UC-AFT Local 1474 UCB/UCSF

After reading the candidates' statements below, you can click here to vote:

www.ucsc-aft.org/cgi-bin/local1474_login.asp

Only members of UC-AFT Local 1474 can vote.  You will need your ID and password to vote.  Contact Michelle Squitieri at msquitieri@ucaft.org if you did not receive this information.

Candidates' statements

President

Jonathan Lang (incumbent), Lecturer, College Writing Programs, UCB

jclang@berkeley.edu ; jlang@ucaft.org

I am running for re-election to the Office of President of UC-AFT Local 1474.

I was hired as a part-time Lecturer in 1989 in the College Writing Programs (formerly Subject A). I have been teaching in CWP full-time for approximately 9 years.

Message for the day -- Open up the Regents to the 99%, Make Banks Pay, No Sham Investigation of the Regents Crackdown on Our Movement to Make Them Pay. 

The following members were elected to serve on the Executive Board of UC-AFT Local 1474 Berkeley-San Francisco during the 2011-2012 academic year.  Many thanks to all of them for their generous gift of time and attention for the coming year. Their candidates' statements are posted below their names.

Local 1474 Executive Board Candidates' Statements

President

Jonathan Lang, Lecturer, College Writing Programs, UCB

jclang@berkeley.edu

I am running for the Office of President of UC-AFT Local 1474.

I was hired as a part-time Lecturer in 1989 in the College Writing Programs (formerly  Subject A). I have been teaching in CWP full-time for approximately 8 years.

I have held the following positions in this local: Chair of the Election Committee (3 years); current member of the Grievance Committee and appointed member of the Local Board (2011). In addition, I have participated in systemwide UC-AFT Council meetings for the past two years.

17 April 2011

Colleagues:

I write with Friday’s bargaining update. We are making progress, and at the same time, the differences between the parties are becoming clearer.

First, the good news: we reached a tentative agreement on Article 10, now to be called Personnel and Review Files. We have clarified the differences between the two kinds of files (personnel files and review files), made clear when and how responses to documents in your files are allowed, where personnel files can be kept and guaranteed that these files are kept separately from grievance files. Non Senate Faculty will to have full access to their files, just as they do now.

Colleagues,

I am writing with a brief update about today's bargaining session, which I would characterize once again as very collegial and, indeed, productive. We are making very good progress on a number of open articles. In particular, we are very close to clarifying, once and for all, which "file" is meant in each article that mentions files. Moreover, we have clarified that lecturers have access to their files, and when such access can take place. This may seem a small matter, but it does impact a large number of articles. We also discussed the Discipline and Dismissal article, clarifying what we think the article now requires and indicating where clearer language would be beneficial. Finally, we spent some time working on the layoff article. There are a number of small issues here that can be easily fixed, and a couple of larger ones--such as the notice period for layoff--that will take a bit longer. But both sides explained their concerns and began to identify some potential solutions.  We are meeting again, in Oakland, on 15 April. I'll send a further update sometime soon thereafter.

Alan Karras

Unit 18 Chief Negotiator

Colleagues:

We had our second bargaining session today, at UC-Irvine. The tone was again very collegial, and the teams worked collaboratively on a number of important issues, including layoff, grievance, arbitration, and discipline and dismissal.  We approached these articles by setting aside any possibly contentious issues within each of them, and working towards an agreement on those changes that each side considers necessary. While we have not arrived at final contract language, we have identified areas where there is common ground, and identified how it is that the shared ideas can be translated into contract language. The UC team will bring many of these ideas back to their stakeholders on the campuses so that we can move forward in our discussion at the next session. The same could be said for some workload equity issues that we brought to the table.

28 February 2011

UC-AFT's team met earlier today with UC's team to discuss successor negotiations. After quickly agreeing to ground rules, each side presented its proposals, and answered questions that members of the other team had. It quickly became clear to everyone in the room that there were many shared areas of concern, which we hope can be addressed and solved relatively quickly. It also became clear to both sides that there were a few areas of more substantive disagreement (such as on layoff), which will take longer to resolve. Neither side presented its economic proposals and, given the current state of the state, we agreed to hold off on discussing these concerns until we made more progress on the non-economic issues. The mood was generally collaborative--and we have scheduled several additional bargaining sessions in March and April. Our goal will be to make progress in areas where we are in virtual agreement quickly, and then move on to thornier problems. The next bargaining session will be on 11 March 2011. We will send an additional bargaining update after that session. 

Alan Karras

I'm reporting from the teachers' computer lounge at Madison Area Technical College, one block from the Wisconsin Capitol building, where thousands of teachers and public workers are rallying peacefully in the streets, in February in a cold climate, for 6 days going on 7: excuse the caps; I am being emphatic here.