MTU AAUP

Administration's Position on Benefits

This week, the administration presented a hastily prepared counterproposal on benefits. Their proposal simply describes, in general terms, the current benefits package. The discussion at the table revealed the administration's view that the TIAA-CREF medical plan (and faculty benefits in general) are a "living document." Benefits can change at the administration's discretion, and faculty are only promised benefits that are "equivalent to or greater than" those "available to the University as a whole."

In addition to omitting numbers and percentages pertaining to levels of benefits, the administration's proposal omits or doesn't mention explicitly many key benefits included in the association's proposal, such as:

Allowing for faculty input and/or approval of changes in benefits and for notification of the association of all benefits changes

Representation of the association on the Benefits Liaison Group, which recommends changes in benefits

Formalizing a benefits claim appeal process

Cancelling the 2-year deferral for TIAA-CREF retirement contributions

Creating a fair procedure for setting medical insurance premiums for Medicare-eligible TIAA-CREF retirees

Guaranteeing vision and prescription insurance

Continuing free parking

It is our position that such benefits are necessary to attract and retain highly qualified faculty who will help Michigan Tech achieve its goals.

Negotiations Update: Management Rights

On April 26, the administration submitted their proposed "management rights" article for inclusion in the contract. With the exception of its reference to "AAUP-represented faculty" this article is virtually identical to the management rights articles in the MTU-UAW and MTU-AFSME contracts for the clerical staff and the maintenance and custodial workers at MTU. The administration's article is not only insulting to Michigan Tech faculty, it exemplifies the spirit in which they have approached contract negotiations since the MTU-AAUP was certified in 2004 as the bargaining agent for tenured and tenure-track faculty.

Click here for a copy of the administration's proposal with comments from the association.

As you read the administration's article, keep in mind that they have, thus far, refused to incorporate explicit policies and procedures for promotion and tenure into the contract. Furthermore, they have rejected association proposals that would subject violations of policy or procedure relating to personnel actions affecting tenured and tenure-track faculty to grievance and arbitration. Our contract proposals would not limit the ultimate authority of the administration and Board of Control with regard to decisions on promotion, tenure, realignment, and financial exigency, and on related personnel decisions. What our proposals would do is to make existing policies, agreed upon by the administration and the University Senate, legally binding and enforceable. Our position is based on the belief that faculty have an implicit right to work under clearly established personnel policies and procedures and that observance of those policies and procedures should not depend solely on the good will of the administration.

Unfortunately, the Administration appears to be unwilling to commit to the safeguards that we, as tenured and tenure-track faculty, have been led to believe already exist with regard to these important personnel decisions.

With the exception of this management rights proposal, the administration has consistently refused to incorporate policies and procedures that cover "conditions of employment" into the contract we are negotiating. They have stubbornly adopted this position in spite of the fact that they are legally obligated to bargain over these matters.

The association has consistently insisted that these policies and procedures must be incorporated explicitly in the contract in order to ensure that they are clearly understood and legally enforceable. Keep in mind the number of instances in which the administration has refused to follow procedures and policies they had previously established in cooperation with the University Senate.

We thought you should be aware of the draconian positions that the administration has been taking during contract negotiations. We would welcome your input, participation, and support in negotiating a fair and equitable contract under which both faculty and the administration can move forward to achieve our shared goals.

Update on Last Friday's Negotiations

Last week, we negotiated with the administration only on Friday, April 20. Our proposed articles on governance, benefits, leaves, and transfer of tenure and rank between academic units were discussed. The administration promised to make counter-proposals to articles on grievance and appeal, voluntary transfer of tenure and rank, and management rights by April 26; on benefits by May 8; and on intellectual property by the end of May.

A major disagreement on governance at this point concerns how governance will be shared among the administration, the association, and the University Senate.

The association's position is that faculty wages, benefits, and terms and conditions of employment must be negotiated and be part of the contract. Including policies on these issues in the contract makes them enforceable in law and grievable. This means that the administration can no longer flout with impunity policies recommended by the Senate and approved by the administration. Thus, the Senate's role is not diminished but rather increased by including its recommendations in the contract. In addition, the Senate makes proposals on many issues that would not be covered in the faculty contract, such as program and curricular proposals, so the Senate still retains exclusively the role of advising the administration on curricular policy. The association is committed to working closely with and supporting the University Senate.

One example of how the association works to support the Senate and make its proposals more effective is the inclusion of the principles of Senate Proposal 11-06 on charters in the association's proposed governance article. The Senate passed this proposal twice, unanimously, but the administration has in effect pocket vetoed it by not approving it. The participation of the association in such decisions means that the administration cannot simply ignore the recommendations of the faculty, but has to negotiate directly with the association over them.

Negotiations Update

Negotiations got off to a good start last week, with agreement from both parties that it was their intent that no new proposals would be introduced after May 23, 2007, and that counterproposals would be offered in a timely manner. We met with the administration on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday and introduced revised proposals on salaries, benefits, leaves, and governance. The association's proposals on promotion and tenure and grievance were also discussed.

Because of the ruling on the unfair labor practice charge in which Judge Stern mandated that the salary adjustments for 2005-06 and 2006-07 be negotiated with the association, the proposed contract may cover five years: 2005 through 2010. Salary adjustments negotiated for 2005-06 and 2006-07 would take effect immediately upon signing the contract and will be retroactive to August 15, 2005, and August 15, 2006.

The association's salary proposal calls for a combination of across-the-board and merit and marketplace raises. In addition to the merit raises already awarded in 2005-06 and 2006-07, we propose across-the-board raises of $1200 plus 2% for 2005-06 and $1300 plus 2% for 2006-07.

For the three years of the contract, we propose a 4% merit pool for each academic unit for each year, plus an across-the-board increase of 2% each year and a fixed increase of $1400 (2007-08), $1500 (2008-09), and $1600 (2009-10).

These increases are designed to raise the average salaries of faculty at MTU to match the average salaries of other Michigan Category I universities (U Michigan, Michigan State, Wayne State, Western Michigan, Central Michigan).

The administration has not yet offered a counterproposal to the salary article and refused to say when they would do so. The association is committed to negotiating the salary article promptly in order to meet the deadline for salary adjustments for next year.

Negotiations Start Again

Today marked the resumption of negotiations between the MTU administration and the MTU-AAUP following the ruling against the administration on the unfair labor practices charge. The association negotiators had a positive impression coming away from the table today, hopeful that discussions will lead to a contract. We believe the tone of the meeting was constructive and that good progress was made. There was general agreement on the articles that were to be put on the table. Ground rules were established and both sides clearly desire to make progress.

The schedule for Thursday’s session includes distance learning, benefits, grievances, and the administration's stance on intellectual property rights. Promotion and tenure, governance, and faculty leaves are slated for Friday’s agenda.

Another delay...

The Administration requests yet another delay in the ULP hearing. Our comments are in a (pdf) letter to the faculty.

Details

The mediation hearing was a failure, the Unfair Labor Practices hearing is still pending, and we have to point out errors in statements made (by non-AAUP members) in the Daily Mining Gazette article regarding the reason for the delay in the ULP hearing. Our comments are in a letter to the faculty (a pdf).

Why the delay in the ULP hearing?

We sent a communication (saved here as a pdf) to all Deans, Chairs, and Directors pointing out Vice President Reed's misrepresentation of the reason for the delay in the ULP hearing.

Status of Negotiations

We sent a letter to the faculty on the Status of Negotiations and Unfair Labor Practices settlement proposal (available here as a pfd).

Here are relevant excerpts from the Michiagan Public Employment Relations Act (PERA).

Here is the letter sent by the AAUP to the university adminstration regarding the ULP settlement proposal.

Negotiation Chronology

A chronology of the negotiations so far was sent to the MTU-AAUP Liaison Council.