Discussion about Status
The bargaining session began with a discussion of the status of bargaining, which was interrupted briefly to change the location of bargaining. The parties are in agreement that they have reached, or are close to, agreement on many issues. Topics still unsettled include shared governance, academic freedom, and economics.
Article 20: Salary
The Union presented a Salary counterproposal. The Union’s proposal extends the retroactive nature of the FY13 across-the-board raise to September 16, 2012 and increases the FY15 across-the-board raise from 1.5% to 2%. The proposal accepts the University’s last offer on merit raises. The proposal also establishes a pool in FY 14 equal to 2% of TTF base salary to address equity and increases the FY15 TTF equity pool from 1.0% to 2.0%. The proposal increases the FY14 NTTF salary floors proposal from 1% to 3%. With respect to promotion raises, the Union’s proposal requires that Full Professors who successfully complete a post-tenure major review will receive a salary increase of at least 8% of base salary. The proposal increases minimum promotion raises for NTTF from 6% to 8%.
Article 21: Fringe Benefits
The Union presented a Fringe Benefits counterproposal which accepts the University’s last proposal on the subject. The parties are in agreement on Article 21, but for nomenclature.
Article 22: Health Insurance
The Union presented a Health Insurance counterproposal which accepts the University’s last proposal on the subject. The parties are in agreement on Article 22, but for nomenclature.
Article 23: Retirement Benefits
The Union’s Retirement Benefits counterproposal returns language previously proposed by the Union. In the event that it becomes unlawful for the University to continue to pick up the mandatory employee 6% contribution to PERS/OPSERP, the proposal would require the University to increase the salary of affected employees by 6%.
The Union’s proposal strikes the University’s previously proposed language promising to increase affected faculty salaries by the amount of the pickup as long as the change in compensation was budget neutral. We reiterated that there is no guarantee the legislature, in prohibiting continuation of the pickup, won’t take some additional action that makes those funds unavailable to the University. We also explained that an agreement to increase salary in response to a prohibition against paying the pick-up regardless of whether the funds currently used to pay the pickup remain available could create as much as an additional unfunded $8 million expense, depending on PERS and ORP enrollment. The Union categorized the potential unfunded expense as a “budget headache” and stated that it’s the University’s responsibility to assume that risk.
The Union expressed frustration about the perception that faculty are not a top priority of the University. We again expressly told the Union that the perception is inaccurate. By way of example, we pointed out that the University has already committed in its offer, in the categories of across-the-board and merit increases alone, more dollars for FY15 than the maximum tuition increase permitted for FY15. We explained that the University is willing to make this commitment because it shares the common goal of increasing faculty compensation.
Article 24: Leaves
The Union presented a Leaves counterproposal. The proposal addresses sick leave for bargaining unit faculty members who are employed at less than .5FTE. Under the proposal, those bargaining unit faculty members who miss work for a legitimate illness will not be required to pay for a substitute or have their pay docked. The proposal also extends the guaranteed six weeks of paid parental leave offered by the University to both parents if both are employed by the University. The parties also discussed paid leave during the December holidays and the week of spring break with respect to officers of research.
Article 31: Release Time
The Union presented a Release Time counterproposal. The proposal returns language previously proposed by the Union allowing the Union the right to purchase up to an additional five courses (20 credits) of release time each academic year. The parties discussed how the applicable rate at which the Union could purchase release time will be determined and the University’s role in identifying release requests that could create a burden on a particular department or unit.
Article 32: Sabbatical
The Union presented a Sabbatical counterproposal, which accepts the University’s last proposal on the subject. The parties are in agreement on Article 32, but for nomenclature.
Article 14: Appeal from Denial of Tenure or Promotion
The University presented an Appeal from Denial of Tenure or Promotion counterproposal. The proposal provides the process through which a bargaining unit faculty member may appeal a decision by the Provost to deny tenure or promotion. The proposal identifies three grounds on which a denial may be appealed: (1) whether the Provost was presented with errors of fact that materially affected his or her decision; (2) whether the Provost disregarded or overlooked material evidence that was provided to him or her; and (3) whether the Provost’s decision was arbitrary or capricious. For denials that lead to a terminal contract, the proposal incorporates the Promotion and Tenure Review Appeal Committee (PTRAC) in the appeal process, mirroring current practice at the UO. The proposal also creates a parallel process through an expanded grievance process for the appeal of promotions that do not result in a terminal appointment.
Article 49: Acceptable Use of University Information Assets
The University presented an Acceptable Use of University Information Assets counterproposal. The proposal defines “University information assets” for clarity, as computer systems, applications, hardware, software, networks, internet access, platforms, and devices, and any files or information stored on them. The proposal does not prohibit personal use of information assets, but clarifies that bargaining unit faculty members should have no expectation of privacy in information created or stored on the University’s information assets. The proposal also preserves the University’s right to withdraw access to information assets when used improperly and imposes an obligation on the University to provide a reasonable explanation for such withdrawal. We explained that the University must preserve these rights to fulfill its responsibilities to manage its information assets systems, conduct investigations, and comply with Oregon public records law. We reminded the Union that bargaining unit faculty members can preserve the privacy of personal information by confining it to their personal equipment and systems. The proposal also narrows the prohibition against using information assets for personal solicitation, with the intent to limit the prohibition to that already mandated by statute.
Memorandum of Understanding re: One-time Reclassification of Adjunct Faculty
The University presented a counterproposal on the Memorandum of Understanding regarding the One-time Reclassification of Adjunct Faculty, which contains two substantive changes from the Union’s last proposal on the subject. First, the proposal males the review process for long-term appointments applicable to bargaining unit faculty member adjuncts who have served in the same position for three academic years at an average of 0.4 FTE or more immediately prior to AY 2013-14. We explained that the University identified this standard because it is consistent with the standard to which the parties have tentatively agreed for NTTF promotions. In addition, the proposal permits an exception to reclassification of an adjunct position for pedagogical reasons, as opposed to “compelling” pedagogical reasons. We explained that the University intended the revision to nonetheless require bona fide pedagogical reasons for retention of an adjunct position.
Article 51: Intellectual Property
The Union presented an Intellectual Property counterproposal, which diverges significantly from the University’s previous proposal on the topic. The Union’s proposal is based on a premise that bargaining unit faculty members own all intellectual property they develop, despite the fact that the University pays all of the costs, including salary, used to develop the IP. Under the Union’s proposal, all intellectual property developed within normal academic environments; all works produced for online instruction; and all intellectual property that is conceived of, developed, or reduced to practice in the course of or pursuant to a federally sponsored research grants is the property of the bargaining unit faculty member in the absence of an express work-for-hire agreement. We expressed concern that the Union’s proposal requires the University to bear all the expense and risk of creative investment without the opportunity to realize potential sources of funding for future reinvestment in innovation. The parties acknowledged that they are far apart on the topic of intellectual property.
