Notes contributed by Communications Committee member Dr. Ben Bunting, Humanities and Social Sciences
The OT-AAUP team began the session by expressing concerns about many aspects of the university’s requirement that synchronous remote class sessions be recorded. The team requested that a separate bargaining process be initiated around these issues. The Oregon Tech team requested a list of specific issues that would be bargained in these sessions before agreeing to anything. Oregon Tech would not readily agree to discussing these issues and addressing concerns in a timely manner.
Next, the teams discussed OT-AAUP’s counter to the Labor Management Committee article. Oregon Tech had no follow-up questions.
The teams then discussed OT-AAUP’s counter to the Personnel File article. The Oregon Tech team had some questions around complaints made under Title IX, but these were addressed with no further changes being made.
The next article up for discussion was Intellectual Property. The OT-AAUP team clarified that this article will supersede existing Oregon Tech policy, and that it would apply only to works created by faculty who create them as part of their job description.
After a caucus break, the Oregon Tech team presented the Recognition article. The team clarified that this article means to define chairs as being represented by a different unit than the one representing faculty. OT-AAUP argued that continuing work on this article without first TAing an article that defines the different types of appointments that are possible at Oregon Tech is counterproductive. There was further discussion about the importance of clearly defining titles and classifications.
Next up was the article on Discipline. OT-AAUP expressed concern that as written, this article allows for discharged based on “alleged” conduct. The Oregon Tech team did not disagree that this allows for “guilty until proven innocent” behavior, but argued that this isn’t likely to happen. The OT-AAUP team requested that the cases where this behavior would and wouldn’t be justified be better spelled out in the article. The Oregon Tech team disagreed that this was necessary. Then the team suggested that OT-AAUP counter with specifics on how such proceedings must be documented.
The Oregon Tech team introduced their counter on the Grievances article. The OT-AAUP team asked a number of clarifying questions here, including how a grievance would be levelled at a Dean or at a department chair. These concerns do not appear to have been addressed.
The Outside Activities article was discussed next. OT-AAUP asked about wording in the article that refers to faculty’s “7 day work week.” The Oregon Tech team suggested that OT-AAUP counter.
Non-Discrimination was the last article discussed during this session. The Oregon Tech team objected to including political activity in this article, but appears to have also removed references to harassment and retaliation as things faculty should be protected from. When questioned on this, the team offered to discuss further. OT-AAUP will counter.
At the end of the session, the impact bargaining around COVID-19 came up again; the Oregon Tech team seemed very resistant to engage in this bargaining.
The next negotiation session took place on April 13th, 2020.