Bargaining Update: In Pursuit of a Transparent and Consistent Review Process

Photo:

LEO President Bonnie Halloran (second from right) and members talk after her remarks to the UM Regents at Dearborn on May 20, 2010. (Photo by Beth Hay) The next bargaining session is scheduled for Thursday, June 3, at the School of Social Work, Ann Arbor.

From the May 2010 issue of LEO Matters

May 20, 2010

by Stevens Wandmacher

One of the most important parts of the current UM-LEO contract is Article XIX—Performance Evaluation. This article establishes the requirements for and nature of our annual reports, interim evaluations, and major reviews. In laying out the major review process, the article calls for “Employees to provide evidence of high quality instruction that fosters students’ intellectual development.” On the surface this sounds great: who wouldn’t find this expectation for what we should be doing and how well we should be doing it reasonable?

But if we scratch beneath the surface, ambiguities emerge. What type of evidence is needed and how is quality measured? The contract doesn’t provide enough clarity on these questions. As it turns out, the criteria that constitute evidence for the evaluation of lecturers’ performance, as well as the benchmarks for level of achievement, are not as well defined as first appears. Furthermore, as recent experience has revealed in the case of Kirsten Herold’s dismissal, the contract
provides no protection against shifting, or even hidden, criteria that can undermine a lecturer’s success in the review process.

The contract does call for the creation of “specific written criteria” by each unit and provides some “general criteria” that the specific criteria used in evaluation could address, such as “command of the subject matter” and “ability to communicate and achieve appropriate student learning goals.” It also speaks to the benchmarks for evaluating teaching quality, here too in only the most general terms: the “[p]rocess and procedure of the evaluation should be consistent with commonly accepted standards within The University of Michigan for evaluating teaching.” Not many units, however, have provided criteria and benchmarks of the sort that can be used by lecturers
to guide them in fulfilling their job requirements or by evaluators to
make fair judgments.

To rectify this problem, in the current negotiations the Bargaining Team has asked for stronger, more precise language regarding evaluation criteria and benchmarks. The Administration clearly is uncomfortable with this request. They tell us that they need a lot of flexibility because it is tricky to establish the criteria for a lecturer’s performance and to measure it. One wonders what is especially “tricky” about this as compared with that for tenure-track faculty members — unless the Administration’s claim belies the value that it places on the teaching quality of tenure- track faculty members. Indeed, the claim gives the LEO Bargaining Team pause, since flexibility can lead to a lack of transparency in the review process, as well as to inconsistency in the application of criteria and benchmarks.

Despite this difference in views, we believe that positive headway
can be made in negotiations. The Bargaining Team is exploring other avenues toward building transparency and consistency. One is that in addition to clear, written communication of criteria and benchmarks to a lecturer, if some criteria are weighted more heavily than others, this differential must also be laid out so that lecturers know where to focus their efforts and what adjustments are needed for them to meet the unit’s expectations. Another avenue is the “no blindsiding” provision. This provision calls for a supervisor to inform a lecturer in a timely fashion when a performance
problem has been identified so that the lecturer has an opportunity to correct the problem.

The principles of transparency and consistency are critical to the concept of fair performance evaluation. As with employees of any organization outside of academia, lecturers should know if their performance is not measuring up—and in time to do something about it. It is unfair not only to a lecturer to conceal evidence of sub par performance but also to the students that would benefit from the improved performance. Transparency and consistency help ensure fair performance evaluation for lecturers and high quality instruction for students. 


Bargaining Update:

April 26, 2010

Check out LEO member contributions to the most recent LEO Matters Issue #9

Job Security Based on a Contract, Not Luck +/-

by Jim Anderson

Back in 2002, when LEO was being organized, I sometimes talked with prospective members who felt reasonably secure in their jobs. In some cases, their sense of security was based on economics: never having gotten a pay raise, even after years of teaching, these lecturers knew that their department would save nothing by replacing them with a new hire and therefore would be unlikely to bother. Some felt protected by being institutionally invisible. “I’m not even on their radar,” a part-time lecturer once told me, with as much relief as indignation.

However, the usual reason that lecturers gave for feeling secure in their jobs was that they worked in a “good department” with “good leadership.” They felt that if they did a good job, they would continue to have a job. They recognized that not all departments were good, but those were the breaks.

“Yes,” I’d say, “you’re lucky to be in good department now. But that can change when leadership changes. You need job security based on a contract, not on luck and personalities.” I believed this in 2002 when we were forming LEO and in 2003-2004 when we were fighting for our first contract. I still believe it today, but experience has shown me the difficulties of achieving solid job protections through a labor contract. LEO has achieved much in this area, but our work is not finished.

In the current contract there are three ways that a lecturer can be involuntarily separated from his or her job. First, the lecturer can be fired as the result of a disciplinary procedure. Second, the lecturer can be laid off for lack of work (due to low course enrollment, budget cuts, or program changes). Third, the lecturer can be failed in a major review and thus not renewed for another fixed-term appointment.

In regard to being fired, the contract requires that due process be followed and a just cause standard be met. These are high bars, and neither side in the current negotiations has proposed to lower them. In regard to being laid off, the current contract unfortunately allows for some subjective and ad hoc decision-making by administrators. Seniority comes into play only if the unit decides that the lecturers who might be laid off or recalled are virtually equal in “expertise, ability, and performance” (EAP) as these qualifications are related to the teaching position in question. In short, EAP trumps seniority. LEO has rightly targeted EAP as a concept in need of definition: our goal in bargaining is to establish a more objective process for determining the relative EAP of lecturers when layoff or recall decisions must be made.

In regard to being failed in a major review, the current contract attempts to define a fair process and establish reasonable evaluation criteria. But, as with the layoff procedure, the review process falls short of adequately protecting lecturers from capricious, unfair, and idiosyncratic decision-making in the guise of academic judgment. In negotiations, LEO is working to strengthen the protections for lecturers in performance evaluation. We seek to prevent “blind-siding,” in which a lecturer is hit with negative performance information late in the review process when a supervisor could have provided much earlier feedback about and help in solving the problem. We also seek to clarify and enhance the remediation process that may follow from a
failed major review. Our proposals would limit remediation reviews to only those issues raised in the remediation plan and give lecturers who have presumption of renewal the option of appealing negative remediation decisions to a committee outside their department.

Ironically, the Union’s success at winning regular raises and greater institutional recognition for lecturers has made the need for solid job security even more urgent. Today, units can save money by replacing a long-term lecturer with a new hire. And we are definitely on their radar!

Bargaining Framework:(Academic)Labor is Not a Commodity +/-

by Ian Robinson

“The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce.” So reads the Clayton Act of 1914. Samuel Gompers, then the President of the American Federation of Labor, called this legislation “labor’s Magna Carta.” That was an overstatement, but the Act was nonetheless an important victory for American workers, not least because it enshrined a principle for which they had been fighting for several generations. In exempting unions from anti-trust restrictions, the Act also made clear two important implications of this principle: first, one of the main reasons for forming unions is to push wages and working conditions above the levels that would result from labor
markets in which workers cannot act in concert to improve their bargaining power with employers; and second, this rebalancing of bargaining power is in the public interest and, hence, ought to receive legal protection and government support.

Why is such rebalancing in the public interest? There are many reasons, but the most important is that labor market prices are often out of line with what most people understand to be just. The market price for any particular kind of labor is shaped primarily by two things: first, the supply of, and demand for, particular kinds of labor; and second, the degree of asymmetry in bargaining power between workers and employers. Judgments of wage fairness are complex and subject to disagreement. But I think most Americans today would recognize the importance of two principles: people should be paid equally for work of equal value; and the value 
of one’s work should be assessed by its contribution to the mission of one’s organization—the greater the contribution, the higher the compensation, all other things being equal.

Workers’ contributions generally aren’t much affected by fluctuations in supply and demand or changes in the balance of bargaining power between employers and employees. So when changes in these factors shift market wages downward—as has been happening for most workers in this country since the mid- 1970s—while contributions remain constant or increase, economic injustice grows. Such injustice is contrary to the public interest because it undermines people’s willingness to make sacrifices for the common good—an essential in any healthy community. Injustice also causes unnecessary social conflict that wastes resources. This is true whether we are talking about the world, the nation, or the University of Michigan.

One might expect, almost 100 years after the Clayton Act, that the leaders of a major public university such as ours would incorporate the principle that labor is not a commodity in their employment practices. But it is not so here. UM’s Administration says it is not interested in raising lecturers’ minimum salaries, fixed at $25k in Flint, $26k in Dearborn, and $32k in Ann Arbor since 2008-09. Since 2004-05, these minimums have increased by $2k in Flint and just $1k on the other two campuses. After inflation, the purchasing power of these minima in Ann Arbor and Dearborn is 10% lower than it was in 2004; in Flint, it’s 5% lower. When asked why it resists raising these minima in the next contract, the Administration’s lead bargainer (whose pay has increased by 25% in the four years since she began working here) replied that UM can get new, high quality lecturers without any increases—so why should it pay more?


In other words, the Administration wants to pay lecturers the commodity price, maintaining that considerations of fairness or justice should be irrelevant to our compensation rates. As we discovered during our wage grievance against LSA last year, they take a different view of professors’ wages. By shifting funds around in the name of “equity” for professors, LSA attempted to get away with paying lecturers less than the contract stipulated.

Can the Administration really believe that considerations of justice are irrelevant to this conversation? If so, one hundred and fifty years of labor history suggest that they are making a serious mistake. Throughout this period, workers have made the sacrifices required to form and maintain unions in order to redress workplace and wider social injustices. The Administration appears to believe that it can ignore this historical constant, at least in our case. It falls to us, the lecturers, to teach an old truth to a new generation of UM deciders: labor is not a commodity!

Meet a Bargaining Committee Member! Joann Riley from the Writing Program and Dearborn +/-

Joann Riley, Writing Program, Dearborn
Member, LEO Bargaining Committee

My life inside UM: Since coming to UM—first as a freshman ages ago, then as a Lecturer II in 1990 for a one-year appointment, and now as a Lecturer I since Winter 2008—I have been assigned a wonderful variety of writing courses, from Composition I & II, to Technical Writing for Engineers, to Business Writing & Rhetoric. Outside the classroom, I presented two writing workshops for staff development last year, I currently serve the Writing Program as a placement exam reader, and I am involved with the EverGreen Team. I’ve also had the opportunity to work with other UM colleagues who are currently negotiating the next LEO contract.

My life outside UM: My employment at UM coincided with my retirement from Michigan’s K-12 school system. Although “retired,” I’m not ready to stop doing what I love, so my teaching gives me the best of both worlds. I love to travel— anytime, anywhere! The extent of my nuclear and extended family members is huge. They live near and far, so I take time for as many visits as possible. When I’m not traveling, I find much pleasure in spending time with my two daughters, two sons-in-law, and five grandsons; reading and writing; going to movies and plays; and cooking from scratch.

Why me? Throughout my professional career I have benefited from being a union member. As a graduate assistant taking and teaching classes at EMU, then (after receiving my M.A.) as a part-time lecturer, I was determined to explore the possibility of unionizing. MFT Organizer Jon Curtiss and a handful of other EMU lecturers worked tirelessly, but unsuccessfully, toward this goal for a long time. Fourteen years later, in 2000, EMULOC (now EMU-FT) was formed to serve all full-time lecturers and, ironically, is now poised to serve part-time lecturers, as well. It’s funny how things have a way of coming full circle. Today, I don’t want to miss this chance to be involved in LEO at such a crucial time when salary, health benefits, and continuing job security affect us all so dramatically.

My favorite...Authors:William Faulkner and Ernest Hemingway. Restaurants/Meal: The Earle, Real Seafood, and any fish dish.Media: CNN, NPR’s Michigan Public Radio. Season: Spring. Places I’ve Been: Europe, Australia, Ethiopia, Egypt, and Venezuela. Places I’ve Never Been: Greece and Japan. Because...there are so many more things in life to do, people to see, and places to be.

LEO Bargaining approaches end of official time-line for bargaining

Bargaining Update, April 9, 2010

     Last week we told Management that after what had happened in the English Department with my review, we had lost faith in the performance review provisions and needed to go back to the drawing board. So we spent the morning trying to develop language responsive to the kinds of things that have gone wrong in reviews generally speaking: late notice of class room visits, no feedback on classroom visits, shifting standards, unreasonable and/or hidden standards, an appeals process outside the unit, etc. We presented this proposal in the afternoon. 
     On money, we reiterated that we felt their proposal was completely inadequate, especially in their failure to acknowledge our equity arguments. So we stuck with our current compensation package, but gave them a proposal on benefits that would essentially make part-time (50-79%) whole by compensating them for the increased benefits burden for the next three years (we cannot bargain beyond that time). This would come in the form of a lump sum payment half way through the term.
     Interestingly, they did not say one word about the teach-in or the rally although they certainly looked glum. Since next Friday is officially the last date of scheduled bargaining, we talked about adding some dates at the beginning of next week. As official bargaining sessions (not small group discussions), these would be open to LEO members. Date, time, and place tba when known.
     There will be a membership meeting Monday April 19 at 5 pm on all three campuses.  This is when we come together to evaluate where we are, set bottom lines etc. If you haven't been to any other LEO event all year, this is the one to come to.  Next Friday we bargain in lovely Palmer Commons (room number tba when I know them) over behind the Dental School.

Kirsten Herold

LEO VP

Teach-in: What you can do, even if you teach online courses

It can be hard to know how to make a difference when the union is fighting a tough battle with the administration. We often don't want to alienate our tenure-track colleagues, and arguing for pay raises can be extremely difficult during times when our students and their families are facing extreme and heart-wrenching financial difficulties.

However, the misfortunes of others are not a reason to believe that we, too, should be unfortunate. To put it simply, two wrongs don't make a right. The disparate pay of lecturers - in comparison to even high school teachers - indicates an injustice in the treatment of university lecturers, and we have every right to protest such an injustice. Educating students on these matters is the purpose of the upcoming Teach-in. Nevertheless, to do so intelligently and with compassion during a recession is no easy task.

LEO has posted a Teach-In presentation you can use for your own students. But I find that a more personal explanation of why each of us is invested in the union's work can accomplish a more compassionate, nuanced, and effective message. So how are you planning to modify your message for the Teach-in this Wednesday and Thursday, April 7th and 8th? Take 10 minutes of your class time to help students understand how university policy affects their education.

Here's the message I'm posting for my online courses:

In the next few weeks you may hear about some university instructors objecting to the pay and benefits provided by the university administration. I want to take a moment to be sure you understand why this is happening, and to welcome your questions, and to be sure you are aware of how this might affect you.

First, there are two main types of university instructors, tenure-track and non-tenure track (lecturers). Tenured professors work full-time, have benefits, and are often involved in both teaching and research. Lecturers most commonly are hired part-time by several universities (for example, I also work at Michigan State University), although many lecturers work for U of M full-time, and mainly work teaching courses.

This difference reflects a general national trend toward part-time workers in universities:



The problem with the trend toward part-time workers is not only the loss of protection of professional intellectual freedom, but the resultant tendency for part-timers to work at several universities, thus dividing their time between several student bodies, and often without benefits. There is also a great differential in pay, with lecturers averaging (nationally) $20,000-$35,000 per year. You can compare this to the national average high school teacher's salary of $52,000 per year (actually, the Michigan average is higher). So, in part, lecturer frustration stems from being paid less money despite higher education and preparation for our work.

In 2002, lecturers at U of M formed a union, the Lecturers' Employee Union (LEO), in order to negotiate higher pay and benefits. As we are renegotiating our contract, the university is prepared to eliminate benefits for some lecturers, and is refusing to pay us commensurate with the pay of high school instructors. This is why many lecturers will be protesting and educating students about this matter in the coming days, especially on the Ann Arbor campus.

I hope that you know that during these difficult times, I am especially sensitive to the notion of seeking pay raises when so many families are struggling, especially in Michigan. However, there is good reason to believe the the University of Michigan is in good shape financially and we should think seriously about precisely why universities have endowments as large as $7.6 billion, if not for difficult financial times. Most importantly, we need to think nationally about why, if college tuition is rising at such a steep rate, the increased revenue is not being spent on teaching.

My highest priority is always the quality of your education. I hold my students to the highest of standards, and I expect no less of myself. During the next few weeks, please know that your education will always come first. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to e-mail me.

Remember - the Teach In is THIS Wednesday and Thursday, April 7th and 8th. Join LEO for bargaining in Ann Arbor: Friday April 9th, 9:30am-5:30pm, in the School of Social Work.

UM School of Social Work
1080 South University Ave.
(Corner of South University & East University)

Negotiating room—
Education Conference Center, 1st floor

LEO caucus room—
Room 1804

LEO VP not re-appointed! Target of anti-Union seniment?

Dear LEO members:

Normally Kirsten Herold would be sending you this update. However, on March 31, after 18 years of teaching at the University, Kirsten was dismissed by the English Department. We see this action as a direct attack on the union, since Kirsten is our VP, but also because it is an attack on our job security.

Ironically, this relates directly to this round of bargaining, as we try to strengthen the protections we have negotiated in the past to prevent unfair, biased and outright bogus evaluations.  On Friday as we sat at the bargaining table, we told the Administration that their treatment of her is the exact reason we have concerns about the transparency of the review process.

Today was a black day. The bargaining team wore LEO t-shirts and black arm bands.  We rallied at noon outside the fishbowl, and then marched to the offices of the Chair of the English Department (vacant), the Dean of LSA (vacant) and the Provost (vacant). We will continue to protest the action of the English Department. We cannot accept that our VP, who is also our chief grievance officer and a member of our bargaining team, has been fired while we are involved in negotiations.

In the afternoon, the Administration provided us with their counter proposals on raises, minimum salaries and the health benefits package. They “generously” increased their Ann Arbor annual raise offer from 1.5% to 1.75%, and they offered no increases in minimum starting salaries. In terms of benefits, they offered our part timers a small bribe. The amount they put across the table was less than they offered other unions as a way of “mitigating” the huge impact of their benefits package. Our response was to reject their proposals as laughable. We also put them on notice about our teach-in and rally plans for next week.

We are asking members to take 10 minutes of class time on Wednesday and Thursday to explain the current work conditions of Lecturers at U of M. Our lesson plans will be
on our website by the end of the weekend.

You may receive an email from your supervisor telling you that you cannot participate in a teach-in. We disagree.  This affects our work environment, which in turn affects students. We believe we are protected by the AAUP academic freedom policy, which was reinforced by SACUA earlier this year.  

If you are unhappy with the Administration’s proposals, your only option at this point is to make some NOISE! Come to the Rally. Participate in the teach-in. Come to bargaining on Friday.

See the LEO web site for additional information and updates: http://www.leounion.org

For coverage of recent the LEO rally protesting recent events, see the sidebar.

Bonnie Halloran
LEO President

Bargaining Update: Admin Proposes Pay Cuts and Devalues Teaching

Dear LEO member:

This week we bargained on the Dearborn campus, with a solid number of Dearborn members in attendance. The short version is that we received management's "compensation package," i.e. all their financial proposals. The proposal was even stingier than we expected - especially after hearing provost-to-be Phil Hanlon tell us they were still planning on "a modest salary program for faculty raises, and reading President Coleman saying in the Daily that student tuition will probably go up 5-6 % next year, we expected more. However, given the benefits cuts (which apparently did not get included in total compensation), we are looking at pay cuts for all our members.


Financial Proposal: Modest Gains+/-

We did see a few little gains at the margins: they raised the cap on professional development awards from $500 to $550 with a corresponding increase in the overall amount. They are still willing to include LIs in their third and fourth year in the long-term sick and disability insurance programs - just like all other employees. Currently, LIs only get a course cancellation fee after the first day of classes; they are willing to move that date to two weeks before the start of classes as they apparently believe that's when folks start preparing their classes. And the Senior Lecturer program (with some kind of raise), modified duties for some new parents, and some kind of adjustment for the LIVs who got their 2nd major review late are still on the table.

Financial Proposal: Significant Losses+/-

However, the salary proposal was the big disappointment: First of all, no increases to the minimum starting pays with the argument that in this economy there are plenty of qualified academics willing to work at whatever the pay. However, to the Union, another 3 years at the current minima is unacceptable: in the past six years, for LIs, starting salaries in Ann Arbor and Dearborn have gone up by $1000 for LIs (to $32,000 and $26,000 respectively) and by $2000 in Flint (to $25,000), while the LIII starting salaries have remained constant ($34,000, $30,000, and $29,000 respectively). With cost of living increases, that in effect means that our starting salaries have lost value in the past six years - that cannot continue.

Financial Proposal: Annual Raises +/-

On the annual raises, an equally disappointing proposal, especially for Ann Arbor. In Flint and Dearborn they proposed sticking with the current model of linking the lecturer annual raises to the tenure-track annual raises. Since there have been no shell games in Dearborn or Flint, that approach has worked reasonably well in the past. Of course, this carries a certain risk: in these unhappy times the average raise could be a zero
or even a negative number. So we will be thinking about that point as we make our counter proposal.

Financial Proposal: Related Grievance +/-

In Ann Arbor, management is offering a flat-rate increase of 1.5% a year
over three years. Why this different approach? Because we filed a
salary grievance. They basically said "since you didn't like being tied
to the tenure-track faculty, we think it best to untie that link and just
settle on a number. And we believe that 1.5% is the right number" (that
last part is a direct quote, the rest may be slightly paraphrased). They
seem to willfully miss the point that we filed the grievance because we
were NOT in fact tied to the tenure-track raise, but only to about 40% of
it. We can't help wondering whether this 1.5% offer for Ann Arbor is
retaliation for having won the salary grievance.

Benefits and Devaluing Teaching+/-

Nowhere in their proposal was there any recognition whatsoever of the impact of the benefit cuts - however, they want us to take a first step by presenting a proposal in that area. And they were completely silent on the equity argument -- that given how many undergraduate student credit hours we teach, our degrees, and what comparable work earns (say high school teachers, the teaching component of tenure-track salaries) it is a matter of fairness to raise our pay. They basically said, the market can bear it (thanks in part to their own over production of Ph.Ds), so they are good with continuing to undervalue lecturers on all three campuses.

So what can you do to make sure we get a fair and equitable settlement, rather than this disappointing offer? Get involved!! Sign on to the bandaid campaign. Keep reading the email updates and the issues of LEO Letters, which will be published every other week from here on. Stay posted about the Union's plan for protest actions. And attend the membership meeting at the end of the semester where we will assess where we are and decide how to move forward. Time and place tba, but likely to be late afternoon Monday April 19th.

This Friday, we are off to Flint. Then it is back to the School of Social Work in Ann Arbor for three more dates in April, with possible additional dates to be added.

My apologies for the lateness of this update; too much work and my health finally said STOP.

Solidarity,

Kirsten Herold
LEO VP

Bargaining Update: Union pushes for Reasonable Greivance Procedure, Job Security, and Fair Performance Evaluations

Dear LEO Member:

A long somewhat productive day, with some new members in attendance, from all three campuses. We were told we will now receive a comprehensive compensation proposal next week, which will make it easier for us to make formal responses to the benefits proposal. We resolved the grievance article to our satisfaction, and received management's counter proposals on the Appointment and the Performance Review articles. We had been asked for clarification of our proposal trying to nail down EAP standards (which is how a unit picks whom to lay off or recall), which we provided. I will discuss each in more detail below:

Greivance Timing and Attendance+/-

You may recall that we had received a proposal that would limit the number of LEO members attending a grievance hearing (while not placing the same limits on the other side). There was also some technical changes attempting to bifurcate the time line for the Step One discussion versus the Step Two formal grievance filing. After informal discussion with grievance folks from the three campuses on both LEO and HR side, we agreed that the old timeline of sixty days from reasonable knowledge to formal filing had worked well enough in the past, but to add some language making it clear that any resolution on the unit level is to be encouraged, as long as it does not violate the contract. Certainly we prefer for folks to work out their issues in conversation rather than go to grievance.

Appointments and Job Security+/-

Management has accepted the proposal that spring-summer teaching will count as time towards major review, under certain circumstances. They continue to reject any notion of job security for adjuncts (folks who are also in administrative positions and do some teaching) and intermitttents, once again citing their need for flexibility. They also rejected our proposal of a continuing appointment after the 2nd major review. Instead they envision a five year appointment with a checking in review at the end ? E and Es, annual reports, and syllabi at a minimum. However, once again looking for flexibility, they also want to allow units to continue to conduct major reviews ad infinitum, or single out individual lecturers for a more extensive review, in case of concerns about that person's performance. This strikes us as even less job security than that provided by the current major review. In either case, if a lecturer failed the review, there would be mandatory remediation and a re-review. We have asked for some more parameters on this one and been promised them for next Friday.

The biggest sticking point is probably the L1s. Once again the trouble is their 'need for flexibility' versus our desire for more job security for this exposed group. They don't want to commit to one year appointments for L1s even when they anticipate work for both terms until year 4 (worried that it would lead to too many grievances about whether a unit did or did not anticipate what happened), nor do they want to shift the interim review to semester four, since they feel they need two full year's of information. (We had proposed the interim review in semester 4, leading to a two-year appointment or two one-year appointments, plus a modest salary bump).

Performace Evaluations+/-

Some of the issues here have already been discussed above in the Appointments section. Other issues are familiar issues from the last negotiation: we want annual reports to be brief (and not onerous) and we want units to respond to them in writing if they are going to require them. Both proposals were rejected. We would like to open the door to publications and community service, etc. to be considered in a major review (i.e. be a plus factor only - not a minus if you don't do it), and they say no, they just want to evaluate us on our teaching and assigned other duties.

We will be meeting in small group on Wednesday afternoon to talk International lecturers and modified duties (more flexibility for newparents)

This week we're in Dearborn, Friday March 19, 2010, University Center, Kochoff Hall A, B, and C, 9:30- 5:30. And don't forget the membership meetings on each campus this week. See you there!

Solidarity,

Kirsten Herold

Bargaining Update: Major Reviews, Appointment Times, Job Loss, and Salary

Dear LEO member:

Once again, we met with management on Friday for a full day of informal discussion of various appointment-related issues. We made progress in some areas, but not so much so in others. We also responded to their benefits proposal.

The discussion of what happens after the second major review seemed productive.+/-

We agreed that endless major reviews are not helpful. However, our employer continues to want fixed term appointments with some kind of "check-in" before renewal. There is an argumentfor leaving it up to departments to decide how to review folks, but on the other hand we are not interested in some units continuing to conduct extensive high-stakes reviews even after 20 and 30 years of employment. There is still much to be worked on this point, but we feel real progress is being made.

Disagreemnt continues regarding appointment times for Lecturer Is and IVs+/-

On the LIs they are still worried about one-year appointments in the third and fourth year, citing the need for flexibility and uncertain enrollment patterns. However, they agree that if units are sure they will need the LI for the full academic year, there is no reason not to appoint them that way from the beginning; however, they just don't want to be committed to doing it in case they are wrong. They also seemed to have trouble with our proposal that LIVs should all have appointments of the same length (between the first and second major review) to avoid the problem that some folks have to wait two extra years for their second 7% raise. They seem to think that the member should be happy to have to have the job security of a five-year appointment. In vain have we tried to make the point that those with five-year appointments already feel pretty secure in their employment and therefore are not gaining a lot. It also seems backwards to reward the less valued employee in the three year appointment with a big raise two years before the more valued employee.

We heard confirmation that various LSA departments are indeed considering changes that would lead to job loss for lecturers.+/-

No decisions have been made yet, and the changes were presented to us as "on-going changes to the curriculum." Of course a more accurate name would be "budget cuts leading to layoffs for lecturers" as these curricular changes are clearly driven by the desire to save money. We are being assured that the Union and affected lecturers will be notified as soon as the decision is made.

We thought we had a clear understanding with management that both sides would try their hardest to complete this contract by April 15th, while the LEO membership was still on campus. That is why we have been bargaining extra afternoons and evenings during the week in addition the full-day Fridays. However, we are now being told that they will not be able to talk about compensation until so late in the process that we will probably be bargaining past the end of final exams. This is of considerable concern to the Union.

However, we are hoping that by next Friday we can at least get a clearer sense of the time-line - i.e., learn when they can make us a
financial offer. However, at the membership meetings in mid-March, we will be discussing how this delay will affect our strategy. So please make every effort to attend and be part of that important decision.

Not knowing about salary makes it very difficult for the union to respond to management's benefits proposal.+/-

We did indicate, however, that at this point we are disinclined to accept. According to our calculations, the average pay-check loss due to the benefits take-backs proposed by management is a 4% cut. However, that figure ranges widely: A full-time lecturer making $55.000 a year insuring only him or herself would lose a little over 2% a year in take home pay. However, a 50% lecturer in Dearborn or Flint making $15.000 a year and insuring a spouse and children would lose about 25% of his or her pay. He or she wouldn't even get a pay check in April due to the summer deductions. We have trouble understanding why the lowest paid should subsidize the benefits of the highest paid, but that is the
University's proposal. Apparently, the Michigan difference is that we rob from the poor and give to the rich!! Jim Anderson, our webmaster, has put together a nifty set of web-pages on this subject. See for instance, http://www.leounion.org/the-01-difference

Bargaining will be in Ann Arbor next Friday, March 12 9:30- 5:30. Child-care will be provided from 12:30 - 5:30 (so that there is no excuse for not attending!). After that it is on to Dearborn (March 19) and Flint (March 26). In Ann Arbor we will meet once again in the Education Conference Center, Room 1840, School of Social Work, corner of East and South U. See you there!

Hope everyone had a relaxing vacation,

Kirsten Herold
LEO VP

Bargaining Update: Roadblocks, New Parents, and Rumors of Layoffs

Based on member feedback, some of you think these updates are too long, while others want more detail. So in an attempt to please everyone, I will write a quick summary in par. 1 and then discuss in more detail in subsequent paragraphs. Click on the topics below to learn more.

The short version is that we met on Wednesday afternoon and again all day Friday. On Wednesday we discussed the visa needs of international lecturers as well as the Union's discussion piece on modified duties for new parents. On Friday morning a smaller group discussed Performance Reviews, and in the afternoon the Union presented yet another version of the Appointments article. We are moving towards agreement in some areas, but still need to talk more about the key issue: what happens after the second major review. Once again, LEO members from all three campuses attended the session and participated in the caucus and the drafting of language. Next session will be this Friday (yes, during our break!) in the School of Social Work from 9:30 to 5, once again open to all LEO members. Since both teams will be missing several members, we expect to be doing some small group conversations again, which have been moderately productive so far.

International Lecturers +/-

On this subject, the conversation was pretty frustrating. The issue is that after 6 years in the country on socalled H-1B visas, a foreign national will either need to leave or get permanent residency. They acknowledge the need for better communication with international lecturers about their long-term prospects (this was one thing that went wrong in last year's grievance), but are unwilling to improve those prospects.

Part of the problem seems to be that compared to other universities, our International Center (which handles visas and employer-sponsored permanent residency applications) seems to take an extremely conservative approach to immigration laws and is unwilling to make the case for permanent residency for most of our members in the belief that few lecturers are "uniquely qualified" to teach their courses. To sponsor any employee for permanent residency, they need to post the position and show that no US citizen was willing, able, and qualified to do the work. The sad irony is, however, that they don't actually hire US citizens to do the work; instead another lecturer is brought in from Spain etc. and the cycle of visa renewals and eventual dismissal starts over. "Roadblocks everywhere," was how one team member characterized the conversation afterward.

New Parents +/-

On the issue of modified duties, we made more progress. Both sides acknowledge that it is disruptive to instruction to have new parents gone for part of the term. We agreed that some kind of waiting
period for new employees would be reasonable, and we will continue to explore what modified duties might look like: release from teaching, part-time load, etc. Lecturer IVs in LSA are currently eligible for tenure-track modified duties program; we are not contemplating changing that.

Performance Reviews +/-

Management clearly gets it that no lecturer should be blind-sided by the outcome of a major review. However, they continue to think that providing feedback on the annual reports they require for the major reviews is onerous, even though they can withhold the annual raise if we don't do them. Other subjects of conversation included the use of instructor-generated evaluations and the problems with the electronic evaluations (mechanical and others). In a nice paradox, they are extremely suspicious of instructor-generated in-class evaluations, and wonder why we don't trust them in their ability to take in the complexities of e and e scores.

Rumored Layoffs +/-

Finally, we are hearing alarming rumors regarding planned lay-offs in several LSA departments in Ann Arbor. We want to emphasize that these are still rumors - very few LEO members have actually had their appointments reduced so far. However, it is clear in some departments that the cuts under consideration (omitting discussion sections, cutting entire multi-sectioned courses) could potentially impact lecturers greatly. Although Phil Hanlon (the provost-to-be for Ann Arbor) told the Union that in his view the anticipated budget cuts could be met without layoffs of Lecturers, LSA appears to take a different view. One is tempted to wonder if the College is using the budget cuts as a pretext for reducing the number of lecturers, who are of course the cheapest labor around.

The contract mandates that the Union is informed about all layoffs; however, compliance is far from perfect. Please call the LEO office (734-995-1813) or email me (fogh@umich.edu) if you hear anything about layoffs.

Bargaining Update: LEO Demands that Teaching Become a Univerity Top Priority, not an After-Thought

Friday February 19th, 2010.

Friday marked another full day of bargaining with members from all three campuses in attendance. The major topic of the day was management's response to the various economic proposals from the Union. Among positive signs was conceptual agreement on making LIs in their 3rd and 4th year eligible for long-term sick pay and disability insurance (which would bring them into line with other University employees), as well as a second bonus for adjunct faculty. On a less positive note, it is clear that management views our economic proposals as a zero-sum game where any monies spent for any purpose (however much they may agree with that purpose) will be deducted from the dollars available for annual raises. We reject this mindset, in the belief that university funding is a matter of priorities, and that it is time for undergraduate teaching to become a top priority -- not an after-thought.

We also received a counterproposal on the Appointments article and talked about Layoff and Recall. Again, some positive signs in discrete areas, such as LIs becoming eligible for some course cancellation penalties. However, management rejected most of our proposals regarding greater job security for LIs, citing their need for "flexibility."

Earlier in the week, some members of each team met in small groups to discuss the creation of a University-wide senior lecturer program as well as pay distribution. (At issue here was whether to pay LIIs over eight or twelve months.) Discussion on both issues was productive: it seems likely that a senior lecturer program will be part of the final agreement, and it also appears that it will be possible to keep the LIIs who are currently being paid over twelve months on that schedule. We welcome that as our members generally really like whatever pay arrangement they currently have.

Once again, all LEO members are welcome to attend bargaining sessions. This Friday we plan to start at ten - we will probably be working on Appointments language and the Layoff and Recall article. You can find us in the School of Social Work.

Sincerely,

Kirsten Herold
LEO VP

Bargaining Update: Lecturer I's not "flexible" enough for Administration

February 12, 2010

After getting all the proposals on the table in the last three weeks, we are now transitioning from presentation mode to actual negotiation.

We spent the day talking about performance reviews and management's "need for flexibility" with LI appointments. While they have not rejected any of our proposals outright, they argued that the combined impact of our proposals "longer appointments, earlier notice dates, and late lay-off penalties for Lecturer Is" would have a chilling impact on their ability to staff courses and would lead to layoffs in April.

Our answer is that Lecturer Is are more than half of the bargaining unit, which is a lot of flexibility; that they generally know what enrollment patterns look like; and that if they should get it wrong, the impact is so much greater on a member already living close to the margins than it would be for a department to pay out 17% of the cost of the course in a late cancellation fee. We expect to resume discussion on the Union's salary proposal next week around 10 a.m.

We also set up time to discuss a number of proposals in a small group setting. These include the Senior Lecturer Proposal (which they have indicated they are interested in), technical stuff about pay schedules, parental leaves, and international lecturers. We hope that the conversation in small groups will enable us to utilize more of a problem-solving, interest-based approach to the issues.

As always members are welcome to join us on Fridays in our beautiful space: the Education Conference Center at the School of Social Work, corner of East and South U. We are deeply gratified for the number of members who have already attended bargaining, and hope to see everyone there before it is over.

Sincerely, Kirsten Herold
LEO VP

See the sidebar for negotiation times and locations!

Bargaining Update: Should you start looking for extra work?

February 5th, 2010
Once again a long and productive day at bargaining. Feb 5 was the
deadline for all proposals. We presented our proposals on Salary, Benefits and Sick pay (extending the same benefits to Lecturer Is in their third and fourth year that all other University employees receive) as well as gave them two discussion pieces on modified duties for new parents and the small group of LIVs whose second major review has been unduly delayed.

Management gave us their long-awaited benefits proposal. It is what we expected: a steep rise in the costs of benefits, primarily borne by the lowest paid. They also shared some benefits information, which showed what a tiny fraction of overall health care costs are incurred by lecturers.

We had two members testify to the catastrophic effects the proposed changes would have for them and their families; with insurance premiums going to $450 a month or so for part-timers (those between 50 and 79%), many members are now looking for other jobs - they simply cannot afford to continue teaching.

Finally there was some Q & A on earlier proposals. And at the end of the day, we shared our feelings on the three proposals they have made that would seriously curb our rights as a Union.

Any LEO member can attend bargaining at any time, F 9:30-5:30, in the Education Conference Room, main floor, School of Social Work on the corner of East and South U.

Sincerely,
Kirsten Herold
LEO VP

Bargaining Update: UM Admin doesn't want LEO to act like a Union

Bargaining update Jan 29, 2010

Another productive day of bargaining, although serious fissures are beginning to emerge. We were happy to move into our new digs at the School of Social Work where you will find us every Friday until mid March where we bargain for a couple of weeks in Flint and Dearborn. We presented proposals on International Lecturers, Performance Evaluation and Special Case Appointments. They gave us their proposals on the No Strike clause and Special Case Appointments. Once again, we had a good group of LEO folks in attendance, from LSA, Engineering, RC, Nursing, Art and Design, and Social Work. And we had a presentation about the Flint budget.

On the positive side, they seemed open to some of our proposals, in particular making Senior Lecturers an actual title and appointing more of them, and also letting spring-summer teaching count as time towards major review (in specific cases). They also agree that requiring a major review every three years in perpetuity is not a productive use of anyone's time, but for now they seem to be leaning more towards longer appointment periods, rather than moving towards an open-ended appointment.

On a more ominous note, they have now given us three proposals generated in direct response to thing we have done as a Union in the past (and in one case, in response to things done by members of another Union.). They really don't like it when we talk to students about our issues, so they want unilateral power to various sanctions (like suspending the collection of dues and access to the U's email system) even if it is the actions just by a few members. They don't want any LEO members to come out to support a LEO grievance, and they want the unilateral right to start recent graduate programs (hiring new PhDs over existing lecturers) in whatever department they choose - because once we said no to one department for a few weeks. As one team member said, "they just don't want us to act like a Union."

As always, any LEO member is welcome to attend bargaining at any time, whether for 45 minutes or all day. We are in the education center in the School of Social Work, ground floor, bear right as you enter the building.

In subsequent issues of LEO Letters, I will be discussing some of our proposals in more detail. And as always you can visit the website or the LEO blog or facebook or twitter. LEO enters the 21st century!!

Best, Kirsten Herold
LEO VP

Bargaining Update:

A message from LEO Vice President, Kirsten Herold:

Yesterday, Friday Jan 22nd, the Union started bargaining its third contract. After all the work of the summer and fall, we were happy to get started.

The Union presented proposals for five articles (XI Appointments, XII Layoff; XXIV Professional Development, XXVI Posting, and XL Term of the Agreement -- when the contract expires. Management had two ready (X Grievance and XXXVIII Printing of contract), along with a discussion paper on pay distribution. We also received some budget information about Dearborn.

The atmosphere was cordial, engaged, and productive, and - so far - with no stone walling. It definitely feels as if both sides have a commitment to engage in real conversations about the issues facing lecturers.

We also saw it as positive that they presented an important issue for discussion without a proposal.

We had great support from our members, with a wonderful turn-out, even including a few members who came from Flint and Dearborn. Everyone contributed productively in the caucus. We need to keep this up, and we welcome all members to join at any time.

Next Friday we will present proposal on Performance Evaluation, International Lecturers, and Special Case Appointments. They THINK they will be giving us a proposal also on Special Case Appointments, and their anxiously awaited Benefits Proposal - which will seek to bring us in line with other university employees (with increased employee contributions, especially for those between 50 and 79%) - along with a presentation on the Flint budget.

Please come and join us next week. We will be meeting on the Ground Floor of the School of Social Work, Education Conference Center (bargaining room) and Fauri Room, Room 1795 (LEO Caucus Room), starting at 9:30 a.m.. The School of Social Work is located at the corner of South U and East U, 1080 South University. For further questions about next week's bargaining sessions, please contact Catherine Daligga at cdaligga@umich.edu.