Bargaining Update 9/19/24 - 49 business days until contract expiration

A record 122 members attended bargaining, 32 in person and 90 online. Due to this increased participation we were able to reach a tentative agreement making sure members’ FMLA leaves don't count against milestone or continuous appointment timelines. Additionally, the number of members present facilitated family friendly fund language changes that would make those funds more available to our members. 

RSVP to our next bargaining session:
Thursday, October 3 - 8:30am-4:30pm Vanport Building, VB 515

Layoff protection
Bargaining team members discussed layoff, specifically the topics of notice, severance, placement, and recall. Much of the notice conversation was centered on what the union team offered as options, because there was very little offered by the administration team. Among the union options was the idea that all employees get 12 months notice of layoff, regardless of whether the layoffs are caused by programmatic change or retrenchment. 

On the topic of severance, the union offered the option of giving employees a year of severance for laid-off employees. We tied in the topic of notice, saying that there could be a combination of notice and severance. For example, using one year as the time frame, if an employee got 12 months of notice of layoff, they would not receive any severance. If they receive 8 months’ notice, they would get four months’ severance, if six months’ notice, then six months’ severance, and so on. 

The administration team did not have much to add, aside from stating that they had not yet gotten authorization to potentially offer any kind of severance. They added that if there were approval, their desire was to have severance be a one-time-only benefit, that would only apply to the layoffs that occur over the next year, rather than over the course of a multi-year contract. They also stated an interest in negotiating the terms of layoff, including severance on a case-by-case basis, rather than having a set standard that would apply to all layoffs. Administration celebrated the brutal IELP layoffs as an example of this case by case model working. Administrators wanting to fragment members’ solidarity and bargaining power through negotiating piecemeal was brought up in previous sessions, when the union bargaining team members responded that we want there to be contractual certainty for members facing layoff. When it was brought up again today, we repeated our stance. 

There was more discussion on layoff into the afternoon; the administrative team expressed little interest in the options offered by the PSU-AAUP bargaining team. They also offered very few options of their own. One of the few ideas they raised was giving layoff notice of 240 days for APs with six or more years of service. This was met with very little enthusiasm by the union team, as we felt it was wholly inadequate way to address the interests we’ve raised.
Later in the day the administration team once again raised their interest in a case-by-case approach to negotiating layoffs. The union team found this very frustrating; while the IBB process allows teams to raise any option they want, administration’s IELP-like approach to layoffs has repeatedly proven to be a non-starter. This lack of proposals by administration means we’ve been discussing layoff protections for two months and we are no closer to resolution than we were in July. 

Workload protections
After discussing layoff for the better part of the day, we moved on to workload. Several union members gave testimony to the group, describing how understaffing and position cuts not only make workloads untenable, but negatively impact student academics and services. 

One advisor shared about their caseload ballooning from 405 students in 2023 to 526 students last year to 840 students this fall. These high caseloads cause PSU students to have to wait over a month to get an appointment and contribute to high AP turnover. Studies show that 150 students is the recommended caseload.

A fixed-term researcher in CUPA shared how PSU’s short staffing in other departments, leads to contract delays, which “have resulted in a loss of benefits and unexpected reductions in FTE for fixed-term researchers. These reductions negatively impact our family and life planning, exacerbate turnover, and greatly lower our morale.” 

TT faculty from COTA shared stories of a hiring freeze and “pattern of getting resistance to filling positions when folks retire or leave, full-time faculty being asked to fill adjunct positions, and those tenure lines are not being refilled and their work is being redistributed to those still employed.” 

Following these powerful members’ stories, administration sketched out some of their interests relative to workload protections including maintaining “management rights” (decision-making power) over workload but offered no solutions. 

Bargaining timeline 
The day ended with PSU-AAUP President Ford again calling out administrators on there only being two tentative agreements despite being 2/3 through the Oregon Public sector bargaining timeline, just 36 business days until Oregon’s mandated 150 days of bargaining is up, and just 49 business days until contract expiration. Even the state bargaining facilitator echoed these concerns about contract expiration relative to the administration’s lack of proposals which have limited the tentative agreements. 

Help us win everything possible as contract expiration approaches: 
RSVP to our next bargaining session and ask your coworkers to do the same:
Thursday, October 3 - 8:30am-4:30pm Vanport Building, VB 515