Bargaining Diary Archives

Our OU-AAUP negotiation team met with the employer’s team for two hours today. The employer’s team presented all of their language proposals and responded to the OU-AAUP’s language proposals from last week. Once again, several of our members joined our bargaining team today to lend their support, insight and solidarity. Discussions on all of these language issues will continue at the next bargaining session scheduled for June 26th.  We appreciate everyone following the bargaining diary and offering support, guidance and solidarity along the way!   

Employer’s Proposals:

• Change to Arbitration List. This proposal from the employer is just a matter of housekeeping as one arbitrator listed in paragraph 193 is now deceased.  The employer’s proposal simply strikes the name from the list of eligible arbitrators. 

• Faculty Tuition Waiver.  The employer’s proposal modifies language in paragraph 129 regarding who is eligible to receive the tuition waiver benefit.  While the employer asserts this modification is strictly a housekeeping/grammar item, our team will review the new language carefully to ensure it has no further limiting effect on the existing contractual rights.  

• Faculty Employment, Re-employment, and Tenure.  The employer’s proposal puts forward a number of changes.  Some of the changes adjust the notice dates for faculty reviews to more closely mirror actual practice while other changes revise the existing list of academic unit names to properly reflect the current, accurate names.  One potentially impactful change proposed amends how faculty are notified about reviews.  Another proposed change limits the number of years of prior service credit a new hire can get from three years to two years.  There are many issues on the table regarding Article VII, some simple and some incredibly complex; both sides acknowledge much more discussion is warranted.  

• Discipline and Discharge.  The employer proposed amending paragraph 67 to allow Oakland to potentially impose temporary increases to a faculty member’s teaching workload if there are deficiencies in their research or service performance.  Our team steadfastly believes the Workload Statement to be the property of the academic units.   

• University Calendar.  The employer proposes changes to the University calendar.  Calendar issues are mutli-faceted and complex as well as a cornerstone of our working conditions.  Our team will be reviewing the proposed changes carefully with those in our membership who have special expertise on calendar matters before responding.

• Professional Responsibilities.  The employer’s proposal asserts a uniform base teaching workload for Special Instructors and Professors of Practice across all academic units.  Again, our team steadfastly believes the Workload Statement to be the property of the academic units; individual units may amend their Workload Statement to reflect these principles if they so desire.  The proposal also adds language to paragraph 72 that imposes new rules regarding outside professional work of full-time faculty.  

• Research and Full-Time Practitioner Faculty.  The employer proposes a mandatory review by CAP for all Research Professors prior to renewal.  It also eliminates the language that currently allows for promotion of Research and Full-Time Practitioner Faculty and instead changes the language to reflect only a title change.  Finally, the proposal seeks to remove the current cap on the number of Research Professors employed at the University.  

• Other Items for Consideration.  The employer included several other proposals that were ostensibly housekeeping, the only one of note being the one that asserts the next contract shall be five years in length.  Without a full understanding of what is being negotiated, our team cannot speak to contract length.  

Employer’s Responses to OU-AAUP Language Proposals

• The employer is in favor of our proposal regarding expanding emeritus eligibility to Special Instructors with job security.  
• The employer felt that our proposal regarding faculty salary increase (paragraph 76) was a financial proposal and deferred discussion for the time being.
• The employer is unwilling to consider either of the proposals as written that were put forward by our team last week regarding Special Lecturers.  We will continue to advocate for changes that provide at least a modicum of job security to our most vulnerable faculty.