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
No comments:
Post a Comment