The Need to be Nimble
Barbara Altmann, Vice Provost for Academic Affairs and Professor of French
January 21, 2013
The University of Oregon and United Academics negotiating teams have met on five occasions with more scheduled throughout winter and spring terms. To date, the Union has presented 31 proposals and the University has submitted eight counter-proposals. Two have been tentatively approved.
Discussions have been largely collegial and professional. That’s not to say there haven’t been some spirited conversations, but that is to be expected in labor union negotiations.
In this Update, I want to state again the University’s three basic goals for the negotiations that I outlined in my first Update. Those are, to enhance the University’s attractiveness to current and future students, faculty and staff; encourage and reward the highest-quality teaching, research and community service; and maintain a solid and sustainable financial structure for the University.
The purpose of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) is to identify the compensation, rights, and terms and conditions of employment of the members of the bargaining unit. A CBA is a binding contract that creates legal obligations on the part of the University. We believe that some of the Union proposals attempt to address concerns that are properly addressed in University policies, not in a collective bargaining agreement.
The University is committed to strong and healthy shared governance. The Senate is the body created by president and the faculty for the consideration of academic matters as commonly understood in higher education.
The University is also committed to building clarity into its policies. However, a CBA is not a policy manual. It is not intended to address every issue identified by bargaining unit members. For this reason, it is important that the CBA not include undue limits on the University’s ability to be flexible and to make the best decisions in changing circumstances regarding matters such as faculty assignments and FTE percentages; faculty hiring, retention and promotion; the distribution of sorely limited resources; class size; and the like. Union proposals that give an arbitrator the authority to decide matters that go to the heart of the academic enterprise threaten the integrity of the University and erode its academic credibility.
Similarly, many of the Union’s proposals create procedural requirements for the development of everything from policies on work assignments to the allocation of overhead. While we agree that these topics are important and that faculty must be centrally involved in academic decisions, complex and lengthy procedures limit the University’s ability to make timely decisions that further the our primary goal—educating students. Thus, we have said “no” to these types of proposals and will continue to do so.
Further, the University has rejected some of the Union’s proposals because they carry with them significant expense that, in our view, does not improve educational or research quality. For example, the Union has proposed that all “faculty parking lots” be fitted with mechanical gates so that others cannot park there. The Union could not put a dollar figure on installation and maintenance of these. Whatever the expense, which is likely substantial, we do not think that this proposal represents a responsible use of limited resources. We believe that the CBA should address real employment issues, and this is not one of them.
As we have said at the bargaining table, both parties in this negotiation share the same goals. The substantive discussion underway and the good faith demonstrated on both sides of the table are encouraging.
Questions?
If you have any questions about the contract negotiations, please contact me at baltmann@uoregon.edu or (541) 346-2172.
