This session was jam packed full of important topics ranging from holiday time, tuition waiver benefits, and compensatory time. The session started with the University making a few counter proposals on Articles 6, 7, and 8 - mostly clarifying language, not making any huge changes.
One big topic of conversation was article 35, regarding tuition waivers for dependent children of UCPEA employees and UCPEA employees' ability (or lack-thereof) to enroll in classes during the regular enrollment process like other students. Currently, UCPEA members are not able to enroll in classes until the first day of class, which often leads to many issues, as most people can probably assume. UCPEA's negotiating team emphasized the need to update the contract language to allow members to enroll during regular registration periods, highlighting that his change not only benefits the member as a student, but also supports the university and instructors – since, in some cases, a single additional enrollment can determine whether a class meets the minimum threshold to run.
Another proposal made by the UCPEA team included additions to parking for members with handicap stickers and residence hall directors. Regarding accessible parking, UCPEA's team proposed that employees with state issued accessibility parking permits - be able to park in any accessible parking spaces on campus at no additional cost, regardless of the area designation. Currently, employees may only use accessible parking spaces located within the area designated by their permit type. In other words, to park in an accessible space in Area 1 – which is typically the closest parking - an employee must hold and pay for an Area 1 parking permit. The UCPEA team also proposed granting residence hall directors access to Area 1 parking – the lots typically closest to their assigned residence hall, where they both work and live at the Area 3 rate, which is currently ($0.00/year).
There was a caucus for the teams to discuss the proposals, and this observer was happy to see such good energy and discussion among the negotiating team during the caucus. There was a great representation of ideas and a respectful and productive conversation surrounding the University's counter proposals as well as strengthening the argument for UCPEA's proposals. It is clear to see that there was an intentional effort that went into the creation of the negotiating team, and this intentionality played out very well as members of the team were able to successfully argue and defend these proposals extremely well.
Overall, this was a very productive session, and a very positive one from an observer perspective. Observing the dynamic of the negotiating team in action inspired a lot of confidence in the power of collective bargaining.
– Nick Boston