Notes contributed by Communications Committee member Dr. Ben Bunting, Humanities and Social Sciences
OT-AAUP presented the Recognition article first. The Oregon Tech team commented that the definition provided was confusing and would lead to litigation. They suggested moving to the next article immediately.
Working Conditions was up next. During the “Health and Safety” section of the article, the Oregon Tech team expressed concern that certain wording conflicted with what had already been established in the Management Rights article, and that this would negate those portions of that article.
OT-AAUP presented the Benefits article next. There were no questions asked or concerns expressed by the Oregon Tech team.
The Oregon Tech team then presented some of their articles. No Strike/No Lockout was presented first. They contested the OT-AAUP team’s desire to allow picketing. OT-AAUP agreed to allow picketing only outside of work hours. Oregon Tech denied this compromise.
Next up was Management Rights. Oregon Tech argued that the version of the article OT-AAUP had last presented wasn’t clear enough in its wording. A lack of clarity could effect both parties’ ability to bargain over specific rights in the future.
Oregon Tech presented Disciplinary Procedures next. There was some discussion over changes in Section 2, and exactly what external laws and/or guidelines supersede the CBA and how those considerations should be addressed in the article. The OT-AAUP team had a question about a change made in Section 5, which eliminated a proposed two-year limit to make disciplinary review holistic, covering instead the member in question’s entire tenure at the university. The Oregon Tech team did not want to place a limit on how far back review might go, and the OT-AAUP team argued that clarity in the process (i.e., specifying how far back a review could go) was important. After this, the parties decided to go to caucus.
After the caucus, the teams discussed the Association Rights article first. Oregon Tech began by clarifying that later in the process, they would want to combine Association Rights, dues, deduction, and release time into one article. Oregon Tech summarized the article, and OT-AAUP asked a few clarifying questions. Once again, Oregon Tech argued that service to the union should not count as service for the purposes of performance evaluation. OT-AAUP countered that service to the union is also in service to the wider goal of having a more reputable and functional university. OT-AAUP also requested that wording about the annual budget as provided by the Board of Trustees be clarified: in the team’s eyes, this budget is not detailed, and needs to be much more so to be useful.
There was brief discussion of OT-AAUP’s Fringe Benefits article. OT-AAUP clarified that professional development funds could not be used for professional memberships, as some memberships are requirements, not optional. The Oregon Tech team clarified that staff fee benefits are changeable; the OT-AAUP team argued that information on what applies is available through HR’s website at any given time.
Last up was OT-AAUP’s Leaves article. Oregon Tech had no particular objections or concerns, but wanted to take one last look at the article.
The next negotiation session will be on May 18th, from 10am until 2pm. If you wish to join, a Zoom link is available on the OT-AAUP website’s calendar page.