not in love with your language
Our most recent session on July 2nd felt like a showdown in a hot, grey seemingly-airless room.
PSU continued to rely on legal maneuvering to distract from their refusal to discuss issues that are crucial to your working conditions, and to making a safer and more just campus for all. Instead, they remain committed to proposing contract language that reflects the bare minimum of what is required by state and federal law instead of what is best for their students and faculty.
Your union team showed up prepared with pointed questions and you showed up as observers and supporters on both zoom and in-person, filling seats, eating popcorn, and holding signs, and keeping the online chat lively.
Here are a few takeaways from your team:
Along with their counter proposal to Article 7: Member Rights, PSU presented a formal color-coded letter that declared some of the aspects of our initial proposal ‘permissive subjects’ (a labor law designation meaning they are not mandatory for them to negotiate), and they refused to bargain over them.
PSU accused us of being “in love with“ our own proposal language and argued that they “don’t have the authority” to make decisions around some of the issues your union is bringing to the table. If that is the case, PSUFA wants to see management bring the actual decision-makers to the table who can negotiate in good faith around the issues that matter to you.
We work at a public institution not a corporation; it is funded by the public and has as part of its mission to “serve the city.” PSU’s refusal to engage with permissive subjects (those both parties may voluntarily agree to negotiate) is a demonstration of the ways in which they are abdicating their responsibilities to the city, to the students and workers at this institution, who deserve respect and high quality jobs and education.
PSU’s counter proposal to Article 7: Member Rights also included language that attempts to limit our power to grieve in cases of discrimination and retaliation. Grievances are the primary way your union enforces the contract to resolve labor disputes between you and your employer. Under the current political climate, PSU’s intent to restrict our access to the grievance process and their refusal to expand our protections, particularly in a moment of growing authoritarian rule and erosion of legal protections, is dangerous. Continuously pointing to “the law” to justify doing the bare minimum is not in line with the vision they claim to want for PSU.
PSU passed us a proposal with a crucially substantive typo. In a previous bargaining session admin had proposed language stating the disputes of matters of intellectual property (IP) not resolved by the University’s Copyright Ownership Policy “would” be subject to the grievance process. Then, in their second proposal on 7/2 it said they “would not” be subject to the grievance process. This contradicts the existing University IP policy, betrays their bargaining team’s disorganization, and would have been considered what is called “regressive bargaining”* had they not corrected the mistake. This additional “not” could have considerably limited members’ intellectual property rights and the union's ability to grieve violations of the University's copyright policy. Good thing our team was paying close attention and corrected the mistake. Adjuncts should have copyright protections on their own materials that are just as strong as any a full time faculty member!
All of this underscores their deep lack of care for the people who choose to work, serve, and learn at their institution. It is all the more important for us to keep showing up for each other at the table–demonstrating who we are and what solidarity and care can look like.
Next session, which is fully online, we will continue to talk about grievances and PSU has promised a presentation on economics, i.e. your wages!
Join the bargaining session webinar as an observer. We will update this post with the link when it becomes available. Let’s show management we are paying attention!
Solidarity,
Your PSUFA Bargaining Team
*“Regressive bargaining” in the context of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), refers to a situation where an employer makes proposals during collective bargaining that are less favorable to the union than previous proposals, without a valid reason for the change.