Where we are: In the bargaining session on 4/9, USA presented several counter proposals previously rejected by the management bargaining team, and asked for rationale on previously rejected proposals. During and after a 30 minute caucus, management returned to the table with several rejections and provided a counterproposal to the Farm Superintendent Re-Grade proposal.

General Proposal – Farm Superintendent Re-Grade 

• Management rejected our counterproposal for a re-grade to grade 18. They countered with a re-grade grade 17 with retroactive pay to July 2024.  
• Management’s argument was based on what the current state parameters are projecting for the next three years, rather than the current pay scale. 

Article 8 – Shift Differential 

• USA withheld this counterproposal due to some questions that arose during caucus. During the bargaining session, USA asked clarifying questions regarding the holidays in which employees who are scheduled to work would receive a holiday differential. 

Article 11 – Vacations 

• Management rejected the Association’s proposals to increase the amount of vacation days afforded to members to more closely align with the benefits provided to PSU. 
• Management argued that PSU is exempt from overtime pay and are expected to work 40 hours per week, versus USA who is technically eligible for overtime pay and works 37.5 hours per week. 

Article 12 – Holidays  

• University asked Management for a rationale on the rejection of this previously rejected proposal. 
• Management’s stance is that, although the other unions on campus have put forth this same proposal in coalition, the management bargaining team does not have the authority to approve this proposal as it would have far-reaching implications across the university. 
• USA pointed out that this is directly tied to working conditions and insisted that this was a topic that fits the legal definition of mandatory subject of bargaining.  When asked what the correct venue to address this proposal would be, Management’s team answered that the Chancellor would need to approve it. 
• Management insisted that, despite the rejection of this proposal at the bargaining table, the proposal from the coalition is “something we’re looking at.” 

Article 17 – Vacancies & Promotions 

• The Association provided a counterproposal with language maintaining the difference between calendar and business days, rejecting any loose interpretation outside of the contract’s definitions. Management agreed to keep current language regarding timelines. 
• Management rejected language providing distinction between Temporary (O3) positions and grant-funded employees whose contracts are on a temporary basis. 
• Management rejected Association-proposed language to maintain the anniversary date of members as it pertains to the member’s step on the pay scale. 

Article 19 – Out of Title Work 

• Management rejected a proposed increase of 1.25 times the employee’s pay rate, in favor of current language which provides a stipend of $15.00 per day for members performing extra duties designated as “out of title work.” 
• Management rejected the Association’s proposal to remove language that states that “only one employee shall receive such compensation for performing work in a higher classification formerly done by another bargaining unit employee.”