Article 9 – Job Opening Announcements

The CGE bargaining team came to the table with a proposal on advertising (some) open grad assistant positions that was substantially different than our previous proposals.  In fact, we basically wrote down what the employer had been suggesting we do for the past two sessions: that the 30 or so positions not housed in academic units have job announcement info sent to OSU Today, the daily email that goes out all over campus.

Did they agree to their own idea?  No, of course not.  Instead, they claimed that no one at the university has the authority to require hiring units send position announcements to OSU Today and instead suggested that the contract simply “recommend” non-academic employing departments post grad assistant job openings in OSU Today.

From the bargaining team’s perspective, a contract is not the place to put language like “recommended.”  It is the place for language like “required.”  So we’re sticking to that.  And, after a lengthy discussion about this and an open expression of exasperation at the OSU bargaining team’s apparent unwillingness to engage the CGE bargaining team on this issue in a meaningful way, OSU made what appeared to be a sincere commitment to look into the feasibility of this.  We will see whether anything meaningful comes of that commitment.

Article 11 – Workload

The two bargaining teams had some discussion on the proposal made by CGE at the previous session, and the CGE bargaining team continued to make what we think is a compelling case for reasonable restrictions on the number of hours grad employees can be required to work during the 11-week academic term.  Unfortunately, it appeared that the OSU team hadn’t done enough work in the two weeks since the previous session to actually be able to reach any decisions on anything.  However, they did agree to come back with another proposal on this issue at a future session.

If you’re getting the sense that not much happened during this session, you might be right.  At this point, it certainly appears that OSU’s bargaining team is simply not doing the requisite work they need to do to make progress in bargaining.  They, of course, deny this, and so far, we’re taking them at their word.  During this session, the CGE team noticed signs that OSU may be nearing a point where they can agree on some of the issues we’ve been discussing, but we have been optimistic about this in the past with nothing to show for it.  The next few sessions, as we try to wrap up non-economic items and move into economics, should prove to be telling.

We’ll see you at the next session, on Monday, May 17^th, at 1 PM in the Westminster House, where the CGE offices are located.

Article 11 – Workload

The main discussion here was regarding CGE’s proposal in Section 3, which deals with the cap on the number of hours that can be assigned for a given FTE.  Based on comments the employer’s team had made during the previous sessions, the CGE team revised our proposal.  Essentially, we are concerned that people are working 13 weeks’ worth of hours during the 11-week academic quarter.

We had come to the table with a proposal that would prohibit people from working more than 11 weeks’ worth of hours during the 11-week quarter, but OSU interpreted the way we had presented it as giving units the option to pay people for 11 weeks and not 13.  The only faculty member in the room suggested rewording the proposal, and after some discussion in a caucus amongst our team and observers, the team agreed that it was a good idea.  We proposed, verbally, two additions to the current table of FTE and hours:  That no graduate employee be asked to work more than 85% of their appointment during the 11-week term, and that no graduate employee work more than 15% of their total assigned hours in one week (for a 0.49 FTE, 15% is 38 hours).  These were closely based on the suggestions from the faculty member on the employer’s team.  They agreed to respond with a written proposal at the next session.

There was also discussion of giving grad employees more tools to advocate for themselves in case they are on track to exceed their hours; the employer’s team seemed receptive to the ideas put forth by the CGE team.  Overall, the bargaining team is pleased with the progress made on this subject so far.

Article 9 – Appointments

The major proposal of CGE’s in this article was to require the 25-30 non-academic units that hire graduate assistants to post the positions in a central location, so that grads seeking employment knew where to look.  (As a side benefit, we think that doing this will increase the quality of the applicant pool for these positions, which benefits the units doing the hiring.  It’s really a win-win.)  The employer’s team balked strongly at this idea, claiming that it was too much work.  When the CGE team offered to host the job listings on the union’s website, the objection suddenly became that the employer didn’t have the authority to compel departments to send CGE information about open GA positions.

The CGE team is skeptical of both claims, given that the university does full hiring for both classified staff and faculty and can compel departments to allow CGE to present at orientations.  However, we are committed to the underlying goal of the proposal:  To increase transparency and accessibility in hiring.  We’ll continue to work with the employer to find a way to do this.

We are working with the employer to schedule another session and set the agenda.  We’ll let you know when we have something scheduled.

At the table, the two bargaining teams exchanged lists of the articles each plans to open for negotiation this year. The articles being opened by each team are listed after the jump.

After the exchange of articles, the CGE bargaining team broadly outlined our bargaining platform and explained that our prime focus this year is to make progress where our own goals align with the long-term goals that have been articulated by the OSU administration in recent months.

Specifically, we believe that the teaching and research performed by graduate employees at OSU is foundational to all of OSU’s long-term goals. However, as the CGE bargaining team explained, major changes will be required in the way graduate employees are compensated for their good work in order to achieve those goals. In particular, as long as the minimum guaranteed graduate employee salaries at OSU fall next-to-last when stacked against the salaries earned by graduate employees at OSU’s 11 comparator institutions (with a minimum salary at 0.49 FTE more than $350/month less than the average minimum at those comparator institutions), as long as hundreds of graduate employees are paid below-poverty-level wages, and as long as the average graduate employee at OSU doesn’t even earn as much as OSU’s own estimated cost of attendance, OSU will find it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain the kind of talented graduate employees whose work will be required to drive OSU to achieve its long-term goals.

The presentation given by the CGE bargaining team outlining OSU’s long-term goals and providing statistics such as the ones above on OSU grad employees’ salaries is available here:

• CGE 2010 Bargaining Narrative

Based on the articles they plan to open, it does not appear as though the OSU administration will ask for major givebacks from grad employees this year, which is a relief for the CGE bargaining team. Unfortunately, the OSU administration’s bargaining team did not go so far as to articulate their own vision of how grad employees’ work fits into the university’s long-term plans or of how we should be compensated for our contributions, but that may simply mean they are happy to allow CGE to drive progress for the grad employees we represent. While we will not hesitate to do so, we are always happy when OSU can provide a strong vision of how graduate employees fit into the larger university structure and can put forth contract proposals that make that vision a reality.

CGE plans to open the following articles, which were chosen to improve conditions for graduate employees as outlined in the CGE 2009-2010 Bargaining Platform:

• Article 2, Recognition
• Article 9, Appointments
• Article 11, Salary
• Article 12, Tuition Waiver
• Article 28, Health Insurance

Despite being able to open four articles, the OSU administration chose to open only one, plus two of the letters of agreement that are attached to our contract:

• Article 8, Union Rights
• Letter of Agreement on Fees
• Letter of Agreement on Differential

In opening Article 8, the administration explained that they wish to try to fix problems with the procedure by which CGE informs the university about errors in the amount of dues deducted from members’ paychecks (problems which have already resulted in CGE advancing a grievance to arbitration). We are not yet certain what changes the administration will propose to the two letters of agreement related to fees.

At this session, we’ll be letting the OSU administration know which articles we plan to open this year, and they will then do the same. Afterwords, we’ll begin to lay out the context of bargaining as we see it this year, which is the basis upon which we’ll make and fight for our proposals.

This will be an interesting session, and afterwards we hope to have an idea what OSU is thinking. We could definitely use your support, so come out for all or part of the session if you can make it. You can even bring homework to do or papers to grade.