Article 13: Tenure Review and Promotion
The Union presented a Tenure Review and Promotion counterproposal. The proposal includes a requirement that departments and units explicitly define the proportional weight of promotion criteria. The Union clarified that it intends the requirement to mean that departments and units would maintain separate weighting for tenure criteria and for the criteria for promotion from associate to full professor. The proposal clarifies that mid-term review decisions will be made and communicated at least one month before the end of the initial contract. The parties also agreed to language providing that a bargaining unit member’s choice to waive access to see part or all of his or her tenure evaluative materials cannot be considered during tenure review.
The parties also discussed the process for post-tenure reviews. Like promotion and tenure, the proposal calls for a third year review. The three-year review is conducted jointly by the bargaining unit member and appropriate department or unit head. As a result of the review, the department or unit head will prepare a brief statement and share it with the bargaining unit member, who may respond in writing. The parties also discussed the sixth-year review, including language addressing the initiation of the sixth-year review, the treatment of faculty who hold joint or multiple appointments, and the roles of the faculty member, department or unit heads, the dean, and the provost in the sixth-year review process.
Economic Proposals
Prior to presenting our economic package, we explained that the University has invested considerable time in crafting its economic proposals and has listened and responded to the Union’s concerns. We reiterated that our allocation of available dollars across the economic package attempts to create the largest impact on bargaining unit members, however the University is open to the Union’s feedback about shifting dollars amongst the different components of the economic package.
Article 31: Release Time
The University presented a Release Time counterproposal, under which the University agrees to provide the Union with 2.5 FTE of release time each academic year for faculty to perform union work. In addition, during the two terms prior to the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement, the University agrees to provide another 2.0 FTE of release time for faculty to prepare for and participate in negotiations on behalf of the Union. The proposal does not, however, grant the Union the contractual right to purchase an additional five courses of release time each academic year. We explained that the University is not willing to take on the additional administrative burden of establishing and administering a course buyout release time program.
Article 32: Sabbatical
The University presented a Sabbatical counterproposal, which provides the following salary benefits for bargaining unit faculty on sabbatical:
- For faculty on 9-month appointments
- One year (three terms) = 60% of salary
- Two-thirds of a year (two terms) = 75% of salary
- One-third of a year (one term) = 100% of salary
- For faculty on 12-month appointments
- One year = 60% of salary
- Two-thirds of a year = 75% of salary
- One-third of a year = 100% of salary
Notably, the proposal agrees to increase sabbatical salary to 100% for sabbaticals lasting one term. The proposal also clarifies that the Sabbatical article applies to sabbaticals approved after the effective date of the collective bargaining agreement, so that previously approved sabbaticals proceed on the terms under which the individual departments and units budgeted for the sabbatical pay.
Article 21: Fringe Benefits
The University presented a Fringe Benefits counterproposal. The revised proposal addresses two of the Union’s concerns: whether fringe benefits can change during the life of the collective bargaining agreement and tuition discounts. In its proposal, the University commits to locking in the fringe benefits provided under the article for the length of the contract, however the proposal provides that bargaining unit members will be subject to changes in the cost for such benefits in the event that the University incurs increased expense and the University charges the cost increase to all other unclassified employees for the benefits. The University’s proposal also responds to the Union’s concern about employees with more than one child in college. The proposal offers to create a new tuition discount program at the UO, in addition to the OUS tuition discount program. A bargaining unit member receiving a tuition discount through the OUS program will have the opportunity to use a second, concurrent tuition discount for a child to attend the UO. We explained that this provision has an effective date of July 1, 2014 because the proposal calls for the establishment of a new program.
Article 24: Leaves
The University presented a Leaves counterproposal. The proposal provides that all bargaining unit members at 1.0 FTE will be credited with 8 hours of sick leave for each full month of employment, or 2 hours for each full week of employment less than one month, and bargaining unit members employed at .5 FTE or greater will be credited with a pro rate amount. The proposal also retains the current salary continuance benefits under Short-Term and Long-Term Disability Insurance policies made available through the University.
The proposal clarifies the University’s offer for paid parental leave based on previous conversations at the bargaining table. The University’s proposal provides that a bargaining unit member who takes parental leave under FMLA or OFLA may take the first six work weeks of such leave with pay, in the following matter: As part of the first six weeks of leave, the bargaining unit member must use any available short term disability insurance benefits, all accrued vacation and all but 80 hours of sick leave. If the bargaining unit member does not have sufficient accrued disability benefits and paid leave to cover six weeks with full pay, the University will provide the faculty member with the necessary amount of paid parental leave to allow the faculty member to receive a total of six weeks paid parental leave. The proposal provides that, if both parents are employees of the University, only one parent is entitled to the additional paid leave, however both parents are eligible for unpaid leave and modified duties within six months after the birth or adoption of a child.
The proposal also delineates specific holidays and states that bargaining unit members cannot be required to work on these holidays, except as necessary to maintain or operate critical facilities or operations. If a bargaining unit member is required to work on a holiday for that reason, he or she may take an equivalent amount of time off with pay at later date, as approved by the bargaining unit member’s supervisor. The proposal does not agree, however, to create a Joint Committee to explore establishing a sick leave bank.
Article 23: Retirement Benefits
The University presented a Retirement Benefits counterproposal. The Union previously proposed a contractual requirement that the University increase a bargaining unit member’s salary in proportion to any legislative prohibition against the University paying the PERS employee contribution (the 6% pickup). We previously explained that a legislative prohibition against the University paying the PERS pick up, should it occur, would not necessarily result in a savings by the University because the legislature may reduce appropriation in connection with a pick-up prohibition. The University’s proposal addresses that concern and simultaneously retains the Union’s desire to pass along any savings to bargaining unit members. The proposal provides that, if the University is prohibited by law from paying any portion of the pick up, the University will use the funds that would have been used for the employee contributions to increase the affected bargaining unit members’ salary to the extent permitted by law. The University’s obligation is intended to be budget-neutral however, therefore if the legislature, the Higher Education Coordinating Commission, or the State Board of Higher Education reduce the University’s budget in relation to a legal prohibition against paying the pick up, the University’s obligation to increase salary will be reduced accordingly.
Article 22: Health Insurance
The University presented a Health Insurance counterproposal, under which the University agrees to pay 90% of the premiums for PEBB medical, dental, and vision benefits chosen by eligible bargaining unit members. We explained that, should the OUS system agree to maintain a 95%-5% split in its current negotiations with SEIU, the University will agree to pay 95% of the premiums for bargaining unit faculty members.
Article 20: Salary
The University presented a Salary counterproposal. The proposal offers an average 10.3% salary increase for Tenure-Track and Tenure bargaining unit members and an average 11.4% salary increase for Non-Tenure Track bargaining unit members over three fiscal years. The proposal addresses four significant salary components sought by the Union: across-the-board raises, merit increases, compression/equity adjustments, and salary floors. The proposal moves available dollars to fund equity salary adjustments in response to the Union’s concerns about equity. The available dollars are pulled in part from funds previously allocated for across-the-board raises, because across-the-board raises can exacerbate inequity problems. The University continues to agree the creation of a Joint Committee on Equity and Floors and to establish a pool to fund salary floors.
After the University presented its economic package, the Union and University caucused and the Union’s economic consultant joined the Union. After the caucus, the Union expressed dissatisfaction with the University’s economic package, specifically the amount of dollars invested in the compensation package. We reiterated what the University has repeatedly stated about its economic package—the University has not engaged in positional bargaining. The economic package reflects the maximum dollars to which the University can responsibly commit and represents a significant investment in recruiting and retaining talented faculty.
