Comments on: May 1st Meeting, Questions http://www.pratt-union.org/2008/05/03/may-1st-meeting-questions/ Salary, Benefits and Rights for Faculty Sun, 25 May 2008 18:29:38 +0000 hourly 1 By: sparerg http://www.pratt-union.org/2008/05/03/may-1st-meeting-questions/comment-page-1/#comment-245 sparerg Sun, 04 May 2008 13:51:52 +0000 http://www.pratt-union.org/2008/05/03/may-1st-meeting-questions/#comment-245 I personally believe on the face of it the new academic clause is not as strong as the old one. But as member of the grievance team I have grown to learn that what is most important is what can be won in a grievance based on the wording in the contract. It is my opinion that we are equally capable of protecting academic freedom under this new contract language as we were under the old language. To me this is the true test of the value of language. Under the old language we were and are getting cases in which the administration is bringing up collegiality. Something that is such an anathema to academic freedom. i feel this is equally defensible , by the union, in both phrasings. In both you still cannot hit a student without cause. Gerson I personally believe on the face of it the new academic clause is not as strong as the old one. But as member of the grievance team I have grown to learn that what is most important is what can be won in a grievance based on the wording in the contract. It is my opinion that we are equally capable of protecting academic freedom under this new contract language as we were under the old language. To me this is the true test of the value of language. Under the old language we were and are getting cases in which the administration is bringing up collegiality. Something that is such an anathema to academic freedom. i feel this is equally defensible , by the union, in both phrasings. In both you still cannot hit a student without cause.
Gerson

]]> By: Jane Haimes http://www.pratt-union.org/2008/05/03/may-1st-meeting-questions/comment-page-1/#comment-243 Jane Haimes Sun, 04 May 2008 04:35:10 +0000 http://www.pratt-union.org/2008/05/03/may-1st-meeting-questions/#comment-243 Gerson, thanks for your much more complete explanation now of what the situation is. There now seems to be an even greater need for discussing and clarifying...the more openly things are presented the better. People need real information as much as possible, and will only trust the people that lead them if they feel they are being given the truth, however sobering or disappointing the news, or the outcome. The idea is not to be misled or made to think that something is other than what it is. The contract is admittedly not what we would like and it is a relief to get acknowledgement at least, of that. From there we can decide what the next best step is. It was presented in a different manner and the impression given was that it was an improvement over the last, and the changes were not nearly as restrictive as they actually are. I've been waiting for something to make some sense and I appreciate confirmation of what was thought about it. Gerson, thank you for the transparency about this. Jane Gerson, thanks for your much more complete explanation now of what the situation is.

There now seems to be an even greater need for discussing and clarifying…the more openly things are presented the better. People need real information as much as possible, and will only trust the people that lead them if they feel they are being given the truth, however sobering or disappointing the news, or the outcome.

The idea is not to be misled or made to think that something is other than what it is. The contract is admittedly not what we would like and it is a relief to get acknowledgement at least, of that.

From there we can decide what the next best step is. It was presented in a different manner and the impression given was that it was an improvement over the last, and the changes were not nearly as restrictive as they actually are.

I’ve been waiting for something to make some sense and I appreciate confirmation of what was thought about it.

Gerson, thank you for the transparency about this.

Jane

]]> By: ifromboluti http://www.pratt-union.org/2008/05/03/may-1st-meeting-questions/comment-page-1/#comment-237 ifromboluti Sun, 04 May 2008 02:36:40 +0000 http://www.pratt-union.org/2008/05/03/may-1st-meeting-questions/#comment-237 First I don’t see anything in the responses so far that addresses my first concern, namely the way in which the processes of informing the faculty about the contract, and the timing of the ratification vote are being conducted. There is a record of assertions about notification and discussion that were, and remain unfulfilled. The agency fee and the changes to the academic freedom section and other articles were all on the table during the same contract negotiation – one a gain and the others losses. Given the information provided at the last meeting and subsequently it is impossible for me, and I would assume others, to delink the two outcomes. In the view of the negotiators what was the relative value of one to the others? If you read my statement carefully you would realize I recognize your responsibility to caution your membership in making any steps without serious consideration of the consequences. But once again scare tactics are being used to quell any discussion of what might happen if the contract is not ratified. Direct answers, complete with historical background, would be useful. Iona First I don’t see anything in the responses so far that addresses my first concern, namely the way in which the processes of informing the faculty about the contract, and the timing of the ratification vote are being conducted. There is a record of assertions about notification and discussion that were, and remain unfulfilled.

The agency fee and the changes to the academic freedom section and other articles were all on the table during the same contract negotiation – one a gain and the others losses. Given the information provided at the last meeting and subsequently it is impossible for me, and I would assume others, to delink the two outcomes. In the view of the negotiators what was the relative value of one to the others?

If you read my statement carefully you would realize I recognize your responsibility to caution your membership in making any steps without serious consideration of the consequences. But once again scare tactics are being used to quell any discussion of what might happen if the contract is not ratified. Direct answers, complete with historical background, would be useful.

Iona

]]> By: sparerg http://www.pratt-union.org/2008/05/03/may-1st-meeting-questions/comment-page-1/#comment-236 sparerg Sun, 04 May 2008 01:24:04 +0000 http://www.pratt-union.org/2008/05/03/may-1st-meeting-questions/#comment-236 Jane. It was a contract several years ago that the administration imposed. While the faculty was unhappy with the contract that was imposed, they did not chose to strike. My sentence was past tense, So i assumed that was clear Since Iona said it was a fact that she felt any thinking person should know. My reference was that i believed that was not a fact ( i.e.an error) You can see i do not communicate as well as i would like in writting. If the MOU is voted down the administration could impose its original change to the academic freedom that makes this one look exquisite. The faculties choice then would be to strike or accept what ever the administration has done. It is important for the faculty to discuss what their objections are and if they feel strongly about it. then see to it that the next negotiating team in 4 years try to reverse it. but for now we should be united. Gerson Jane. It was a contract several years ago that the administration imposed. While the faculty was unhappy with the contract that was imposed, they did not chose to strike. My sentence was past tense, So i assumed that was clear
Since Iona said it was a fact that she felt any thinking person should know. My reference was that i believed that was not a fact ( i.e.an error) You can see i do not communicate as well as i would like in writting. If the MOU is voted down the administration could impose its original change to the academic freedom that makes this one look exquisite. The faculties choice then would be to strike or accept what ever the administration has done. It is important for the faculty to discuss what their objections are and if they feel strongly about it. then see to it that the next negotiating team in 4 years try to reverse it. but for now we should be united.
Gerson

]]> By: Jane Haimes http://www.pratt-union.org/2008/05/03/may-1st-meeting-questions/comment-page-1/#comment-234 Jane Haimes Sun, 04 May 2008 00:22:52 +0000 http://www.pratt-union.org/2008/05/03/may-1st-meeting-questions/#comment-234 Gerson, Is this referring to another contract at another time? What are you saying? What is in error? Why not give us substantial and complete information in a post that we can all read with satisfaction. You are the expert and a senior officer of the Union. We deserve to know everything that is possible. And whether the union officers, who represent the best interests of faculty, are willing to listen, and if need be, accede to faculty's needs and renegotiate if it comes to that. At the very least we deserve a considered and complete answer. Help us out here. Jane Haimes Gerson, Is this referring to another contract at another time?
What are you saying? What is in error?

Why not give us substantial and complete information in a post that we can all read with satisfaction. You are the expert and a senior officer of the Union.

We deserve to know everything that is possible. And whether the union officers, who represent the best interests of faculty, are willing to listen, and if need be, accede to faculty’s needs and renegotiate if it comes to that. At the very least we deserve a considered and complete answer.

Help us out here.
Jane Haimes

]]>