University and SLC Administrators have not provided us with the information we have requested from them about

the number of tutors working for pay and the number of tutors working for credit currently and over the past 10 years. Additionally, we requested information regarding the SLC's budget over the last ten years, documentation of the origins of the work-study program at the SLC, and other information that we believe will clearly demonstrate that the practice of hiring unpaid "for-credit" tutors is a result of budget cuts to the SLC, causing the SLC to replace ASE positions with work-study positions. This practice is in violation of UAW 2865's collective bargaining agreement with the University. The SLC has made no attempt to provide us this information, which they agreed to do at our Step 2 meeting. Further, we feel that many of the arguments and justifications made by the University in their Step 2 response are not consistent with what we have been told by a number of "for-credit" tutors who we have spoken with. The University argues that for-credit tutors only perform limited tasks, but we understand that unpaid tutors work in various roles, including the roles of Senior Tutor. Furthermore, within training courses, both paid and unpaid tutors are expected to perform the same tutoring and course work, and are supervised in a comparable way. The University argues that unpaid tutors schedule tutoring sessions in a way that differs from paid tutors, but that is not our understanding of how scheduling works, and there is no documentation to support the Universitys claim. The University claims that tutoring forms a minor aim of training courses, but the for-credit tutors are required to tutor for more time per week than perform class activities. The University argues that tutoring begins later in the semester, but our understanding is that tutor/tutee meetings often take place during the first week of the semester. The University argues that tutors are taking required credits towards degree programs in Education, but does not mention that the classes for-credit tutors take are cross listed as well with other departments, that many tutors are not enrolled in Education programs, and that these are not the only classes that satisfy the Education requirements. The University asserts that the union should have polled our members to determine SLC employment patterns, but then goes on to attempt to justify the exclusion of for-credit tutors from the protections provided by the UAW contract, including the rights around orientation outlined in Article 27 (from which for-credit tutors are excluded), meaning that the union could not feasibly poll our members to determine changes in the percentage of for-credit and paid tutors, as for-credit tutors are intentionally excluded from union membership or orientation by the University. We would like to continue to dialogue with the SLC about this issue and hope that they can provide us with accurate information that we have requested.