The number one goal of ASEs in the bargaining process is to increase staffing and instructional quality in the EECS and Data Science departments. Here’s what’s happening at the bargaining table in terms of staffing.
What’s been proposed
Current practices
Currently, the EECS and Data Science departments are covered by the UAW 2865 collective bargaining agreement (i.e. our union contract). This contract has no minimum guaranteed staffing levels. Staffing levels can be changed unilaterally by the university at any time.
In the event that no agreement on the side letter is reached, we would revert to the full union contract, which means we would not having any staffing guarantee. However, if the university attempts to implement an instructional model of extreme austerity, ASEs would enforce our rights under the contract to prevent misclassification and overwork.
ASE proposal
The ASE proposal would require most EE/CS/DS courses to have a minimum staff hours-to-student ratio of 10.1. On average, this represents a 15% increase in staffing over 2022–23 relative to enrollment. The ASE proposal would also require the university to increase TA hours relative to enrollment by 15%. In the event that the university is unable to maintain these staffing levels (e.g. natural disasters, a pandemic, decrease in state support) the ASE proposal grants the university the right to negotiate with ASEs to modify the terms of the agreement.
The final ASE proposal is based on the minimum amount of staffing needed to guarantee an increase in instructional quality in the departments. Our overwork report shows that overwork is equal to 15% of appointed hours, so we are asking for a staffing increase of 15% to address this issue. Since TAs specifically are an important part in running the department and also showed about 15% overwork, ASEs provided a specific provision to specifically address the overwork issue among TAs as well.
University proposal
As of April 21, 2023, the university has removed all language relating to staffing from its proposal. The university has declined to make any commitment, binding or nonbinding, to increase staffing.
How ASEs feel about this
After last year’s strike, the University of California signed a letter with ASEs in which both parties agreed to negotiate an agreement “to address increasing ASE staffing” in EECS and DS. The language of the contract further states that “It is the intent of the parties to discuss the work intensity, improve working conditions, decrease wait times for instructional services, and improve the overall quality of instruction of ASEs in certain courses.”
The number one priority of ASEs is to increase instructional quality. However, at the bargaining table, the university bargaining team has not yet expressed a willingness to make a binding commitment to increase staffing in the departments.
In a bargaining process, there is supposed to be some amount of give and take. ASEs are willing to deviate from the wages and benefits guaranteed to us under our union contract in exchange for meaningful improvements to staffing in EECS/DS. However, in addition to its pitiful staffing proposals, the university has proposed 51% cuts to TA wages and the total elimination of fee remission. If ASEs are to take a guaranteed cut in our wages and benefits, there must be a guaranteed increase in staffing. A side letter that fails to provide a meaningful commitment to improving instructional quality in EECS/DS is simply unacceptable.
Addressing arguments
Professor John DeNero has said that there is no need for a binding staffing increase. Citing a supply and demand curve, DeNero has said that dramatically decreasing the cost of ASEs will naturally lead to an increase in staffing. DeNero has also said during bargaining sessions that he does not make empty commitments and that he would not renege on the staffing commitment except in exceptional circumstances.
While we appreciate that Professor DeNero is a trusted figure in the department, we are ultimately signing this deal with the University of California. Professor DeNero will not be personally responsible for implementing the entirety of the agreement, and so his personal commitment to instructional quality is not at issue here. What is at issue is the university’s commitment to instructional quality—and time and time again, the university has shown that it is unwilling to fund instruction in EECS/DS. Even with a lower cost of labor, a lack of a staffing guarantee means the university could simply cut funding again, putting the departments back in the same precarious situation we have been in for years. This is not acceptable. A binding commitment from the university is absolutely necessary for our departments and our students.
If the university truly finds itself unable to fund staffing in the future, ASEs’ proposal grants it the right to negotiate with ASEs over changing the terms of the agreement. Additionally, the “emergency layoffs” clause of the contract allows the university to make dramatic changes to the workforce in the event of great disruptions to university operations (e.g. natural disasters).