Bargaining Bulletin #8
CFA bargaining updates: Progress on collegial model, regularization,but “cost items” still not under discussion
Dear Members:
We have good news and bad news when it comes to the employer’s proposals about the collegial departmental decision-making model. The good news is that the strength and unity of your support for the model has had an impact. On 27 March the employer withdrew its original proposal to delete the decision-making model. The bad news is that their replacement proposal would still have the effect of giving discretionary control over “2.8 decisions” to the administration. However, the CFA has counter-proposed language that we think may satisfy the reasons the administration has given for its collegial model proposals. More on that below.
In the negotiations sessions on 27 March and on 3 and 6 April the two sides have been able to make some progress on “non-cost” bargaining proposals, in addition to discussion of the collegial model. The emphasis in our most recent sessions has been on the collegial model, definition of academic year, equity in hiring, compensation for multi-location work (MLOC), regularization, and research.
We have not yet been able to work on the CFA proposals that the employer views as items that cost money, such as benefits improvements. We are unable to make headway on those proposals until the employer provides the financial information your bargaining committee asked for at the start of February.
We have, however, reached tentative agreement on some of our proposals. One is having the academic year start in September, rather than August. Another is language to support diversity in hiring committees. We have also agreed on sunset clauses for records of disciplinary actions.
For regularization our goal is to simplify the process and reduce barriers. The employer’s response has been disappointing so far. The regularization discussions are currently focused on a shorter time frame for automatic regularization of the person, but the employer wants a limitation that could eliminate any potential gains. We are also working to enable more regular positions to be created after two years of work.
On research, the employer is reluctant to expand beyond current funding options. Those options are, based on our consultation with faculty, inadequate to faculty needs at this stage of the University’s evolution. We are still awaiting a response to our proposal to dedicate a portion of the annual financial surplus towards faculty being paid for research. (Over the past decade, the average annual surplus has been at least $6,000,000.) We hope to receive a response from the employer at the next negotiation session, on 17 April.
In discussions of the collegial decision-making model (often characterized as “2.8,” although the relevant articles actually extend beyond article 2.8 itself), we have been encouraging the employer to be more specific about what has generated their proposals. As noted above, we have finally made headway. Last week the employer stepped back somewhat from their initial scorched-earth approach to 2.8. However, they continue to embed wording in proposals for specific articles that would have the effect of giving deans discretionary decision-making authority. This would override the departments’ role in making decisions. Today, 6 April, we proposed a clarification about the ability of deans to communicate with departments (i.e., departments can talk with deans in advance of meetings, and invite them to meetings if appropriate). We hope this addresses the only concrete concern we have heard from the employer. The employer will respond on 17 April.
We will update you later this month, and at the general meeting on 11 April (on Zoom). Thank you for your engagement, support for the committee, and, above all, for your unity around the principle of collegial decision-making.
In Solidarity
Michael Begg (Chief Bargainer), Douglas Alards-Tomalin, Tim Acton, Monica Staff (FPSE staff representative), Eduardo Azmitia: CFA President (ex officio)