling processes work and also drew on wild hypotheticals, but Ashley, Keith Pluymers, and Derek Sparby addressed them using members’ experiences and Derek’s experience as the scheduler for the English department, one of the largest and most complex departments for scheduling on campus.
Next, ISU Admin handed out counters for Grievance and Arbitration, Reappointment, Evaluation, Tenure, Promotion, and Post-Tenure Review (formerly Faculty Appointment, Salary, Promotion, and Tenure), Layoffs, and Union’s Lobby Day, showing positive movement in the first three.
Grievance and Arbitration: We still have some key differences, but the positive movement we saw today will give us fodder to make movement towards their stance in the next session without giving up any essential protections for our members.
They finally addressed our concern that their proposal essentially formalized what they were calling an “informal step” by proposing that same process as simply “Step 1”;
They adopted our language relating to the Union’s ability to file on behalf of a faculty member;
They adopted our stance that an arbitrator can give a retroactive award to a Grievance.
Reappointment, Evaluation, Tenure, Promotion, and Post-Tenure Review: ISU Admin continued to reject our entire section on international faculty. They are also holding on their language relating to faculty advocates during the tenure and/or promotion process (we proposed that the faculty advocate could be a union representative). However, they made positive movement in the section on Evaluation, adopting similar language to ours:
Student feedback cannot be the sole basis for evaluating teaching performance;
Formal teaching observations may be rescheduled if an evaluator’s presence will disrupt the day’s learning activities;
Any materials that may be included in a faculty member’s evaluation (that they did not submit themselves) must be presented to them by December 31 of the calendar year.
Layoffs: ISU Admin made positive movement in this article; our major difference is in the length of time specified for “recall rights,” or how long after layoff someone can be recalled to their position, and they continue to reject provisions that a laid off Employee can still contribute to SURS or that their courses cannot be taught by anyone not in the Bargaining Unit (or for courses that are also taught by IAPs, that the ratio of TT to NTT faculty must be maintained).
They proposed adding the phrase “Unless otherwise agreed upon by the Parties” to the first sentence that states ISU can only lay off individuals if they declare demonstrable financial exigency. This sentence is positive because while it opens other pathways to lay off individuals, it requires that they negotiate them first with the union, and we are committed to providing protections for all members.
They adopted similar language to ours pertaining to Admin re-entering the Bargaining Unit; basically, no one can be laid off to make room for them to return to their department.
Union’s Lobby Day: This counter seems to have fundamentally misunderstood the intent of our proposal, which calls for representatives from the Union and from ISU Admin to travel to Springfield together to lobby for more state appropriations.
ISU Admin proposed an addition to our already-TA’s article Union Rights that states the Union’s right to lobby in Springfield on ISU’s behalf. To be clear: we have this right already. We can lobby as a collective any time we want to, so it does not need to be spelled out in our collective bargaining agreement. This is not what we proposed.
We went to caucus shortly after 10am, during which time Ashley, Tice, and Keith held a sidebar with the ISU Admin. In this sidebar, they gleaned key information that guided our counter pertaining to international faculty. Upon reconvening at 12:10pm, we presented counters on University and Union Lobby Day, Appointment, Evaluation, Promotion, Tenure, and Post-Tenure Review (formerly Appointment Procedures, Promotion and Tenure, and Evaluations), and Layoffs.
University and Union Lobby Day: We held our position on this counter, urging ISU Admin to seriously consider that we are proposing to work collaboratively alongside them.
Given the recent dire financial predictions we are bombarded with, we want to unite to improve our financial standing. Ashley also noted that Illinois politicians like Dave Koehler have explicitly stated that they are hoping to see admin and faculty at Illinois universities working together to lobby in Springfield.
Appointment, Evaluation, Promotion, Tenure, and Post-Tenure Review: Given what we learned in sidebar, we made major movement that we hope will get ISU Admin to engage with our proposed provisions for international faculty.
We learned that ISU covers the costs for expedited H1B visa processing and Permanent Residency Sponsorship, as well as H1B visa renewal if necessary. Using a public document from the Provost’s office, we proposed language that would codify these items in our contract in lieu of intentionally vague language tied to set amounts we had in ours;
To make this movement, we also had conversations with some international faculty members where we learned we could remove language related to reimbursement for specific expenses incurred in the last four years. Because the Admin is dragging out our negotiations, any members we are aware of who would have benefitted from this language are now outside of that 4-year window, and proposing a longer window would be considered regressive bargaining, which is an unfair labor practice (ULP) and is not legally permissible.
However, we are holding on some key protections for international faculty: 1) We want ISU to commit to completing all required USCIS paperwork by their deadlines (we can grieve this if they don’t), and 2) We want ISU to cover any legal and USCIS fees (up to $10,000) incurred if they make a mistake when submitting paperwork.
We also made movement on the Evaluation section, where we adopted language related to student feedback, formal teaching observations, and annual evaluation materials that was already quite close to our own;
We held on our language regarding a faculty advocate. We believe that a faculty member who wishes to have an advocate during the tenure and promotion process can choose if that advocate is acting as a lay faculty member or as a union representative. Obviously, the latter has a bit more oomph behind it.
Layoffs: Here again we made movement where we could and held where we felt we had to.
We agreed to the phrase “Unless otherwise agreed upon by the Parties” for the reasons stated above;
We agreed to their language pertaining to if an Admin (re)enters the Bargaining Unit. Essentially, this provision adds to what we proposed by clarifying that if an Administrator with tenure is laid off, they will be treated as faculty members and have the same rights outlined in this article;
We agreed with ISU Admin critique that language pertaining to how duties can be reassigned after someone is laid off did not belong in a section called Rights Upon Reinstatement, so we created a new section called Duty Reassignment form Laid Off Individuals. We did not change language in this section (which states that no one but Bargaining Unit Members can cover the duties of someone laid off - a protection that will ensure ISU does not lay someone off so they can replace them with less expensive contingent labor), but we added a sentence to address a concern Bennett raised about Scheduling.
After ISU Admin explained why it would not be possible, agreed to remove a provision that would allow laid off individuals to continue contributing to their SURS plan.
However, we held on key language:
1) ISU Admin proposed that an individual would remain on the recall list for only two years. We explained that two years would mean that the department/school would have to propose that person’s job in the same year that they were completing their final year. We note that after we presented this counter, Bennett clarified that the two-year period would not begin until after the laid off person had completed their final year, so functionally, their two years was equal to our three years.
2) We maintain that if someone is recalled, they should be given an additional 40 hours of Personal Plus Time (80 for the year) because they would not be able to be reinstated their sick leave or other leave benefits from before they were laid off. At the last session, ISU Admin explained that these leaves are paid out upon termination.
After we presented our counters, we learned that ISU Admin did not prepare any of their own during caucus, so we ended the session early at 12:25pm. We were disappointed not to be able to use those 35 minutes to continue bargaining, but the proposals we still have in our court will require thoughtful conversations before we are ready to present them again.
We have bargaining again next week on October 18, but before then we need our members (you!) to show up in force at the Board of Trustees meeting this Friday, October 11. Wear your UPI green and show the ISU Admin that you are ready to talk economics. Two of our members will also be providing public comment, so we need to show them our support.