Important Update:

USA has agreed to begin bargaining with management in full-day sessions, split between mornings and afternoons.  The dates will remain on alternating Wednesdays, and you are invited to attend one or both sessions depending on your availability.  Be sure to check the Silent Bargaining Representative Headquarters page for more information on how to sign up to be a Silent Bargaining Representative! 

Article 08, Section 1: Workweek (Implementation of Kronos) 

At the previous bargaining session, USA informally addressed management’s proposal to implement Kronos timekeeping software by verbally rejecting the removal of the written contract protections for those staff in Administration and Finance, or to remove the protections for USA members entirely. 

When bringing up the status of this proposal, Management’s lead negotiator Alexcia Davis told the bargaining team verbally that “we realized that it’s not a proposal, it’s a notification that the folks in A&F will be moving to a timekeeping system.” 

The USA bargaining team responded by reminding the management team that, when they tried to implement Kronos in this department back in 2023, USA issued a cease-and-desist notification, as that action violates contract language against the implementation of timekeeping software, and USA will not accept management willfully ignoring language in the labor contract.  As a result of the cease-and-desist notification, management opted to put the proposal on the bargaining table at the start of bargaining. 

Article 8, Section 7 – Shift Differentials 

Management rejected all language that USA presented in a previous counterproposal, including additional differential for third shift staff.  In USA’s latest counterproposal, the association alluded to the additional challenges that may arise due to third shift work, including physical and mental health concerns that can arise.  Management’s lead negotiator Alexcia Davis responded by saying “we explained we don’t see the same hardships you all see. You [also] have a small number [of members] earning shift differential, and who see value in increasing it – but we don’t agree with the reasons you’ve provided for the amounts you’ve provided.” 

Management rejected new language on holiday pay and current differentials, with the rationale that that premium pay holidays “were defined years ago” and the administration had no interest in updating this list. It should be noted that Juneteenth was not recognized as a national holiday at the time that list was created. 

Article 8, Section 10 – Campus Closure 

Management rejected USA’s counterproposal and countered with a single page document that removes previously proposed language by management that defined campus work locations and attempted to address employees who work outside the local area who may be impacted by severe weather.  Their counter also allows the University to pivot to remote work with an undefined period of notice and does not address how this would work during inclement weather.  

USA verbally rejected their counter outright. A member of the bargaining team provided rationale to management by replying, “let’s call this what it is: an attempt to claw back snow days from members.” USA also pointed out that their counterproposal could not only create a situation of hardship for members who are mandated to work during inclement weather, but those employees could also be disciplined for being unable or unwilling to do so. 

USA’s bargaining team explained that their proposal does not address the issues that were brought up in their own counterproposal: the work locations of members, accessibility issues, how campus closures would be handled for staff who work outside of a normal 9-5 shift and those who work weekends and holidays.  USA also firmly refused to entertain non-essential work during snow closures. 

Article 9 – Leave 

Management submitted a new document, in lieu of amending the previous document with tracked changes, with the rationale that, as explained by management bargaining lead Alexcia Davis, “what we wrote is a rejection of your language, but not a complete rejection. It got so messy there’s no way you would have been able to understand the changes… What we did was, we rewrote it completely.”   

 USA’s Bargaining Team noted that other proposals had edits that made documents difficult to track, but that it was necessary to see what changes were being made to the current proposal in order to compare the language against the current contract. This culminated in several outbursts from management’s bargaining team lead, which included Alexcia interrupting USA field organizer Anna Rose by saying “you don’t need to educate me on the appropriate way to do tracked changes.” 

USA’s bargaining team immediately called for a caucus.  

When returning from the 20-minute caucus, USA proposed to move on from discussion on this proposal. As a result, management will need to provide their counterproposal at a future bargaining session. 

New Proposal: Child care  

Management rejected this proposal outright, with the rationale that the re-imagined Center for Early Education and Care (CEEC) project is “still a few years away” from breaking ground.  Management’s lead negotiator Alexcia Davis told the USA bargaining team that “at the moment, it’s just a vision.” 

This is a contradiction to the statement made by the University Administration to the Daily Hampshire Gazette as a response to the UMass Unions stroller parade on campus on November 1st, in which a University spokesperson said that they recognize “the need for increased child care capacity to support our community,” and that it “plans to build a modern and expanded facility to replace the existing center” at 21 Clubhouse Drive. 

“The new center will allow for a 50% increase over the current capacity of approximately 87 children. We are commencing the design phase of the facility so that construction can be completed within the next three years.” 

Article 10 – Sick leave bank 

Management provided a counterproposal to USA in which they agreed to minor semantic changes, but largely rejected proposed language from USA. Some of the highlights rejected by management: 

• Language to remove the ninety day period before being able to use the sick bank; 

• Implementing an electronic tracking system to overhaul the current process for USA members to enroll into the sick bank who were not automatically enrolled under previous contracts; 

• Implementing an automatic withdrawal should the sick leave bank drop below 1500 hours to maintain the solvency of the sick leave bank. 

UPDATE: On Friday, May 9th, Management sent an updated counterproposal to USA. Within their counterproposal, they accepted the proposed removal of the ninety day cap before accessing the sick bank, but maintained that language that would prevent members from using the sick leave bank until they have completed their probationary period.  Their counter also includes language that permits retiring members to contribute up to 30 days of sick leave to the bank, which is uncapped in the current contract. 

Article 17 – Out of Title Work 

Management rejected a proposed increase of the daily stipend to staff currently doing work classified as “out of title.”  Currently, the out of title stipend is fifteen dollars a day ($15.00), and management has proposed increasing this to twenty dollars a day ($20.00), after USA proposals for time-and-a-half, time-and-a-quarter, and thirty dollars ($30.00) were rejected. 

Management proposed sending a monthly report of members currently working out-of-title to USA, as a counter to USA-proposed language that would require USA be notified in all instances of USA members performing out-of-title work.