Why
haven’t we made more progress in bargaining? The problem rests
squarely with CUNY management. Forget that they refused to put an
economic offer on the table until almost 11 months after the
contract ended. Forget that they refuse to bargain over legitimate
terms and conditions like intellectual property. Forget that they
do not bother to justify their demands with any evidence
demonstrating necessity—they say they just want them. Forget all
these things and look at an area where we came close to reaching
an agreement: grievance and discipline.
These are
non-economic items, and we have a lot of experience in the
handling of grievances and disciplinary proceedings that informed
our discussion. After hours of discussion with management, the PSC
negotiators demonstrated tremendous flexibility and settled on the
straightforward goal of getting the current procedure to work
properly. Currently, management does not adhere to the contractual
time limits in the contract. After a Step One hearing, management
has 30 days to issue a written ruling. It rarely meets this
deadline, and the union’s only remedy is then to move the
process to the next level. This puts the grievant at a
disadvantage, because management has heard the union’s case but
the union has not heard management’s case. It is as if only one
side had the right to discovery in a court proceeding.
After much
discussion, we agreed on a mechanism to move the process forward
while protecting the grievant’s rights. We also agreed on a
mediation step to try to resolve disputes before going to
arbitration. So far, so good. It looked to us like management was
finally serious about making the grievance process work in a
timely fashion.
Then it
happened. CUNY management insisted that the package include a new
demand. They wanted to require that if a union member is subjected
to disciplinary charges and management is seeking termination,
after 120 days the employee would be taken off the payroll—no
matter what. This is a political demand, one that would threaten
tenure. It would give management the option of running out the
clock in order to get someone they don’t like off the payroll.
The threat of losing one’s income could be used to pressure a
union member into accepting an unfair settlement. In effect, the
person facing charges would be considered guilty until proven
innocent.
Moreover,
management could not point to any history that would justify such
a draconian measure. At most, there was one case in the last
decade where it might be argued that a union member had dragged
out disciplinary proceedings. Nevertheless, the PSC responded with
several suggestions to speed up the process, so that disciplinary
cases would not linger unresolved. Management would have none of
this. “We need a number of days,” they said.
In other
words, if we agreed to weaken tenure, they would agree to make the
grievance process work properly—something they have agreed to in
the past but failed to carry out. “No deal,” we said. If there
is no history that would justify this harsh measure, why does
management want it? We could not in good conscience recommend this
deal to our members.
The union
has shown that it can be flexible and reasonable. If negotiations
are to progress, management must do the same.
back
to PSC HOME page
other
CLARION
articles