Skip to content
BARGAINING UPDATE Economics

Economics They Say / We Say

Management said it would bring economics proposals, but did not provide them when expected. Our union put our proposals forward so members can see what we are fighting for.

Prepared by SEIU 503 Sublocal 083

Updated

Open Proposal Flyer Return to Bargaining Hub
Purple 2026 bargaining graphic with raised fists and SEIU 503 Higher Education Bargaining branding.

Source note

This comparison uses our current contract in the SEIU 2022-2026 collective bargaining agreement, which remains in effect through June 30, 2026.

Management language is drawn from the USSE negotiations updates page. That is the management-side site publishing summaries for the Oregon Public Universities bargaining team. This page uses its March 30 and 31 session summary from a page last updated April 7, 2026.

If this page and the contract PDF ever differ, the contract PDF is the source of truth. The Our union says and Why it matters sections below are our union's analysis.

Economics update

Management says

Management said it would provide economics proposals, but failed to bring those proposals when it said it would.

Our union says

SEIU put our proposals out. Members deserve to see what we are fighting for on wages, benefits, and the economic issues that shape our lives at work and at home.

Use the flyer to talk with coworkers about the proposals and why turnout matters while economics is on the table.

Open the Proposal Flyer More Bargaining Updates

Who's who in these updates

USSE means University Shared Services Enterprise. On this page, it is the management-side website publishing these summaries.

OPU means Oregon Public Universities, the universities bargaining together on management's side.

SEIU means Service Employees International Union. Here, that means our union, SEIU Local 503.

OPU/SEIU negotiations means bargaining between the public universities and our union.

How to read this comparison

- Current contract

The baseline language already in our collective bargaining agreement.

+ Management says publicly

What USSE says the universities are defending, rejecting, or characterizing from the March 30-31 session.

Our union says

Our reading of what the current language does and what management's public posture would preserve or change.

Why it matters

The practical and strategic stakes for members, stewards, and our bargaining power.

Jump to an issue

Economics Recognition Computer monitoring Personnel records Uniforms Technological retraining Non-discrimination Affirmative action Inclement weather Immigration

Article 2

Recognition and temporary appointments

This is a structural question about whether work stays temporary and flexible for management or moves into stable union positions.

- Current contract

Article 2, Section 5 says temporary appointments are for "emergency, nonrecurring or short-term workload needs". It starts with a six-month limit: temporary work "shall not exceed the equivalent of six calendar months (1,040 hours)" in a 12-month period, unless management grants an extension because the same work continues and "no other reasonable means exist to get the work done."

Source: our contract, Article 2, Section 5(A).

+ Management says publicly

USSE says the universities rejected our union's recognition changes and want to "retain the possibility of retaining a temporary employee beyond nine months, if needed."

Source: USSE negotiation updates, March 30-31 summary.

Our union says

The current contract already gives management a narrow extension path. Our union is trying to tighten that loophole, not invent one. When management publicly defends keeping temp work available beyond nine months, it is signaling that it wants to preserve long-running temporary appointments instead of moving that work into regular union jobs.

Why it matters

Long temporary appointments weaken job security, reduce pressure to post regular positions, and thin out bargaining-unit density over time. This is not just an administrative issue. It is about whether stable work stays union work.

Article 54

Computer workstations and monitoring

Management is framing our union's monitoring proposal as unnecessary, even though the contract already recognizes that monitoring requires notice.

- Current contract

Article 54 already says the university will inform employees if it is using computer monitoring, and that the notice will include "what is being monitored and its intended use."

Source: our contract, Article 54, Section 2.

+ Management says publicly

USSE says there is "no need to provide advance notice of computer monitoring" that would tell workers what content is being monitored and how long the monitoring would last. Its March 20 update also says our union asked for notice before monitoring starts and notice of duration.

Source: USSE negotiation updates, March 20 and March 30-31 summaries.

Our union says

Our contract does not start from zero here. It already says monitoring requires notice. Our union is pushing to make that notice earlier and more specific, because monitoring after-the-fact is not the same as transparency before surveillance begins.

Why it matters

Members deserve to know when monitoring starts, what data is swept in, and how long it lasts. Less transparency can chill organizing, steward conversations, and everyday trust on the job.

Article 16

Personnel records

This is mostly a fight over how usable the file-access process is in real time and how long management can hang onto discipline.

- Current contract

Article 16 says official and supervisory files must be available within five work days after request. With written authorization, a union steward may inspect both files. Most disciplinary material can stay in the official file for up to three years, though it can come out after two years if the problem does not recur.

Source: our contract, Article 16, Sections 1 and 2.

+ Management says publicly

USSE says the universities want to "maintain language" on file-access timing and on how long disciplinary information can remain in the file. USSE also says OPU accepted most of our union's language allowing steward access to personnel and supervisory files.

Source: USSE negotiation updates, March 30-31 summary.

Our union says

This is mostly a status quo fight with a real improvement on steward access. That matters. When members are trying to respond to an investigation or a discipline issue, steward access cannot depend on management drag or a member being physically present in every step.

Why it matters

Fast steward access makes representation real. Long retention timelines keep old discipline alive and can shape later punishment, evaluations, and management narratives about a member.

Article 57

Uniforms and protective clothing

This is one of the clearest examples of a small but concrete worker safety fix.

- Current contract

Article 57 says required uniforms or protective devices must be furnished or paid for by the university. It also provides rain gear for employees who as a regular and substantial part of their jobs work outside in inclement weather.

Source: our contract, Article 57, Sections 1 and 4.

+ Management says publicly

USSE says OPU accepted our union's language on providing clothing to employees who are "temporarily assigned to work outside in inclement weather or in a refrigerated room."

Source: USSE negotiation updates, March 30-31 summary.

Our union says

This closes a practical gap. Safety equipment should follow the work, not just the job title. Members who are temporarily moved into cold or exposed conditions still need protection the moment the assignment changes.

Why it matters

This is the kind of contract language members can feel immediately. It reduces preventable risk, makes temporary assignments safer, and turns a common-sense protection into something enforceable.

Article 59

Technological change and retraining

The current contract already has a base article here, so the fight is about making it stronger, clearer, and harder to ignore in practice.

- Current contract

Article 59 already requires sufficient advance notice to the union, creates an ad hoc union-management technological change committee, and says the university will provide retraining to displaced regular-status employees subject to funding, university needs, employee interests, ability, and scheduling.

Source: our contract, Article 59, Section 2.

+ Management says publicly

USSE says OPU accepted "most of the Union's proposed changes." Its March 20 summary says our union asked for written notice, committee review of anticipated changes, and adequate time and training for bargaining-unit members.

Source: USSE negotiation updates, March 20 and March 30-31 summaries.

Our union says

The fact that the contract already covers notice, committee review, and retraining matters. Our union is trying to make those protections more specific and easier to use when technology changes jobs faster than management admits.

Why it matters

Automation, AI, and new systems can reshape work long before management calls it displacement. Stronger retraining language protects members from being stranded by decisions they did not make.

Article 19

Non-discrimination

The current article states a policy. Our union is trying to make that protection more explicit, more current, and more usable.

- Current contract

Article 19 says the employer and union will not engage in unlawful discrimination and it includes sexual orientation in the contract text. But grievances under this article only go to Step 2 and are not arbitrable.

Source: our contract, Article 19.

+ Management says publicly

USSE did not announce a new OPU counter here. Its March 30-31 update instead summarized our union's counterproposal, saying we want trained stewards on equity matters, cross-university representation, annual equity discussions, and respect for transgender employees' chosen names, pronouns, confidentiality, and facilities access.

Source: USSE negotiation updates, March 30-31 summary.

Our union says

The current article is limited. It states a principle, but it does not give our union strong contract-enforcement tools. Our proposal would move this article toward real representation rights and clearer protections for trans coworkers.

Why it matters

Clear language matters most when members are under pressure and need immediate backing. If management wants to say existing law is enough, it should also be willing to make those protections explicit and enforceable in our contract.

Article 28

Affirmative action

This is one of the clearest places where the current contract is thin and our union is pushing for a more active standard.

- Current contract

Article 28 is brief. It says the employer will have a union designee present and discuss the affirmative action plan, including efforts to recruit, retain, and promote minorities and women.

Source: our contract, Article 28.

+ Management says publicly

USSE describes our union's proposal as a "complete revision" that would require nondiscriminatory hiring practices promoting diversity, equity, and internal advancement. USSE also highlights our call to actively recruit women, people of color, LGBTQIA+ candidates, candidates with disabilities, and other historically marginalized groups.

Source: USSE negotiation updates, March 30-31 summary.

Our union says

The current article is mostly consultative. It does not create much day-to-day accountability. Our union is pushing for language that is active, measurable, and tied to actual pathways into and through university jobs.

Why it matters

Hiring systems shape who gets in, who advances, and who gets stuck in the lowest-paid work. A stronger article would turn a short discussion requirement into a real equity commitment.

Article 58

Inclement weather and hazardous conditions

The current article is built around campus-wide closures. Our union is trying to make it work for the real hazards members are facing now.

- Current contract

Article 58 requires notice before a shift when a campus closes or has a delayed start. It gives employees access to 48 hours of paid inclement weather or hazardous conditions leave over a two-year period.

Source: our contract, Article 58, Sections 1 and 2(C).

+ Management says publicly

USSE says our union proposed worksite-specific closure protection even when the campus stays open. USSE also says our union proposed keeping the current 48 hours and adding another 48 hours for members who exhaust it, bringing the total available leave to 96 hours.

Source: USSE negotiation updates, March 30-31 summary.

Our union says

The current article assumes campus-wide decisions and a limited bank. That does not match how ice, smoke, heat, flooding, and localized hazards hit members' worksites now. Our proposal shifts the burden away from individual workers having to absorb climate disruption alone.

Why it matters

If a building or worksite is unsafe, members should not have to choose between pay and safety. Climate-driven disruptions are not rare exceptions anymore, and our contract needs to catch up.

New article proposal

Immigration protections

This is a true expansion issue because the current contract does not have a dedicated immigration article.

- Current contract

We did not find a dedicated immigration article in the current contract. Terms like ICE, no-match, and judicial warrants do not appear as stand-alone contract protections in the agreement we are using as the baseline.

Source: our contract PDF, reviewed against the 2022-2026 agreement.

+ Management says publicly

USSE says our union proposed a new immigration article with "strong protections for immigrant workers." Its public summary lists limits on verification practices, union involvement, notice and leave rights, protections around no-match letters, restrictions on immigration enforcement access, and reinstatement after wrongful detention.

Source: USSE negotiation updates, March 30-31 summary.

Our union says

This is not a small rewrite. It is a new protection area because the current contract is largely silent. Our union is trying to stop workers from being isolated when immigration status issues or enforcement threats appear at work.

Why it matters

Immigration enforcement can be used to create fear, divide coworkers, and push people out of jobs. Clear contract language can slow management cooperation, expand notice, and protect members' jobs and seniority.

What this tells us about bargaining right now

Management's public summary shows a consistent pattern: defend discretion where it affects surveillance, temporary work, and file retention; accept narrower safety or clarification fixes; and publicly frame our union's broader equity, weather, and immigration proposals as optional add-ons rather than core contract protections.

Management wants room to maneuver

That shows up most clearly around temporary appointments, monitoring, and discipline-related file rules.

Our union is pushing enforceable protections

That includes clearer equity language, worksite-specific weather protection, and a real immigration article.

Not every issue moves the same way

Uniforms and much of technological retraining look more open to movement than the articles where management is defending broad discretion.