After yesterday's negotiations, the bargaining committee is concerned by the employer's labeling all of our language changes as cost items.  What this means effectively is that despite the fact that we've been at the table since September 14th and despite the fact that they have had our non-monetary proposals since November 2nd, we still haven't managed to engage on substantive issues.  Because we are supposed to deal with non-monetary items first, this tactic has left a very slim amount of items about which we can have real discussions on the table.  As an example of the way they are calling nearly everything a cost item, we proposed that course supervisors complete a workload review for all TAs.  We even included a form on the back of the current TUG to expedite the process. We estimated generously that a workload review consists of a 15 minute conversation between a supervisor and the TA.  The employer claimed having a review in every case would be too onerous and a significant cost.  Really, how can taking the role of supervisor seriously by asking TAs once a semester how they are doing in terms of their workload, and taking on a mentorship role present an added cost to the university?

On Tuesday in bargaining, we engaged one of our substantive proposals concerning continuing non-credit Instructors at Harbour Center.  We were unable to exchange much on the actual proposals as the employer was not prepared even though they've had the proposal for two weeks.

The university bargaining team continues to refuse language that would ensure WCB regulations with regard to the right to refuse to work in unsafe conditions are posted as required by law.  And they continue to deny the need for the university to have a conversation with the TSSU prior to changing methods of instruction that will affect our members. They have, however, said that they could potentially consider providing access to bulletin boards in the Surrey and Vancouver Campuses as long as it doesn’t affect the aesthetic design of the architecture.