The administration continues to insist that the economic provisions of the new contract be “subject to” state funding of the contractually agreed raises. This “subject to” language is precisely the language the administration invoked unilaterally in 2010 to freeze our salaries and create the sorry catch-up situation we now are in. Fooled once, the blame is on them; fooled twice and the blame would be on us.
The administration on Thursday morning proclaimed their belief that our members, if asked, would be willing to keep the “subject to” clause. We think otherwise, since the administration's position continues to be that it can invoke this language to nullify our salary increases at any time.
They challenged us to put the question to our members, and we have decided to accept the challenge. Members have received an email with the following question:
Do you instruct your negotiating team to accept the administration's "subject to" language?
Yes, I agree with the administration's position to accept the "subject to" language.
No, I agree with the union's position to reject the "subject to" language.
For the enjoyment and edification of those of you with three minutes of free time, we provide the link to remarks by Prof. David Hughes of the SAS Anthropology Department at Tuesday’s lunch rally.
Our staff union colleagues in the URA also have a helpful, plainspoken explanation of the problems with “subject to” here.