We last reported on September 5 that IBB (interest based bargaining) on the advising redesign had been scheduled. The Administration and AAUP Negotiating teams underwent IBB training last week on October 9 and October 11 as scheduled. It was a very big group- 22 of us. It was a good opportunity to interact with each other and practice the IBB process with the facilitator in a training environment. At the end of the day we planned out how we would start bargaining. At our next session we will begin with ground rules (a very important part of the process), and would try to define the universe of issues that we will bargain over.
We had initially decided that the conversation about all issues that required bargaining should be when we commenced bargaining. This was the time we expected to expand on our February 28 Demand to Bargain letter and our request for IBB letter with framing questions for IBB. The continued implementation of the redesign, however, suggests this can’t wait.
Advisors generally feel like this implementation is going full speed ahead and that items in the Demand to Bargain letter are proceeding. There were four significant elements in the implementation plan that seem to be proceeding: the assignment of individual advisors to pathways under new Pathway Directors; the development of electronic systems for student-facing appointment scheduling; physical movement of advisors; and initiating discussions in those pathways about new evaluation procedures.
There are some minor issues that fall within our scope of bargaining about the assignment of advisors to pathways- mostly associated with differences in expectations and accountability with advisors going to new supervisors. Negotiation on this matter can happen after the fact.
The setup of student-facing electronic appointment systems have myriad issues associated with advisor workload: advisor control of their own calendar; appointment length and number of appointments; and advisor accountability in that scheduling systems and advisor performance assessment from that system- especially if there is any thought that advisors would be made accountable for student outcomes. We advised administration in Labor Management on October 11 that they must not implement the appointment system until bargaining over the matter was completed.
The physical change in location could put the advisors in a new work environment that is not conducive to the needs of the position. We will nail down the specific issues in negotiations, but it seems PSU-AAUP and administration are on the same page regarding the advisor's need for their own work spaces and the privacy to have confidential meetings with students.
The development of new evaluation procedures is very problematic. On Monday, October 16th, an advisor brought to our attention that in their staff meeting with their (new) Pathway Director, they began talking about the creation of a new evaluation system for the advisors. This advisor immediately brought the matter to my attention.
Evaluations for Academic professionals are covered in Article 17 Section 8 of the CBA. To the extent that the evaluation procedures are not clearly spelled out in the contract, the procedures are likely protected by Article 8- Past Practices. As such, we were alarmed by an advisor telling us that their Pathway Director told us that they had been given permission to create their own evaluation procedure, and that other, perhaps different evaluation procedures were being created for advisors in other pathways by other Pathway Directors.
On Tuesday October 17 PSU-AAUP sent a CEASE and DESIST letter to administration demanding that all conversations about changing the evaluation procedure, or creating a new evaluation procedure for advisors in this new pathway structure immediately cease, and that administration desist in the implementing changes to the evaluation procedures outside of negotiations. We further communicated with all advisors what to do if their Pathway Directors brings up new evaluation procedures in a staff meeting.
At Labor Management committee on October 18th we followed up the Cease and Desist letter with a demand to meet with senior advising administrators regarding the implementation so we can specifically talk about implementation plans. PSU-AAUP will specify at that meeting what specific implementation plans (that are shared with us) must be put on hold until after bargaining.
Last, we have finalized the bargaining calendar. We are scheduled to bargain this issue as follows:
Nov 1 1-5 SMSU 323
Nov 13 1-5 SMSU 296
Nov 15 1-5 SMSU 238
Dec 4 830-130 MCB-651
Dec 11 830-430 SMSU 238
Dec 15 830-430 MCB 651
As we have done in the past, members are welcome to come observe any bargaining session. We have not yet worked out the ground rules for observers, and we hope to have that done the first day. Absent that agreement, I’ll share the ground rules we agreed upon for IBB observers in 2015 which should guide your perspective and how not to be intrusive on our process when you are in the room.
EF