Bargaining Recap 6/4/25
At the last bargaining session on June 4, PSUFA presented counterproposals on two articles: Article 9 (Personnel Files), and Article 4 (Orientation and Onboarding). On Article 9, the parties are nearing a tentative agreement. Our proposals on Article 4, however, continue to be met with resistance from management. Both sides agreed that adjuncts should be compensated for attending orientation. PSU seems to assume that this would make orientation events mandatory, but that word has been nowhere in their proposals. Your bargaining team agrees that pay would incentivize orientation attendance, but the parties cannot come to a mutual agreement until PSU clarifies their position on "mandatory" versus “incentivized” attendance. ] PSU also revealed that the 2 hours of pay for orientation is meant to cover a slew of newly required trainings. Shockingly, PSU admitted that the two hours they’re offering to pay Adjuncts for orientation would be insufficient if all these other trainings are to be lumped in as well. Other issues that came up in discussions around Article 4 centered on researcher inclusion and department-specific trainings, which your union will continue to fight for in upcoming bargaining sessions.
PSU then presented its proposals on Articles 10 (Grievances) and 11 (Arbitration). These are arguably the most important articles in your CBA—without strong provisions for grieving violations to your contract, it is effectively meaningless. Management claimed that their proposed changes were intended only to capture what’s already happening in practice, and to eliminate outdated language. But some changes in their proposal would be quite consequential—and detrimental—to adjuncts. Currently, grievances can go up to the level of university president, but PSU has proposed eliminating that step. This could theoretically make the entire process much quicker, but PSU has not proposed a shorter timeline. Instead, they’ve redistributed the days so that throughout the process THEY get more time to respond to a grievance. PSU also proposed new language that would restrict the filing of a group grievance to adjuncts under the supervisor, making it impossible to file a grievance for a violation that affects adjuncts across the university, like a pay calculation error.
Notably, PSU proposed language that would prohibit an adjunct from grieving what it deems are issues of “academic judgment.” In the CBA, academic judgment is defined as the judgment of supervisors and administrators concerning determinations, recommendations, decisions, criteria, and information to be used with respect to reappointment, advancement of members, and with respect to matters of curricula and educational policy. In many ways, academic judgment has become a blanket excuse to justify any decisions made by departments about adjunct appointments, and to undermine valid adjunct grievances. Your union won’t agree to this! Over and over, PSUFA asked for scenarios that might exemplify the kinds of grievances PSU wants to limit. However, management could not provide any.
Next, PSU proposed new language in Article 11 (Arbitration), which covers the legal process that takes place when a grievance is not able to be resolved through the grievance process. Arbitration involves a neutral third party who reviews the facts of the case and renders a binding decision to the parties. PSU’s proposal attempts to further hamstring adjuncts and PSUFA by burdening PSUFA with the entire cost of arbitration, in the event that an arbiter determines a grievance shouldn’t have advanced because it was ultimately ruled a matter of academic judgment. PSUFA has a shared interest in streamlining the grievance process, but these proposals appear to worsen the conditions for adjuncts seeking redress.
The session ended by hammering out, in broad strokes, the agenda for the next session, which will be on Wednesday, June 18. Some of the union’s most important proposals are currently held up because the university hasn’t answered requests for information that informs those proposals. The management team awkwardly tried to blame this on the fact that PSUFA has filed an unfair labor practice against PSU for exactly this problem: not providing requested information, which is required by the current CBA. Management insists that the data have been shared and that PSU has no obligation to analyze the data provided, but the union can see clearly that the data are of poor quality, containing demonstrable falsehoods and omissions. The data that have been provided are not reliable, and this presents a huge barrier to good faith bargaining going forward.
Don’t forget to join your team and your fellow adjuncts for the next bargaining session, Wednesday, June 18 at RMNC 316 and online from 12-5pm! If you attend in person you’ll get a PSUFA t-shirt and a treat to help fuel you for the whole session. Click here for more details and to RSVP!