Vox Prof ForumWhy is our pay being docked? | Forum Rules Become a member Contact an administrator Back to Topic list | |
| Author: polis | Sep 11, 2009 7:39 pm | Top | Reply |
| Today the university announced that “University faculty will be able to provide a complete course of instruction by making efficient use of available class time and providing additional instruction through Moodle, tutorials or additional class meetings.” This confirms what the AAUP has repeatedly stated as the intention of the faculty. Thus, I don’t understand the rationale for including in the tentative agreement that AAUP members will be docked two days pay. Perhaps someone can provide further information? | ||
| Author: trupiano | Sep 11, 2009 8:22 pm | Top | Reply |
| Excellent question, and one I have been pondering as well. | ||
| Author: goldberg | Sep 11, 2009 10:45 pm | Top | Reply |
| Gee, this question hadn't occurred to me - good point! I'm not sure I can help, because I too haven't heard a reason given for this "docking" business. I got an email some time back, suggesting that I'd be "docked" because I am a criminal (engaged in illegal activity), but...I'm pretty sure I'm not a criminal. I'm also a little out of my depth, since "docking" hasn't happened to me before (though I do love new experiences), and I haven't done it to anyone else (though it might be fun to try). I looked it up, and found out that it basically means "to withhold salary". Maybe one of the linguistics types could weigh in and help us figure out if the particular language used might provide a clue to the rationale underlying the action? | ||
| Author: kubicek | Sep 11, 2009 10:54 pm | Top | Reply |
| I too have to wonder about this. Clearly, the university is not keeping its word to guarantee that a full semester of instruction will be provided. For this to happen, faculty are expected, in essence, to work extra to catch up, while not getting fully compensated for this work. In effect we ended up with a pay cut, although it is unclear if the docking is 2 of 30 days or 2 of 20. How this cut is rationalized under the premise that we will deliver a full semester of instruction makes little sense, except that the admin decided it wanted to be punitive. Some obvious questions, though, might be: 1. What of those professors who were away at conferences on university business and thus had reason to miss class 2. What of those who teach on Monday nights and did not miss any classes? 3. What of those on sabbatical? 4. What of the assurance that docking of pay could only be done with an individual hearing? 5. The most heretical question of all: financially speaking, would it be true that we would have been better off working with no contract this year rather than taking, in effect, a cut? I hope to have answers to some of these questions at the next AAUP meeting. | ||
| Author: hartmus | Sep 12, 2009 8:30 am | Top | Reply |
| I too am very bothered by the loss of two days pay and second all of the questions asked above. It seems clear that this is a punitive action by the university and I deeply resent it. Furthermore, if this money is to be taken from us, I believe it rightfully belongs to those who "lost services"-the students. I know that the union asked that this money go into student scholarships and the administration refused. I believe the students should demand the university issue tuition refunds with this money. | ||
| Author: kidger | Sep 12, 2009 10:31 am | Top | Reply |
Edited by kidger on Sep 12, 2009 11:05 pm | ||
| Author: herold | Sep 12, 2009 12:03 am | Top | Reply |
| This is the one part of the TA which is clearly punitive, revengeful, and frankly small-minded, especially since what emerged in the agreement was basically adherence to the status quo, with the administration having incited the job action in the first place by refusing for months to bargain in good faith. The fact that substantive bargaining only occurred after the semester began, and that the university is responsible for this delay, doesn't accord with docking the pay of faculty--rationally, legally, or ethically. "Docking" is sentencing diction; who's the guilty party here? Furthermore, since the university itself canceled classes, how can it justly reprimand us for not showing up to teach? This item should be adjudicated and not part of the TA. In spite of Virinder's glowing words of sudden collegiality, this part of the agreement makes me lose CONFIDENCE--a word I expect we'll be hearing more of, in nugatory formation, as we try our best to move toward ratification. | ||
| Author: urla | Sep 12, 2009 12:47 am | Top | Reply |
| Kubicek and Herold make excellent points that I´d like to second. What this amounts to is punishment of the entire chapter for having authorized a job action. It has nothing to do with our absence from the classroom since THE UNIVERSITY chose to cancel classes before picket lines had gone up. So from here on out we have a precedent, in this year´s contract (if it´s ratified) that takes off the table the option to authorize a job action. And now we´re expected to work overtime, without pay, to make up for the classes the university cancelled. What a deal. If workload policies apply, will we be docked only for the portion that corresponds to teaching? I doubt it. What ever happened to the assertion that our pay can´t be docked without individual hearings? | ||
| Author: mili | Sep 12, 2009 12:48 am | Top | Reply |
| We should insist on accepting the docking only if the amount saved is given back to the students. Given the accounting nightmare that this will be and the overhead that it will represent to various offices on campus, the president and the provost should be docked for however many days are necessary to compensate those in charge of making all the changes. | ||
| Author: kidger | Sep 12, 2009 1:04 pm | Top | Reply |
Edited by kidger on Sep 12, 2009 11:05 pm | ||
| Author: mili | Sep 12, 2009 1:55 pm | Top | Reply |
| What are our options at this point? Once we have all the details about the TA, do we just vote yes or no on the whole package or is there room for introducing amendments and voting on the "amended" contract? | ||
| Author: mitton | Sep 12, 2009 4:36 pm | Top | Reply |
| I understand that we will vote on the whole as a package. No line veto options for us or President Obama. I would not mind the 2 days if the funds were put into student scholarship funds. | ||
| Author: kubicek | Sep 12, 2009 5:17 pm | Top | Reply |
| We will have to vote on thte whole, and I still cannot really believe the admin is insisting on this point. This issue is disturbing on so many levels. As one of you suggested above, it may prevent any furher job actions. For me, however, what is galling is that the admin completely dropped the idea that students would get a whole semester of instruction. Unless we work overtime, they won't. If they want to "dock" us and say we got an unpaid "holiday," I guess we suck it up given lack of other options (even though we were told this could not happen). However, I would encourage students to demand a 7% return on their tuition considering they will get 1 less week of instruction--fair is fair. | ||
| Author: mili | Sep 12, 2009 8:37 pm | Top | Reply |
| I would not mind the 2 days docking; I would not mind scheduling two Saturdays to make sure that my students get their full 14-weeks worth of lectures and material --as long as it is made very clear to all students that they paid for 14 weeks and the university is giving them only 13 weeks. The 14th is a gift from us. Thus they are entitled to a refund and should ask for their money back. The question now is what is the most effective way to convey this to the students. An open letter sent to students' newspaper, a posting on moodle for all of our classes, .... | ||
| Author: marsh | Sep 12, 2009 10:00 pm | Top | Reply |
| Hello Everyone ...Let's do the Math here. Most students were never going to receive 14 weeks of instruction in the first place. Classes were to begin on September 3 and end on December 5(still do). That is a total of 94 days (or 13.42 weeks). Broken down on a day by day basis, Monday classes would have only met 12 times (due to Labor Day recess)and Tuesday through Friday classes 13 times (due to Thanksgiving recess). Only Saturday classes would have met 14 times. Now Monday through Friday classes will meet 12 times and Saturday classes 13 times. Therefore, Tuesday through Friday classes are now just on par with Monday classes. It seems to me that the university already started downsizing the semester long before the cancelled classes due to the "work action". Smaller size, larger price ... capitalism at its finest! Just my two cents (approximately a weeks pay after the pay docking, increased medical insurance, etc.). | ||
| Author: edwards2 | Sep 12, 2009 10:25 pm | Top | Reply |
| I was actually quite shocked when I read those promised modifications to the calendar that would ensure a 'full semester of instruction.' In my email communications to students during the job action and in my discussions with my Thursday classes, I reiterated these expected adjustments to the semester. Clearly, I was wrong and I feel badly that I will have to tell my students about this (even if a few of them will be happy to avoid additional class meetings.) In addition to the punitive action against faculty, OU students have been penalized, both academically and financially. It seems the administration found a way to trade a week's worth of bad publicity for an extra week's tuition from students, two days' salary from instructors, and a number of concessions from the faculty union that may pave the way for more radical changes in health care benefits, tenure-track hiring practice, and other areas. After reading the above posts and thinking more about the situation as it stands, I hope that someone can offer a more optimistic perspective on the these issues. | ||
| Author: lal | Sep 13, 2009 1:50 am | Top | Reply |
| The thread of this discussion topic is growing and I am surprised that no one from the AAUP or the bargaining team has made any attempt to respond to the issue raised by many faculty members in this forum. I strongly support our bargaining team for their efforts but wonder if they were somehow forced to agree with this agreement. I don't know the details but I sense a growing strong sentiments among my colleagues that we did not receive a fair deal in this tentative agreement. I would appreciate if someone knowledgeable of the details of the agreement could please respond to our concern! | ||
| Author: kidger | Sep 13, 2009 12:51 am | Top | Reply |
Edited by kidger on Sep 19, 2009 2:17 pm | ||
| Author: yumibe | Sep 15, 2009 9:29 am | Top | Reply |
| Does anyone have a sense of the math on this (not my strong point)? If we're talking a 9 month pay cycle and a 20 workday month, that's a 180 days of work; a two-day punitive and collective docking of pay would mean that we're taking over a 2% pay cut for the year. What does that amount to? Were the numbers $500,000 would cover a 1% pay increase for the faculty? If this math is anywhere in the ballpark--and correct me if it's not--the administration is being rewarded upwards of a $1,000,000 for negotiating in bad faith. I missed only one day of teaching (my schedule is Mondays and Wednesdays); however, I absolutely stand with the rest of the faculty if we're going to be collectively punished for two days of salary. I also stand by the union and am extremely grateful for the incredible work they've put in for us, but like everyone else here, I would like more of an explanation of this point. | ||
| Author: yumibe | Sep 15, 2009 4:04 pm | Top | Reply |
| Revision: my math was off, two-days docked pay on a 9 month, 20 workday month, would be a 1.1% pay reduction for the year; $500,000+ profit for the University. | ||
| Author: latcha | Sep 15, 2009 7:01 pm | Top | Reply |
| The "pay docking" idea was brought up by the Administration just as the teams had agreed that all of the issues were settled. The idea was immediately grabbed by the state mediator and the circuit court judge, who both said it was "usual." We objected, of course, and pointed out that the Adminstration did not lose any fruits of production as if we worked in a factory, and that students would receive a full semester's worth of instruction. However, all we could do at that point was to argue then down from the original 4.5 days to 2 days, and insist that if the semester were extended that it be extended no more than two days (the two days of the job action we were not already penalized). To add insult to injury, the Administration flatly refused in front of the state mediator to put this money into student scholarships. It is important to note that there has been little said about this by the Administration. It is possible (no opinion of how likely) that our pay won't be docked at all. To do so would be, as you've pointed out, punitive and petty... and would foolishly toss away the last bits of good will and trust that the Administration has remaining. And yes, the AAUP will resist this, insisting at the very least on individual hearings for each faculty member to be docked, as happens in other industries where workers are docked for strike activities. Edited by latcha on Sep 15, 2009 7:11 pm | ||
| Author: latcha | Sep 15, 2009 7:08 pm | Top | Reply |
| The math involved... our service year runs from 2 days before the start of classes in the fall to the end of finals in the winter, and includes every single day, even weekends and holidays. There are about 240 days in our 09-10 service year, so losing two of them amounts to a 1/120 = 0.8% total loss in salary. | ||
| Author: polis | Sep 15, 2009 9:37 pm | Top | Reply |
| Suppose OU refuses to have hearings and insists that the docking of pay was part of the Agreement? Does anyone know how likely is it that because the AAUP will "resist this, insisting at the very least on individual hearings..." that hearings will be held? | ||
| Author: simon | Sep 16, 2009 12:51 am | Top | Reply |
| Is there any way we can find out EXACTLY what OU has in mind so far as the docking, before we vote to ratify or not? I would hate to leave this open to interpretation. | ||
| Author: hartmus | Sep 17, 2009 9:01 am | Top | Reply |
| I would assume that the TA implicitly "waives" our right to insist on individual hearings. It seems important to have this issue clarified. | ||
| Author: latcha | Sep 21, 2009 7:53 am | Top | Reply |
| At 1:20 pm on Friday, September 18, 2009, Joel Russell, the President of the AAUP, was informed by Virinder Moudgil that President Russi had agreed to not implement the 2-day pay docking previously demanded by the administration. The AAUP had been in talks with the Provost regarding the 2-day docking since the September 10 return to classes. Virinder Moudgil, Sr. Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost, was instrumental in removing this provision which had further degraded relationships between the Oakland University faculty and the administration. | ||
| Add to this discussion (members only): Note: All fields must be entered to submit a message. | |
| User Name: | @oakland.edu |
| Password: | Forgot your password? |
| Message: | |
| User Name: | @oakland.edu |
| Password: | Forgot your password? |