The University and United Academics held two productive bargaining sessions this week. A final agreement is in sight and the focus at the table is on reaching closure on a first contract that is fiscally responsible and positions the UO for excellence. The University’s salary proposal is the most critical item awaiting the union’s response. It offers tenure and tenure-track faculty average pay raises totaling 11.9% and non-tenure track faculty average pay raises totaling 12.4% through a mix of across-the-board, merit, floor, and compression/equity adjustments. The proposal will provide an additional $23.6 million in salary and benefits to bargaining unit members through fiscal year 2015. The parties agreed to communicate over the next few days on continued bargaining with a goal of completing the Agreement next week.
September 10, 2013 Bargaining Session
Agreements Reached on Several Articles
The parties made significant progress toward a final agreement by reaching agreement on the following Articles:
Article 3: Shared Governance
Article 10: Assignment of Professional Responsibilities
Article 24: Leaves
Article 31: Release Time
Article 34: Internal Governance Policies
Article 50: Ethics
Article 49: Appropriate Use of Information Assets
The University made a counterproposal that included a significant concession on the last significant issue remaining: Rather than stating that all emails and documents stored on the university’s systems belong to the university, and that bargaining unit faculty members have no expectation of privacy in them, the University’s proposal now states that the University can access emails or documents stored by a bargaining unit faculty member only for lawful reasons related to University business. The parties spent significant time at the table exploring the contours of this limitation.
Article 25: Termination without Cause for Financial Exigency
The University made a counterproposal that accepted most of the Union’s proposed language around reassignment and reemployment of faculty terminated without cause for reasons of financial exigency or academic reorganization. We did not agree to the Union’s proposal giving the Union a role separate and independent of the Faculty Senate in the decision whether to declare a financial exigency or reorganize academic programs. Our proposal does state that the processes leading to such decisions will be in accord with University policy and will provide for faculty input. We pointed out, however, that nothing in our proposal limited the Union’s right or opportunity to participate in public meetings before the Board of Trustees and provide the Board with its input, make both public records requests and statutory requests for information, and consult with the Senate as appropriate.
Article 9: Contract
The Union provided a counterproposal on contracts. The Union’s proposal reinserted its prior proposal that NTTF in the lowest rank receive one-year contract for the first three years and then two-year contracts thereafter; NTTF in the middle rank receive three-year contracts; and NTTF in the highest rank receive four-year contracts. Our proposal is to provide one, two and three year contracts based on rank. The Union’s proposal also included limitations on the University’s ability to non-renew a contract. Under the Union’s proposal, the University would only be able to non-renew if the bargaining unit faculty member failed to meet expectations, or the position was not continued for financial or programmatic needs (including the hiring of a TTF to replace the NTTF). The parties discussed the impact of this change on the university’s ability to respond to academic needs.
Article 23: Retirement Benefits
The Union provided a counterproposal that states that, if the University is prohibited from continuing to pick up the employee’s 6% contribution to their retirement plans, the University will provide the bargaining unit faculty members with a 6% salary increase. In response to our significant concern that the Legislature could redirect the “pickup” money or reduce the university’s budget allocation in conjunction with the pickup prohibition, the Union’s proposal offers to negotiate with the University in that circumstance to discuss whether the bargaining unit faculty will relinquish any of the 6% raise they would be guaranteed. We responded that the notion that faculty members would voluntarily reduce their current pay is unlikely, and that the impact on the University’s budget could be millions of dollars. The parties discussed potential alternative solutions.
Article 7: Academic Freedom and Responsibility
The Union provided a counterproposal on academic freedom and responsibility that makes the right to criticize University policy and actions a part of academic freedom, even if those criticisms are not made in the context of teaching or research. We explained that from our prospective, the right to criticize as described in the Union’s proposal is protected not by academic freedom, but by the state and federal constitutional protections of free speech, which is fully protected in the University’s proposal.
The parties discussed how best to use the last scheduled bargaining session on Thursday, September 12, 2013.
September 12, 2013
Agreements Reached on Additional Articles
The parties reached agreement on Article 23, Retirement Benefits, and the initial process for addressing the initial review and reclassification of current adjunct faculty in light of the terms of the new Agreement.
Article 7: Academic Freedom, Free Speech and Faculty Responsibility
The University presented a counter proposal that incorporates continues to affirm the principles of academic freedom and free speech. The proposal also incorporates the University’s current policy on Freedom of Inquiry and Free Speech, which was adopted by the Senate and approved by the President in 2010. The parties discussed the contours of the policy. The parties discussed the contours of the policy and the proposal. We are hopeful that we are close to agreement on this important Article.
Article 9: Contracts
The University presented a counterproposal on contracts. The remaining issues are the length of NTTF contracts and the terms of non-renewal. The last Union proposal included one year contracts for the first three years of employment at the initial rank and two-year contracts thereafter at that rank; three-year contracts upon promotion to the middle rank, and four-year contracts upon promotion to the highest rank. The University’s counterproposal agrees to longer contracts for NTTF, but offers one-year contracts at the initial rank, two-year contracts at the middle rank and three-year contracts at the highest rank.
As for terms of non-renewal, the Union’s proposal stated that an NTTF contracts could not be renewed only if the NTTF did not “meet the standards of excellence at a major research university, or if there were inadequate resources to continue funding the position; a lack of continuing programmatic need for the position; or replacement of the NTTF position with a TTF. We explained that we needed these positions to remain contract positions, in order to provide some flexibility in staffing, especially given that we had already agreed to significantly limit the availability of adjunct positions. We did offer to include language in the Agreement requiring a notice of non-renewal to be provided by April 1st, and to include an explanation for the non-renewal.
Article 14: Appeal from the Denial of Tenure or Promotion
The Union presented a counterproposal on Appeal from the Denial of Tenure or Promotion. The only area of disagreement is how to select the three-person faculty committee to advise the provost on an appeal from a denial of promotion that does not result in a terminal contract. The Union’s proposal states that the provost will select one member, the Union will select one member, and the two members will select a third. We responded that given that this is entirely an academic matter the provost should select the committee. We offered, however, to include language requiring that at least one of the committee members be a member of the faculty bargaining unit.
Article 49: Appropriate Use of University Information Assets
The Union presented a counteroffer that addresses the last remaining issue in this article: under what circumstances can the university monitor a bargaining unit faculty member’s computer usage or review emails or documents stored on the university’s systems. Both parties seem to agree that the University’s current policy on Data Access sets appropriate limits on the University’s ability to access data, while at the same time providing sufficient access to allow the University to meet its business needs. There was disagreement at the table over how this should be stated in the Agreement.
Article 25: Termination Without Cause
The Union presented a counterproposal on Termination Without Cause for Financial Exigency or for Academic Reasons. The Union made some significant compromises that bring the parties very close on these issues. We are reviewing the policy, but communicated to the Union that we think that we are very close to resolution.
Article 54: Conflict of Interest and Commitment
The University re-introduced its previous proposal on Conflict of Interest and Commitment. The parties delayed substantive discussions on this topic, and discussed how best to approach it.
The parties agreed to communicate over the next few days on continued bargaining with a goal of completing the Agreement next week.
