WIU announces 110 more layoffs

Western Illinois University has announced 110 layoffs, bringing the total number there to 160. Western had also successfully encouraged 59 staff to retire early as of the end of 2015.

The university had hoped to achieve some $4 million in savings from furloughs negotiated with campus unions, but was unable to reach agreements with most of them. The head of the WIU faculty union was quoted as saying the following:

"By putting faculty and staff last on his list of priorities, President Thomas is shortchanging our students, who are already being shortchanged by our Governor, who refuses to fund their college dreams.”

I do not know the details of the failed negotiations at WIU. Contrast EIU, where the faculty union (from the same parent union, UPI/AFT) agreed on a deferred pay plan to save the university some $2 million.

Some remarks on our own situation after the break.

SIU plans for cuts up to 18%

I've been told that deans at SIUC have been asked to make plans for cuts of up to 18%. I don't know the background for this stage in the planning process. My initial impression is this: so much for the onion.

Cuts to college budgets aren't to "outer layers of the onion", in Dunn's analogy from last summer. They aren't to regional services, student service, athletics, etc. Large cuts to college budgets would mean major cuts in instructional staff. Major cuts to instructional staff, at least if made quickly and legally, would have to be to NTT faculty (GA budgets have already been allocated, at least at a large extent, with some cuts included). Such cuts would be distributed not based on the results of some program prioritization scheme, but simply on which programs have lots of NTT faculty. Those programs face de facto elimination. So we would not just be lopping off selected parts of the university, but eliminating academic programs that happen to be NTT heavy.*

The university's lack of funds isn't an Anthony Hall crisis but a Springfield crisis. But if the administration doesn't do all it can to protect academics, and makes academic cuts in a  ham-handed manner, it will add an Anthony Hall crisis to the mix. We can't afford that.

More context and speculation after the break. I don't know all the details of administrative planning, of course, so my worries may prove unfounded. That would be a happy result. In the meantime, the worries can be taken as my sage advice on how to avoid making this an Anthony Hall crisis.

Different Strategies for Hard Times

We are close to being done with labor negotiations, one way or another.  This is a time to find the survivable middle ground in the positions staked out by different constituencies.  But as we try not to implode in the endgame, it's worth thinking about how we started and how this whole thing might have played out differently.  There are a host of possibilities; after the break I link to two that I think show an interesting spectrum.

From furloughs to fair share

This post started as a response to an anonymous comment (henceforth referred to as "Anonymous 10:31") made to the prior post.  Because I got so long winded I thought I'd go ahead and promote my comment to a new post here, to call this debate to the attention of readers not obsessive enough to be following the lengthy comment stream from the prior post.  This ramble will culminate in a paradoxical claim: that the moderate and consistent position is for the faculty to stop arguing about whether the FA represents us or not and decide once and for all whether we want a union to represent us. My guess is that the majority of the faculty has yet to make up its mind on that rather crucial issue.  It's time to do so, folks.

Anonymous 10:31 argued that the FA was willing to "throw faculty under the bus" by allowing layoffs. The FA opposed both furloughs and layoffs because neither was required, in our judgment (I helped form it), by the fiscal situation; either, in other words, would be an administrative decision to shift money from faculty to other priorities (Saluki Way, "professional non-faculty" staffers, etc.--check out the FA White Papers). So this wasn't the only move possible to balance the budget—which is how it was presented to us. The FA thus rejects the premise 10:31 relies on.  Whether furloughs or layoffs were necessary because the administration was going to get them come hell or high water is of course another issue--which the level of faculty support for the FA will largely determine. If you think the administration should be allowed to determine what is necessary, including shifting resources from academics to other things, without negotiating with the faculty, then the FA is indeed not for you. 

In other words, we're trying to stop the damn bus, rather than urging everyone to jump in front of it in the hopes that all of us will escape with only a broken limb or two. 

FA: Imposed terms would destroy tenure

A new FA "Fact Sheet" makes the argument that the administration's imposed "Reduction in Force" language would essentially end tenure on this campus.

These terms would make for a radical change from the prior contract, which allowed for layoffs of tenured faculty only in the event of program elimination or "just cause" (i.e., serious misconduct). The last contract even included a side-letter saying that the administration would not lay off faculty on the grounds of financial exigency. Now they are claiming the authority to lay off faculty even without the messy PR and fiscal consequences of declaring a financial exigency. If you can be laid off at the sole discretion of the administration, your tenure isn't worth a damn.

Tenure is an essential part of academia as most faculty understand it. These terms, therefore, are poison. If not withdrawn or massively modified they will result in a strike. I think it's as simple as that.

"On Chancellor Cheng's Ultimatum"

The FA has released a document making its case that the FA negotiated in good faith while the administration failed to do so. To my not entirely unbiased mind it provides the clearest account of the breakdown in negotiations currently available. I would be curious to hear the administration's response. On Chancellor Cheng's Ultimatum

New FA statement on the rejection of the Chancellor's ultimatum

The Faculty Association has released a more detailed response to the Chancellor's "offer".  The FA stresses that it has not "demanded" or "insisted on" anything, despite the Chancellor's repeated statements to the contrary (her press release can be found here; I can't find a copy of her latest email online, but all at SIUC got a copy).  Rather, it has always been willing to consider alternatives to its proposals.  The Board team has, however, made very clear demands, which it now plans to impose.  The most striking are a "Reduction in Force" provision that would allow for layoffs whenever the administration decides they are necessary, and a furlough provision that would allow for pay cuts whenever the administration decides they are necessary.  Put bluntly, the layoff provision would do away with tenure and the furlough provision, which allows the employer to unilaterally cut pay, would do away with any justification for a union.  Little surprise that the 'offer' was rejected.  


For anyone who hasn't seen it, the full FA statement (which has yet to appear on the FA website) can be found after the break.