Josephine Nagle, Sr. Administrative Asst., Rutgers Law School, Bargaining Team Member.
URA’s Bargaining Team met for the twelfth time with management on August 5 at 33 Knightsbridge. The weekly perseverance of our crack team, including alternate Rex Miller, continued as we submitted four new articles to management and one counter proposal in response to management’s only counter proposal.
URA put management on notice that we are demanding to negotiate aspects of the announced hiring freeze that modified or impacted our union contract. We made a similar demand relating to planned gambling restrictions for Athletics staff and new time keeping devices in IP&O.
Article 8 – Call Back Pay: URA’s proposal focused on work hours and days regardless of assigned and alternate work locations. We proposed to increase call back pay for holidays from three to five hours and provide a stipend for on-call or standby status. Management’s questions focused solely on alternate work locations.
Article 9 – Changes to Work Hours and Work Schedules: URA proposed differential pay for permanent changes to work hours and days after hiring. This affects IP&O, Dining, and library staff. Management noted the compelling argument Ty Davidson provided about economics and rationale.
Article 19 – Just Cause/Discipline: Management finally gave a counter proposal. They claimed that NJ Supreme Court decision on Title IX informed their response. They claimed that our proposal may violate the decision. When we asked if they intend to change university policy to comply with the decision, they said “good question” and that they would look into it. We had a back-and-forth conversation about verbal warnings with them saying they appreciated our “compelling arguments.” Are verbal warnings discipline or not? Rutgers wants it both ways: they say that verbal warnings are informal and not discipline, but then reference them in the formal written reprimand.
Article 28 – Overtime/Compensatory Time Benefits: Our proposal introduced in writing numerous procedures that are included in university policy related to time keeping, specifically related to compensatory time and secondary appointments. Management’s only comment today was to question a one minute discrepancy.
Article 35 – Reclassification: The experience for many is that the review process is arbitrary and selective. We seek clarity and consistency and demand a better process, including a concurrent review for both reclassification and in-grade.
New Article – Technological Change: URA introduced this new article to address the impact of AI, electronic monitoring, and surveillance and use of member biometric data and its impact for workers. Management agreed that everyone has big concerns and stated that they are “sensitive to how this stuff affects you guys,” while adding their favorite caveat about “managerial prerogative.” This is their opportunity to respond and show how sensitive they truly are.
Finally, we reviewed the status of most of our outstanding proposals on the table. All proposals considered to have economic impact are being held until the end while the majority of outstanding URA proposals and counterproposals have been rejected. Management has still not agreed to a single URA proposal.
