Bargaining Session #9 Recap: We Reject Their Death By A Thousand Cuts

On Wednesday, July 29, we met with management for our ninth bargaining session, and you packed the room! Beyond what transpired at the table, this session was a success because we stood in solidarity with one another, in numbers bigger than ever before during a summer bargaining session. Let’s keep the momentum going!

The next bargaining session will take place on Friday, August 21 from 11 AM - 1 PM: after the fall semester starts and therefore after our current contract expires. We still have not received counterproposals on articles central to our working conditions – including Institutional Commitments, Academic Freedom, and Educational Technology and Artificial Intelligence – and still have not seen their counterproposal for tenure-track compensation. The lack of movement and seriousness is as disappointing as it is unsurprising. The Organizing Committee is planning some stellar back-to-school events, so keep your eyes on your inbox.

During this session, we discussed management’s proposed side letter on tenure-track progressive discipline and their counterproposals on Article XVIII. Grievance and Arbitration (NTT only) and Article XI. Governance (NTT and TT).

In the NTT-only version of Article XVIII. Grievance and Arbitration, two major management revisions that stand out: the timeline for filing a grievance starts when someone who has been the victim of a contract violation (the grievant) knows about a contract violation versus starting the clock when the Union could have reasonably known about the issue, and second, the grievant has only 25 business days (not working days) to file a grievance.

Both issues effectively stunt the amount of time we would have to file grievances against contract violations, including in the case of harassment. The grievance filing clock continues to tick even if:
A member doesn’t know that what they experienced is a contract violation. If the clock starts when UICUF is informed of a potential contract violation, Union leadership can guide the grievant on next steps.
The contract violation happens to occur during an “inconvenient” time of year, such as winter break (management rejected a timeline exception for winter break), when there are business days but faculty are not working.
A survivor of harassment cannot articulate what happened to them on management’s timeline.
Meanwhile, management wants to further involve the black box that is the Office for Access and Equity (OAE) without consent of the grievant, but promises that EOs “shall not unreasonably delay scheduling” grievance meetings. Management’s language further constrains the victim while weakening the obligations of those with the power to make the victim whole. Ultimately, management is shifting responsibility to offices built for the protection of the institution, whereas UICUF is the organization on campus that truly protects our members. Management is saying there should be no mechanism to accomplish that protection.

And management called victims of harassment “complainers,” which says everything you need to know about how seriously they undertake making victims whole.

The trend continued during our discussion of management’s counterproposal on Article XI. Governance. Management has made it clear, now and in the past, that they don’t know or care to know the situation on the ground at UIC: they are repeatedly “astonished” and “alarmed” if a policy isn’t being carried out appropriately, even when there are no consequences to EOs if the policy isn’t followed. And yet management refuses to implement even the most basic of EO training let alone contractual enforcement mechanisms.

Under the chaos and unseriousness, the picture is becoming clearer.

Management is trying to gut our collective bargaining agreement.

Siloing grievance-related issues into OAE, which is deliberately opaque and resists our efforts at transparency, and shortening grievance timelines guts our ability to enforce the contract.

Refusing to hold EOs accountable in the name of decreasing “administrative burden,” but then shifting the burden and tightening the restraints on faculty, increases inconsistency in contract application.

Denying the existence of compression and tying raises to campus wage only releases the entire system from the burden of competitive salaries: campus wage only stopped being 0% as soon as we won wage pools in our contract. There is no reason it won’t go back to 0% if we don’t continue fighting to maintain compression and equity raise pools.

Then there are the provisions they’ve tried to claw back throughout the contract, including UICUF representation on DEI-related committees, shared governance opportunities, course releases for our tireless union leadership, and NTT job security.

Management is attempting death by a thousand cuts. In the same way that they’re obstructing and obfuscating the bargaining process, they’re attempting to hollow out our union contract.

However, if this session’s in-person turnout is any indication, we are more than ready to fight back.