Thursday, November 3, 2011

FA on strike; other locals still in bargaining

There's news to that effect over on SIUC Unions United.

77 comments:

  1. Congratulations to the three Unions with tentative agreements. I hope the FA will post the final proposals from both the administration and the FA on their website. I have appreciated previous posts there, and look forward to this continued openness.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, indeed, congratulations to the other three unions! I am waiting for my picket squad captain to pick me up to go to our our designated location, with grim determination to fight for a better contract. I hope for a very short strike.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Did the BOT "show their work" in claiming the need for 7% tuition increases 2 years running to finance the 0,1,1,2 raise configuration? The math seems very odd to me.

    Let's assume 700 faculty (which we know is higher than reality this AY). Let's assume each makes an average of $80K (which I'm sure is higher than reality). That would mean SIUC would need $800*700 faculty members, or $560K to finance a 1% raise.

    If 18K students are paying the tuition to generate that $560K, their individual share is a bit over $31. Yes, that doesn't account for increased retirement contributions and a few other things that increase the real cost of that raise. But unless I'm missing something massive in the math, even liberal estimates shouldn't mean it is costing more than $50/student to offer a 1% raise; presumably less than $100/student for a 2% raise.

    I'm not arguing for raises at present and agree with the FA stand on this issue in the 11th hour negotiations, but isn't the BOT's math (and the public declarations of individual administrators that raises would require 7% tuition increases) absolutely false?

    Can someone shed light on anything I'm missing in this conversation?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The truth in tuition rule puts the increase on new students, not all students. Even with that, it still fell far short of a 7% increase for 2012-2013.

      Delete
  4. I don't care who is at fault. The FA and administration have collectively sent our university into an enrollment free-fall. Now, there will be no need to agree on what financial exigency means. When the students vote with their feet, many people will lose their jobs. Well done!

    ReplyDelete
  5. As a student in the online mba program, I would like to understand what the issues have faculty have with teaching such courses. Seems to me these courses should be treated the same as all other courses. Also completely agree with the last post. This strike will hurt SIUC's enrollment. So what is the point?

    ReplyDelete
  6. This is what the administration was planning all along--reach an agreement with the other three unions but not the tenured/tenure track faculty. Their refusal to engage in good faith negotiation with the tenured/track faculty shows what their global plan really is--to get rid of tenure at all costs.

    ReplyDelete
  7. To Anonymous 6:49. I haven't done the math, but you are leaving out the state law which forbids raising tuition on existing students (at least for 4 years). State law says undergraduate tuition must stay the same for 4 years for students enrolled--thus any increase will be borne by newly enrolled students, not all students.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous 7:08: That is exactly what the faculty want (and what the admins won't give): for online courses to be treated the same as any other.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm not 6:49 but I'll say that 7:22 counterargument is fair enough. But, according to the SIU factbook, there were 3374 new, full-time first year students (notice, this does not include graduate or part-time first year). The tuition increase this year was $504 per year (6.9 percent). That is over $1.7 million, far more than what is needed to cover the raises offered by the chancellor.

    I suppose the argument is moot given the FA offer to tie salaries to revenue but clarification is warranted to debunk certain claims.

    ReplyDelete
  10. To Anonymous 7:34 -- My guess it may simply have been spin to couch the entire 7% tuition raise in the context of paying for the tentative raises of faculty. A 7% increase, while very painful to those who must pay it, is not exorbitant under the circumstances (nor unprecedented). I'd bet that tuitions must increase significantly just to break even with increasing (non-salary) operational costs, and any adjustments (e.g. through reduced enrollment, reduced state support, and/or being told that some of that 75M in back-payments will never come) would only increase that number. Throw in the salary increases for all employees (not just faculty), paying for new building / Saluki Way (never was exactly sure how that is being paid for), etc., 7% doesn't sound too far off the mark to me. "Blaming" faculty raises for the 7% doesn't sound right to me, but a 7% increase for everything... well, I don't find too surprising under the circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hey wait a minute. I didn't think this whole thing was about money. After reading the posts here it DOES seem to be about money. Which is it folks?

    BTW, no one is really buying into the idea that the administration wants to do away with tenure. Those are the old talking points. The new talking points are that this isn't about money. But that's down to the tubes now, too.

    What's next?

    ReplyDelete
  12. 8:44, not sure how you conclude from the comments here, the FA's bargaining position, or the story in the DE today, that the issue is about more money from faculty. Why, one might conclude that with all the evidence to the contrary, that you are being disingenuous.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This is a black day for SIU...I feel worn, betrayed, and somewhat hopeless. The only ones who are even remotely making sense for me are the students and the FSN

    ReplyDelete
  14. Went to the gym today. The janitors said that at 6 a.m. someone wrote in chalk before the doorway: "SCAB LINE."

    Fortunately, the rain took care of that union ugliness.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Quiet One, you do realize that the students have a variety of opinions on this situation, don't you?

    ReplyDelete
  16. I think it is fair to say that most students just want what they have paid for. Those that chose to do their jobs today are providing it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. If FA supporters believe that the majority of students, especially undergraduates are in support of their professors absenting themselves from the class room, then (IMO) they are out of touch. They (students) feel like innocent victims caught up in this - and they should because they are!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Methinks a minority of the faculty have fallen in love with the sounds of their own shouting voices. They won't listen to anything else.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anon 1:34. Striking faculty were at 17 campus entrances today, not at the gym and NONE of us wrote the derogatory words. I know. As a 'roving picket support person" I was at every one of the picket lines today, several times, all through the day. Instead, the behavior was to wave, offer leaflets, say hello, invite conversation and explain why we were on the line.

    ReplyDelete
  20. There were a lot (relatively speaking) of "roving picketers" today. They seemed to appear wherever a camera appeared and when the media was not around the numbers dropped back to just a few shivering faculty left. I guess when there are so few you have to move around to (a) keep warm and (b) keep up the appearance of numbers (for the media image). I guess it would not do to have the media showing that the vast majority of faculty crossed the lines and turned up to teach our students

    ReplyDelete
  21. Not a strong show today. There are probably over 15 FA members from my unit. I went to several picket places and saw only two.

    GAU just posted their report. Seems the BOT team were quite flexible with their demands. A totally different story for the FA. Looks like Cheng is determined to bust the FA first.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "when the media was not around the numbers dropped back to just a few shivering faculty left."

    The FA counted on four unions all picketing and striking. Now the FA is alone. And to think there was speculation on this site that FA would settle first and the rest would "have to follow in line." Or be left to themselves.

    Love to know what each of those unions got. Of course, they aren't elite professors, just little people. . .

    ReplyDelete
  23. http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/ed69c99414874dfeb205591596600913/IL--SIUC-Contract-Talks-Scene/

    "Dozens" of picketers? I heard (before the strike) that hundreds would be out in force. Is that because of the other 3 unions not striking??

    ReplyDelete
  24. I found out who took over my class today. The person is not at all in my field but is in fact a member of the BOT team. So, instead of bargaining or even brainstorming to come up with a counter offer, they are spending their time confusing students by trying to teach what they do not know.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I hope you are referring to your Topology class. Any monkey could teach introductory Calculus.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Disgusted entirely at the BOT nowNovember 3, 2011 at 8:55 PM

    At my picket point, there were a few nasty people but by and large the support was overwhelmingly in our favor. And, yes, although I shivered most of the day, I was joined not only by my other FA colleagues but by some 20-30 GAU members who were there when they were not teaching their sections. Civil service people came by during lunch breaks. And, yes, even some undergraduates joined our line toward the end of the day. And I will do it again tomorrow and next week even if I have to, until Dr. Poshard, Dr. Cheng, and the esteemed members of the BOT get in reality world and meet us at a reasonable middle. We aren't asking for much; we certainly aren't asking for pay raises if the university doesn't have the money! We are asking for some transparency and some accountability. But I guess these things are rather scary to some folks.

    Drs. Poshard and Cheng brought us to this point; now they can end this mess.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Tonight's WSIL 3 News mentioned the NTT got almost everything they asked for, including no furloughs. Clearly this administration failed to bargain in good faith with the FA.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Look at the pages for the other unions. They received considerable concessions as well. Either the FA was demanding much more than these unions or the administration was negotiating in bad faith.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I just want to say THANK YOU SO MUCH to all of the Civil Service, GA, NTT, & other folks who came out and showed us so much support today. It's definitely been a long day, but I'm so touched & moved that all of you stood next to us and fought in our fight. You certainly didn't have to, but you did. And for me the cliche is true: I'll never be able to say how much that means to me.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Mike,
    You have been just replaced.
    Probably permanently.

    ReplyDelete
  31. What would be the down side of asking the administration to return to mediation?

    ReplyDelete
  32. The FA was still demanding that either (i) the BOD surrender some of its powers to an external mediator/arbitrator. As I have said before, that is not going to happen. Or, as an alternative (ii) the FA offered that furloughs would be repaid the next year. Since the BOT cannot be certain that the year following a fiscal situation dire enough to require furloughs would always be followed with one rosy enough to ensure the equivalent to a 2-3% raise (or even a one time bonus), they cant make that promise either.

    It seems to me that the FA team just does not grasp the realities of the situation. Just because an idea sounds reasonable within the FA's leadership does not mean it will stand up and in this case the FA team offered either/or proposals where neither option could be acceptable. Hence, no deal and a very, very sad day for SIU.

    ReplyDelete
  33. P.S. The Official statement that Dave made that began, "tonight the board has decided that we are going on strike" (or words to that effect). Was alarming. "They made me do it", or "look what you made me do" is the defense of childhood! The fact is that the FA leadership decided to strike. They could have extended the deadline or taken other steps, but the FA leadership chose not to. You may feel that was the correct choice if you wish, but this was a choice made by the FA's leadership, not the administration, so the responsibility for that choice rests with them.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Socrates Finger, furloughs were removed from both the NTT and Civil Service contracts. So, the administration has no problem guaranteeing NTT and Civil Service *no* furloughs, but they won't do the same for the FA? Tell us again about reality and reasonableness.

    ReplyDelete
  35. 9:41 PM: Really? But the BOT can be certain that no furloughs will be necessary in the next few years for the NTTFA. Hope this time you get the point.

    ReplyDelete
  36. 8:55 rudely said: "I hope you are referring to your Topology class. Any monkey could teach introductory Calculus."

    Not according to the student I talked to!

    But, I am not mad at this person. She is just doing what she is told. But you have to wonder, if Rita wants to settle this, shouldn't she direct her bargaining team to meet with ours? They did not meet at all today. That is just crazy. If the FA team was being unrealistic, the Bot team needs to explain that to them and not just walk away. They should have bargained until dawn if need be.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Mike: All they wanted was to bring the FA to its knees. It has never been like she is new or inexperienced with contract negotiations as you suggested before.

    ReplyDelete
  38. 10:08 PM,

    You may be right.

    ReplyDelete
  39. In the famous words of a particular fox, "If what I think is happening is happening, it better not be".

    If our leadership called a strike because they insisted on what the BOT could not give (executive power over FE), I am mad as hell and I am embarrassed. We can debate whether they are reasonable expectations, but how is that worth striking? Maybe the FSN petition is worth a look.

    ReplyDelete
  40. The NNTFA had a suit against the university. That gave them some extra leverage. They agreed to drop the suit.

    The issue that is unique to the FA is tenure.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Whew, long day! And a great day. I've heard in the echo chambers of this and other blogs that the community is against us. Not if the honk-poll I heard all day is to be believed. I'll try to post more about the experience later, but I am pleasantly exhausted after a full day.

    I've been living this strike on the line, not guestimating participants and prognosticating the future. I say the gleeful and vitriolic predictions of the FA's imminent demise in this discussion thread ring a bit defensive and desperate.

    Thanks also to the students on the line and those multitudes that rallied around Anthony Hall and through the Student Center.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Anonymous November 3, 2011 8:44 AM:

    It's about transparency and accountability.

    If the chancellor says that the raises would require a 7% tuition increase, she should be able to explain how that number was computed in a way that a reasonable person would agree with.

    That's what we're asking for when it comes to furloughs and layoffs--a method of determining if the crisis is sufficient for the consequence that a reasonable person would agree with.

    The administration could argue that the method the FA has proposed isn't reasonable, but thus far, that hasn't been their argument. They have simply argued that they should have the sole power and should not need to be held accountable.

    ReplyDelete
  43. 1st 10:20 PM post:

    Are we asking for too much? Here is what P stated in Daily Egyptian: "the university administration needs to be able to take budgetary actions, but the unions can then file a grievance or an unfair labor practice charge if we disagree with the action." From what I heard, the BOT team didn't want this to be in the contract at all.

    ReplyDelete
  44. "The NNTFA had a suit against the university. That gave them some extra leverage. They agreed to drop the suit."

    This is correct, but the NTT leadership cannot link the two publicly. And yes, it did give them extra leverage. The T/TT should thank them for linking resolution fo the suit to no furloughs. I think it set a baseline for all locals. Some clever people, those NTT leaders.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Painful though all this is, without the FA we would have the imposed terms. The contract we get will be better than the imposed terms. Did the FA leadership miscalculate? Maybe. I don't know. I had suggested that we postpone the deadline until Monday. But maybe that would have been a miscalculation. But under the FSN we would have zero - that is the imposed terms. Is that the calculation we want? Even a monkey knows better than that. [The snide reference is to a poster in another thread.]

    ReplyDelete
  46. Mike - We may also get the need for further future cuts due to effects of this strike on enrollment. The administration is not right. The FA is not right. But a strike is not necessary. My monkey comment earlier was just a colorful attempt at noting that Topology would be a much harder class for the admin to cover than Calculus. It wasn't personal.

    ReplyDelete
  47. The FA leadership should get rational and recognize it has lost. When less than 100 strike, all that is going to occur is folks are going to lose income. Some will lose their jobs if the strike is prolonged. Get real. There is no chance tenured faculty will be fired. There may be furloughs in the future if the economy continues to tank, but it will be shared sacrifice and less than citizens without public sector jobs wiil be suffering.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I know of at least two departments where all tenured, tenure track and NTT faculty were on the job. I suspect there were quite a few others. Don't fight lost causes. Live to be reasonable another day with sensible leadership.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Anonymous 6:48 PM:

    There also was speculation that the administration would "...leave the FA out on their own because they have the highest incomes and lowest ability to get sympathy from the public. The administration's general reluctance to discuss the issues of the other three locals suggests they would play it this way."

    Your "little people" comment confirms that speculation.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Mike, you may disagree with the FSN but you are not accurate to state that there could be no agreement under the plan that has been proposed. A local collective bargaining unit has the same legal rights as the FA. We can debate whether the FA or another system is better, but lets not inaccurately characterize their proposal. In fact, what is proposed is to actually engage in that debate, in the form of legal vote that would come from the petition. Lets not add to the confusion that is already dictated by the required by the IELRB.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Mike,

    To cheer everyone up a bit here -- well maybe not the FSN: http://www.kfvs12.com/story/15941437/midnight-deadline-looms-for-siu-strike

    ReplyDelete
  52. Sounds like the other union leaders (NTT, GAU, ACE) were better than the FA leadership. The latter, of course, had faculty so revved up about "protecting tenure" and the other unions had to negotiate more mundane things than the collapse of Western civilization (as the FA seems to think it is doing).

    ReplyDelete
  53. http://www.1-888-no-union.com/yourrights/laborrelationsglossary.html

    IMPORTANT: There may be a reason why the Board insists this is an economic debate over raises. See the above site and this excerpt:

    *Permanent Replacement Worker* - If a union calls a strike in order to obtain some economic concession from the employer, such as higher wages, shorter hours of work, or different terms or conditions of employment, the striking employees are "economic strikers." The employer is legally permitted to hire other employees to permanently replace the strikers.

    If permanent replacement workers are hired, and the union or striking employees make an "unconditional offer" to return to work, the strikers who have been replaced are not entitled to get their jobs back at that time. Instead, they are placed on a preferential rehire list, to be hired only when an opening occurs, if they are qualified for it."

    Think about that for a moment.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Anonymous 11:04:

    "The FA leadership should get rational and recognize it has lost. When less than 100 strike, all that is going to occur is folks are going to lose income."

    The administration's numbers have the striking faculty at 78 members today, but that is only counting today. I have a feeling the total numbers will be over the 100 you mention come tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Disgusted entirely at the BOT nowNovember 4, 2011 at 1:18 AM

    Yes, indeed. I officially do not go on strike until 11am tomorrow....

    ReplyDelete
  56. Dan:

    I don't think the administration's numbers even include everyone from Thursday. There were reports of classes with no one even showing up to take roll.

    ReplyDelete
  57. The fact that after more than a year--which is a long long time, the administration chose to be flexible (and that too only at the very end) with three of the other unions but NOT the Tenured and Tenure Track Faculty Association tells us that a major sticking point with the administration is the tenure issue. They clearly want to be able to and are paving the way for getting rid of tenure at SIUC. The faculty who chose to go and teach their classes yesterday have no ethics in my opinion. Would they say, "no-to the promotional raises" and other raises that the union got for them in the past. When I was promoted to Associate Professor--(prior to 1999) the promotional raises from assistant to associate professor was only about 90 dollars a month (for nine months!). NOw it is 500-600 dollars a month. Would these same faculty (the FSN and others who have opted to each the classes of faculty who are striking) give up those raises? NOw the issue is NOT about Money! It is saving the crux of this university--think what it would do to our students if the university were to get rid of tenure (as they are planning on doing). Join us tomorrow on the picket lines and force the administration to get back to serious "work"!

    ReplyDelete
  58. 4:26,

    You're making this argument that tenure has been threatened. If this is true, I sure as heck haven't seen it. Since the 2003 contract, the number of tenured workers has increased and so has their pay. If they were looking to erode tenure, wouldn't you think the opposite would be happening? Those raises were a part of the plan regardless of whether the union was here or not. Don't believe me? Read "Southern at 150" and get back to me. That was always part of the plan. Use Occam's Razor here. Why would a research institution of SIU's caliber want to get rid of tenure? It would be stupid of the administration. I don't think our administration is anything to write home about, but I surely don't think they're that stupid. What they wish to do here is keep their own power over finances and control, something that you would fight like heck to do if you were an administrator here. Is there bloat to cut? Yes, but the more I think about it, I can understand why the administration would want to lay no one off, period. SIU didn't get bloated overnight, unfortunately it won't get un-bloated overnight either.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I am not in the bargaining unit but am generally sympathetic to the FA. Still, as the FA says, transparency and accountability are important. To that end, I would like to see the FA post their last offer and the admin's last offer on financial exigency. A comparison of the FA's proposal to AAUP guidelines would be useful too. The admin. says they can't bargain financial exigency. The AAUP has guidelines that suggest it is pretty normal to do so. I don't believe the administration wants to get rid of tenure as 4:26 says--but they do want more flexibility and a flexibility that will threaten tenured faculty. I am pretty impressed that 100 or so faculty are willing to give up pay, have health benefits threatened, stand in the rain, etc. I am distrubed that bargaining is not happening. It is probably time to ask for federal mediators again. It would be reasonable for the FA to return to work while mediation occurs. Do provide the transparency that you so value so those of us trying to follow the issues have a basis for understanding the issues and aren't just caught in the conflicting accounts of what is at issue.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Perhaps so, but then why is the BOT so afraid of a tiny bit of accountability and transparency about when FE gets declared? I think if they meet us only partially the way on this, our bargaining team would be in the room right now hammering out a deal we could all live with. But unbridled power without any safeguards in place to stop abuses is not something I am interested in my union endorsing.

    One more thing: it has been obvious since the first day I arrived on campus about how vital having a union contract has been. I got a competitive national offer, something which a lot of my older tenured colleagues did not receive when they came on campus. The FA's victory of equity pay, while not entirely satisfactory, was long overdue. "Southern at 150" or no, I somehow doubt that the university would have chosen to offer me a good starting salary on their own accord without there being a strong FA fighting for it.

    The other thing, as a junior assistant professor that I credit my union with achieving, is a very transparent annual review process. Again, I wouldn't want to bet on that existing without a strong union fighting tooth and nail for it.

    ReplyDelete
  61. The FA is not asking for "a tiny bit". They are asking for either arbitration (which could take a long time during a financial emergency) or to be paid back in a year (which is impossible since the admin can't predict its current financial state). In short, the FA has failed to put a reasonable mechanism for the transparency it desires.

    ReplyDelete
  62. 6:34 am: The current, existing, BOT policy on exigency, which you can read in the employee handbook (online), pretty closely follows AAUP guidelines. Not precisely, but not too far off.

    What the FA is demanding goes way beyond those guidelines. They (the FA)are demanding that they have a say in the declaration of an exigency situation. In effect they want the BOT surrender its right to make the determination of whether or not an exigency exists. Initially they were demanding a seat at the table by wanting a joint determination, then they "shifted" by saying that if the FA does not agree with such a declaration (which, of course, they never will) then the matter has to be decided by an external arbitrator of some kind (of course the FA would have a say in who is chosen for that role).

    I am not aware of any major university anywhere where that kind of power has been surrendered by a BOT/BOR/BOD. What the BOT has proposed is based very closely on what is in place at other major universities. The FA is rejecting that. This issue is about power. The FA wants to take that power away from the BOD who are legally responsible, and are accountable, for making that decision. Its just not going to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  63. "I credit my union with achieving, is a very transparent annual review process. Again, I wouldn't want to bet on that existing without a strong union fighting tooth and nail for it. "

    You wouldn't bet on it, but that process works all the time at non-unionized universities. What motive would any university have for compromising the tenure process? The goals is to attract and retain the best possible faculty. Make sure that you are among those and the administration will bend over backwards to keep you here!

    ReplyDelete
  64. Long-time lurker/first-time poster. I'm a Jackson County native who attended and graduated from SIUC in the 1990s. Moved back to Carbondale to find my alma mater transforming itself into a community college with the grim determination of an institution that has made an irrevocable choice.

    I support the faculty 100 percent. If students want televised or online classes, they should enroll at John A. or the University of Phoenix, not a four-year university. The value of my degree declines with every such "innovation" at SIUC, and the attack on tenure seems a necessary precursor to hiring even more unqualified "adjunct" instructors.

    The university has tried everything else -- why doesn't it try admitting only college-ready students and adequately compensating full-time faculty to teach them? Because I seem to recall that working pretty well.

    ReplyDelete
  65. To those who say they support the faculty:

    Please say which group of faculty you support....the 100 or so who are on strike...

    ...or the 1,200 others are are not striking and in the classroom.

    Thank you

    ReplyDelete
  66. To the long-time lurker/first-time poster:

    If SIUC were to admit only college-ready and qualified students, the undergraduate enrollment would drop probably to about 8 thousand students, and half of the faculty will be let go.

    So despite protestations, SIUC faculty have vested economic interest in admitting students with ACT scores as low as 8 (functionally illiterate freshmen). Of course they drop out after 1 ,2 or 3 semesters, but in a meantime the state pays for their presence at SIUC, and that money pays faculty salaries and benefits.

    ReplyDelete
  67. "I support the faculty 100 percent. If students want televised or online classes, they should enroll at John A. or the University of Phoenix, not a four-year university."

    7:54, you misunderstand the purpose of distance learning. It is not meant for the students who are here on campus. It is designed to reach an audience that would not otherwise attend SIUC.

    ReplyDelete
  68. To: 7:50 This thread is about dead, but I have looked at SIU Policies and the AAUP. I may be missing something, but two big differences seem to be that SIU policies on 'Fiscal emergency" are very broad and they do not require an evidentiary testing as to the existence of the emergency. The Board policy says, "A long-term fiscal emergency is the condition of financial exigency, which results when an imminent financial crisis will require long-term programmatic reductions and termination of tenured faculty." The AAUP says, "it is an “imminent financial crisis which threatens the survival of the institution as a whole.”
    The SIU policy is circular--"We can lay off tenured faculty when there is a financial exigency; there is a financial exigency when we lay off tenured faculty." The AAUP definition is something that can be tested against the outside world. In their comments, the AAUP stresses the importance of the requirement that the threat be to the institution as a whole.
    Second, the AAUP policy provides a hearing to anyone laid off, and that hearing gets to review whether, in fact, financial exigency exists. From the AAUP webiste:

    "Regulation 4(c) then turns to the right to a “full hearing before a faculty committee” of a faculty member who has been issued notice of termination because of financial exigency. The regulation declares that the “essentials of an on-the-record adjudicative hearing will be observed.” Regulation 4(c) does not specify the “essentials,” but they include the faculty member’s right to present witnesses and evidence, to cross-examine all witnesses, and to be provided with a record of the hearing. The regulation goes on to identify the issues that may be raised in the hearing: the existence and extent of the condition of financial exigency, with the burden on the administration to prove that the exigent condition exists and that it threatens the entire institution; ...
    This seems quite different from the current SIU policy and fairly close to what the FA is asking for.

    ReplyDelete
  69. FWIW, the NTTFA and Civil Service did get no furlough clauses, but did not get no layoff clauses. They apparently chose to risk layoff rather than accept furloughs in the event of a significant financial downturn. (Such as might occur if the FA strike results in a significant enrollment decline next semester). The less senior Civil Service folks I know are actually mighty ticked off about it.

    Faculty did not get offered a no furlough clause because they, of course, have tenure protections already in place.

    This does achieve one of the objectives of some of the FA folks though. If there is a financial downturn, and furloughs are needed to minimize or prevent layoffs, NTT and Civil Service will now be insulated and only faculty and AP staff will be subject to furloughs. Of course, that does not mean NTT and Civil Service will be immune from layoffs, but it does achieve what some had sought of protecting the lowest paid employees (except TA/GAs) from furloughs.

    ReplyDelete
  70. To 10:59 Tenure protections do not protect against furloughs--witness last year.

    ReplyDelete
  71. 11:16. Yes, obviously. But I think you have missed the point. I think what was meant was CS and NNT got no furloughs, but not no layoffs; FA automatically has no layoffs, so it was not offered no furloughs. You can agree or disagree with whether or not that is reasonable, but I think that was the point being argued.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Anonymous 11:26
    It is confusing what you write about furloughs and layoffs. Too many negatives--confuses the whole issue. Could you clarify what the Civil service union and the Non-tenure track faculty got?

    ReplyDelete
  73. How do other universities define financial exigency? how do other universities where the faculty are unionized define financial exigency? It may be good to check on that.

    ReplyDelete
  74. "The administration's numbers have the striking faculty at 78 members today, but that is only counting today. I have a feeling the total numbers will be over the 100 you mention come tomorrow."

    Yes, but . . . they couldn't get administrators qualified to teach certain courses in until they knew WHO was not showing up. So next week they will have some of those courses - especially the larger ones -- covered. Heck, some department already have grad students teaching their own courses too. So the number of courses not covered will go down as time progresses.

    I heard one person in the sciences didn't show up.

    This is going to hurt certain departments and not affect others at all.

    Meanwhile, no one confirmed or denied the "Picket of the Open House" this weekend. Trust me: you will lose a lot of good will not only in the community but on campus. People who are semi-sympathetic toward you will turn against you. DO NOT PICKET THE OPEN HOUSE. For the sake of the university. After all, we DO need students to teach, right?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Answer about open house:

    http://thesouthern.com/news/local/article_644988a4-071d-11e1-a0bb-001cc4c03286.html

    ReplyDelete

I will review and post comments as quickly as I can. Comments that are substantive and not vicious will be posted promptly, including critical ones. "Substantive" here means that your comment needs to be more than a simple expression of approval or disapproval. "Vicious" refers to personal attacks, vile rhetoric, and anything else I end up deeming too nasty to post.