The University team showed up promptly at the agreed upon time at 11:00am, a good start for a change! But buckle up because it didn’t stay good for long!
UCPEA hit the ground running with a discussion on the proposal surrounding parking.
- As a reminder, the last time parking was discussed at the table, UCPEA advocated for eliminating additional parking fees for members who require handicap-designated spaces, and the University rejected the proposal saying, “Handicap spots are for physical limitations, not fiscal limitations.”
To further continue the argument for fair and accessible parking, UCPEA brought in an expert testimony from Karen Lohr, who was an UCPEA member for 12 years, and now works as a Housing Disability Specialist at UC Berkeley. Karen shared her personal lived experience as a wheelchair user on UConn campus and how it differs from her experiences on other campuses after having left UConn. Some highlights of her UConn parking experience are below:
- Unreliable vans/shuttles
- The lifts on the vans didn’t always work (especially in the cold weather)
- She ended up parking in Area 1 and contesting parking tickets because there was no effective way to accommodate her parking needs.
- Some van drivers were not accommodating to service animals that may need to accompany staff with disabilities.
- There was so much time wasted on arranging and subsequently waiting for shuttle service, when if there was available and accessible parking, that time could have been spent working (a win-win for the employee AND the University, one would think!).
I list the above topics mentioned by Karen for our members’ knowledge, but also for the University. Karen’s testimony was compelling, and we are hopeful that the University’s bargaining team will consider her expertise and lived experience, and that they will come to a reasonable agreement about this topic.
Following the testimony regarding accessible parking, UCPEA continued discussing specifics on reserved parking spaces for residence hall directors, and more closely defining eligible lots on campus that would be identified as an option for a potential reserved spot for the hall directors (i.e., we are not suggesting that we use a loading dock as a hall director’s parking space…).
After that discussion, UCPEA proposed a change to Article 26, which would require all UCPEA job postings to include the salary range for the position. I think most of us can agree this would be a great change so that applicants, whether they are external or internal, can have a clear expectation of what the pay range is for any UCPEA job opening. This will save time and money that goes into reviewing applications, interviewing, etc. all to find out that the salary range is too low for a candidate and they withdraw, and you go back to the start. Though that seems like common sense to me, the University’s team came back and asked why we wanted this change. When UCPEA responded, the University team said, “Can’t the applicants just ask for the salary range when they apply?”
- This observer’s opinion: I don’t know how many of you reading this have served on search committees recently, but imagine having to individually respond to every applicant who asked about the salary range instead of simply having it published with the job posting (the range has to be included in the system before you even can post the job, so it’s not as if the information isn’t there)!
Last but certainly not least, the University made a proposal to UCPEA on Article 11 (Sick Leave). Highlights of their proposal are below:
- Regarding 11.3 (Sick Leave Bank), the University proposed that there should be an UCPEA member with a medical license on the Sick Leave Bank Committee because UCPEA has medical staff as members, “SHaW for example,” they said.
- The University also proposed limiting members’ use of sick leave bank to 45 days over 3 years!!! When UCPEA asked why this specific proposed amount of time, the University claimed it was to “be consistent with peers in other similar institutions.”
- UCPEA’s team reminded the University that these requests are intended to support members in crisis, that this is not something members can just use willy-nilly. It feels inhumane and insensitive of the University to come after a benefit that exists solely for the purpose of supporting members who are experiencing “very serious or catastrophic illness or injury.” That is the existing contract language!!! So, if someone from the University’s team ends up reading this, this observer will ask again, exactly what problems are these changes intended to fix? Because if there’s no evidence of misuse, and no supporting justification for limiting an existing benefit, it seems like they just want to take more and more away from us.
But, hey, at least they showed up on time, right?
-Respectfully submitted,
Nick Boston