Bargaining Session Report
Our latest bargaining meeting with the Oakland team was Thursday, July 8, 2021.
We presented two counter proposals:
- Workload Policy Review. The teams have exchanged proposals and counter-proposals on the process for review of workload policies (paragraph 69 of the current Agreement). A principle point of contention is in Oakland’s proposal: if administration calls on a unit to review their workload policy but then does not accept their recommendation, and efforts to arrive at agreement fail, the provost may unilaterally impose a workload policy. In contrast, we maintain that workload policies are academic decisions in which the faculty’s voice and expertise are key. Our counter to Oakland’s proposal includes interaction between academic units and Oakland but preserves faculty’s central role in shaping their own unit’s workload policy.
- Full-Time Adjunct Faculty. Oakland previously proposed a change to the terms for full-time adjunct faculty (Appendix A of the current Agreement). They proposed to change the title of this position from adjunct professor to “professor of practice” in the interest of having a title that better reflects the position, and they proposed that there should be no limit on the number of such positions. We presented a counter proposal in which we agreed to the change in title (with the provision that current full-time adjunct faculty may retain their title if they wish), but we do not agree to an increase in the maximum number of these positions. The faculty positions defined in Appendix A are full-time positions which do not lead to job security. We believe that instructional needs can be met with other existing job titles and that it is not desirable to increase the number of full-time faculty who have no hope of job security.
We also questioned Oakland’s team about proposals that they had previously put on the table:
- Layoff and Recall. Previously (June 23) Oakland proposed a new retrenchment system that would limit the time frame of notice faculty would receive prior to layoff and expand Oakland’s ability to make layoff and recall decisions without faculty input. Their proposal also eliminates Appendix B which sets a minimum student/faculty ratio. Today we asked them questions about the rationale behind their proposal. The two sides are far apart on this issue.
- Grievances on CAP decisions. In our current Agreement, actions by FRPC are not grievable. Oakland previously (June 18) proposed that this also apply to CAP. It should be noted that both FRPC and CAP are faculty committees and actions by faculty cannot be grieved. We questioned Oakland about their desire for this addition and will take it under consideration.
We informed Oakland that two of their proposals which they put on the table on June 18th, were not acceptable to us:
- Graduate students teaching credit courses. Oakland previously proposed to increase the number of credits that can be taught by graduate assistants from four to six per semester.
- Arbitration of tenure decisions. Oakland previously proposed that in the case of grievances from tenure reviews, the arbitrator’s decision would be only advisory and non-binding. We wish to note that under the current Agreement, a faculty member may file a grievance in tenure decisions only for procedural errors.
Oakland presented us with two proposals at the end of the meeting. One was Oakland’s latest counter on joint appointments, a matter on which we have had constructive discussion, and the other was on Article XXIX (University Calendar). We are reviewing the proposals and will respond at a future meeting.
The two teams are set to meet again on Monday, July 12.