May 12th Bargaining Update by Alan Karras

The news is, for the most part, good. The University has backed away from its proposal to eliminate layoff notice for continuing appointees, and the two sides are now very close to agreeing to the layoff article. Some small issues remain, of course, but there has been agreement on the larger issues in this article. Similarly, the University has moved considerably toward our position on merit review. I can't provide the details yet, but there will be some improvements in both the process and the opportunities for merit.

Some progress has been made on the duration article as well. There is still room to come together on the length of the contract and the number of reopeners allowed in each year. But, again, we are seeing
real bargaining here. So too on the Appointments article. In this article, the gap remains the widest--but much of this is because the changes that we have proposed require significant consultation across
the campuses. We expect push back, and have gotten some, but we believe that the University is taking the proposals seriously and has shown that they are willing to move towards us where they can. This article will be more challenging to get a great result through negotiations, but we are pushing hard to have our priorities understood. This is a sea change from much of the last round of bargaining in 2000-2003.

Both sides remain optimistic that quick settlement is possible, hopefully by the end of June. I will keep you posted on any developments, and of course, feel free to contact me with questions.

4/28

A brief bargaining update by Alan Karras.

Earlier this week, the University and UC-AFT bargaining teams met for formal bargaining. Each team explained their proposals. The University explained why it believed it needed less time to notify post-six lecturers of layoff, for example. It also explained why it is seeking a longer contract. (Our entire contract expires in a year.)

Our bargaining team explained why we wanted better protections for pre-six lecturers and why we were seeking clarifications on the merit review process. Each side also had the opportunity to question the other team's proposals and make suggestions for how they might become acceptable. The tone was very broadly respectful, which is a far cry from much of the last round of bargaining.

The teams each agreed to work on specific counter proposals for our next bargaining, which is scheduled for Burbank on the 11th and 12th of May. Our team has drafted a counter-offer to the University's proposal for a five year contract with no reopeners possible. We have also clarified the language of our pre-six protections so that it answered some of the University's concerns. The University team will be offering a counter proposal on Merit Review in Burbank, and clarifying many of our questions on layoff notice and protections.

Again, the tone was positive, respectful, and cooperative. Both sides expressed an interest in speedy resolution; to that end, we have scheduled bargaining sessions every two weeks, either in Burbank or Oakland, through June. It is my hope that we can finish by then, and I am committing now to sending an update after each session.

Look for one here at the beginning of finals period.

And, of course, don't hesitate to contact Bob Samuels questions at: bobsamuels_us@yahoo.com