Oregon daily emerald., October 19, 1978, Section A, Page 4, Image 4

opinion__
yours___
Boyd analyzes remaining GTFF issues
To write on the eve of a strike vote runs
the risk of appearing to be self-serving. To
minimize that and as a courtesy, the Presi
dent of the GTFF was informed of the in
tended appearance of this statement so
that the leadership would not be surprised
and could be better prepared to respond to
their membership if that seemed appro
priate. I am sensitive to the time problem, but
there was no way I could make an earlier
response to the opinion articles which ap
peared in the Oregon Daily Emerald of Oc
tober 17, 1978. Even at the risk of being
criticized for speaking out now, it seems
imperative to respond to the allegations and
arguments that have been advanced in this
public forum. We would all be ill-served if at
this late hour misinterpretations of the
University's position influenced the crit
ical events of the next few days. So much
for apology and explanation of lateness!
When the GTFF and the University
began negotiations about a year ago, there
were some 60 issues on the bargaining
table. Now there are only five, three of
which appear very near resolution if we can
reach agreement on salary and workload.
We have come a long way. Unfortunately,
recent publicity has focused on the remain
ing issues, with little recognition of the sub
stantial achievements already made.
From our perspective, the following is a
summary of the most significant remaining
issues and our positions with respect to
them:
Salaries. Published descriptions are not
accurate when they describe the
University's salary offer as "a mere 5 per
cent." Over the two year period of the con
tract, it represents almost 14 percent
(13.84%).
The problem is not that the University
gives GTF's a low priority or wishes to ex
ploit cheap labor. The problem is that it is
difficult to provide a good total wage tor
someone who only works approximately
one-third time for nine months out of 12. We
believe our salary offer to be a fair and just
one. Indeed, compared with the pay scales
of most universities, it is a generous one —
rhetoric to the contrary not-withstanding.
This amount equals or is higher than the
pay raises received by any group of state
employees in Oregon, no matter who bar
gained for them. And even though part-time
positions yield low salaries, it is important to
point out again that graduate teaching fel
lows at the University of Oregon enjoy rates
of pay which are among the highest in the
nation.
The comparison is even more favorable
when one considers that tuition is waived in
the amount of about $1,000 per year for
residents and $1,300 per year for non
residents.
Although health insurance is no longer an
issueper se, it has become melded with the
salary issue. The Oregon statute which
permits state agencies to pay or contribute
to health insurance premiums for em
ployees prohibits such payments for those
who work less than half time. Oregon law
also prohibits such payments on behalf of
student employees who are provided with
campus health service.
To search for ways to deal with these
problems, the University has already a
greed to establish a commission of teaching
fellows and faculty to investigate possible
solutions to the health care issue in the
future. Further, I have offered to raise
$25,000 from the private sector to assist in
meeting uninsured medical expenses of
teaching fellows and their dependents.
I recognize that this may not meet all the
needs of all GTF’s, but it will help many, and
it is a witness to a serious commitment to
the amelioration of health care problems for
GTF's.
The GTFF asked that the University sub
stitute for the 5 percent increase offered for
September 1978, the third pay raise within
the biennium, an increase of $40 per month
per GTF to enable teaching fellows to
purchase health insurance privately. When
stated as $40 per month per employee, the
amount appears deceptively small.
Over a full year, however, the total is
approximately $230,000 over the
University's offer. To reallocate that much
to salaries this year, with substantial
amounts required every year in the future,
would be too destructive to the quality of this
University, which has already suffered se
vere budget cuts in the last two biennia.
The University must live within an au
thorized budget which was established be
fore bargaining began by appropriations
made by the 1977 legislature. Moreover,
such an increase would be extravagant
when compared with salaries at other dis
tinguished universities. We could not justify
to the public being that much out of line with
the rest of the nation.
Work Load. The University proposed a
.30 normative work load standard of 12-14
hours per week. This range was suggested
in the belief that GTF duties — particularly
teaching duties — are not easily quantified
and vary according to the experience, train
ing, ability and diligence of individuals. As
signments and expectations vary from de
partment to department.
Admittedly, some GTF’s are working
more than 12 hours per week, but many are
enjoying lighter assignments and might ac
tually be confronted by a higher work load if
a single standard were enforced for the en
tire University. This illustrates the hazard of
contractualizing the many informal ar
rangements which have characterized
academic life through the years.
The University has accepted the
factfinder’s recommendation that there be a
12 hour average, but the factfinder did not
indicate over what period of time the aver
age should be calculated.
The University proposed that the 12
hours be averaged over the period of the
GTF appointment, while the GTFF wants to
average the time over a period three weeks
shorter, excluding the time classes are not
in session. The University has made a sig
nificant compromise offer in a letter of Oc
tober 18, 1978, to Charles Aker, President
of the union. We hope that the membership
will find it attractive.
We are very close on all other issues, and
I believe there is consensus that those
other issues will be satisfactorily resolved.
Because the GTFF has not acheived all of
its bargaining goals (neither party has),
there may be a tendency to place too much
emphasis on the remaining issues, impor
tant as they are. In my opinion, the GTFF
has represented the interests of teaching
fellows extremely well.
My hope is that we can now reach an
early agreement without the divisiveness of
a strike or strike threats, and that together
we can make this a great year for the Uni
versity of Oregon. I am pledged to work with
the GTFF for that goal.
William Boyd
University President
Faculty must avoid being used
We are concerned over the growing
posibility of a strike of the Graduate Teach
ing Fellows, and we urge the faculty to con
sider what they will do in that event. We
view with sympathy the GTFs' efforts to
secure increased remuneration, especially
because some of them teach more than
do some of the full-time faculty. Their pay
request was fully supported by the impartial
factfinder's report. President Boyd rejected
that report, not because the funds were
lacking but because compliance would re
quire diversion of funds from other, (to him)
higher priorities. We believe this order of
priorities is mistaken. Is his rejection consis
tent with his impassioned plea to the faculty
on October 4 for a more humane univer
sity? If he is serious about that, our GTFs'
salaries would be a good place to begin
realizing his ideal.
a strike will please none but a few
diehard reactionaries in our ranks. It will set
colleague against colleague and split most
departments and schools. It may also set
faculty and GTFs against one another. And
what of our students? The ultimate cost of a
strike will be a disruption of their studies.
Outside the campus, a strike will cut the
universities ties to organized labor and en
danger our flourishing Labor Education and
Research Center. Such are the possible
consequences of wrongly-ordered
priorities.
In case of a strike, we urge our faculty
colleagues to avoid being used to break it,
and, if possible, to support it. Above all, they
should not take up the slack left by striking
GTFs; and they should oppose reprisals
against the GTFs. Our GTFs are only con
sidering availing themselves of a right
granted them by the State of Oregon. Al
though we sincerely hope it does not come
to a strike, we also doubt that a humane
university, such as President Boyd por
trayed, will move to penalize our junior
colleagues for exercising their legal rights.
Dave Curland (Romance Languages)
Tom Brady (History)
heirs
©or ijo ufi?
THa^S (CO 06^U
N>ie06 AMP
100 MO
ioo amsJBuc^