Bargaining Update
At our last session, the admin team agreed to come to today’s session with a response to our proposal.
And indeed, they brought a response. But it wasn’t what we expected. We were disappointed to read a document that is nearly identical to their previous proposal, and does not meaningfully engage with most of the items in our most recent proposal. Here is where their proposal stands on some key topics:
- Wages: Identical to their previous proposal, with one tiny exception. This was a small increase to the one-time salary increases associated with a promotion. This increased their total economic package by less than 0.3%. They still have the salary floor at $51,500 and a 1% merit pool for raises. Compression adjustment is still woefully small. There was essentially no movement on wages.
- PI Status: They did not accept our language about allowing all specialized faculty with a terminal research degree and job duties including research to serve as PI’s. Instead, they suggest that faculty apply for PI status under the existing Eligibility to Serve as a Principal Investigator (PI) Policy. They added the phrase that requests for PI status “shall not be unreasonably denied.”
- Modified Teaching Duties: After we informed the admin team that Research (Assistant/Associate) Professors have duties that include teaching classes, the admin team updated their proposal to include them in the Modified Teaching Duties policy. (Senior/Principal) Instructors and Lecturers are still excluded from the policy, in the admin team’s proposal. And they are still excluding death and terminal illness of a close family member, and only including childbirth and adoption.
- Research Funding, Expanding Multiyear Contracts, Gender Affirming Care, Combating Overwork: No meaningful changes or engagement with our proposal.
In our most recent proposal, we demonstrated our willingness to compromise. We took into account the conversations in bargaining, as well as the admin team’s proposal. Our second proposal is quite different from our first proposal. Yet their second proposal is nearly identical to their first one. Why are they so unwilling to compromise?
Our lead negotiators, Rachel and Dani, strongly advocated for our members as they questioned the admin’s rationale in omitting the protections and benefits in our proposal.
At the next session, we will bring a response to the admin team’s proposal on Article IX: Benefits and Leaves. We also anticipate that we will sign a tentative agreement on Article IV: Union Membership and Union Activity.
Take Action – Email the Provost
It will only take around 10 seconds– follow the link to send a pre-filled email message to the Provost’s Office (or edit it/write your own, if you want), telling them that NTFC– as well as our fellow campus unions AFSCME 698, AFSCME 3700, and SEIU 73– deserve a fair contract!
Next Session
At the next session, we will bring a response to the admin team’s proposal on Article IX: Benefits and Leaves. We also anticipate that we will sign a tentative agreement on Article IV: Union Membership and Union Activity. All members are welcome to come.
- Friday, May 24, 9am-12pm
- Location: Illini Union Ballroom
In Solidarity
Theresa Dobbs (she/her)
NTFC President
