Friday, January 25, 2008
Bargaining Update #4-- January 23, 2008
Librarian Bargaining Update 1/24/08
The University and UC-AFT Bargaining Teams met at UCOP in Oakland on Wednesday, January 23rd from 10AM until 5pm. The entire AFT team was present, and most of the UC Administration Team was there as well.
The discussion continues to be cordial and informal. The parties agreed to and signed off on ground rules for discussion, which are best summed up by saying we agree to bargain at the table rather than in the media. We will keep our members (and the Administration team will keep their principles) fully informed on what is going on in bargaining, but unless a party believes that the process is broken and gives the other party notice, we will not discuss the details of what is being discussed at the table with anyone other than the people we represent. We clarified that the ground rules are a public document as are the initial proposals, and will be published on our blog, but the actual written counter offers will not be shared with the public or the media.
Both teams completed the presentation of their initial proposals. We went through each article opened by either one or both parties and had a full presentation of the intent of the proposed changes or additions to the MOU. Each side asked questions to clarify the meaning of proposals and the intent behind them. The University team explained that they are working to get all of the relevant sections of the APM (Academic Personnel Manual) related to Unit 17 librarians into the actual MOU, so everything is in one document. Each side opened several articles but the most important issues are clearly salary (and other forms of compensation and benefits) and review procedures.
There were no real surprises. The Administration said several times that they did "not intend to deprofesionalize Unit 17 librarians or to do away with peer review," but only were seeking expedited reviews in a number of limited cases (for example when they need to respond with a counter offer to Unit 17 members who have been offered jobs with other institutions). We will see how this develops in our discussions.
The two teams agreed that at our next meeting (February 1 in Oakland) that each party will counter-propose on three articles opened by the other side. Each team picked some of the less critical articles to start the real give and take of bargaining.
The UC-AFT negotiating team will meet on Friday night in Oakland after our next bargaining session (February 1, 2008) to develop our position on the review process. We intend to try and address the Administration's desire for an accelerated review process for some limited cases, but to do so in a way that does not undermine the peer review process in any way. This discussion will get us into the issue of the relationship of the UC-AFT to LAUC and we will be working to maximize the fairness of the review process (including maintaining and/or enhancing the participation of Unit 17 librarians in the process) while, at the same time, not undermining the more collegial framework that LAUC has provided at least on some campuses now and in the past. There is a potential tension between these two objectives and we intend to fully consult with the larger Bargaining Committee and UC-AFT members in Unit 17 before putting a specific counter-proposal on the table.
We have every expectation that the University Administration will seek an extension of the current MOU until the State budget picture is at least a little clearer (since that is unlikely to be the case before the end of our MOU in March). And while we certainly do not intend to signal any willingness to abandon our salary demands because the State is having a budget crisis (any more than the UC Administration held back huge salary increases for a number of top administrators AFTER they already knew about the State budget crisis), we MAY be willing to accommodate a bargaining schedule that delays serious bargaining over salaries until it is at least a little clearer where the Administration team will have to go to get the money to fix embarrassingly low, librarian salaries. Of course, the resolution of this question will also depend upon full consultation with our Bargaining Committee (two reps from each campus) and our members.
In sum, things remain on track and slowly moving forward with no surprising news to report from the bargaining table.
Mike Rotkin
Chief Negotiator
Unit 17
UC-AFT
The University and UC-AFT Bargaining Teams met at UCOP in Oakland on Wednesday, January 23rd from 10AM until 5pm. The entire AFT team was present, and most of the UC Administration Team was there as well.
The discussion continues to be cordial and informal. The parties agreed to and signed off on ground rules for discussion, which are best summed up by saying we agree to bargain at the table rather than in the media. We will keep our members (and the Administration team will keep their principles) fully informed on what is going on in bargaining, but unless a party believes that the process is broken and gives the other party notice, we will not discuss the details of what is being discussed at the table with anyone other than the people we represent. We clarified that the ground rules are a public document as are the initial proposals, and will be published on our blog, but the actual written counter offers will not be shared with the public or the media.
Both teams completed the presentation of their initial proposals. We went through each article opened by either one or both parties and had a full presentation of the intent of the proposed changes or additions to the MOU. Each side asked questions to clarify the meaning of proposals and the intent behind them. The University team explained that they are working to get all of the relevant sections of the APM (Academic Personnel Manual) related to Unit 17 librarians into the actual MOU, so everything is in one document. Each side opened several articles but the most important issues are clearly salary (and other forms of compensation and benefits) and review procedures.
There were no real surprises. The Administration said several times that they did "not intend to deprofesionalize Unit 17 librarians or to do away with peer review," but only were seeking expedited reviews in a number of limited cases (for example when they need to respond with a counter offer to Unit 17 members who have been offered jobs with other institutions). We will see how this develops in our discussions.
The two teams agreed that at our next meeting (February 1 in Oakland) that each party will counter-propose on three articles opened by the other side. Each team picked some of the less critical articles to start the real give and take of bargaining.
The UC-AFT negotiating team will meet on Friday night in Oakland after our next bargaining session (February 1, 2008) to develop our position on the review process. We intend to try and address the Administration's desire for an accelerated review process for some limited cases, but to do so in a way that does not undermine the peer review process in any way. This discussion will get us into the issue of the relationship of the UC-AFT to LAUC and we will be working to maximize the fairness of the review process (including maintaining and/or enhancing the participation of Unit 17 librarians in the process) while, at the same time, not undermining the more collegial framework that LAUC has provided at least on some campuses now and in the past. There is a potential tension between these two objectives and we intend to fully consult with the larger Bargaining Committee and UC-AFT members in Unit 17 before putting a specific counter-proposal on the table.
We have every expectation that the University Administration will seek an extension of the current MOU until the State budget picture is at least a little clearer (since that is unlikely to be the case before the end of our MOU in March). And while we certainly do not intend to signal any willingness to abandon our salary demands because the State is having a budget crisis (any more than the UC Administration held back huge salary increases for a number of top administrators AFTER they already knew about the State budget crisis), we MAY be willing to accommodate a bargaining schedule that delays serious bargaining over salaries until it is at least a little clearer where the Administration team will have to go to get the money to fix embarrassingly low, librarian salaries. Of course, the resolution of this question will also depend upon full consultation with our Bargaining Committee (two reps from each campus) and our members.
In sum, things remain on track and slowly moving forward with no surprising news to report from the bargaining table.
Mike Rotkin
Chief Negotiator
Unit 17
UC-AFT
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Bargaining Update #3-- January 14, 2008
BARGAINING UPDATE for 1-14-08:
There is not much new to report from bargaining. The management had a
pretty small team there at UC Irvine last Monday at bargaining. Their
team was mostly very late because of a missed flight, so we got
started after lunch and went to 5pm. The discussions were very
cordial. We countered their proposal for ground rules with the ground
rules which had been accepted and used for the most recent Unit 18
bargaining. They will respond next time, and, I am hoping, simply
accept our counter proposal.
Both teams continued to explain their opening proposals. Both teams
explained their proposals up through Article 20 -- most of the
presentations were from our side (since we had openers on more
articles), and most of our proposals were seeking improvements in
compensation and various benefits, leaves, etc. We also are demanding
a more enforceable contract with respect to a number of the articles
under discussion.
Our team asked some hard questions about how the Administration's
proposal on Salary (which is basically to do away with the step
system and replace it with a range system like the lecturers have and
to establish "pools" out of which range adjustments and merits would
be paid) would work -- they were not really able to adequately answer
a number of good questions put to them by our team -- in particular,
how the pool system works in conjunction with the State Compact for
higher Education and the State's actual appropriations for UC each
year. We will return to this discussion.
Needless to say, unions generally have little interest in replacing
well-structured step systems with range systems which would replace
initial salary decisions and promotion decisions based on merit with
what can become very arbitrary decisions based on who management
likes and doesn't like. The UC-AFT shares the general union
perspective on this issue and, at the very least, it would take a
massive salary increase proposal from their side to make our side
even vaguely interested in abandoning the current step system. I
doubt that the current California budget situation would allow for
that kind of a tempting salary proposal from their side.
The UC-AFT Unit 17 Negotiating Team conceded that there might be some
limited cases where a more abbreviated review system might be ok, for
example when there is a need for the University to offer a counter to
an employee who has been offered more money by another library. But
we also argued that this would happen a lot less if librarians were
paid more competitively to begin with. We also made clear that our
proposals to develop a pay scale closer to what is offered at CSU was
based as much on the institutional need to pay competitive salaries
(to help address recruitment, retention, and workload problems) as
any abstract ideas of justice, fairness, or simply meeting the
personal desires of current UC librarians.
At our next bargaining session, next week in Oakland, we should be
able to complete the explanations of initial proposals from both
sides.
Mike Rotkin
Chief Negotiator
Unit 17, UC-AFT
There is not much new to report from bargaining. The management had a
pretty small team there at UC Irvine last Monday at bargaining. Their
team was mostly very late because of a missed flight, so we got
started after lunch and went to 5pm. The discussions were very
cordial. We countered their proposal for ground rules with the ground
rules which had been accepted and used for the most recent Unit 18
bargaining. They will respond next time, and, I am hoping, simply
accept our counter proposal.
Both teams continued to explain their opening proposals. Both teams
explained their proposals up through Article 20 -- most of the
presentations were from our side (since we had openers on more
articles), and most of our proposals were seeking improvements in
compensation and various benefits, leaves, etc. We also are demanding
a more enforceable contract with respect to a number of the articles
under discussion.
Our team asked some hard questions about how the Administration's
proposal on Salary (which is basically to do away with the step
system and replace it with a range system like the lecturers have and
to establish "pools" out of which range adjustments and merits would
be paid) would work -- they were not really able to adequately answer
a number of good questions put to them by our team -- in particular,
how the pool system works in conjunction with the State Compact for
higher Education and the State's actual appropriations for UC each
year. We will return to this discussion.
Needless to say, unions generally have little interest in replacing
well-structured step systems with range systems which would replace
initial salary decisions and promotion decisions based on merit with
what can become very arbitrary decisions based on who management
likes and doesn't like. The UC-AFT shares the general union
perspective on this issue and, at the very least, it would take a
massive salary increase proposal from their side to make our side
even vaguely interested in abandoning the current step system. I
doubt that the current California budget situation would allow for
that kind of a tempting salary proposal from their side.
The UC-AFT Unit 17 Negotiating Team conceded that there might be some
limited cases where a more abbreviated review system might be ok, for
example when there is a need for the University to offer a counter to
an employee who has been offered more money by another library. But
we also argued that this would happen a lot less if librarians were
paid more competitively to begin with. We also made clear that our
proposals to develop a pay scale closer to what is offered at CSU was
based as much on the institutional need to pay competitive salaries
(to help address recruitment, retention, and workload problems) as
any abstract ideas of justice, fairness, or simply meeting the
personal desires of current UC librarians.
At our next bargaining session, next week in Oakland, we should be
able to complete the explanations of initial proposals from both
sides.
Mike Rotkin
Chief Negotiator
Unit 17, UC-AFT
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]