General Meeting, Feb. 4 2020

The Winter 2020 General meeting was held on February 4. Faculty attended on the Klamath Falls campus (Dow E237), the Portland-Metro campus (Room 209) and over Skype.

Statement by the Vice President (Yasha Rohwer)

Yasha thanked Ben Bunting for putting a lot of work into updating the union website. Ben updated many of the navigation links and tools throughout the site, including adding a Google Calendar to track negotiation sessions (with Skype links to those events), a proposal tracking page to view negotiation progress, and information about the bargaining team. Within those resources, faculty can find the status of all proposals — the text of the proposals themselves, counterproposals offered by either side and whether or not they have been agreed to by both sides.

Yasha also announced that Elections will be occuring near the end of Winter term. Nominations will be sought in February, and the elections themselves will run in March. The union executive committee will also survey faculty on their negotiating priorities moving forward to ensure we have the most current understanding of everyone’s values.

Statement from the Negotiating Team (Cristina Negoita)

Cristina gave a brief rundown of negotiations so far, centered on the proposals available on the website. Many proposals have been exchanged, but tentative agreement hasn’t been reached in many places.

Cristina noted that the bargaining “clock” in Oregon runs for 300 days following the opening of negotiations. Ours will end on September 30, 2020. If a contract is not settled at that point, we will need to bring in an outside party to finish negotiations.

Cristina discussed the current method for writing articles/proposals. Where possible and desirable, current OIT policy is being used as the basis for proposal language. Otherwise, faculty with subject-matter expertise are being consulted for specific proposals.

Update on the Status of Chairs

Cristina outlined the current status of the Chairs bargaining unit. When the faculty union first formed, the administration argued that Chairs held a managerial role and could not unionize with the rest of the faculty. Following that, a hearing was held to determine the status of chairs: they were decided to be managerial and therefore not eligible to join a bargaining unit. That decision was appealed to the state labor board, who decided that chairs can form their own bargaining unit (under ORS 243 .682 .2). The administration has appealed this ruling as well, but the labor board’s decision stands until the appeal is heard.

For now, while the Chairs need to act as their own bargaining unit, they may combine their negotiation efforts with the faculty unit, they may join the existing executive committee and they may share most or all of the faculty contract. In effect, the Chairs’ bargaining unit may look like the faculty unit except for some additional articles in their contract.

Encouragement for Participation

Cristina reminded the attendees that all negotiation team members, all stewards, all executive committee members, all article writers and everyone else who has done work with or for the faculty union are OIT faculty volunteering their time in this effort. Faculty are invited to participate in union activity as stewards, proposal writers or attendees in negotiation meetings. All meetings are open to the public, whether by physical attendance (see announcement emails as sessions come up) or over Skype. Attendees are not required to announce themselves unless they are acting as press.

Q&A Session

Bargaining Sessions

  • Bargaining sessions are scheduled for long blocks of time in the middle of the day. Can faculty drop in for a short time and just watch? Can others drop in?
    • Yes! If you’ve only got 20-30 minutes to spare, you can still drop in to watch negotiations. These sessions are open to the public, so students and others may watch as well. No one is required to announce themselves or explain their presence (aside from press, who must announce themselves).
  • Are Chairs going to be a separate bargaining unit? What does that mean?
    • According to the rulings so far, Chairs are their own bargaining unit. However, they can negotiate at the same table as faculty and they can join our existing organizational structure (i.e., have a representative on the executive committee, share a building steward with the rest of the faculty). Because faculty rotate into and out of Chair positions regularly, it would make sense that we would have very similar contract language. Those organizational decisions are yet to be made by the OIT Department Chairs.
  • Is the administration negotiating in good faith?
    • Generally. Some actions have been done in bad faith or otherwise presented unfairly. For instance, the issue of changing our 2% COLA from settled policy into a negotiating point was first raised by email to the negotiating team at the end of a negotiating session, with seven days of time for the team to respond. The same issue (minus quite a bit of negotiation context) was then brought to the faculty at large in an all-faculty email two days later. While the administration has an interest in settling our contract before the 300-day clock expires, and at times they actively work towards mutual agreement, moments like this do occur.
  • The administration is expected to maintain the “status quo” during negotiations. Are they allowed to make arbitrary adjustments to Workload Units?
    • We need to be careful when these changes occur or seem like they are about to occur. It is up to us to call out those changes. It is bad form to change policy during the period of negotiations, but it is illegal to change working conditions.

January 31st, 2020 Negotiation Session

Notes contributed by Negotiating Team member Dr. David Johnston, Natural Sciences

On Friday, January 31, the OT-AAUP and Oregon Tech bargaining teams met for the second session of the fifth round of negotiations. The OT-AAUP team presented counter proposals on Distribution of Agreement and Preamble, as well as a new proposal on Sabbatical Leave. The teams began with discussion of the Association’s new proposal on Sabbatical Leave. The biggest concern the Administration team had was over a provision in OT-AAUP’s proposal that would require the university to earmark enough funds every year to support at least 12% of all faculty eligible for a sabbatical that year. Otherwise, there were a few clarification questions, and the Oregon Tech team said they would discuss the article further in a future caucus. Afterwards, both parties looked over the Associations counter proposals on Distribution of Agreement and Preamble. Both parties agreed, in principle, with the language in both proposals and agreed to look them over one more time in caucus. The Oregon Tech team then presented their counter proposals on Severability and Notices & Communication. Of note, the Oregon Tech team had removed all language around encrypting emails in the Notices & Communication article, arguing that if the intention of the encryption was to ensure privacy, it would do little good if it were sent to the wrong person. Since OT-AAUP’s team member with the most expertise in this field was not present, the teams agreed to hold off on tentatively agreeing to this article. The OT-AAUP team agreed, in principle, with the language in Oregon Tech’s Severability counter, but stated they would like to make it more clear.

After returning from a caucus, the OT-AAUP presented a counter proposal on Severability and the Oregon Tech team presented counters on Distribution of Agreement and Preamble. The OT-AAUP team stated that they would like to look over the preamble one more time before reaching tentative agreement. In particular, there was discussion over the apparent refusal of the Oregon Tech team to agree to being referred to as “the Employer” in certain parts of the CBA. Unfortunately, there was no resolution on this matter. However, the parties did reach tentative agreement on the Distribution of Agreement article. The Oregon Tech team then expressed concern that the Severability counter proposal that was presented was significantly different than the previous proposal, and, as such, were not prepared to agree to it. For their part, the OT-AAUP team stated that they felt the language was essentially the same, and that they were merely citing a Oregon Statute which governs Severability in labor contracts. The OT-AAUP team expressed hope that the Oregon Tech team would reach the same conclusion on closer inspection. The session adjourned at 6:00 pm.

The next bargaining sessions will be Thursday, February 27, 8:00 – 11:00 am, and Friday, February 28, 2:00 – 6:00 pm.

January 30th, 2020 Negotiation Session

Notes contributed by Negotiating Team member Dr. David Johnston, Natural Sciences

The Oregon Tech and OT-AAUP bargaining teams met on Thursday, January 30 for the first session of their fifth round of negotiations. Brian Caufield, Oregon Tech’s chief negotiator was at the Portland-Metro campus, and was joined by his colleague Christine Meadows, Assistant Director of Labor Relations at USSE. Dave Groff, General Counsel for Oregon Tech, joined as an observer. The OT-AAUP team began the session by reading a statement drafted by Chief Negotiator, Cristina Negoita. The full text of the statement can be found on the OT-AAUP website. In summary, the statement reaffirmed the Associations position that, as part of current policy, the faculty expect, and should get, a 2% raise, WITHOUT needing to agree to any conditions. Additionally, we conveyed that many of the faculty are severely dismayed by the administration’s disregard for current policy and willingness to treat the faculty unfairly. We asked that these concerns be communicated directly to Dr. Naganathan. After, once again, stating their position that they believe Oregon Tech has acted within its rights, the Oregon Tech team agreed to convey our concerns directly to Dr. Naganathan.

The parties then began discussion of the proposals that both parties thought were close to agreement. The OT-AAUP team presented counter proposals on Non-Discrimination and Notices & Communication. The Oregon Tech team passed counter proposals on Preamble, Distribution of Agreement, Personnel Files, and No Strike/No Lockout. Of note, the OT-AAUP team retained their language in the Non-Discrimination article to include harassment and retaliation. Additionally, the OT-AAUP team retained the language to include political affiliation and political activities as a protected class. The Oregon Tech team had no immediate questions or concerns, but stated that they would need to discuss the proposal in caucus. The Personnel File proposal that Oregon Tech passed was a counter to OT-AAUP’s proposal from December 5. The OT-AAUP team had no immediate questions or concerns, and agreed to discuss it in their caucus. The parties then agreed to adjourn for the rest of the session and discuss the articles that both parties felt were closest to reach tentative agreement on; namely, Preamble, Distribution of Agreement, Severability, and Notices & Communication.

 

January 31 negotiation notes can be found here.

January 17, 2020 Negotiation Session

Notes contributed by Negotiating Team member Dr. David Johnston, Natural Sciences

On January 17, 2020, the OT-AAUP teams met for the second session of their fifth round of bargaining. Matt Search, Associate Professor of Communications, joined the OT-AAUP bargaining team as an alternate and will be transitioning to a full time team member when Chelsea Gustafson, Assistant Professor of Natural Science, goes on maternity leave. The teams began the session by discussing the 2% raised that the University had offered the faculty the previous day. The Oregon Tech team informed the OT-AAUP team that the administration was willing to give the Association one more day, till the end of business on Wednesday, January 22, to respond to the University’s offer. The OT-AAUP team once again expressed their concern that the Administration was attaching a condition to the 2% salary increase; namely, that by accepting the offer, the Association was agreeing NOT to bargain further over compensation for the 2020 calendar year. The OT-AAUP team argued that since a 2% COLA is part of the Faculty Compensation policy, and that the University must continue to follow current policy while in negotiations, it would seem that Oregon Tech MUST give a 2% salary increase. In response, the Oregon Tech team stated that all was required was them to offer the 2% increase, but because compensation is a mandatory subject of bargaining, they could essentially make the offer however they pleased, and that they were giving OT-AAUP the same offer that had been given to OSU, during their negotiations. The OT-AAUP team stated that they would need to confer with the OT-AAUP executive committee, and agreed that the chief negotiators would continue the discussion over email.

The OT-AAUP team presented four counter proposals, Distribution of Agreement, No Strike/No Lockout, Outside Activities, and Preamble, and one new proposal, Academic Freedom. The Oregon Tech team presented three counter proposals, Non-Discrimination, Preamble, and Totality of Agreement. The teams began by discussion OT-AAUP’s No Strike/No Lockout counter proposal, and the Oregon Tech team stated they agreed with most of it, but would have to look at it further and might propose a counter at a later time. Discussion then turned to the Distribution of Agreement counter proposal. The Oregon Tech team agreed that it was much clearer than the first proposal, and agreed with the language in principle, but would need to go over it one more time with the entire team before begin ready to TA it. The teams then moved on to discuss both Preamble counter proposals. Oregon Tech’s proposal did not include any language around purpose or motivation for the CBA, and the OT-AAUP team once again stated that they believed it was important to incorporate these statements, mainly as a tool to communicate with others reading the CBA. The Oregon Tech team said they would need to talk about the Preamble some more, amongst themselves. OT-AAUP then presented their counter to Oregon Tech’s Outside Activities proposal. As mentioned in the previous bulletin, the OT-AAUP team explained their concerns with Oregon Tech’s language, and that the counter proposal was written to ensure that Oregon Tech is any bargaining unit member’s primary employer, but that the University had very little control over what a faculty member did outside their jobs, as long as it did not affect their performance at work. The Oregon Tech team did not have any questions about the counter proposal, but said they would discuss it. The teams then discussed OT-AAUP’s Academic Freedom proposal. There were mainly clarifying questions from the OT-AAUP team, after which they said they would discuss it amongst themselves.

The teams then moved to discuss Oregon Tech’s proposals, starting with the Preamble counter. The Oregon Team felt that, since the OT-AAUP Preamble counter was more encompassing, they would discuss that as a team and work off of that proposal. The teams then discussed Oregon Tech’s Non-Discrimination counter proposal. The Oregon Tech team explained that they were not comfortable including protection for classes that were not protected by law, and so they removed the inclusion of Political Affiliation as a protected class. Additionally, they had removed langauge around harrasment and retaliation, and only included discrimination. The OT-AAUP team felt that it was important to keep that language, and said they would discuss this article and likely present a counter proposal at a later time. Both teams agreed in principle with Oregon Tech’s Totality of Agreement counter proposal, and suggested that this might be TA’ed at the next meeting. Lastly, the teams discussed Oregon Tech’s Notices and Communications proposal from December 6. After some clarifying questions and discussion, it was agreed that encrypted email would be the primary means of communication between the Association and the University, with each party requesting a read receipt. The OT-AAUP team agreed to write up the counter proposal for the next meeting. Before adjourning, the Oregon Tech team suggested each team look over articles they felt were getting close to being TA’ed and that the teams would start with those proposals next time, to which the OT-AAUP team agreed.

January 16, 2020 Negotiation Session

Notes contributed by Negotiating Team member Dr. David Johnston, Natural Sciences

On January 16, 2020, the OT-AAUP and the Oregon Tech negotiating teams met for the first session of their fifth round of bargaining. First, the parties agreed to keep a joint spreadsheet indicating which proposals had been passed, and by whom, so that both parties are on the same page when it comes to what has been passed and received. Then the Association team asked to discuss an email that was sent to the OT-AAUP team by Oregon Tech. In the email, the University offered the faculty a 2% raise for the 2020 calendar year, with the condition that, if accepted, the faculty could not bargain for any additional compensation for the remainder of the 2020 calendar year. Furthermore, OT-AAUP, as the designated representative of the faculty, had only until the end of business on Tuesday, January 21, 2020, to accept or decline the offer. The OT-AAUP team expressed their concern over the very short time alloted to make a decision which would financially impact all of the faculty, and requested that the Oregon Tech team ask Dr. Naganathan for an extension. Additionally, the OT-AAUP team asked why the University felt it was necessary to add the restriction of no further bargaining in 2020. In response, the Oregon Tech team simply stated that they were following the same procedure that had been used during Oregon State University’s negotiations. The OT-AAUP team was not satisfied with this answer, but agreed to move on to discuss the proposals that each team had prepared, as both teams would need to discuss the proposed raise with their respective constituents.

The OT-AAUP team presented two new proposals, Distrubtion of Agreement and No Strike/No Lockout, as well as one counter proposal on Non-Discrimination. The Oregon Tech team also presented two new proposals, No Strike/No Lockout and Outside Activities. The teams began by discussing OT-AAUP’s counter proposal on Non-Discrimination. The Oregon Tech team was uncomfortable with including classes that are not normally legally protected, in the Non-Discrimitnation article. In response, OT-AAUP pointed out that the Non-Discrimination article in the CBA can be broader, and the inclusion of protection for certain classes, such as political belief, was important for the faculty and consistent with the culture at OIT. The Oregon Tech team said they would discuss the article in caucus and most likely present a counter proposal at a later time. The teams then discussed OT-AAUP’s Distribution of Agreement proposal. Both parties agreed that the OT-AAUP team would clarify some of the language and present a counter proposal the following day. The teams then moved to discuss both No Strike/No Lockout articles. Overall, the articles were mostly the same, as this article is fairly standard in all CBA’s. The OT-AAUP team had some concerns over the Oregon Tech teams inclusion of termination in the list of consequences for faculty participating in an illegal strike. The OT-AAUP team agreed to present a counter proposal at the next meeting, which would include some of the language from the Oregon Tech proposal, specifically concerning the Association’s responsibility to prevent and/or stop an illegal strike. Lastly, the teams discussed Oregon Tech’s Outside Activity proposal. The OT-AAUP team was disturbed by the wording Oregon Tech chose for this article. As understood by the OT-AAUP team, the purpose of the Outside Activity article is to emphasize that a bargaining unit member’s main responsibility is to Oregon Tech, and that other employment, if permissible, is secondary. However, the OT-AAUP team expressed their concern that, based on the wording of Oregon Tech’s proposal, it seemed the University was trying to exert control over ALL aspects of a faculty member’s time, even time that is considered personal. The OT-AAUP team state they would work on a counter proposal to present at the next meeting.

December 6, 2019 Negotiation Session

Notes contributed by Negotiating Team member Dr. David Johnston, Natural Sciences

On December 6, 2019, the Oregon Tech and OT-AAUP negotiating teams met for the second session of their fourth round of negotiations. The OT-AAUP team presented their counter proposals to Preamble, Severability, and Totality of Agreement. There was some discussion over the language that OT-AAUP added to the Preamble article, as well as over some of the language OT-AAUP removed from the Severability article. OT-AAUP explained that the added language was meant to help set the tone for the agreement, to remind all parties why the faculty voted to unionize, and emphasize that all parties are devoted to the improvement of the University. The Oregon Tech team was concerned that additional language could provide an avenue for faculty in the future to file a grievance against the University. Both teams agreed to present a new Preamble counter at the next negotiating session. As to the Severability proposal, the OT-AAUP team felt it was prudent to keep the Severability article short, as many of the points in the original proposal are covered under Oregon State law. There was a brief discussion over whether it was best to include language from the statute. The Oregon Tech team stated they would review the issue and present a counter proposal at a later time. The Oregon Tech team agreed, in principle, to the Totality of Agreement counter proposal, but said they wanted to discuss it one more time. The OT-AAUP also presented a new proposal, Personnel Files, which dealt with the ability of faculty to have access to their personnel files stored both by Human Resources and the Provost’s office. The Oregon Tech team asked for some clarification around the timelines and type of information that was kept in these files. The teams agreed that the Oregon Tech team would review this article further and present a counter at a later time.

The Oregon Tech team presented a counter to OT-AAUP’s Non-Discrimination proposal. The Association team was concerned that the counter referenced current OIT policy, and voiced their concern regarding the administration’s “flexibility” when following or applying current policy. OT-AAUP said they would review Oregon Tech’s proposal and would likely counter at the next session. The Oregon Tech team also presented a proposal on Notices & Communications, which deals with how the University and the Union should exchange official notices. The Oregon Tech proposal called for email to be the primary means of communication. There followed some discussion about the reliability and security of email. It was decided that the OT-AAUP team would propose a counter at the next session. Lastly, the teams agreed on meeting times for the Winter 2020 term. The teams will meet on January 16 & 17, January 30 & 31, February 13 & 14, February 27 & 28, and March 12 & 13.

 

*In an email conversation from December 12, 2019. It was decided to cancel the February 13 & 14, due to the New Wings Registration event.

December 5, 2019 Negotiation Session

Notes contributed by Negotiating Team member Dr. David Johnston, Natural Sciences

On December 5, 2019, the Oregon Tech and the OT-AAUP bargaining teams met for the first session of their fourth round of negotiations. Maureen De Armond, Oregon Tech’s new Associate Vice President of Human Resources, joined the Oregon Tech team, replacing Sandi Hannan. During this session, the teams exchanged their first set of proposals, beginning the 300-day, mandatory bargaining clock. The OT-AAUP team presented Association Rights, Definitions, Non-Discrimination, and Recognition. The Oregon Tech team presented Preamble, Successor Agreement, Severability, Statutory Compliance, and Totality of Agreement. The teams spent most of the session introducing their articles and asking clarifying questions of the opposing team. The teams agreed in principle to the language of Oregon Tech’s Successor Agreement proposal, but could not TA the article, as dates need to be filled in once the CBA has been finalized. Both teams felt that the Recognition proposal was straightforward, but the Oregon Tech team requested a few clarifications be incorporated, the OT-AAUP team did not object. Additionally, the teams agreed that the Definitions article would be a running document, which could be added to when necessary. The OT-AAUP team said they would prepare counter proposals to Oregon Tech’s Preamble, Severability, and Totality of Agreement, and the Oregon Tech team said they would prepare a counters to OT-AAUP’s Non-Discrimination and Association Rights, but that it would most likely be several sessions before the counter to Association Rights was ready. The OT-AAUP team, along with our AAUP representative, Sarah Lanius, felt that the Statutory Compliance article proposed by the Oregon Tech team was extraneous and unwarranted, as it is does not appear in any of the other Oregon University CBAs, and the only purpose it seemed to serve was to limit the rights of the Association. As such, the OT-AAUP team will not respond to this article, effectively rejecting it.

November 14, 2019 Negotiation Session

Notes contributed by Negotiating Team member Dr. David Johnston, Natural Sciences

On November 14, 2019 the Oregon Tech and the OT-AAUP bargaining tems met for their third round of negotiations. The parties concluded their discussion of, and tentatively agreed to, ground rules. The ground rules were signed by chief negotiators Brian Caufield and Cristina Negoita on November 20, 2019. A copy of the signed ground rules can be found on the OT-AAUP website. The OT-AAUP negotiating team was generally pleased with the ground rules, specifically since it did not limit the ability of our membership to observe the negotiations, and that the agreed upon negotiating time frame does not put the faculty in an overly disadvantageous position if a strike becomes necessary. Both parties agreed to begin exchanging CBA article proposals at our next meeting on December 5.

Winter Term Negotiation Schedule

Please find listed below the time, date, and location information for all bargaining sessions taking place during winter term.

 

Thursday, January 16, 8:00 am – 11:00 am

(Host Site Portland-Metro Campus)

Schedule: Start Caucus at 8:00 am, Start Session at 8:30 am

Negotiation Room

  • Klamath Falls: College Union, Sunset
  • Portland-Metro: Room 402

Skype: Join Skype Meeting

Join by Phone: 1 (888) 858-6021, Conference ID: 8337990839

Caucus Room

  • Klamath Falls: College Union, Diamond Peak
  • Portland-Metro: Room 130

Skype: Join Skype Meeting

Join by Phone: 1 (888) 858-6021, Conference ID: 9739352037

 

Friday, January 17, 2:00 pm – 6:00 pm

 (Host Site Portland-Metro Campus)

 Negotiation Room

  • Klamath Falls: College Union, Mt. McLaughlin
  • Portland-Metro: Room 225

Skype: Join Skype Meeting

Join by Phone: 1 (888) 858-6021, Conference ID: 9351192156

Caucus Room

  • Klamath Falls: College Union, Diamond Peak
  • Portland-Metro: Room 130

Skype: Join Skype Meeting

Join by Phone: 1 (888) 858-6021, Conference ID: 9008058011

 

Thursday, January 30, 8:00 am – 11:00 am

 Schedule: Start Caucus at 8:00 am, Start Session at 8:30 am

 Negotiation Room

  • Klamath Falls: College Union, Sunset
  • Portland-Metro: Room 225

Skype: Join Skype Meeting

Join by Phone: 1 (888) 858-6021, Conference ID: 8337990839

Caucus Room

  • Klamath Falls: College Union, Diamond Peak

Skype: Join Skype Meeting

Join by Phone: 1 (888) 858-6021, Conference ID: 9008058011

 

Friday, January 31, 2:00 pm – 6:00 pm

 Negotiation Room

  • Klamath Falls: College Union, Mt. McLoughlin
  • Portland-Metro: Room 225

Skype: Join Skype Meeting

Join by Phone: 1 (888) 858-6021, Conference ID: 9351192156

Caucus Room

  • Klamath Falls: College Union, Student Affairs Conference Room

Skype: Join Skype Meeting

Join by Phone: 1 (971) 337-0109, Conference ID: 612044841

 

Thursday, February 27, 8:00 am – 11:00 am

 Schedule: Start Caucus at 8:00 am, Start Session at 8:30 am

 Negotiation Room

  • Klamath Falls: College Union, Sunset
  • Portland-Metro: Room 225

Skype: Join Skype Meeting

Join by Phone: 1 (888) 858-6021, Conference ID: 8337990839

Caucus Room

  • Klamath Falls: College Union, Diamond Peak

Skype: Join Skype Meeting

Join by Phone: 1 (888) 858-6021, Conference ID: 9739352037

 

Friday, February 28, 2:00 pm – 5:30 pm

 *This session must end at 5:30 pm due to room availability.

 Negotiation Room

  • Klamath Falls: College Union, Sunset
  • Portland-Metro: Room 225

Skype: Join Skype Meeting

Join by Phone: 1 (888) 858-6021, Conference ID: 8337990839

Caucus Room

  • Klamath Falls: College Union, Student Affairs Conference Room

Skype: Join Skype Meeting

Join by Phone: 1 (971) 337-0109, Conference ID: 120330862

 

Thursday, March 12, 8:00 am – 11:00 am

 (Host Site Portland-Metro Campus)

 Schedule: Start Caucus at 8:00 am, Start Session at 8:30 am

 Negotiation Room

  • Klamath Falls: College Union, Sunset
  • Portland-Metro: Room 402

Skype: Join Skype Meeting

Join by Phone: 1 (888) 858-6021, Conference ID: 8337990839

Caucus Room

  • Klamath Falls: College Union, Diamond Peak
  • Portland-Metro: Room 130

Skype: Join Skype Meeting

Join by Phone: 1 (888) 858-6021, Conference ID: 9008058011

 

Friday, March 13, 2:00 pm – 6:00 pm

 (Host Site Portland-Metro Campus)

 Negotiation Room

  • Klamath Falls: College Union, Sunset
  • Portland-Metro: Room 402

Skype: Join Skype Meeting

Join by Phone: 1 (888) 858-6021, Conference ID: 8337990839

Caucus Room

  • Klamath Falls: College Union, Student Affairs Conference Room
  • Portland-Metro: 130

Skype: Join Skype Meeting

Join by Phone: 1 (971) 337-0109, Conference ID: 525226171

October 17, 2019 Negotiation Session

Notes contributed by Negotiating Team member Dr. David Johnston, Natural Sciences

October 17, 2019 was the first meeting between the OT-AAUP and the Oregon Tech bargaining teams. The main agenda of the meeting was to begin discussion of Negotiating Ground Rules and to set times for the next several meetings. OT-AAUP was represented by Chief Negotiator and Mathematics Professor Cristina Negoita, CSET Associate Professor Phil Howard, MIT Professor Stephen Schultz, Information Systems Librarian Karen Kunz, Assistant Professor of Chemistry Chelsea Gustafson, and Instructor of Physics David Johnston. Oregon Tech was represented by Chief Negotiator and USSE Labor Relations Director Brian Caufield, Assistant Director of Human Resources Sandi Hanan, Associate Dean of ETM Brian Moravec, Assistant Vice President Stephanie Pope, Dean of ETM Tom Keyser, and Associate Provost Abdy Afjeh. Jim Bakken, AAUP Pacific Northwest Lead Organizer, served as an advisor to the OT-AAUP negotiating team.

Oregon Tech President Nagi Naganathan, Provost Joanna Mott, and Vice President of Finance Brian Fox were present at the beginning of the meeting to express their support for the bargaining process, their appreciation for the service of members of both negotiating teams, and their faith that the bargaining endeavor will be successful.

After team introductions, the parties began discussion of the ground rules proposed by each team. The teams agreed, in principle, to many of the common procedural items put forward in both proposals, with both teams agreeing to work on the specific language in future counter-proposals. For instance, both teams agreed that all team members as well as all observers and all invited presenters will conduct themselves professionally and in a manner keeping with that expected from members of the university community.

The Oregon Tech negotiating team proposed that all bargaining sessions be held in executive session, and that the number of observers allowed by each team be limited in number. Additionally, their proposal called for all observers to be invited, and for each team to provide the other with a list of all invited observers prior to a bargaining session. The OT-AAUP team did not agree to this proposal. Instead, they proposed that all bargaining sessions be open to any who would like to attend, and that prior notice of observers was not necessary. The parties did not reach an agreement on this point, so it will continue to be negotiated at future sessions.

The OT-AAUP negotiating team proposed that any OT-AAUP union service, and, in particular, service on the OT-AAUP negotiating team be considered as service to the university for the purpose of faculty and staff performance evaluations. Additionally, the OT-AAUP team proposed that each member of the bargaining team be granted a 3-workload-unit-per-quarter reduction for the duration of the negotiations. The Oregon Tech team suggested that the workload reduction request might be better included in substantive proposal discussions after Ground Rules have been established. The Oregon Tech team said they would discuss the service request with administration, leaving the issue to be debated at the next meeting.

Both teams agreed to future meetings on the following six days:

  • Thursday, October 31, from 3 – 5 pm;
  • Friday, November 1, from 8 – 10:30 am, and from 2 – 4 pm;
  • Thursday, November 14, from 3 – 6 pm;
  • Friday, November 15, from 8 – 10:30 am, and from 2 – 4 pm;
  • Thursday, December 5, from 2 – 6 pm; and
  • Friday, December 6, from 8 – 10:30 am, and 2 – 4 pm

Overall, all OT-AAUP Negotiating Team members felt that this first session was positive and encouraging, and are hopeful that future sessions will be equally productive.