Homepage – Page 24

Notes from the 5th Session 4/12

We began the session by submitting our counter on Article IV: Union Membership and Activity and Article IX: Benefits and Leaves. We answered any initial questions the Administration’s Bargaining Team had, then broke into our respective caucuses so they could form their counter.

When we reconvened, they let us know they needed more time to arrive at a counter for Article IX, but they did present their counter to Article IV: Union Membership and Activity.

We are encouraged by their counter, as they did make clear movement. There are a few places where more work is needed, but it seems like we are close to settling this article.

Next session, we will hear their counter to Article IX: Benefits and Leaves. In Article IX, we are fighting for things like:

Library access for retirees
Timely notice when health insurance ends
Relief from the tripling of health insurance premiums for members whose appointments drop below 100%

If these are issues you care about, contact our Lead Negotiator, Kay Emmert, ake153[@]hotmail.com.

And remember, all members are invited to see bargaining first-hand, hear the administration’s stance, and make sure we’re representing your interests.

Next Session:

Friday, April 19th

9:00am – 12:00pm

Illinois Fire Service Institute (Digital signs within the building will alert you to the room.)

Holding to Account

From Shawn Gilmore, Senior Lecturer – English

I’ve been with NTFC since before our current name, since before we had officers, since before we were a certified bargaining unit (in 2014). I was lucky enough to serve as our first President, and to do my small part to help shepherd through our first collective bargaining agreement, which we bargained from 2014-16 and which we had to go on strike to settle.

Along the way, I’ve come to understand that being a union member is not as obvious a decision for everyone. There’s skepticism about what a union can actually achieve, about the perceived problems it can cause, and about how it might change the relationship between worker and the employer. For me, those are all positives, and union membership has always seemed a natural choice. But if it doesn’t for you, let me ask: If we don’t provide the incentive for changes that protect us, from what incentives will the employer work?

I don’t presume that administrators at the University of Illinois are malicious or even anti-union, but I can say from experience that they need to be reminded, and often, to act on the rhetoric they use about what they value and who they reward.

However, I’m writing today as an optimist. In our last contract campaign, there were clear disconnects between the University’s Bargaining Team and the Administration, who are the ones that actually approve any real changes in a contract. I take it as a positive sign that the University’s team now includes a representative from the Provost’s office and that our Chancellor was able to summarize the state of bargaining in-depth and correctly at the Academic Senate meeting on April 1. These are great signs, but we will need to reinforce them as we go, holding the administration to account.

We’ve done a lot in the last five years, including setting base-line salaries for the full-time non-tenure-track faculty we represent, establishing better long-term contract protection for those that work here more than five years, and more generally improving the recognition and standing of NTTs on campus.

I am proud of what we’ve achieved in the past and look forward to where this bargaining cycle will lead us.

Solidarity forever,

Shawn Gilmore

Notes from 4th Session 4/05

We began the session encouraged that the Administration’s Bargaining Team brought a full counter response. This means we are able to get down to serious bargaining sooner. We were also encouraged that they stated that this was their initial response, but there was room for movement.

Unfortunately, their counter offer provided minimal substantive response to our concerns, in fact addressing only 1 concern: notifying faculty when their health insurance will end. All of our other concerns were rejected outright.

Among the concerns they rejected–

Asking units to define full-time workloads so when faculty are asked to do extra work, it’s clear they should receive extra compensation.
Any pay increases, they instead want the full power to decide later if and when faculty receive raises and how much.
Multi-year contracts for the professorial track.
Any professional development funds.

Throughout, they expressed their desire to leave solutions to these problems up to individual faculty members. However, that does not protect individual faculty from abuses, and ignores the reason we created this union in the first place: members fighting for consistent protections and better working conditions for everyone.

We hope to see more specific responses to our concerns in future sessions. For next session, both sides agreed to begin work on the articles where we see the most common ground: Article IV: Union Membership and Activity and Article IX: Benefits and Leaves.

Come hear for yourself why they rejected our proposal for items like retired faculty access to the library system.

All members are invited to see bargaining first-hand, hear the administration’s stance, and make sure we’re representing your interests.

Next Session:

Friday, April 12th

9:00am – 12:00pm

Illinois Fire Service Institute (Digital signs within the building will alert you to the room.)

Reading Day Work In

May 2nd, 10-2pm

The gallery was not found!

Host your office hours with other union members at the Illini Union Building Courtyard Cafe. Bagels and Coffee provided.

On the Need for NTT Professional Development Funds

From Heather McLeer, Lecturer – English.

The title of Specialized Faculty suggests that we specialize in teaching; for those of us on 100% teaching appointments, our teaching labor is certainly our most visible labor, particularly in the humanities. While most of us trained in scholarly or creative fields while training as university instructors, this side of our professional identities tends to be overlooked.

I became a Lecturer in the Department of English after graduating from the same department with my Ph.D. in 2017. In the time since completing my degree, I’ve noticed subtle changes in how the scholarly side of my work is (or is not) perceived. I’m more frequently introduced by my NTT status than by my area of study, as graduate students and tenured faculty tend to be identified. In a recent conversation with someone who works outside of academia, I mentioned my plans to spend the upcoming summer preparing to submit an article to a journal. When they asked if I was doing so “just for fun,” I was at a loss for how to (politely) respond to the implication that my scholarship and writing are essentially a hobby.

While it’s undoubtedly true that a full writing-intensive teaching load leaves little time for much else during the semester, I didn’t stop writing, conducting research, or attending conferences when I became Specialized Faculty. As someone who taught a 2-2 load for the majority of my Ph.D., I see my scholarship and my teaching as fundamentally linked parts of my professional identity.

This is why I’m happy to see that professional development funds are one of the items NTFC’s bargaining team is negotiating for in our next contract. Such funds could support a range of activities, from teaching workshops to attending conferences to archival research.

I didn’t stop writing, conducting research, attending conferences, and being otherwise engaged in my field when I became an NTT. Such funding would be a concrete way to acknowledge the full range of my professional activities.

Follow us!