I don't really know what mediators do, and especially I do not know what our mediator did. Readers will recall that last week around this time, the mediator declared that in his estimation bargaining/mediation had failed, recommended arbitration, and resigned. Immediately followed by some Dark Side propaganda that, although they had accepted the mediator's recommendation, UMFA had 'rejected' mediation. Which wasn't strictly true: UMFA had rejected unconditional binding arbitration, because there are governance issues that, frankly, a non-academic arbitrator is not likely to fully understand. Which I won't go into because I'm not sure I understand them either. There is also the question of the back-to-work protocol, i.e. are we going to be compensated for all the extra work is going to be required to finish out the term and Winter, are they going to contribute to pension and health care, whether the days spent on strike can still be counted toward pension, and so on.
Arbitration, in the best case, can take months, so not having a back-to-work protocol settled before arbitration would be a huge pain for everyone, including the arbitrator, since we'd go back to work basically immediately and anything back-to-work-wise probably won't be remotely relevant when we get a decision from the arbitrator. So it sounds like that's what is at the top of the list to get settled.
I'm rather fascinated by the apparent sequence of events that surrounded the last bit of mediation. I only have the word of certain members of the collective agreement committee, who advise the bargaining committee, and whatever information put out by the union (which again, may be true, but possibly not strictly true at first blush). Before the mediator came in, bargaining seems to have occurred face-to-face, that is with the union's bargaining committee and the Dark Side's bargaining committee (who appears to be headed by a non-academic lawyer--who it must be said, specializes in labo(u)r and employment law--who reportedly was not only the designated speaker for the committee, but apparently the principle 'voice'), facing each other across a table and yelling at each other.*
When the mediator was hired (at mutual acceptance--the mediator is also a non-academic lawyer, but specialized in public-sector labor law), the model appears to have changed. Readers of this blog will recall my assumption, that the introduction of the mediator involved the same two committees facing each other over a table and yelling, but with the impartial mediator keeping a rein on things. This appears to not be the case.
Mediation, at least the last bit of it, involved the union bargainers and the Dark Side bargainers having separate meetings with the mediator, and the mediator conducting 'shuttle diplomacy' between them. Well, according to sources in the union, the mediator somehow failed to completely or fully represent the offer to the Dark Side, which readers of this blog will recall was followed by a refusal to counter by the Dark Side. Exactly what the mediator did or did not communicate, or how, is not clear to me. But the result appears to have been that the Dark Side was not fully presented with a reasonable attempt at compromise, and thus declined to counter.
I do not in any way suggest that the mediator was negligent or partisan. I do suggest that somewhere between UMFA and the mediator, and then the mediator and the Dark Side, Something Went Wrong.** At a town hall, we learned that the president of the university and the president of the union met shortly after the mediator's report. The union indicated that they did not want to go to unconditional arbitration, and instead wanted to continue to bargain out some issues at the table. The president of the university was apparently surprised by this, and immediately called to inform the bargaining committee, essentially, 'cancel your weekends; we're going back to the table'. There followed a long, exhausting weekend of intensive face-to-face bargaining.
Reports from friends in the union suggest that, while there was nothing settled and the gulf(s) remained wide, that weekend was the first time in a long time that they felt like the Dark Side was actually willing to bargain, and consider compromising on some things. This intensive bargaining continued all this week and will continue this weekend.
So what I find interesting is that the mediator was brought in after weeks (months?) of face-to-face bargaining. And in spite of expertise and experience, and no doubt Herculean labo(u)r, didn't seem to broker any kind of substantial compromise. Remove the mediator (and setting aside his, in my opinion, alarming recommendations), and 'suddenly' we seem to really have bargaining. No idea if arbitration became the common enemy, or the mediator's report made this clearly the last ditch effort for both sides, or what. But there we are, or were.
Both sides appear to agree on at least some issues that can be sent to the arbitrator, and so can concentrate on the remaining governance issues, including (especially?) the back-to-work protocol. So with slightly less stuff (and generally less overtly costly stuff) the subject of nine days (by the time we get to Monday) of intense, face-to-face meetings, I'm feeling a little more optimistic that the end may be in sight, and that we can still avoid the 'nuclear option' of being forced into binding arbitration (on all issues, and quite possibly the final-offer style of arbitration) after 60 days.
So hopefully by Monday there will be some kind of News to share. Keep your fingers crossed, prayers flowing, practice gratitude and empathy, and try, like me, to get a good rest this weekend.
*This is the dramatic, made-for-TV version, of course. I assume in real life it was a perfectly respectful and collegial exchange.
**As someone who is currently writing a textbook about communication breakdown, I think this is going to be a fruitful example, at least for the next couple terms I teach communication disorders, while the strike is still looming in people's minds.
No comments:
Post a Comment