The Current State of Bargaining as Told by Our Co-Chairs
When the Interim Provost first arrived at UIC as Dean of the College of Education, she stated that a college budget “communicates what we value” - a budget is about choices - and therefore should be principled and strategic, tied to our shared mission, vision, and values. In other words: budgets are more than spending plans. They’re moral documents. We agree. We consider university budgets and contracts to be moral documents that communicate our values, principles, and commitments.
At the start of this cycle of bargaining, we began with the belief that we could work together to improve not only our working conditions but the learning environments of our students. It was Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs Mike Steiff who suggested even trying to co-author articles together. We are not quite sure how that initial collaborative spirit has devolved into what we are experiencing at the table and in a memo. (See our response here.)
Although you may not agree, over the last three months, you have demonstrated that you are not values-aligned with those who do most of the teaching and research on this campus. When we appealed to you last session for help in closing the gap between our proposals and your continued no proposals, we were met with silence. In fact, you stated that YOU, Hubert Thompson, set management priorities, no one else, and that they were: not engaging in major contract revisions, shoehorning all issues of discrimination and retaliation into a single office, and opposing any proposals that ostensibly affect other bargaining units. We find this to be a bizarre response. They are neither priorities nor principles. They solve no problems. They promise no collaborative effort. This is boss language that maintains the status quo.
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. The events of this bargaining cycle have convinced us that the true objective of Labor Relations, in reality and in spirit, does not actually want to improve this university.
As a reminder - in this current context of “austerity” and other “difficult” circumstances - UIC purchased:
This is $16 million readily available for police technologies that have shown to be both racist and ineffective.
Meanwhile, the total salaries (both units combined) for 2024-25 were $173,434,759, so every 1% raise would cost $1,734,347. Eliminating our contract with VOLT AI would cover almost 1% of our raises through 2034. Eliminating our contract with Allied would cover almost 3% of our annual raises. - to say nothing of the dozens of cameras - including in this room - that have gone up inside UIC buildings, which all require regular service updates and maintenance.
We know that the university has provided Glidepath funding to colleges to cover the costs of our raises in the past - and it could do it again. (See p. 5 for Glidepath information.)
We should also note that while you do not seem to know what “compression” and “equity” issues are, the campus salary program for the last few years, including this year, has included the following language. To read from President Killeen’s announcement: “Each university will also develop its own guidelines to address local compression, market, equity, and retention issues.” So it seems your assessment that compression is solved is out of alignment with the President’s. We would love to see the guidelines UIC has used each year.
Yet, we also proposed contract language that costs the university absolutely nothing - zero dollars. This includes:
- Articulating a shared commitment to maintaining an “inclusive, respectful workplace”
- Providing a shared understanding of harassment
- Curbing bullying by supervisors
- Safeguarding academic freedom and protecting faculty from external threats to autonomy
- Providing job security for non-tenure-track faculty
- Protecting our classrooms, labs, and offices from unwarranted intrusions by ICE agents
- Ensuring our students learn in clean and accessible environments
- Developing transparent policies through shared governance practices, as codified in the Statutes, including policies around artificial intelligence and educational technologies.
We believe fighting for these things aligns with the chancellor’s mission to ensure the broadest possible access to the highest levels of educational, research, and clinical excellence.
We find the failure to actually bargain over these issues to be a moral, not financial, one.
Austerity is a choice. Financial asset allocation is a choice. And management’s choices reflect poorly on their priorities.
Nicole Nguyen and Charitianne Williams, Bargaining Co-Chairs