Today’s session at the bargaining table, as far as they go, was quite congenial. We were able to sign a couple of tentative agreements and got closer to two or three more. Right now we are looking at non-economic issues, with today’s main attraction being the resources fixed-term faculty have to carry out their jobs (office space, mailboxes, textbooks, access to classrooms, etc.).
The administration thought some of our language was taken from other contracts and that it did not represent the situation on MSU’s campus. For example, they thought that all faculty had office space and resources that accompany an office. We told them that is not the case and gave examples of fixed-term faculty who share one desk with 10 other faculty. To gain access to this office, administrative assistants have to unlock the door for the faculty, and they only have two hours in that space for each class they teach. Other fixed-term faculty have to hold office hours in coffee shops because they don’t have an office. Although this improve drink options, it makes it hard to set the proper tone to discuss issues such as student grades with mocha lattes surrounding you. The administration seemed to take the examples to heart.
In general the tone was better than I had seen to date. There were a few times where the two sides seemed to be cooperatively working on creating a formal system of recognition and rights for nontenure-track faculty. It was very warming...not like having your own barista in your “office”, but a definite start.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thanks for the great writeup on the March 1 bargaining session. While I agree there were positive achievements on non-economic bargaining items, I still remain dismayed at the MSU administration statement that our insistence on spelling out our rights in the contract is an affront to MSU and represents a hostile attitude that does not bode well for the negotiations. For example, they expressed words to the effect of, "I notice some of your language is similar to that in the U of M faculty union contract. I don't know what goes on at U of M but how dare you imply that such a problem would exist at MSU." I'm not sure if this is something they really believe or is just posturing. Or maybe they really think MSU is a nirvana and are blissfully unaware that many UNTF members don't get adequate office space to do their job, as pointed out above. Using their same rhetoric, I might argue that their proposals regarding employee discipline and dismissal suggests we are an undisciplined mob. Of course not. I'm sorry, but isn't the whole purpose of these contracts to spell out these items to avoid misunderstandings, and to have procedures in place for when these issues do arise?
ReplyDeleteAre you offended or is it just me?
ReplyDeleteSo some of the union reps are in a meeting with management today. The union asks if the administration is going to give up their retiree health care just like they are asking the faculty to give up their retiree health care. Managements response... "well they (the administration) choose a career path that pays retiree health care... your members choose a profession where the market doesn't pay for retiree health care.