The UCPEA team informed the observers that the University team was going to be late. Instead of starting at 1:00pm, the University promised to arrive at 1:20pm. However, they did not show up until 1:40pm.
Having observed similar sessions where the University was late in arriving to the table or returning from caucus, it felt like déjà vu. UCPEA has been very flexible with the University, but at a certain point it feels like a waste of observer time. It was very heartening to hear UCPEA address this issue as soon as the University sat down.
UCPEA spoke clearly and directly to the University that it feels disrespectful to observers when the University arrives late or takes extended caucuses beyond the ground rules. The University acknowledged our position and made an effort to be on time the rest of the session when returning from caucus.
There were many impactful proposals from UCPEA this session:
- UCPEA proposed a 1-year wage increase, reserving the right to reopen wage discussions after 1 year.
- UCPEA proposed a contract extension agreement that would preserve funding during FY26 for the Professional Development, Tuition Reimbursement, and Childcare Reimbursement pools. These resources directly impact our members’ lives and the University’s ability to attract highly skilled employees.
- UCPEA proposed an increase to the number of days available for union representatives to attend trainings. Having well-trained union representatives keeps our union strong.
- UCPEA was able to advance a proposal to give Residence Hall Directors a longer notice if they are dismissed during their probationary period. Under the current contract, they are only guaranteed 2 weeks notice, but since these members lose both pay and housing if dismissed, they need more time to make plans.
Some of these proposals have direct fiscal impacts, and will no doubt be points of contention going forward.
As the session continued, the University began to display its lack of willingness to move on certain topics. A common phrase was that a process was “working for them”, even if we as UCPEA know that it is negatively affecting our members. Here are a few examples:
- The University struck our telecommuting proposal. They said that at the State level, similar proposals have caused an administrative burden. UCPEA pointed out that our bargaining unit is a fraction of the state’s total employees, and so the burden would be negligible at UConn.
- The University struck our tuition waiver language changes, despite UCPEA noting that under the current contract, some members are unable to complete mandatory coursework and are forced to pay mandatory fees for services they cannot use.
Just because the University strikes a proposal, it doesn’t mean we cannot propose it again. The onus is on UCPEA to come up with creative solutions, so it can be frustrating when the University repeatedly says “no”. However, our persistence on these issues demonstrates that we don’t take “no” for an answer when it impacts our members.
- Dan Lis