5 thoughts on “Union Meeting for September: What Happened?

  1. I couldn’t attend the meeting and I really really wanted to so I appreciate this post. I just want to give a shout out to the Harold Lounge – it is such a great resource to keep us connected and in the loop when some of might us not be able to attend various functions or meetings. It is an idea pool, a place to debate, and a place to just talk about our lively hood (and it sure is lively). Thank You Harold Lounge.

    • The Lounge says “You’re very welcome, slg! Thanks for the support.” Or that’s what it would say if it could speak for itself, I’m sure.

      I didn’t take any notes yesterday, but if there’s no response by tomorrow, I’ll put up what I can remember of it tomorrow or Friday.

  2. …and I might be pointing out the obvious but the Lounge has a lovely little spot for Union(s) news…but yet…it never has anything in it. I actually miss the emails from Mike Ruggeri since at least I had some idea of what was up.

    • Big ditto to that one. I’d like to know why we’ve not received minutes from any union meeting. What up U?

  3. I came in a little late (big surprise!), but what I saw focused mainly on various issues related to discipline. One statement made (paraphrased) was that it is not the role or responsibility of members of Local 1600 to discipline each other (keep in mind that I am just reporting here). There was discussion of the various levels of disciplinary procedures and how they are triggered (including a somewhat bemusing comment from a guest from Harper about a person who taught there who got involved in a relationship with a student “who was old enough to be in a relationship” whose circumstances led him to be fired given that he was a non-tenured faculty member, leading to a mini debate in the back of the room regarding whether she was accepting, if not condoning, of the decision of said faculty member). The discussion then moved to post tenure review procedures and considerations with the main emphasis being that there is no need for multiple DEC committees in a given department (in other words, it is not the case that there needs to be a different committee for each DEC candidate, but rather that each department should have one committee that reviews all of that department’s candidates that year. There were other confusions discussed and clarified and other confusions that were at least discussed if not clarified. Oh, and word is that there will not be any layoffs of 1600 employees. I can’t think of anything else of significance that was covered. I could be wrong, though.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s