Bargaining Diary Archives

We met across the (Zoom) table with the Oakland team on Wednesday, May 26, 2021. We presented several items to the Oakland team. Oakland received our proposals but indicated they were not prepared to respond. They did not bring any proposals to the table.

Bargaining an agreement includes dealing with a wide range of issues. As we spent Winter Semester listening to you all, we heard a variety of concerns. There are, of course, the ever-present economic issues. There are also procedural matters that have an impact on our ability to do our work and problems that have arisen for faculty over the years of our current Agreement that we work to resolve.

Bargaining is a long process. All things in bargaining will be subject to constructive back-and-forth between the two teams. For our first proposals, we selected initial items that, in principle, should not be controversial, though we expect negotiation on the particulars.  Below are the items included in our initial proposals along with brief descriptions:

• Addition to the groups protected from discrimination.  Paragraph 198 of the Agreement provides protection from discrimination. We propose to add protection against discrimination on the basis of gender identity, gender expression, genetic information, veteran status, AIDS/HIV status, height, and weight. We also propose to replace the word “handicap” with the word “disability” and replace “marital status” with “familial status.”
• Use of gender-neutral pronouns in the Agreement.  We propose to replace the dated use of he/she throughout the agreement with the gender neutral pronoun they.
• Clear process for collection of Association dues.  In the Faculty Agreement, Oakland is responsible for collecting dues, but there is no process for what happens if Oakland does not collect dues, which happens from time to time. We propose a process wherein Oakland is responsible for the collection of missed dues.
• Back pay for incorrect pay.  We propose that if Oakland underpays a bargaining unit member for any period of time, the back pay shall be provided in the next pay period after discovery of the error. Currently the Agreement does not specify what happens if a member is accidentally underpaid.
• Credit for prior experience when hiring special instructors.  We propose that when a new special instructor is hired, they will be eligible for credit just as newly hired assistant professors are. The current Agreement does not provide this for special instructors.
• Written reasons for negative decisions in re-employment, promotion, and tenure.  We propose that when Oakland makes a negative decision, they give faculty the reasons, according to both academic unit and university standards, in writing within 10 days of the decision. The current Agreement has a longer process: it starts with the opportunity for an oral explanation and then, upon request, a written statement within 20 days.
• Arbitration initiation.  When there is an arbitration case, both the Association and Oakland must agree on an arbitrator. Historically this has been an unreasonably long and drawn out process. We propose procedures that will lead to a more rapid choice of arbitrators. We also propose a more diverse list of arbitrators to choose from.
• Removal from campus. We propose a process for fair hearings that include representatives of the Association in the event that Oakland wishes to remove a faculty member from campus.  The current Agreement does not address this.
• Revision of workload policies.  Paragraph 69 of the current Agreement calls for periodic review of workload policies, but does not say how that will be handled. We know of multiple cases where units submitted workload policies to the administration and did not get a timely response or in some cases any final response. Therefore, we propose a process for review of proposed revisions with clear deadlines.