Key Takeaways

• We delivered powerful testimony against layoffs at UC Merced, UCSB, and beyond;
• We proposed a new article on technology which would protect our jobs from AI, our data privacy, and our right to make expert judgments about the use of education technology in our classrooms;
• We received proposals from UCOP seeking minor language changes to articles on grievance and arbitration (Articles 32 & 33), Immigration Reform and Control Act (Article 34), discipline and dismissal (Article 30).

Testimony on Layoffs

Your UC-AFT Table Team gathered for an all day bargaining session with UCOP at UC Davis on Thursday, April 16th. The session opened with powerful testimony from Table Team member Tommy Tran from UC Merced who spoke to the devastating impact of recent layoffs of lecturers, including senior lecturers, on their campus. UC Merced administrators have imposed a new funding model that drove our education funding to the lowest of any UC, Tran shared, noting that “we spend $11,000 per student while the other UCs spend $30,000.” The Table Team also discussed a statement about layoffs of foreign language lecturers at UC Santa Barbara, where they are piloting a new Global Language Network that threatens to replace language instruction with AI. 

Tran’s testimony powerfully made clear the injustice of UC Merced’s recent layoffs. It began by asking a probing question that gets to the heart of why we have made strengthening job security a priority in our campaign: “The delegation from UC Merced would like to ask how the UC can bargain in good faith on job security if what happened to UC Merced is allowable under this contract.” Tran noted that despite the UC committing to stronger job protections in our last contract, UC Merced has since fired 25% of its lecturers and given layoff notices to another 10% this year. This, despite the fact that enrollment has grown by 6% in the last six years.

New Article on Technology in the Classroom

Next on the agenda was our Table Team’s proposal for a new article on technology in our classrooms. As Matt Oliver (UCD) noted during the bargaining session, “We have a pre-AI contract and we need to change that. It has transformed all of our lives in immediate, scary, and thoughtless ways.” The tech article team – Nolan, Alison, Daraka, Joe, and Trish – gave brilliant presentations of the article emphasizing the urgency of updating our protections for the modern age. Daraka Larimore-Hall (UCSB) forcefully articulated what’s at stake:

“We need control over the point of technology in our workplaces. We know what the impacts are better than you guys do. We live it. It should not be a decision made bureaucratically or based on income or budgets or some shiny presentation from an AI company pitching to UCOP. It should be from our classroom instructors. What we’re proposing is a set of constraints on the University’s ability to unilaterally impose new technology and turn us and our students into guinea pigs. What’s happening in our classrooms at UC is a disaster and we’re here to save you from yourself.”

UC-AFT members from UCD and UCB also spoke in support of the article, while Alison gave a presentation about UC’s repulsive attempts to replace experienced language instructors with AI at UCSB. Such decisions, they argued, undermine the quality of instruction at UC and cannot and should not be made by administrators who lack the expertise to make decisions about the appropriate role of AI and educational technology in our classrooms. As Daraka said, the overarching purpose of this proposed article is to protect the autonomy of our classrooms and the educational mission of the UC.  

Our initial proposal includes important language that would:

•  protect our jobs by mandating human, not AI, instruction; 
•  safeguard our data and privacy through new data management requirements;
•  strengthen shared governance by creating Unit 18 campus representatives who are empowered to help make decisions and negotiate contracts with technology companies; and 
•  protect copyright and academic freedom through surveillance reduction.

You can read the full text of our proposal here.

UCOP Proposals

In the back half of the day, UC presented on Grievance & Arbitration (Article 32, Article 33), Immigration Reform & Control Act (Article 34), and Discipline & Dismissal (Article 30). Most of the changes were cosmetic (for example, the University wants to remove references to the Reagan-era IRCA legislation in Article 34 to align with current law), but there are some substantive points for the Table Team to consider. We want to be sure that seemingly minor changes in language will not undermine our rights or weaken existing protections. 

Next Session: May 7 on Zoom

Our next bargaining session will be on May 7th on Zoom. We want to take advantage of our 500 person capacity we fought to win and pack that zoom room! If you haven’t already, RSVP here.

You can join our UC-AFT community room starting at 9:30am to ask questions about what’s happening, get access to our community WhatsApp chat, and share your ideas about how to respond. We’ll use it as a caucus space throughout the day where you can connect with other lecturers across the state affected by these issues. We’ll see you there!