Bargaining Diary
2024

Page Views: 29,056
September 3, 2024
Bargaining Session Update

We have reached a Tentative Agreement and classes will begin as scheduled tomorrow. We encourage everyone to email their students asap to let them know.
Members should check their email for further information about the tentative agreement and ratification process.
September 1, 2024
Today’s meeting with the employer did not yield a new contract. We started the day by sharing an economic proposal, but after several hours, the employer informed us they were not willing to respond with any economic proposals today.

 

Following the mandate set by our members at Friday’s meetings, our proposal kept the merit pool percentages and market adjustment funds where they had been in our last economic proposal.  The only changes were a slight decrease in the one-time payment and a small decrease in the summer pay maximum for Year Five of the contract.
 
The two teams agreed to a number of small items including a small change to a reporting process.  The most important thing to come from today’s meeting is that the employer has retracted its effort to construct a universal workload policy.  The faculty was unequivocal in its opposition to this idea and the clear message you sent staved off this violation of the principle of shared governance.  
 
We will meet again on Tuesday with the assistance of the mediator.  We will do our best to update all of you throughout the day as to our progress.  The negotiating team appreciates the support of our members as we continue to fight for a contract that fairly rewards faculty for doing the vital work of the university.
August 28, 2024
Bargaining Session Update

After a very long day, we remain without a new contract. We have agreed to a contract extension through the end of the day, September 3. While the next bargaining session with the mediator is scheduled for September 3, the teams have agreed to consider an earlier date in order to reach a contract agreement as soon as possible.

During today’s negotiations, several proposals were passed back and forth through the mediator. The AAUP has made every effort to reach a fair and equitable contract that meets the needs of our members. The employer continues to use unrealistically conservative budget projections to excuse their minimal and insufficient salary increases. Three years ago, the employer made similarly unrealistic budget projections to argue that adequately paying faculty was not possible.  Rather than balanced budgets during those three years, revenues actually exceeded expenditures by over $80 million. Ultimately, these funds were added to Oakland’s reserves rather than funding market-appropriate compensation. 

In addition, the employer has persisted in tying changes to workload policy to any significant movement on salary increases. 


The bargaining team will hold membership meetings this Friday, both in person and virtually.  Faculty should have received the information via email and another notice will be shared tomorrow. We look forward to continuing negotiations on behalf of our very deserving faculty.

August 21, 2024
Bargaining Session Update

The bargaining team met today with the employer’s team without the state-appointed mediator. In a more productive round of talks, one language item was agreed to and the teams exchanged ideas on the outstanding economic issues without any formal proposals being made. In addition, the remaining language issues were discussed and while some movement was made between the two sides, there remain some sticking points.

 

Tentative Agreement:

Appendix A (Research and Full-Time Practitioner Faculty) - We have tentatively agreed to changes to Appendix A on Research and Full-time Practitioner Faculty.  New language in this appendix adds CAP into the review process for Research Faculty and establishes a mechanism to initiate a discussion on increasinging the cap to this category.  The current cap is 20 and we agreed that this cap might be raised if the actual number of such faculty reaches 18.  At present there are 2.  Most importantly, existing language which allows for the possibility that these faculty may be promoted as opposed to simply receiving title changes was maintained.

 

Remaining Items:

The two teams exchanged a number of hypothetical proposals on economics that, while not changing their table positions, allow for discussion of these issues.  This provides for both sides to move backwards on some issues without engaging in unfair bargaining.  For instance, the employer’s table position is for a five year contract but they have offered a hypothetical three year.  Likewise, the union remains committed to a three year contract but has shared with the employer what an acceptable five year contract might look like. In addition, the two sides are very close to agreements on increases to travel and research funds.  Finally, the employer has indicated that it will drop their proposal for a forced distribution of merit from the final economic package.  

Our current economic table proposal includes a 3 year contract with 4% merit pool each year plus an $8,500 one-time payment to full-time non-visiting faculty in year 1 and $1.75 million market adjustments for both years 2 and 3.  The proposal offers equivalent raises for SLs in per credit pay.  Our 5 year hypothetical works within a similar framework but maintains above-predicted inflation merit raise for years four and five.  The employer’s table position remains the same as described in the August 15 bargaining diary post while their hypothetical proposals include small adjustments to merit pool percentages and market adjustment contributions.

The employer continues to propose changes to impose a uniform workload for full-time faculty and continues to insist that any economic progress is dependent on accepting this fundamental alteration to our system of shared governance.  The union, likewise, insists that this an entirely unacceptable violation of a deeply held principle - that faculty remain the best caretakers of the work of faculty.

The teams are scheduled to meet again with the mediator on August 28th.  We understand the concern and worry many of you have as you wait for updates from your team and that makes us all the more appreciative of the support of all of our members.  We will continue to work on your behalf to secure a fair contract. 

August 19, 2024
Bargaining Update

The OU-AAUP bargaining team would like to address the misinformation the employer presented in their bargaining diary dated August 15. The post contains a number of distortions which marks an escalation in tone that threatens the success of the ongoing negotiations.
 
First, it is patently untrue that our team broke off negotiations on August 15th.  After waiting several hours for the employer to submit a proposal through the mediator, our team promptly replied with a counter proposal.  Shortly after, the mediator informed our team that the employer would not be making any further proposals. We requested to meet with Oakland’s team and the mediator to discuss our proposal and were flatly refused.  Their refusals effectively ended the day’s proceedings.  We still await their counter proposal.
Similarly, the employer’s claim that they withdrew their proposal for a forced distribution of merit scores is disingenuous.  The proposals that contained the forced distribution scheme were part of packages that were rejected by both teams in the course of negotiations.  To clarify, proposal packages are accepted and rejected as a whole and so the forced distribution proposal remains very much a part of the employer’s table position.
Similarly, what the employer describes as a modification of their proposal for full-time faculty workloads still maintains their position that faculty should teach uniform course loads across the institution.  Here, at least, we agree with the employer’s characterization of the day’s events: the OU-AAUP has rejected this proposal and will continue to reject it.  In a recent article in the Oakland Post, chief financial officer Steve Mackey described Oakland’s proposal on workload as an effort to “drive down the cost of instruction.”  Again, we agree, though we would add that their entire contract proposal is driven by their ongoing project to drive down the cost of instruction by increasing faculty workloads all the while reducing their compensation.
Finally, their thinly veiled threats to raise tuition in response to the OU-AAUP’s contract proposals are a cynical attempt to divide students and faculty. These scare tactics do not account for their own audited financial statements which show that Oakland regularly generates revenues in excess of their expenses.  These “reserve funds,” which have been steadily growing while faculty salaries have been just as steadily declining, are maintained in their inflated state to allow the university to withstand a hypothetical catastrophe that prohibits them from generating any revenue but requires continuing to pay all expenses.  
The OU-AAUP bargaining team regrets that the legitimate issues that continue to separate the two teams should be so badly distorted.  We remain committed to working with the employer and have secured an additional meeting to be held on August 21st in spite of their insistence that we not meet again until the 28th.  We believe that it is vital, in spite of the difficult differences that remain between us, that we continue to meet and talk to come to an equitable contract that fairly rewards faculty for their efforts on behalf of OU students and the entire community.
August 15, 2024
Bargaining Session Update

Today our team met with the employer and the state-appointed mediator via Zoom due to health concerns. Our team made a good faith effort to engage in productive discussions, making proposals and counter proposals to resolve language issues so that more fruitful discussion on economic issues could take place. Unfortunately, little progress was made. The teams have agreed to extend the contract through August 28 though no other discussions are planned as the employer refuses to meet without the mediator.

The two issues that remain outstanding are the forced distribution of merit scores and a uniform workload policy.  The employer is proposing to alter the current merit system to require that only 10-15% of full-time faculty receive merit scores of 5 and only 20-25% receive a 4. In the last year for which we have data, this would have resulted in driving down the scores and wages of over 300 members.  This not only has the effect of undermining the merit system but would result in economic bias and discrimination.  The uniform workload proposal seeks to impose a one-size-fits-all model for full-time teaching in units across the institution.  This constitutes a threat to disciplinary control over the work of the faculty in an effort to drive down the cost of instruction.  

On economics the two sides remain far apart.  The employer continues to insist on a five year contract with merit raises that have increased less than 2% since their initial offer.  They did offer a market adjustment in year three of the contract though it is funded with only $300,000, far less than the more than $3,000,000 needed to close the gap between Oakland and its peer institutions.  There is also a $1,000 lump sum in the first year.

The union continues to work toward a three year contract with 4% salary increases in the merit pool.  We agreed to eliminate the 2.5% ATB in year three and to divide the $3,500,000 market pool between years two and three.  In response to the employer’s concerns over future state funding, we offered to make our request for an $8,500 addition to base salary a one-time lump sum in the first years. 


In spite of the employer’s refusal to meet over the next couple of weeks, our team will continue to work together for a contract that is fair and equitable.  The team is grateful for your support and encouragement as we enter the most difficult phase of this process.  

 

 

August 8, 2024
Bargaining Session Update

It was another incredibly long day at the bargaining table. While agreement was reached on one language item, the calendar, very little else was accomplished. The employer brought CFO Steve Mackey back to the bargaining room to give another presentation. Both sides shared economic proposals but we remain far apart. The employer continues to propose both a uniform workload for special instructors and a forced merit distribution, neither of which is acceptable. We signed a contract extension through August 15, one day past the current contract expiration date and the date of our next session with the mediator.

Article XXIX and Appendix I (Calendar):  Due to the complex nature of the calendar and in recognition of the now-standing Senate calendar committee, the two teams agreed to maintain current calendar contract language and also agreed to a Memorandum Of Agreement (MOA) to open back up the calendar discussion sometime after January 15, 2025.  An MOA is an agreement outside the collective bargaining contract that is equally enforceable as all the rest of the contract language.  We agreed to this as an MOA because of its shortened timeline and the fact that it has no real substance other than to mandate future bargaining. This extra time will allow the Senate calendar committee time to fulfill its charge and gather input from across the campus community. 


Next Wednesday, 8/14, we will hold a noontime event, Sodas for Solidarity.  All of our members and members of other campus unions are invited and we welcome friends, partners, kids and other supporters to join us.  We encourage folks to bring a packed lunch to the Elliott clocktower area and the union will provide pop, water and swag.  This is a time for us to pull together; it would be great to get a big group picture at 12:30.  Your continued support matters.

August 5, 2024
Bargaining Session Update

We had another session attended by the mediator today. The OU-AAUP presented several counter proposals, both to language and economic articles. The majority of today’s session was spent arguing about the state of the employer’s finances and resource allocation priorities. In the course of presenting our economic articles, the OU-AAUP team shared moving narratives of faculty sacrifices in the wake of their declining purchasing power. We received over 100 responses from faculty of all ranks and across almost all academic units. Faculty identified a number of sacrifices including: cutbacks to spending on food; forgoing necessary medical procedures including surgeries, dental work and vital mental healthcare; inadequate housing and delayed house maintenance; reductions to childcare services and educational opportunities; and postponed car maintenance or replacement. An overwhelming number of faculty cited the need to engage in outside employment to make ends meet and regretted that their current salaries no longer covered the expenses of conducting research. The picture that emerges from these responses is one of a faculty that is deeply committed to Oakland and its students but also struggling to provide for the necessities of a decent life for themselves and their families.

The employer offered no economic proposals of any kind today.

We expect to receive counter proposals from the employer on a number of items, including economic, at our next session when the two teams meet again with the mediator on Wednesday, 8/7.

Article IV (Academic Titles):  This article was TA’d today with no adjustment to the definition of special lecturers but some correction to the language regarding special lecturer terms.

 

Article XI (Salary for Full-Time Non-Visiting Faculty):  The OU-AAUP countered the employer’s economic proposal from July 29.  In our proposal the lump sum increase to base salary in year one is $8,500 and the cost of living adjustment in year three is fixed to 2.5%.  All other economic increases proposed by the OU-AAUP on July 23 remain and our strong opposition to the forced distribution of merit scores was reinforced.

 

Article XIII (Compensation for Special Lecturers):  The OU-AAUP countered the employer’s economic proposal from July 29.  In our proposal the first year per credit salary increase is 12% and years two and three are 7%.  All other economic increases proposed by the OU-AAUP on July 23 remain.

 

Article XVIII (Retirement):  The OU-AAUP countered the employer’s economic proposal from July 29.  In our proposal the employer’s contribution to retirement increases to 15% once tenure or job security is achieved.  All other economic increases proposed by the OU-AAUP on July 23 remain.

 

We are thankful and humbled by the outpouring of responses we received from our members to the question sent from our bargaining team last Wednesday.  Every member of the bargaining team read each response multiple times and we can only say that it reinforced how important our work at the table is. 

 

 

July 29, 2024
Bargaining Session Update

The two teams spent the entire day together with the Michigan Employment Relations Committee (MERC)-appointed mediator. Mediation is a standard bargaining practice wherein teams voluntarily engage in negotiations with a confidential, third-party negotiator. At times the mediator will meet jointly with both teams while at other times they will move back and forth between the teams separately in their caucus rooms. A mediator has no authority to compel proposals for either side but is there to help the teams explore different resolutions.


The mediator will return on August 5th to continue negotiations.

At this point, we have made all of our language proposals. The employer shared a single language counter proposal with minor changes and added some more details on the costing they provided. In response to our economic proposal from last week, the employer offered incremental increases in the merit pool for years three through five from their July 10 proposal.  They continue to propose a forced distribution of merit scores; their proposal also includes modest annual increases to the faculty travel fund.

Article X (Professional Responsibilities):

The one remaining issue in Article X is the employer’s proposal to assert a uniform teaching workload for Special Instructors.  The employer slightly modified their language on this item but the basic concept remains unchanged as does the OU-AAUP’s position that faculty workload statements belong to the individual unit


Today was a long day for our team and we were grateful to run into some OU support while grabbing sandwiches off campus. The team will continue working throughout this week to be prepared for next week's sessions.   

 

July 23, 2024
Bargaining Session Update

General discussion about economics continued today with the OU-AAUP team presenting their costing and highlighting the stability and strength of the university’s current and future financial positions. The OU-AAUP countered on a single economic article and several language items while the employer offered no proposals today. After a brief caucus halfway through the session, the employer decided not to continue today’s three-hour session. Our next bargaining session was scheduled for this Thursday but the employer has decided to initiate the process to bring in a mediator. This means that the next bargaining sessions will be determined with a mediator once they have joined the teams.
Article IV (Academic Titles):  Our team offered a counter proposal that simply eliminates SL titles introduced in earlier proposals and adjusts inaccurate language from the employer’s proposal that outlined the tiered contracts for SLs.  The OU-AAUP remains committed to reworking the definition of SLs to more closely reflect the overall number of courses taught.

Article X (Professional Responsibilities):  The OU-AAUP team offered another counter proposal on this article that continues to reject the employer’s proposed universal workload for Special Instructors and takes into account the agreed upon language regarding outside professional work notification, particularly as relates to teaching.  The proposal also provides further modification to the language that would allow for individual faculty to request an increased teaching load to offset decreases in research or service, most notably the inclusion of a mandatory meeting that includes the faculty member as well as representatives from Oakland, the academic unit and the OU-AAUP prior to any written agreement.

Article XI (Salary for Full-Time Non-Visiting Faculty):  The OU-AAUP offered a proposal today that eliminates our proposed $12,000 to base increase for FT Visiting Faculty only.
 

Contract negotiations are always a long and arduous process.  A mediator is typically introduced when movement slows between the two sides and this is where we find ourselves now.  The introduction of a mediator is a very standard bargaining practice. A mediator has no authority to compel proposals for either side but can sometimes be helpful in the process of negotiations.  As we continue into this new phase of negotiations, we appreciate everyone’s continued support and we will do our best to keep members and the community informed.  

 
 

July 18, 2024
Bargaining Session Update

The two teams finished up at-the-table negotiations for the week today. Because the issues that remain are among the most challenging we will face this summer, very little progress was made. We did reach consensus on some smaller pieces of a few language items. We also discussed Tuesday’s budget presentation and requested further data. The two teams meet next on July 23 and July 25.
Article X (Professional Responsibilities):  
  • We continue to discuss ways in which to address possible faculty-initiated increases to teaching loads as an offset to reductions in research or service.  
  • The employer continues to assert their desire for a uniform teaching load for Special Instructors.  The OU-AAUP remains adamant that individual academic units best understand their workload needs and are responsible for addressing Special Instructor teaching workloads.
12-month teaching assignment concept
  • The teams further brainstormed the possibility of 12-month teaching assignments for limited and specific teaching cohort groups.  The idea needs a great deal of development before the pros and cons can truly be explored.  
 Appendix A (Research and Full-Time Practitioner Faculty)
  • The OU-AAUP team presented a counter proposal on Appendix A that accepted a requested change to include CAP in the review for research faculty 
  • The counter also offered language that addressed the employer’s concern regarding the 20-person cap on research faculty at Oakland.  Currently the university employs two.  Our proposal initiates a reasonable discussion to increase the cap should the number of research faculty reach 18.  
  • Most importantly, our proposal maintains existing language that allows for the possibility that these faculty may be promoted as opposed to simply receiving title changes.
Articles IV and XIII (Academic Titles and Compensation for Special Lecturers)
  • The OU-AAUP offered a counter proposal that removed our proposed fourth tier (increased salary and contract length) for Special Lecturers who have served for over 12 years.
  • Our counter maintains our original proposal language that broadens the Special Lecturer definition and introduces retirement contributions.
  • The employer countered on Article IV with minor language changes but no agreement on any of our concerns.
 Article XX (Leaves with Pay)
  • The OU-AAUP offered a counter proposal that slightly modified the employer’s previous proposal to move to a once a year sabbatical application process and slightly modified the application process for professional development and research leaves, but our team largely accepted both of the principles proposed.
  • The employer countered on this article after a caucus, largely accepting our language changes regarding sabbatical application timing but refusing to consider any increase to research fellowship and grants and refusing to consider our slight modification to the current paid parental leave policy.
 Article XXIX and Appendix I (Calendar)
  • More discussion about calendar concerns took place.  Our team shared the 2023-24 Ad-Hoc Senate calendar committee’s annual report which discusses priorities shared across campus and identifies the need for campus-wide discussions on the calendar to continue.  

As discussions get more complicated and more challenging, your support is even more appreciated.  We gratefully read all of the emails, text and survey responses we receive as it helps us best advocate at the table for the membership. 

 
July 16, 2024
Bargaining Session Update

Another long afternoon at the table for our team. Steve Mackey, OU's CFO, gave a budget presentation at today’s session and we were joined for that presentation by three of our SBA faculty. We discussed almost all of the remaining language items with little progress, in part because some team members were missing from both sides. Additionally the employer offered a counter to our economic proposal. The teams meet next on Thursday, July 18th.
Economics - The employer’s counter to the OU-AAUP economic proposal saw very little movement from their initial proposal presented on July 3 and it did not accept any of the OU-AAUP proposed economic changes.  Their current proposal includes the following:
  • An increase to their initial proposed Year 5 salary for all faculty from 2% to 2.2%.  No other salary increase changes were offered;
  • An increase to the promotion raise for faculty moving from Associate to Professor from the existing $8,000 to $8,500.  No other increases to promotion raises were proposed;
  • No Faculty Travel funding increase;
  • No Professional Development and Research Leave funding increase;
  • No Change to Retirement Contributions;
  • No Change to Paid Parental Leave.
 
Language - Both sides shared counter proposals on language items today.  While discussions were collegial, little progress was made. The following items were discussed:
  • OU-AAUP Counter on Article X (Professional Responsibility):  Our team presented a counter that rejected the concept of a universal teaching load for Special Instructors, thereby preserving individual academic units’ ownership of workload.  It also reimagined a voluntary increase to teaching load that goes along with a reduction to either service or research expectations to be initiated by a faculty member and requiring AAUP approval.  And finally, the counter included largely-agreed-upon language regarding outside professional work that slightly differentiated timelines for notification of outside teaching and notification of other outside professional work.
  • OU-AAUP Counter on Article XXIX and Appendix I (Calendar):  Our team presented a calendar proposal that sought to address some of the main concerns about class days and potential holidays while still maintaining the two 8-week summer sessions.
  • Appendix Q (Medical Insurance Advisory Group):  The employer refused to consider our proposal to introduce a medical insurance advisory group.  Our team continues to believe that collaborative discussions on plan selections and rate discussions could help reduce medical insurance costs and improve plan options for all employees and the university.
  • The employer introduced the concept of a limited category for 12-month faculty.  While not an actual proposal, the concept imagined what such a position may look like in the contract.  Our team will spend time reviewing the concept and continue the conversation at our next session.
 

Keep using your voices to share how you feel about what’s happening at the bargaining table!  We honestly cannot truly convey how helpful your input and support is as we work through this process.  

 

 

July 10
Bargaining Session Update

The two teams met for several hours today and discussed both language and economic issues. We continue to make progress on language issues but differences in approaches to workload, calendar, and outside professional work remain. Today the OU-AAUP team presented our economic proposals (see below). Our proposals are based on member feedback and address the erosion of wages to inflation, make Oakland competitive with our peers, and put wages back on the path of increased growth. The next scheduled bargaining dates are July 16 and 18.

Tentative Agreements

  • Intellectual Property Advisory Committee
    • The teams agreed to the creation of a joint advisory committee to explore existing intellectual property policies and practices and consider current and future needs.  
  • Article VII (Faculty Employment, Re-Employment, and Tenure)
    • The teams agreed to a number of changes in this article, many of which simply reflect actual current practices.  Up to three years of credit for prior experience for new hires was maintained but clarity was provided for impacted review schedules.  The optional or early granting of tenure with or without promotion (paragraph 41h) was extended to special instructors seeking concurrent reviews connected with job security.  

 OU-AAUP Economic Proposal

  • 2024-2025 - A one-time lump sum of $12,000 to be added to base salary to full-time faculty persons, plus 4.0% merit pool,
  • 2025-2026 - Market adjustment and Appendix N, plus 4.0% merit pool,
  • 2026-2027 - Cost of living adjustment as determined by Consumer Price Index, plus 4.0% merit pool,
  • Increases to Promotional Raises, Faculty Travel Fund and Professional and Research Development Fund,
  • Increases to per credit wages and introduction of Oakland retirement contributions for special lecturers,
  • Language changes to paid parental leave and paragraph 76 that will allow for more equitable implementation of those contract provisions.

We know members have a million things going on throughout the summer so we appreciated the continued engagement and support.  It helps us immensely at the table to know we are negotiating as part of a deeply united and committed bargaining unit that receives broad support from across the campus community.  

July 8, 2024
Bargaining Update

Today's scheduled bargaining session did not occur due to extenuating circumstances but the teams are scheduled to meet July 10 at which time the OU-AAUP team is planning to present our economic proposals.

The employer's economic package shared last week offered a 5-year proposal with merit-only salary increases of 4%, 2.75%, 2%, 2% and 2%, respectively, and parallel raises for special lecturers. Their package offered no other increases and proposed a forced distribution on merit scores.
July 3, 2024
Bargaining Session Update

Today, before heading into the long holiday weekend, the two negotiation teams spent several hours at the table together. Most of the simpler language items have been resolved but several complicated and incredibly important items remain on the table, including language proposals from Oakland that seek to weaken individual academic units’ control over workload. Near the end of today’s session, the employer’s team presented their economic package. Our team will take the weekend to review the economic proposals and be prepared with a response as well as our own economic proposals during next week’s negotiations. Bargaining sessions are currently scheduled for July 8, 10, 16 and 18.

Tentative Agreement:

The teams TA’d Article IX (Discipline and Discharge).  The change originally requested by the employer in this article to allow for a temporary increase in the teaching workload of faculty deficient in research or service was slightly modified and moved to Article X (Professional Responsibilties).  It remains an important item of discussion.


Ongoing Discussions:

Faculty Employment, Re-employment, and Tenure (Article VII):  While the teams did agree in principle on some minor changes to review procedures, other items remain open.  Our team does not want to see the possibility of three years of prior experience for tenure track and Special Instructors hires reduced.

Professional Responsibilities (Article X):  The employer shared a new proposal on this article today that included slightly modified language from their original proposal to Article IX (Discipline and Discharge).  The employer still seeks to allow the increase to an individual faculty member’s teaching workload as “relief” from research or service expectations. In their proposal the employer also seeks to impose a universal teaching workload for faculty in the rank of Special Instructor.  Both of these proposals interfere with the individual academic units’ Workload Statements.  

Calendar (Article XXIX and Appendix I):  Both teams spent time and energy on the employer’s calendar proposal.  While both teams acknowledge room for improvement in the current calendar, we have yet to find consensus either in terms of calendar priorities or adjustments. Discussion will continue on this subject Monday.  

Special Lecturer Scheduling Priority (Appendix O): The OU-AAUP team presented a modified version of our Scheduling Priority for Special Lecturers.  As with our previous proposal, this one offers a modicum of job security that will improve the overall working conditions for our most vulnerable faculty, butt the new one also addresses the employer’s concerns regarding scheduling concerns for full-time faculty.  

Intellectual Property Committee:  The employer’s team offered a counter proposal to our team’s Intellectual Property Advisory Committee Letter of Agreement shared last week.  The two teams generally agree on the principle behind the committee and just must reach final agreement on language.


We were joined in the room today by several members with expertise and experiences on topics under discussion. As always, we appreciate all of the support being offered by faculty, staff, students, alumni and community members!

June 26, 2024
Bargaining Session Update

This morning the OU-AAUP team met for several hours with the employer’s team for a productive day of negotiations. The entire session was devoted to continued conversations on most of the open language proposals. The two teams will meet next on July 3, 8 and 10. As we move into July, we hope to begin discussions of economic proposals.

Tentative Agreements 

 When two sides reach a tentative agreement on one or a number of items, each side’s representative signs the section/s of the contract in question as an indicator of a preliminary agreement.  This allows teams to set those matters aside for the time being and focus on other sections of the contract. It does not mean those matters cannot be returned to should a need arise later in negotiations but it is an indicator of forward progress.

  • Tuition Benefit

    • The two teams reached a tentative agreement on one significant item, Article XVII (Tuition Benefit).  The only changes to this article involve small grammatical corrections.  Nothing else about the article, and therefore the benefit, has been changed in any way.  

  • Miscellaneous items

    • Tentative agreements were also reached on a number of small items including Article XXIV (Grievance Procedure), Article XXXV (Party Representatives) and the removal of the LOA located in the Appendix (Formulary Structure).  

Ongoing Discussions

  • Both sides essentially agree on the OU-AAUP’s proposal regarding the eligibility of Special Instructors for emeritus status.  Our team will propose other changes to this article (Article IV) later in negotiations so, while there is consensus, no official tentative agreement was signed on this matter today.

  • Article VII (Faculty Employment, Re-Employment, and Tenure) is a dense, complicated article.  Our team acknowledges the existence of problems within the article as written but needs more time to fully address all changes proposed by Oakland at last week’s session.

  • Our team restated its opposition to the employer’s proposal to Article IX (Discipline and Discharge).  Their proposal allows a faculty member’s teaching workload to be increased in cases of deficiencies in research or service without regard to their academic unit’s workload policy.  For a myriad of reasons, the OU-AAUP disagrees.  We are opposed to teaching being utilized as punishment; furthermore, an increase in teaching is unlikely to enable deficiencies in research or service to be corrected.  Finally, we affirm that workload policies belong to individual academic units.  

  • Discussions of Article X (Professional Responsibility) were wide-ranging.  Our team remains firm in the conviction that no universal workload can be placed upon Special Instructors as this needs to be addressed within individual academic units’ workload policies.  The OU-AAUP did offer a counter proposal narrowly aimed at addressing the employer’s specific concern regarding faculty notification of outside teaching during the academic year (Fall/Winter); the conversation regarding Paragraph 72 is ongoing.

  • After the employer expressed concern about intellectual property processes across the University, our team drafted and shared a proposal that would create an advisory committee to research intellectual property processes.  The aim of the committee would be to review applicable collective bargaining provisions as well as University policies and procedures.  The committee would have no power to enforce changes to the collective bargaining agreement.

  • The teams spent some time discussing possible changes to the Article XXIX and Appendix I (University Calendar).  The topic is incredibly complex and the two sides continue to exchange ideas.  Discussions on this item will continue next week.

  • The OU-AAUP team expressed an unwillingness to discuss Article XXXIV (Effective Date and Duration) at present.  This article will be raised again once the negotiations are further along.

  • The employer has proposed several changes to Appendix A (Research and Full-Time Practitioner Faculty).  They propose to remove the cap on Research Professors, which now stands at 20, even though only two such faculty members are currently employed by the University.  More troubling  is the employer’s desire to eliminate promotions for these faculty and Full-Time Practitioner Faculty, thereby removing the associated promotional raises guaranteed by Paragraph 77.  Our team strongly believes our faculty’s service to the University warrants the existing promotions.   

We continue to be grateful for the emails, text messages, phone calls and social media posts.  These negotiations belong to our members and we are infinitely stronger at the table with a fully engaged and fully informed membership by our side. 

 

June 19, 2024
Bargaining Session Update

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.
June 13, 2024
Bargaining Session Update

We met with the employer’s team for a couple of hours today. Bargaining often begins with non-economic issues as the parties learn about one another before tackling the economic matters. Our team presented several contract language proposals today, outlined below. Because several of the proposals we presented were of particular concern to Special Instructors and Special Lecturers, we invited several long-serving SIs and SLs to the room and were grateful for those who could attend. The employer’s team did not have any proposals to present and indicated they would respond to our proposals at the next bargaining session scheduled for June 19.

 OU-AAUP Proposals:

  • Paragraph 76, Faculty Salary Increase Application.  This proposal simply allows a faculty member to initiate a request for a Paragraph 76 salary increase.  It changes nothing about the circumstances under which such a salary increase may be awarded, nor does it change anything about Oakland’s sole discretion in awarding such an increase.  Faculty are in the best position to advocate for themselves and should be able to participate fully in a process designed to reward excellence and achieve equity.  
  • Special Lecturer Priority Hire.  This proposal provides priority in hiring for current qualified Special Lecturers over non-bargaining unit faculty or new part-time hires. It also establishes a seniority for Special Lecturers in course assignments which will be used to assign courses after existing Special Lecturers have met minimum teaching loads.  Implementing these minor changes will give our Special Lecturers a modicum of security that will improve their overall working conditions.
  • Internal Posting of Special Instructor and Instructor of Practice Positions.  As is already done for internal staff postings at Oakland, we are proposing that postings for full-time non-tenured positions be posted internally for a period of at least 10 days, be broadcast internally to regular part-time faculty and that the positions not require external recruitment. Such a change provides access to greater job security for our least secure faculty members and offers opportunities for greater stability and continuity within academic units, not to mention the added benefit of reduced costs associated with hiring and onboarding.  
  • Emeritus Special Instructor.  We propose to expand the possibility of Emeritus status to Special Instructors with Job Security.  The proposal mirrors the current language regarding Emeritus status for tenured faculty.  Special Instructors would have to have 15 years of consecutive service at Oakland and at least 10 years of Job Security in order to be considered for Emeritus status.  Expanding the definition of Emeritus allows for long-serving, dedicated faculty to be properly acknowledged and provides space for them to continue as invested members of the Oakland community.
June 4, 2024
Bargaining Session Update

Today OU-AAUP's Bargaining Team, led by Chief Negotiator Tom Discenna with Cara Shelly, Helen Levenson, Lori Ostergaard, Bob Fetter, Jacob Becker, Kasey Tomlin and Amy Pollard, met with a team representing OU's Board of Trustees. This session was largely introductory with no proposals exchanged. Tom did share an Opening Statement with the administration team and we have included that in its entirety below. We were excited and grateful to be joined a handful of member observers in the room today. The next bargaining session is tentatively scheduled for 6/13/24.

Chief Negotiator Tom Discenna's Opening Statement:

This summer marks a pivotal moment in the history of Oakland University and for higher education.  We in this room have been presented with a unique and vital opportunity.  Today, we commit ourselves to, in the words of the university’s FAQs on negotiations, the task of “providing faculty members with the resources and tools they need to perform the work of the university while compensating them fairly for their efforts in advancing the mission of the university in teaching, research, and service” we will, working together, have taken a significant step in reframing the popular discussion concerning higher education across this country.

 

This summer we can restore the public’s faith in higher education by working, transparently and in a spirit of collaboration, to arrest the downward slide in faculty salaries and benefits and reset them on a path of continued growth that matches their prodigious productivity.  By doing so we will demonstrate to the public, including our current and future students, that at Oakland the crucial work of education, inclusive of scholarship in all of its multifaceted variations, is valued above all other priorities.  The public’s confidence in higher education will be restored when the faculty who provide it can do their work secure in the knowledge that they and their families have affordable, quality benefits, including a secure, equitable retirement for our colleagues at every rank.  In other words, we will signal to the community of southeastern Michigan that higher education is a public good worth preserving by appropriately compensating those of us who provide this public good to current and future generations.

 

The faculty of Oakland University believe in the promise of higher education.  We are ourselves the inheritors of that promise and we hold it as an inviolable trust to pass it down to succeeding generations so that they might share in the joy of learning and reap the benefit of all that a university education has to offer.  The promise of higher education is constructed on the bedrock principles of academic freedom and shared governance.   And so today we in this room must resolve to preserve and defend those principles so that decisions about the work of the university continue to be made by those in the best position to make them and that professors are free to speak out without fear of retaliation.  

We have the opportunity in these negotiations, at this pivotal moment, this inflection point in the history of higher education, to ensure that at this institution we reset the trajectory of faith in higher education. Short-sighted efforts to drive down the salaries and benefits of faculty, attacks on shared governance and academic freedom, and increasing workers' precarity erode public confidence.  Public higher education is a transformational enterprise: it shapes the lives of our students and our community economically, socially, and culturally.   At the  heart of this enterprise are  faculty members engaged in asking fundamental questions about the world, testing answers, and sharing them with the students who reshape them to fit the needs of the future.  This summer, if all of us at this bargaining table are clear in our conviction that higher education is a public good worth preserving and expanding and we demonstrate that conviction by ensuring that those who do the vital work of the university are fairly rewarded for all that they do to preserve and defend this institution then we will take a crucial step in once again making higher education a good worth supporting and investing in by our students and by the community.

May 28, 2024
Bargaining Diary Updates

The Bargaining Diary will be updated regularly starting June 4, 2024. This will be the first official bargaining day at the table.

Scroll to Top