Welcome back! Updates and general meeting (1/12/2021 at 2 pm) (Originally emailed to faculty on 1/6/21)

Welcome back, colleagues! I’m writing today with some quick updates from your faculty union as we start winter term.

First, we are having another general meeting on Tuesday, 1/12/2021, from 2 – 3 pm, over Zoom. Please come for updates and action items. The meeting link will be forthcoming.

Second, over the break, the negotiating teams continued to exchange proposals and communication; our team has tried to find common ground with the administration, but we are still far apart on major issues, particularly with respect to compensation and benefits. The teams are meeting this Thursday, 1/7/2021, for the first time since the end of fall term. At next week’s general meeting, we hope to have additional bargaining updates.

Lastly, we recently learned that, on Christmas Eve, Oregon Tech’s administration filed a request for judicial review (effectively, an appeal) of last term’s unanimous decision from the Oregon Employment Relations Board that Oregon Tech committed unfair labor practices against us. We find this appeal to be an egregious waste of time and money, especially at a time when the university has furloughed staff and frozen faculty hiring.

Despite whatever challenges we face as a faculty this term, please know that your faculty union is working on your behalf and welcomes your input, support, and involvement. Again, please plan to attend our general meeting next Tuesday, 1/12/2021, at 2 pm. In the meantime, have a great first week of classes!

In solidarity,

Dr. Kari Lundgren, OT-AAUP Secretary
On behalf of the OT-AAUP Executive Committee

Dr. Sean St. Clair, President
Dr. Cristina Negoita, Vice President
Dr. Kari Lundgren, Secretary
Prof. Terri Torres, Treasurer
Prof. Andria Fultz, Portland-Metro At-Large Representative
Dr. Kyle Chapman, Klamath Falls At-Large Representative
Dr. Mark Clark, Immediate Past President

Bargaining update; General meeting 1/12/2021 (Originally emailed to faculty on 12/14/20)

Dear colleagues,

As an unforgettable fall term wraps up, we’re writing with a few key union updates for you.

First, our next general meeting will be 1/12/2021 at 2 pm (Tuesday of Week 2). This meeting will serve as a follow-up to our meeting of 12/4/2020 and will cover updates to bargaining and what next steps will be necessary to win a strong contract. Please plan to attend this meeting if you can. Zoom information will be forthcoming in the new year.

Second, the negotiating teams met on 12/10/2020 and came to Tentative Agreement (TA) on Leaves, which is heartening. Less heartening was the fact that Oregon Tech Admin rejected our Benefits proposal, wherein we propose maintaining the status quo (95/5 split for PEBB contributions), as well as our Donated Leave proposal, as both of these proposals address issues related to health insurance and sick leaves, issues especially relevant during a pandemic.

Oregon Tech Admin did finally counter on Compensation and Workload (linked here), as well as on Outside Activities and Professional Development. Their proposals continue to ignore key issues to our members –e.g., no COLA, no definition of workload units, no post-tenure review raises, no geographic stipends–but do show a small amount of engagement in the process. Our team will, naturally, respond to these articles. We encourage you to read carefully through their proposals on Compensation and Workload.

As of now, the teams are scheduled to meet weekly throughout January.

Your bargaining team has now been in negotiations for over a year, and, while we have reached a few tentative agreements (Leaves, Grievances, Arbitration,etc), we remain far apart on the issues that are top priorities for faculty (Workload, Compensation, etc.). We hope to reach an agreement on our contract in the winter term, but winning a contract that ensures our contributions to the university are recognized will take all of us engaging in the process and supporting our bargaining team.

We wish you peace, joy, and solidarity throughout the holiday season and the new year!

Kari Lundgren, OTAAUP Secretary
On behalf of the OTAAUP Executive Committee

Dr. Sean St. Clair, President
Dr. Cristina Negoita, Vice President
Dr. Kari Lundgren, Secretary
Prof. Terri Torres, Treasurer
Prof. Andria Fultz, Portland-Metro At-Large Representative
Dr. Kyle Chapman, Klamath Falls At-Large Representative
Dr. Mark Clark, Immediate Past President

Day 3 of Mediation: Bargaining Update (Originally emailed to faculty on 11/13/20)

Colleagues,

Yesterday was the third day of mediation for our collective bargaining process, so we’re writing with a quick update. (Reminder: Bargaining updates from OTAAUP will always come from unite@oregontechaaup.org; emails from negoitiations@oit.edu are from the administration’s bargaining team.)

Unlike in past bargaining sessions, proposals are considered confidential during the mediation process, but we can share with you the following basic information about the day’s progress.

Parties exchanged the following articles:

  • Leaves
  • Discipline
  • Arbitration (ready to TA)
  • Fringe Benefits
  • Donations for Hardship Leave

We will continue the mediation process again next Thursday. Thank you for your continued support.

In solidarity,
Your OTAAUP Bargaining Team

Dr. Cristina Negoita, Chief Negotiator
Dr. David Johnston
Prof. Karen Kunz
Prof. Joseph Reid
Dr. Matthew Search
Prof. Stephen Schulz
Prof. Terri Torres

A win for faculty! ULP decision unanimously in our favor (Originally emailed to faculty on 10/29/20)

Colleagues,

We’re writing today to share with you good news: This morning, we received notice that the Oregon Employment Relations Board (ERB) ruled unanimously in our favor regarding the Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) complaint we made this summer.

Per the official ERB order, “The Board found that Oregon Institute of Technology committed unfair labor practices in violation of ORS 243.672(1)(e) . . . . The Board also concluded that Oregon Tech violated the duty to bargain when it unilaterally eliminated stipends and release time.”

Here is the ERB’s full ruling.

In other words, we won!

Despite the administration’s use of thousands of dollars in an attempt to defend their actions, we have been vindicated.

As part of this decision, everyone who was impacted by the illegal change to the Stipend/Release model will be made “whole” by the university, with interest. Please let us know at unite@oregontechaaup.org if you were adversely affected by the university’s actions so that we can keep track of whether the university is fulfilling their legal obligation.

Additionally, as a result of this decision, these issues will return to their rightful place at the bargaining table, where faculty will continue to have a strong voice.

Thanks to our faculty’s efforts through the union, we were able to achieve this victory. Thanks for your continued support!

In solidarity,

Your OTAAUP Executive Committee
Dr. Sean St. Clair, President
Dr. Cristina Negoita, Vice President
Dr. Kari Lundgren, Secretary
Prof. Terri Torres, Treasurer
Prof. Andria Fultz, Portland-Metro At-Large Representative
Dr. Kyle Chapman, Klamath Falls At-Large Representative
Dr. Mark Clark, Immediate Past President

Bargaining Update: Day 1 of Mediation (Originally emailed to faculty on 10/29/20)

Colleagues,

Today was the first day of mediation for our bargaining process, so we’re writing with a quick update. (Reminder: Bargaining updates from OTAAUP will always come from unite@oregontechaaup.org; emails from negoitiations@oit.edu are from the administration’s bargaining team.)

Your OTAAUP bargaining team met with both the administration’s team and a state mediator from 9:00 am – 4:30 pm today.

Unlike in past bargaining sessions, proposals are considered confidential during the mediation process, but we can share with you the following basic information about the day’s progress.

Parties exchanged the following articles:

  • Academic Freedom
  • Leaves
  • Hardship Leaves (Donated Leaves)
  • Recognition
  • Arbitration
  • Fringe Benefits
  • Working Conditions

No tentative agreements (TAs) were reached, though some more or less productive discussion occurred on a variety of subjects.

We will continue this process again next Thursday. Thank you for your continued support.

In solidarity,
Your OTAAUP Bargaining Team

Dr. Cristina Negoita, Chief Negotiator
Dr. David Johnston
Prof. Karen Kunz
Prof. Joseph Reid
Dr. Matthew Search
Prof. Stephen Schulz
Prof. Terri Torres

July 15, 2020 Negotiation Session

Notes contributed by OT-AAUP bargaining team member Dr. David Johnston, Natural Sciences, with minor edits by Communications Committee Member Dr. Ben Bunting, Humanities and Social Sciences

The OT-AAUP and Oregon Tech negotiating teams met on Wednesday, July 15, to continue the second bargaining round of the summer. OT-AAUP presented counter-proposals on Notices of Appointment and Academic Classification and Rank (previously called Appointments), and the Oregon Tech team presented counter-proposals on Personnel Files, Working Conditions, and Promotion and Tenure.

Personnel Files
The Oregon Tech team began by presenting their counter on Personnel Files. The team agreed, in their proposal, to include the language from the Association’s proposal that would allow a bargaining unit member to petition to have perceived erroneous information removed from or to have possibly omitted information added to their Personnel File. They also agreed to add language that stated any material that was not available in electronic format would either be scanned or made available as a paper copy. Both parties Tentatively Agreed to the Personnel File Article and both chief negotiators signed the Proposal.

Working Conditions
Next, the Oregon Tech team presented their counter proposal on Working Conditions. The Oregon Tech team stated that their intention for this article was to focus on Health and Safety and, in a very broad sense, on offices and facilities. Not surprisingly, their proposal seemed to be written with the intent to preserve as many management rights as possible. The OT-AAUP team viewed the proposal as a minimum proposal and were dismayed that the Oregon Tech team did not seem to address any of the Association’s concerns laid out in their original proposal. For example, Oregon Tech’s proposal stated that it was Oregon Tech’s responsibility to ensure a safe working environment, and that employees should report any unsafe working conditions immediately. However, there was no explanation of how those issues would be resolved or a timeline provided to address said issues. Additionally, the Administration team’s proposal said nothing about providing each bargaining unit member with an office, desk, and computer, or how often the computer would be replaced. In light of many past examples where bargaining unit members were not provided with said equipment, the Association team stated that they were looking for more specificity, and that would be reflected in their counter proposal. Lastly, the Association team was further dismayed by Oregon Tech’s proposal that faculty need only be given notice of fourteen (14) calendar days to change offices and one (1) term to be transferred to a different campus location.

Promotion and Tenure
The Oregon Tech team then explained that they would not be providing a counter proposal to the Association’s original proposal on Promotion and Tenure, stating that it was their belief this was a permissive subject of bargaining, as it sought to establish criteria for promotion and tenure, which, the Oregon Team asserted, are management rights. When the OT-AAUP team pointed out that a Promotion and Tenure article was originally included on Oregon Tech’s list of articles it was likely to propose, the Oregon Tech team reminded the Association teams that the list was non-binding. The OT-AAUP team acknowledged that the list was non-binding, but was wanting to know what might have changed between when the list was proposed and the current time. The Oregon Tech team responded that Oregon Tech leadership no longer felt that article was necessary, and that to move the University forward, the leadership wanted to have flexible policies. The OT-AAUP team responded that their initial Proposal was largely based on the current policy and that the Association was not asking for anything drastically new. Additionally, while the Association team acknowledged that criteria for promotion is a permissive subject, the timeline and procedure for promotion are mandatory subjects of bargaining as they have a direct impact on the working conditions of the bargaining unit members. The Oregon Tech team replied that if the Association were to counter with a proposal that addressed only mandatory subjects, the Administration might consider it. The OT-AAUP team stated that they would discuss this issue further in caucus, and that they would notify their membership that Oregon Tech was not willing to bargain over issues that are very important to many members.

Notices of Appointment
Next, the OT-AAUP team presented their counter proposal on Notices of Appointment. The Association team clarified that the information OT-AAUP was asking to be included on Notices of Appointment was not anything new, but was information that is currently included on annual Notices of Appointment. The Association team explained that it was the desire of OT-AAUP to set a well established timeline for sending out Notices of Appointment that the University would have to adhere to, since, in the past, there were instances of individuals getting Notices of Appointment at very different times. The Oregon Tech team stated they would review the proposal in caucus.

Academic Classifications and Rank
Lastly, the OT-AAUP team re-presented their article on Academic Classifications and Rank, which was previously called Appointments, and, which, the Oregon Tech team had initially dismissed as permissive. The Association team reiterated that the types of classifications and ranks that were included in the Article were well-defined and established at Oregon Tech. Additionally, since a bargaining unit member’s salary is directly based on their classification and rank, it should be a mandatory subject of bargaining. The Oregon Tech team seemed to suggest that it was up to the leadership of the University to decide what constituted a Professor vs. an Associate Professor vs. an Instructor vs. a Senior Instructor, and that those definitions could be changed solely at the discretion of the Oregon Tech leadership. When it was pointed out to the Oregon Tech team that many CBAs at other universities have this type of article, their response was simply that that was the other institution’s decision, but that Oregon Tech was not interested in including such an article. Again, the OT-AAUP team urged the Oregon Tech team to reconsider their position and argued that it would be difficult to continue other discussions without first establishing these baseline terms. The Oregon Tech team stated that they would review and discuss the article further in caucus.

July 14, 2020 Negotiation Session

Notes contributed by OT-AAUP bargaining team member Dr. David Johnston, Natural Sciences, with minor edits by Communications Committee Member Dr. Ben Bunting, Humanities and Social Sciences

On Tuesday, July 14, the OT-AAUP and Oregon Tech negotiating teams met for their second bargaining session of the Summer. The OT-AAUP team presented counter proposals on Arbitration, Grievances, Sick Leave Pool (previously called Donated Leave Bank), and Personnel Files. The Oregon Tech team presented counter proposals on Personnel Files and Association Rights.

Sick Leave Pool
The Association team began by presenting their counter proposal to the Donated Leave Bank article, which was retitled Sick Leave Pool. The OT-AAUP team explained that this proposal was largely based on the proposed Sick Leave Pool Policy that was presented to Faculty Senate on March 30, 2020. The most significant discussion took place around the Association’s proposal to allow Unclassified Staff to participate in the Sick Leave Pool. This proposal was based on the belief that there were on the order of 50 unclassified employees at Oregon Tech and they could benefit from having access to a larger pool. The Oregon Tech team clarified that there are approximately 150 unclassified staff at Oregon Tech; furthermore, they explained that it would not be legal to include unclassified staff in an article in this CBA since they are not represented by OT-AAUP. Given these facts, the Association team agreed that it would remove that language in their next counter-proposal. The Oregon Tech team also clarified that the 80 hours of COVID leave is set to expire at some point, as mandated by Federal law; therefore, those hours could not be donated into the Sick Leave Pool. The Oregon Tech team stated they would review the proposal further in caucus.

Grievances
Next, the Association team presented their counter proposal on Grievances. The team highlighted the main changes; firstly, a desire to compromise in the time limit for presenting a grievance at 45 days, [the Associations initial proposal had a time limit of 60 days, and the Administration’s initial proposal had a time limit of 30 days]; secondly, a proposal to change some language concerning what happens if either party fails to respond or meet deadlines to make the language more equitable, [in Oregon Tech’s proposal they suggested that if the Association or the Grievant misses a deadline the Grievance would be considered withdrawn and could not be resubmitted. However, if the Administration were to miss a deadline the Grievance would simply move to the next level. The Association proposed changing this so that if the Administration missed a deadline the Grievant’s proposed remedy to the situation would be granted.]; thirdly, the Association explained their rationale behind including a procedure for an informal Grievance resolution process, and explained that the main difference between an Informal and a Formal Grievance would be whether the Grievance was accompanied with the Grievance form; lastly, the Association explained their desire to keep the timelines around Grievances that involve discrimination or sexual harrassment, in order to provide more avenues for bargaingn unit members to resolve complaints. The Oregon Tech team did not respond directly to the proposed 45 day time limit to file a Grievance. However, they did voice concern over the proposed language change around the consequences of either party missing a deadline. In response, the Association team thanked them for their feedback. The Administration team stated that their could be a path forward to include an informal resolution procedure in the article, but they were not interested in including any language about extending the Grievance deadlines for discrimination or sexual harassment. They said they would discuss the article further in caucus.

Arbitration
The OT-AAUP team next presented their counter-proposal on Arbitration. The Association clarified their position around mediation, explaining that it was not the Association’s intention to force Oregon Tech into mediation, but to strongly encourage the parties to use Mediation to settle Grievances rather than Arbitration, since Mediation is a much cheaper and far less adversarial process. The Oregon Tech team seemed to agree with this argument and understood that the Request for Mediation would not be submitted to the ERB until both parties had agreed. The parties also discussed the timeline of Arbitration and when it would be appropriate to have an Arbitrator decide whether the issue being grieved is arbitratible. There seemed to be agreement that the language should reflect both parties’ desire to minimize costs. There was not further substantive discussion, and the Administration team said they would review the proposal in caucus.

Personnel Files (Oregon Tech)
Prior to caucusing, the Oregon Tech team presented their counter proposal on Personnel Files. Their new counter proposal was much more inline with the Association’s previous proposals, though, it was noted, that the Administration’s proposal still did not contain language allowing an employee to address perceived errors or omissions in the file. The OT-AAUP team stated they would review the proposal in cacuss and would likely present a counter, since it appeared the teams were getting close to agreement.

Personnel Files (OT-AAUP)
After cacussing, the OT-AAUP team presented a counter to Oregon Tech’s Personnel File proposal, explaining that the main differences were language around allowing bargaining unit members access to paper copies if digital copies were not available, and allowing bargaining unit members the ability to address perceived errors or omissions in their file. The Oregon Tech team stated they would discuss this counter in caucus.

Association Rights
Lastly, the Oregon Tech team presented their counter proposal to Association Rights. Of major discussion was the Administration’s proposal that the Association provide not only a list of the executive officers elected by the bargaining unit members, but also a detailed list of their duties and responsibilities and an estimate for the amount of time those duties and responsibilities would take. The OT-AAUP team’s main concern was that, given this is a new Association and a first contract, it might be very difficult to get an accurate estimate for the amount of time the duties and responsibilities would take, and did not want to agree, in writing to a certain time, only to discover that it would in fact take quite a bit more or quite a bit less. The Oregon Tech team responded that since this was a first contract and a new relationship, this level of detail would facilitate the new relationship between Oregon Tech and OT-AAUP. The Oregon Tech team also clarified that they would only grant OT-AAUP time to speak to members at employee orientation, but not at any other University wide forums. Additionally, the Oregon Tech team agreed to include University ID numbers in the data on members that it will provide to the Association, but proposed to only provide that information twice a year, rather than each quarter. Finally, there was discussion over when and what type of budget would be delivered to the Association. The Association requested that a detailed budget be made available to the Association no later than July 14, but the Oregon Tech team suggested it be made available within 14 days of being loaded in the Budget Office software. The OT-AAUP team voiced concern that there would be no way for the Association to know when this was happening, and so, no way to confirm if in fact the information was delivered in a timely manner. The Oregon Tech team responded that, based on these conversations, it was likely that there could be agreement about these dates. The Association team then asked if it were possible for the Oregon Tech team to produce examples of the types of budget reports that were possible to create using the current budget software. The Administration team said they would look into that.

OT-AAUP Email To The Provost, July 1st 2020

On July 1st 2020, OT-AAUP President Dr. Sean St.Clair sent an email to Oregon Tech’s Provost concerning our administration’s proposed changes to the stipend-release model. In the interest of transparency, you can read the full text of that message below:

Dear Provost Mott;

It has come to our attention that you are planning to make significant changes to the Workload Guidelines and end the current practice of providing release time or a stipend to faculty who serve as program directors and/or provide other academic functions as described in the Academic Release Time & Stipend Model dated 5/10/2013. These are changes in working conditions for the members of our bargaining unit. Since workload is a mandatory subject of bargaining, the changes you are proposing may only be made through the bargaining process.

We therefore insist that, should you wish to make this change to faculty workload and working conditions, you do so through the normal bargaining process, and that you immediately cease the unilateral implementation of changes to both the Workload Guidelines and the Academic Release Time & Stipend Model. Additionally, we request that anyone to whom these policies have been sent be informed that they are merely proposals and have not been adopted but will be addressed at the bargaining table. On the advice of our chapter counsel, we will file an Unfair Labor Practice complaint if you persist in implementing these changes.

We request that you respond by the end of business on July 10, 2020 confirming that you will not implement these policies.

Sean St.Clair on behalf of Oregon Tech AAUP Executive Committee

June 24th, 2020 Negotiation Session

Notes contributed by OT-AAUP bargaining team member Dr. David Johnston, Natural Sciences, with minor edits by Communications Committee Member Dr. Ben Bunting, Humanities and Social Sciences

The OT-AAUP and Oregon Tech negotiating teams met on Wednesday, June 24, to continue the first bargaining round of the summer. All team members from Tuesday’s session were present for the Wednesday session. OT-AAUP presented counter-proposals on Outside Activities and Sabbaticals, and the Oregon Tech team presented a counter-proposal on Grievances.

Grievances
The Oregon Tech team began by presenting their counter on Grievances. They explained that while they agreed with the Association’s position that it is better to settle grievances informally, if possible, including a section in the article detailing the informal process, made it seem like a formal process. Thus, their suggestion was to emphasize, in the Grievances article, that both Parties agree that it is advantageous to settle grievances informally, whenever possible. The Association team explained that their main reasoning behind including an explicit informal procedure, was the desire to have a written record that the grievance was addressed and resolved at the informal level. The Association team said they would take this under advisement and discuss the matter in caucus. Following this, there was a prolonged discussion and clarification about what matters could actually be grieved under the Grievances article, and what the timelines should be for such grievances. In the Association’s prior proposal, they had included a time frame of 180 days for filing a grievance alleging prohibited discrimination and a time frame of 5 years for filing a grievance alleging discriminatory harrassment. It was the view of Oregon Tech that, since those matters deal with allegations of a violation of a statute, they would be investigated through a different process. Namely the Title IX process for matters of discriminatory harassment, and an internal process for matters of prohibited discrimination. The Oregon Tech team explained that the Grievances article is meant to address alleged violations of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, NOT violations of University Policy or State or Federal law. The Association thanked the Oregon Tech team for clarifying the issue, and said they would talk about this in caucus and would try to include language to make this issue clear to all bargaining unit members. The Oregon Tech team then went on to raise the issue of how best to balance an individual bargaining unit member’s right to privacy when bringing forward a grievance, with the Association’s right to be notified of a grievance. It was proposed that including language in the section where it states that a grievant can either represent themselves or ask for representation through the Association, that despite their choice, the Association will be notified of all formal grievances. The parties seemed to agree that this would be an acceptable compromise. Lastly, there was discussion over whether timelines would be automatically modified to account for recess in between terms and, in particular, to account for summer break, when many faculty are “off-contact.” The Association’s position was that timelines should be automatically modified to exclude these times in timeline calculations, but that the inclusion of the language stating that the parties could mutually agree to modify the timelines could be used to address the issue of continuing a grievance procedure through a term or summer break. It was Oregon Tech’s position that even though a bargaining unit member is “off-contract” they are still covered by the collective bargaining agreement and are still employees of Oregon Tech. As such, it would not be reasonable to automatically exclude term and summer breaks when calculating timelines. At this point, a member of the Oregon Tech team had an unprofessional outburst, expressing anger at the idea that some faculty do not reply to emails, particularly to students, during breaks. The Association team was greatly dismayed by this extremely disrespectful behavior, and, in particular, at the choice of wording employed by the individual. After everyone calmed down, the Association team said they would discuss the Grievance article in caucus, and would likely have a counter proposal soon.

Sabbatical Leaves
Next, the Association team presented their counterproposal on Sabbatical Leaves. The biggest discussion occurred around the fact that in Oregon Tech’s counterproposal, they had proposed limiting sabbaticals to tenured faculty. The OT-AAUP team argued that sabbaticals could be equally advantageous for both tenured and non-tenure track faculty. When asked to explain their rationale behind excluding non-tenure track faculty, the Oregon Tech team explained that it was their belief that non-tenure track faculty would not be long term employees, and, as such, it would not be to the University’s benefit to award those faculty members a sabbatical. Additionally, the Oregon Tech team stated that since a non-tenure track faculty member is not expected to engage in scholarly or creative work, a sabbatical would be of little use to those faculty members. In response, the OT-AAUP team pointed out that in order for ANY faculty member to be eligible for sabbatical they must be with Oregon Tech for a full six years. The team argued that anyone who has been with Oregon Tech for six years, whether they are tenured or not, has shown a commitment to the University, so the University should show an equally strong commitment to them. Additionally, the Association team pointed out that, given the unique nature of Oregon Tech, sabbaticals have not only been used to engage in scholarship or creative works. They have been used to earn an advanced degree, to work in industry and then bring that experience back to the classroom, and even to improve a faculty member’s teaching. The Association argued that all of these benefit not just the individual faculty member, but also benefit the University. Lastly, the Association stated that granting sabbaticals to non-tenure track faculty would allow them to be more competitive in applying for a tenure track position that might open up at Oregon Tech, and denying them the opportunity for sabbatical would unfairly disadvantage them. The OT-AAUP team strongly encouraged the Oregon Tech team to seriously discuss this issue and hoped that they would adopt this stance. Then the OT-AAUP team explained their rationale for choosing the pay schedule that was presented in the proposal. The Association team noted that they had brought the rates down a bit, but felt that anything less than what was proposed would dissuade faculty from applying for sabbaticals. The Oregon Tech team did not have any comments or questions about the rest of the article.

Outside Activities
Lastly, the OT-AAUP team presented their counterproposal on Outside Activities. The main point that the Association made was their belief that the University should not have any say in what a bargaining unit member does when they are not specifically engaged in work for Oregon Tech. Additionally, the Association argued that, for this first CBA, people who are currently employed outside Oregon Tech and might be in violation of this article, be given 90 days to seek approval for their employment, before they must terminate it. The only question from the Oregon Tech team was whether it was the intention of the Association to limit the ability of Oregon Tech to place restrictions on what type of behavior, particularly criminal behavior, bargaining unit members can engage in during their personal time. The Association stated that it was not their intention to limit that, so it was suggested that including some language stating that as long as a bargaining unit member’s activities did not violate state or federal law the University could not restrict their outside activities. The Oregon Tech team stated they would discuss the article in caucus and would present a counter proposal at a later time.

Next Sessions
The next bargaining sessions are scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday, July 14 and 15. If you wish to join, a Zoom link is available on the OT-AAUP website’s calendar page.