Bargaining Session #11 Recap: We Requested Mediation

Highlights from the session:

• Management passed counterproposals on four articles that were riddled with errors.
• We asked pointed questions on management’s compensation counterproposal of campus salary program.
• We requested mediation.

Next session: TBD

On Friday, August 28, we met with management for our 11th bargaining session. Management passed back counterproposals on non tenure-track (NTT) versions of Article VII. Institutional Commitments, Article IX. Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion, Layoff, Recall, Article XII. Hours of Work & Commitment, and Article XV. Discipline and Dismissal, most with major and confusing errors. They have not passed back a tenure-track counterproposal since the end of July and have expressed an unwillingness to do so until NTT articles are dealt with. Even after multiple clarifications, management still hasn’t clarified what that means.

In Appointment, Reappointment (NTT), management confirmed their intent to claw back existing contract language around 1) time served as a Visiting Lecture counting towards promotion timeline and 2) treating the discontinuance of admission to a program or department as it would the elimination of a program or department. Trying to claw back anything is concerning, but in the current environment, when management has already tried to discontinue an entire school, attempting to remove contractual job protections is particularly troubling.

Additionally, besides refusing most of our proposed changes without providing any replacement language to work with, they enumerated a list of disciplinary actions before suspension for NTT faculty that includes reduction of salary base, reduction of appointment duration, reduction of full-time equivalent (FTE) appointment, and reduction of rank – all of which seem extreme. We plan to ask questions about these punitive actions as well as the other proposed management changes at the next session.

We also asked pointed questions about management’s proposal for NTT compensation that we accept only the campus salary program, which this year is 2% but beyond that is unknowable and, if we were to accept management’s language, unbargainable. We asked yet again for the local compression, equity, market, and retention (CEMR) guidelines for UIC: no one on management’s team could answer. We asked if the campus salary program could change mid-year, if management could offer different raises to different colleges or departments, if NTT and TT faculty could have different salary programs, and who ultimately determines the program.

Management had no concrete answers. They are proposing that we accept a wage that we will not have bargained and have no say over. This program, especially at UIC, has no transparency of development or application. Management is essentially proposing that we give up our right to bargain over our salaries. Note: wages are a mandatory subject of bargaining.

However, the major news from this session was that we requested mediation from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Services, which requires mutual consent. Management agreed and immediately signed the joint letter that our bargaining co-chairs crafted. This request means that a federal mediator, who is a neutral party, will attend bargaining and caucus with both sides with the goal of helping both parties work better together towards the goal of a new contract. Our bargaining co-chairs already sent our request for mediation, but there’s no telling when a mediator will be assigned to us or when they will begin attending bargaining sessions.

Please read our powerful mediation request below:
We have taken steps intended as gestures of good will and investment in the bargaining process, such as presenting the full contract proposal on day one--something management always asks for. We tried to be transparent with our overarching objectives. We plainly stated that we wished to settle the contract before the previous one expired, and that UIC faculty resist the normalization of working off contract, and deeply desire changing this ongoing practice in the future. All this was ignored and steps were actively taken to prolong this process--there is no way anyone at this table believed the false creation of a “Demand to Bargain” protocol would stand scrutiny.

In session nine Nicole made a statement reflecting the thoughts and priorities of our team, and how we had hoped for this bargaining cycle to proceed. In that July statement Nicole said:

“For us, the status quo is just not enough - it’s as inequitable as it is unimaginative. It’s not reactive or proactive: it’s inactive. And while the status quo may be what is easiest and least burdensome for labor relations, we remain steadfast in our commitment to continuous improvement of this university for the benefit of every member of its community. Regardless of differences in how to achieve this objective, we have commonly believed our administrators aligned with us in this goal.”

That has felt untrue this cycle to an unexpected extent. We acknowledge the return of several articles after session 9 and were happy to see them, but ultimately those counters did nothing to move this process forward. Not only was everything we wrote dismissed as nonsense – which it absolutely wasn’t – but there was nothing offered by your team to shape the proposal beyond our opening bid. These are negotiations – both sides must negotiate.

From our perspective, no progress has been made this cycle. A mediator is experienced and knowledgeable about how negotiations take place without being an advocate for either side. We feel their presence can help us all move forward.

Therefore we formally request that both sides agree to mediation facilitated by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Services, which requires mutual consent.