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.