CONTRACT BULLETIN #4

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING SESSION, NOVEMBER 17, 2000

The PSC’s fourth session at the bargaining table was noticeably more productive than earlier sessions. Real discussion took place, and the PSC began to present in detail the argument that the future of the University lies in accepting our proposals. Management, although initially reluctant even to hear our arguments on subjects they considered non-mandatory, did engage with our presentation and in one case agreed to take an issue under consideration for further action. Management also informed us that they do not yet have guidance for discussing an economic settlement with us; they are waiting for figures to be provided by the City, they said, and will not discuss salaries and other costs until then. The PSC has made it clear that we are serious about reaching agreement on the contract and that a new contract is urgent for our members. Even if there is no urgency from management’s side, our members need the advances we are seeking in this contract. And the University cannot wait any longer for the kind of restoration our proposals would initiate.

We had laid out a plan to begin with “non-economic” issues; that is, issues that do not directly concern wages and hours. Among the non-economic issues are some of the most far-reaching proposals about the nature of our lives at the University and the education we are able to provide for our students. The critical question of the union’s right to negotiate with management before changes are made is a primary issue, as are questions of who is included in the bargaining unit of the PSC. Few things affect our collective life more than the University’s current ability to change the terms and conditions of our employment without formally negotiating with the union. The session concentrated on these issues, but began with a few questions raised at the previous negotiating session.

The session began at 11:20. Management’s entire negotiating team was present; representing the PSC were: Barbara Bowen, Steve London, Cecelia McCall, John Hyland, Stanley Aronowitz, Mike Fabricant, Anne Friedman, Peter Hoberman and Eric Marshall. Joining the PSC were consultants on legal and contractual matters: Frank Annunziato, Debra Bergen, Susan Jennik and Arthur Schwartz. Ellen Balleisen, a spokesperson for College Language Immersion Program (CLIP) faculty, joined the PSC team to provide testimony about CLIP working conditions addressed in Proposal #3.

Preliminary Issues

Barbara Bowen proposed that CUNY management agree in advance to a schedule of meetings for the next two months in order to expedite the process of negotiations. Vice Chancellor Brenda Malone agreed; she will discuss scheduling away from the table with the PSC team.

Management team’s spokesperson, Randy Levine, asked for greater clarity on Rule 2, on putting tentative agreements in writing as negotiations progress; the PSC agreed to reformulate the rule. Mr. Levine disagreed with the PSC’s formulation of Ground Rule 3, on confidentiality, and said that management will not commit itself to the PSC’s formulation of the rule. Thus there will be no rule about confidentiality; in the absence of a rule, the PSC is not bound by any agreement on the subject, and each party is free to present its case to relevant constituencies.

At the previous session, the PSC had requested that a joint technical committee be established. Brenda Malone responded that management was willing to have a committee once the City had a figure from which to negotiate.

Proposals on Recognition

As planned, discussion began with the first seven proposals advanced by the PSC, on the subject of Recognition, or the recognition of employees as part of our bargaining unit and their entitlement to the protections of the contract. Prior to moving forward on Recognition, Randy Levine argued that many of the PSC’s proposals concerned non-mandatory subjects of bargaining under labor law; he added that management was not prepared to discuss any that were inappropriate. He then offered three ways to proceed: CUNY would not discuss the proposals they considered inappropriate; PSC could take the issue to the Public Employee Relations Board for a ruling on which were mandatory and which non-mandatory; and PSC could explain its position on each proposal, with CUNY management protecting and not waiving its rights.

The PSC chose the third. Barbara Bowen stated that the PSC would present its position. The PSC then went forward to present the first seven proposals, with Stanley Aronowitz, a University-Wide Officer of the PSC and a member of the Negotiating Team, taking the lead on this section. What follows is a brief summary of discussion on each item.

Proposal #1, on the definition of the bargaining unit: Aronowitz argued that function, not title, should be the criterion for determining membership in the PSC. He pointed out that as the University engages in rapid restructuring, more and more new titles will be created, and the current contract puts the union in the position of negotiating separately about each one. Management replied that the definition we proposed was too broad and would lead to problems with other unions, whose members also work at CUNY. Barbara Bowen reminded management that the PSC looks after its own relations with unions. We did not reach an agreement about this question.

Proposal # 2, for elected chairpersons of Library, Counseling and Co-op Departments: the PSC asked for the criteria that distinguish these Chairs from other elected Chairs. Vice Chancellor Malone cited appointment under the By-laws, and much of the subsequent discussion focused on management’s belief that these workers are managers and thus may be appointed by management. Randy Levine reminded us that the union had previously agreed to their exclusion from the PSC. We agreed to seek further information and move on.

Proposal #3, on full-time status and the title Language Immersion Lecturer for CLIP and Intensive Language Immersion Institute faculty, who currently work full-time but are paid as part-time faculty.: Ellen Balleisen presented data to indicate that the number of hours that CLIP personnel work entitle them to full-time status even though they were initially placed in Continuing Education, whose instructors are defined as part-time. Brenda Malone stated that the placement of CLIP instructors in this category was by design. Frank Annunziato explained that when Ann Reynolds was Chancellor, the PSC had agreed to this placement of the unit as the only way to secure benefits for them. Randy Levine agreed to take the issue under advisement as bargainable.

Proposal #4, on the extension of Articles 9, 18, 19, and 20 in the Collective Bargaining Agreement to Continuing Education Teachers and Lecturers: the PSC clarified our position that all members of the unit must receive the same protections, and we noted that the mention of Lecturers here was to cover CLIP teachers if they become Lecturers. Those currently in the title Lecturer are covered under the specified contract articles.

Proposal #5, on the inclusion of Health and Safety Officers in the union: the PSC argued that the non-supervisory and non-policy-making function of these employees entitled them to be considered non-managerial personnel. The safety of all faculty and staff are jeopardized if these officers feel they cannot be totally candid about campus conditions. They need the protection of the union. Brenda Malone countered that defining them as members of the union was not the only appropriate remedy. The PSC suggested moving on to the next item and trying to make progress.

Proposal #6, on the inclusion of sign language interpreters in the union: Barbara Bowen asked management to assist the PSC in determining the location and title of the personnel performing this function. Some interpreters are currently represented by DC 37, and it is not the intention of the PSC to represent these workers; but there may be some workers in this area who are currently unrepresented and should be part of the PSC. Management agreed to assist us in providing information about current employees in this field.

Proposal #7, on the allocation of employees in computer titles to the PSC. Stanley Aronowitz first clarified a misprint in the PSC’s initial proposals, changing the word “academic” to “administrative” in sentence two. Our argument on the issue was that the continuing shift to computerization in the University requires further clarification of the PSC’s right to represent appropriate employees in this field. After some discussion of the long history of negotiation on this issue during the previous contract talks, Vice Chancellor Malone expressed willingness to continue to discuss this item away from the bargaining table.

Economic Settlement

At this point, Randy Levine stated that he did not have any guidance yet for the economic terms to be offered. He said almost everything has costs, but we could continue to discuss items but that management was not prepared to argue until they knew how much they had to spend. He did not know when the figure would be given. Barbara Bowen expressed a willingness to continue since progress had been made and suggested moving to CUNY-PSC Relations. After a 30-minute break, the session resumed.

Bowen began by reminding management that the economic pattern established for other city workers might not be appropriate for the PSC because our members had suffered unusual losses during CUNY’s years of underfunding. She argued that the PSC is not seeking to fit in to a pre-established pattern, but rather to address the specific issues of a membership that has worked for over a decade in an institution whose budget has been slashed. Mr. Levine responded that he did not have authorization to put money on the table.

Relations between the PSC and CUNY

The PSC then suggested, and management agreed, that we move to Proposals 47-52, on Relations between the PSC and CUNY. Bowen began by arguing that the purpose of Article 2.4.c, consultation with the Chancellor on a BOT proposal or resolution related to a term or condition of employment of PSC members, was to move the Trustees and the PSC away from confrontation into negotiating prior to an action, rather than grieving after the fact. Once again, Randy Levine stated that this article dealt with managerial rights and prerogatives and the curtailing of the BOT’s running the Institution.

Stanley Aronowitz presented a threefold argument: first, the current wave of restructuring has already meant that we are forced to grieve changes rather than negotiate them before they are implemented; second, that such a clause is normative at other universities; and third, that we hope to be in a position to work cooperatively with University management when we can, and cooperation would be facilitated by such an agreement.

Although management replied that the current level of consultation has worked well for the University, Bowen argued that we had seen several situations in recent years when hundreds of people had testified against a specific change and yet the change was implemented. She added that we should be mindful of the distinctive nature of a university and the special importance of negotiation in such a setting. Aronowitz cited the erosion of faculty and staff rights, the pattern of ignoring committees and representative bodies, the abrogation of faculty governance. Steve London spoke of the strong support among our members for this proposal.

Management replied that the PSC proposal goes to the heart of the University’s ability to govern itself, and that management opposes the proposal. We agreed to stop discussion for the day without an agreement on this point.

Conclusion

Although no agreements were reached at the session, the PSC laid the groundwork for what we hope will be a fruitful discussion of central issues such as membership in the union, extension of contractual rights to all members, and the right to negotiate on changes in our terms and conditions of employment. At a time when CUNY management is rapidly restructuring the University under direction from the Schmidt Report, it is especially imperative that we be able to protect our members and the health of the University by securing the right to bargain on changes in the contract before they are implemented. We seek a new culture at the University, and a key to achieving it is securing these critical contractual rights.

BACK TO THE TOP