Bargaining Diary

We are pleased to announce that as of 12:20am on Saturday, September 4th, 2021, the two sides have reached an agreement at the table.  Accordingly, the Bargaining Team is calling an end to the work stoppage effective immediately.  Saturday classes will be held as scheduled. Faculty are encouraged to reach out to their students as soon as possible.  

We would like to thank all our members for the amazing outpouring of solidarity and support.  The agreement will be presented at multiple General Membership meetings in the coming weeks as per our association bylaws.  Details will follow shortly. 

Yesterday’s negotiations proceeded slowly.  While there are a small number of items remaining on the table, they are hugely important. The vast majority of the day was spent defending Oakland’s attacks against the faculty tuition waiver.  This gift our faculty give one another is a crucial element of our Faculty Agreement and our members have told us loud and clear that we must defend the right to provide that gift to one another.  Oakland attempts to alter the language of this waiver have created problems where none existed and open the door to erosion of the contract clause.  Oakland’s proposed language is sloppy, vulnerable to misinterpretation, and reflective of their obtuse refusal to recognize the way the benefit was designed to work. 

Oakland initially proposed lowering their contribution to full-time faculty health care from 95% to 80%, a shocking reduction.  In previous contracts, the Association has given in other areas of the contract in order to maintain that health insurance contribution rate.  While Oakland’s proposals now have that reduction to a still-painful 90% starting in the second year of the contract, that change was made in connection with further reductions to offered salary raises.  In other words, Oakland’s move to make our members parallel with other employees on campus comes WITH a lowered salary offer.  The total effect on our members is unacceptable.  Salary increase offers from Oakland remain at less 2% a year, well below anything that can be considered cost of living.

We remain at the table but unfortunately have no updates as of yet.  We are awaiting a proposal from Oakland.

The two sides continue to negotiate.  Much of today’s session has been focused on discussing the faculty tuition waiver.  We remain at the table and intend to do so throughout the evening.

The parties have been bargaining since noon. Progress has been made on some issues. Many economic issues remain unresolved: including but not limited to full-time faculty raises, full-time faculty health insurance, special lecturer pay increases, special lecturer health insurance, as well as tuition waivers and retirement benefits for all bargaining unit faculty members. We are currently continuing to bargain in good faith.

After our last bargaining session both sides contacted the Michigan Employment Relations Commission and requested a mediator who will be joining us this week.  As we wait to continue negotiations, we’d like to share more perspective about one of the items on the table:

Academic Choice in Online Instruction and Paragraph 92 of our Agreement.  Even before the pandemic, online instruction as part of our course offerings has grown; some departments have even created fully online programs.  This growth has been successful because the faculty drive the decisions about course modality.  Our faculty Agreement protects that choice.

Paragraph 92 of our Agreement is key to the success of our mix of modalities including online/remote instruction.  First it says that faculty may voluntarily engage in the development and delivery of online course delivery, thus protecting their role in these decisions.  However, paragraph 92 goes further.  It also has language to ensure that online courses are of the same quality as their in-person counterparts.  The process of development, review, and approval must be the same, and the faculty workload expectations are the same.  It is our position that this paragraph not be changed.

Oakland’s current position in bargaining is to delete paragraph 92 entirely from the agreement.  They first proposed to change this paragraph by inserting language to give Oakland the decision-making power on course modality.  When we challenged them on that, they retreated to simply strike the word “voluntarily” from the clause.  When we challenged them on that, they countered with striking the paragraph altogether.  Their latest position would take away both contractual protections of faculty choice and protections of course quality.

We wish to note that when the pandemic first hit in the middle of the Winter 2020 semester and Oakland desired to move in-person classes online, the Association was a fully cooperating partner and rapidly granted a contract exception for online instruction, further indicating how our contractual language has never stood in the way of meeting student needs.  Rather, the faculty worked with the administration to sustain the university’s mission through the crisis.

We return to the table Tuesday and will continue to seek a fair and equitable contract.

On August 24 we had a long session with the Oakland team but the two sides are still very far apart on key issues.  We will give details to our members at our meeting today at Noon.

The two sides are scheduled to meet again today at 2 pm.

The latest meeting between the Association and the Oakland teams took place on Thursday, August 19th.  

Layoff and Recall.  Discussions on Layoff and Recall continued today with both sides presenting counter offers.  While some progress was made, the central issue with regards to defining the terms for when layoff may be implemented remains unresolved as of yet. 

Economics.  As the session ended, Oakland presented the Association with an economic counter proposal.  The Association will be reviewing the proposal and responding at the next session.

After the meeting’s end, the two sides signed an agreement to extend the Faculty Agreement through midnight, August 25th.  The two sides are scheduled to meet next on Monday, August 23rd.

We continue to bargain, now under a mutually-agreed upon 1-week extension of the current Agreement.

Chairs in the Bargaining Unit.  First one bit of good news: Oakland withdrew its proposal to remove department chairpersons and coordinators from the bargaining unit and we have TA’ed Article 2 of the Agreement with no changes.

Layoff and Recall.  We started the session by presenting a counter to Oakland’s proposal on layoff and recall.  At the previous session, Oakland introduced a revised version of their proposal.  It was a small change from their first proposal which we describe in our August 5th post.  It still would give them the ability to layoff faculty for undefined “enrollment or financial circumstances” and allow them to completely bypass the contractual consultation process  “if circumstances warrant more immediate action, e.g., to facilitate immediate shutdowns due to circumstances beyond Oakland’s control”. In our discussions about this, they mentioned a pandemic as one such circumstance. Their proposal still maintains an unacceptably broad ability to layoff faculty with barely-defined parameters.

In our counter proposal, we rejected this overly broad layoff criteria and kept the position shift layoff procedure currently outlined in our contract.  We did make movement on the number of positions that would be restored in a position shift layoff and on time of notice and post-layoff medical benefits.  We also reintroduced language, first put on the table by us in early June, that would allow faculty on layoff to keep their Oakland email address and access to SAIL and OU course management systems.  Oakland then submitted a counter that accepted our language on keeping email and SAIL, but not Moodle access.

Economics.  There were movements in economics with both sides delivering counters.  We made concessions in key areas of travel and promotion raises, but still seek to hold the line on benefits and continue to ask for an equitable salary.  Oakland made changes to their retirement contribution reduction proposal, but their proposal still results in a much lower employer contribution by the end of the agreement.  The two sides also differ on the length of agreement.  Oakland continues to press for a 5-year agreement.  Such a long-term agreement is inappropriate given the uncertainties of this year and the concessionary economic package Oakland is proposing.  In our proposals we continue to focus on a two-year agreement.

Landmines in the Oakland Economic Package.  Although our posts on Oakland’s economic proposal have focused on dollars, there are some other items that they put in their economic proposal that would have serious negative consequences for the faculty:

• In paragraph 89, summer rate of pay, they wish to strike the language that gives priority to bargaining unit members for assignment of summer classes.
• In paragraph 92, online/distance instruction, they wish to add language that says “Oakland may also designate courses to be delivered on an online/distance and/or hybrid basis.All online/distance learning in lieu of in-person instruction may only be provided with Oakland’s consent.”
• In Article 16, insurances, for dental, optical, HMO, and long-term disability, they seek to strike the language that specifies specific plans, or essentially similar plans.The idea of “essentially similar plans” is important because there can be legitimate reasons for changing providers during the time of an agreement, but those three words help protect faculty should Oakland choose providers who offer substandard healthcare coverage.

At Monday’s session we challenged them on these parts of their proposal.  They expressed willingness to restore the language of “essentially similar plans” though we haven’t seen their language yet.  However, on the first two items, they confirmed our worst assumptions, that Oakland does wish to assign more summer courses to non-bargaining unit faculty and to exert complete control over modality of instruction, thereby eroding departmental control of course development and scheduling.

The two sides are scheduled to meet next on Wednesday, August 18th.

Before reporting on the most recent bargaining session, we wish to thank the 300+ faculty who attended today’s Bargaining Rally.  For our next meeting the Association will get its own Zoom with larger capacity.  Please save August 25th at Noon for a potential meeting.

The latest meeting with the Oakland team took place on Tuesday, August 10th. We began by putting a counter to Oakland’s most recent economic proposal on the table. The counter proposal we put on the table includes the pay the faculty have earned and the resources they need which are described in the previous posts, but includes a significant concession by shifting a portion of raises to merit pay. In our initial economic package, all raises were across the board because faculty have worked hard and have earned salaries that at least keep up with the cost of living. All of our members have made sacrifices and have kept our academic programs operating through this time of crisis. However, in previous exchanges, Oakland indicated that having merit pay was a high priority for them. To move the negotiations forward and help secure the raises our faculty deserve, we proposed a compromise: In our latest counter there are across the board raises every year but also opportunities for faculty to apply for optional merit raises above the cost of living. Our revised merit system also allows the efforts of more than one year to be the basis of a merit application because many of our greatest achievements as faculty take more than one year to develop.

After a discussion on our counter proposal, which included discussion of our merit plan, Oakland  asked us what more we would give financially from our position. We reaffirmed the positions outlined in our counter proposal and communicated that we would await their response. Oakland also brought up the language package proposal that they first put on the table on July 12th and which  has previously been countered multiple times by both sides. They pressed to conclude the issues in it. They verbally suggested areas of compromise, though they were unwilling to put them in writing. We reminded them of compromises that we have already put on the table but that have been rebuffed by Oakland. Despite their professed desire to make progress, Oakland abruptly exited the meeting an hour early.

The two sides are scheduled to meet again Thursday, August 12th.

Before reporting to you on the latest developments in bargaining, we want to draw your attention to some other communications from the Association. Throughout the pandemic, Oakland administration has acknowledged the work and sacrifice of the university’s faculty. The Association will be featuring some of these messages in our social media posts in Facebook  Instagram and Twitter over the next few days.

Oakland has introduced two new proposals: a proposal on layoff and recall and their economic package.

Layoff and Recall

In our last post we mentioned that Oakland submitted a proposal on Article VIII, Layoff and Recall. Details about layoff and recall and Oakland’s proposal are below but the most significant part of their proposal is that they seek to give Oakland the ability to make layoffs for any reason.  Under their proposal they can make layoffs if they believe a certain program or discipline is no longer financially viable or valuable.  Since layoffs would be allowed for any reason, administration could effectively decimate an academic program or discipline by laying off the faculty in it, thereby circumventing the academic governance processes.

In our current Agreement, there are two conditions in which Oakland can lay off full-time faculty: (1) an over-ratio layoff when the number of full-time equivalent faculty (FTE) exceeds by a certain margin the number called for by the student faculty ratio defined in Appendix B, and (2) a position-shift layoff when Oakland concludes there is an overstaffing situation and eliminates positions in one academic unit while creating new positions elsewhere.  Oakland wishes to eliminate the position-shift section. The current Agreement includes a process of consultation with faculty before layoff decisions are made, priorities for which positions are laid off first in the case of layoffs, and procedures for recall. The Agreement also provides compensation and continuation of health insurance for a limited time for faculty on layoff. Oakland also wishes to cut these provisions.

Oakland’s Economic Package 

At the August 4th bargaining session, Oakland submitted their economic package to us. It is a very undesirable proposal in almost every way. Here is a summary of what Oakland proposed:

• No or low annual raises for full-time faculty.  In the first year of the agreement (this coming year) there will be no raises and each faculty member will receive $500 which is not part of base salary.  In all subsequent years the raise shall be 1.0% merit pool.
• Freeze minimum salary for all.  The minimum salary for both full-time and special lecturer faculty would be frozen at 2020 levels for the life of the Agreement.
• Reduction in retirement contribution.  Newly hired faculty will not receive contributions to retirement until after one year at Oakland. For all other faculty the amount that Oakland contributes to retirement, as a percentage of salary, would be reduced by four percentage points.  For example faculty who would have received a 14% contribution would now receive a 10% contribution.
• Eliminate faculty choice in online instruction.  Remove faculty choice in online instruction and introduce language that says Oakland may also designate courses to be delivered on an online/distance and/or hybrid basis through any combination of these methods. All online/distance learning in lieu of in-person instruction may only be provided with Oakland’s consent.
• Small increase for some promotion raises.  Increase the amount awarded for promotion to Full Professor from $7,500 to $8,000, but do not to increase the amount for any other promotion raises.
• Update to merit pay groups.  Update the list of merit pay groups to reflect the fact that the Department of Music, Theater, and Dance is now a School.
• No merit raises if no report.  Faculty who do not submit an annual activity report will receive no merit raise.
• No Market Adjustments.  No funds will be provided to bring faculty salaries in line with our peer institutions.
• Deletion of Chairperson Pay.  Oakland earlier proposed to remove department chairpersons from the Bargaining Unit. This is not a mandatory topic of bargaining and we have already informed them that we do not wish to bargain on it, but they continue to put proposals on the table as if this is going to happen.
• Change the formula for summer rate of pay.  Replace the current system, which is based on a minimum amount plus a percentage of regular annual salary, with the following per credit hour rates:
  • Visiting Professors  $1,600/cr
  • Full Time Professors of Practice  $1,600/cr
  • Special Instructors  $1,600/cr
  • Assistant Professors  $1,800/cr
  • Associate Professors  $2,000/cr
• Remove priority for bargaining unit members in summer teaching.  Delete the provision that, whenever possible, courses in the summer sessions will be taught by bargaining unit members.
• Increase the full-time faculty contribution to health care.  Increase the employee contribution to the comprehensive health insurance plan from its current 5% to 10% in the first year of the new agreement, 15% in the second year of the agreement, and 20% in the third year of the agreement.
• Allow changes to health insurance plans not mandated by providers.  Allow changes not mandated by the insurance providers to be made without consent of the Association.
• Dental and optical insurance.  Remove any commitments to specific providers or plans.
• Reduce the faculty tuition waiver.  Reduce the tuition benefit for dependents of faculty or other qualified adults from the current state where faculty pays 10% of the cost of undergraduate tuition (as a proxy for fees) to a system where the faculty only receives a waiver of 50% of applicable tuition. Add stipulations about performance in degree programs. Remove the stipulation that when this benefit is used, the enrollment in the section must be increased, thereby increasing the cost of the benefit to Oakland.
• Give Oakland sole control over retirement plan provider choices.  Rather than specifying Fidelity and TIAA-CREF as 403b providers, Oakland may select future providers as they like.
• Travel.  The amount allocated for faculty travel will remain at the 2020 level for the life of the new agreement.
• Research.  The amount allocated for faculty research fellowships will remain at the 2020 level for the life of the new agreement.
• Add paid parental leave.  Create 12-week paid parental leave for care of a child upon birth or placement by adoption or fostering if it overlaps with Fall or Winter semesters. We are in the process of comparing it to the proposal we previously put on the table.

The two teams will meet again Friday August 6th.

To all association members: please remember to join the General Membership Meeting on Bargaining which will be held Wednesday August 11 at Noon.  Details have been emailed to you.

The two sides met Tuesday, July 27, and we presented our counter-proposal to two previous proposals from the Oakland team. 

Oakland’s Package Proposal.  One item on the table is a “package proposal” from Oakland incorporating several language items that we described in our July 18 diary post. Today we presented our counter-proposal. The key elements of our counter are that we:

• keep the maximum number of credits that can be taught by graduate assistants at 4,
• change the parameters for defining special lectures so that they will not lose their status if they teach a three-credit class instead of four-credit,
• propose modifications to new language regarding joint appointments (an area where the two sides are close to agreement),
• continue to press for guarantees of due process if faculty are removed or barred from campus,
• strike one of their proposed names arbitrators in the list of arbitrators for tenure grievances to make a list more balanced between names proposed by the two sides,
• and propose an alternative formula for full-time adjunct positions and hold the line on drastic increases in number.

Oakland’s proposal to greatly increase the number of full-time adjunct faculty (or professors of practice as Oakland is currently proposing) continues to be a major area of dispute. Our colleagues who hold these positions are full and respected members of our bargaining unit, but we must resist attempts to erode tenure through creation of more full-time positions that offer neither tenure nor job security. The current Agreement caps the number of allowed positions at 10% of the number of tenure-track faculty except that the total in the School of Health Sciences and School of Nursing is capped at 15 positions, which has been reached.  In fact the number of full-time adjunct positions in the SON is approximately 55% of the number of tenure-track positions. Oakland first proposed that there be no limit and then more recently proposed a limit of 55 with no restrictions on the above schools. We have countered with language that keeps the cap on these positions expressed as a proportion relative to the number of tenure-track faculty and keeps the proportion roughly where it is at this time but allows the number of these positions to grow if the number of tenure-track faculty grows. Our proposed numbers are 5% in any given school or college that has these positions except for the School of Nursing, where the cap would be 60% to fit the reality of the number of such positions in that school.

Workload Policy Review.  Our other counter was to Oakland’s latest version of proposed changes to the process of workload policy review in Article 10 of the Agreement, which we first described in our July 11th post.  The two sides are still very far apart on this issue. Oakland continues to press for conditions such that, at the end of a thorough review process involving both the faculty and their dean, the Provost can unilaterally impose a workload policy on any unit.  The other objectionable element of their proposal is that it creates a standard where the teaching component of workload is expressed in credits (in contrast to current workload policies of almost every academic unit at this university) and has the potential to create higher teaching loads for full time faculty. Our counter-proposal offered compromise on procedural matters of the review process, but we struck the two objectionable items described above. 

Our Economic Package.  Oakland did not give any response to our economic proposals which we put on the table at the last meeting.

Unpaid and Partial Leave.  The two sides agreed not to make changes to Article XXI Unpaid and Partial Leave.

Gender and Pronouns in the Agreement.  At the beginning of bargaining we proposed to remove gendered pronouns from the agreement. Oakland indicated support for this in principle, but we spent some sessions disagreeing about exactly how to make the changes.  (See the July 2 diary post.)  The two sides have since come to an understanding on this and have moved forward revising text to replace he/she as we go through articles. This is important because a faculty member’s ability to do their job has nothing to do with gender and the language of the Agreement should be such that all faculty members can see themselves represented.

The two teams will meet again on Friday, July 30.

Save the Date:  A Bargaining Rally will be held (online) Wednesday, August 11, at Noon. We encourage all members to attend. Please watch your email for messages from the chapter with details and the link.

The two sides met again this week on Thursday, July 15. 

We spent most of the session giving feedback to Oakland on a package proposal they put forward that links several items already on the table and incorporates items originally put forward by both the Association and Oakland.  In order to TA a package proposal such as this, all items in the package are to be agreed upon as a whole. The package includes language about graduate student teaching caps and categorization, grievance procedures, adjunct faculty title change and caps, tenure and promotion denial notice parameters and credit for prior experience when hiring special instructors. Their package also includes the withdrawal of Oakland’s previous proposal regarding the removal of department chairs from the bargaining unit (which we previously informed them we would not bargain), and calls for the withdrawal of our previous proposal on guaranteeing due process if Oakland removes a faculty member from campus. While we are close to agreement on many of the above issues, there remain several areas of significant disagreement. Oakland  received our feedback on the package proposal and stated that they intend to send us a modified version of the package prior to our next meeting.

In addition to discussion of the above package proposal, proposals by Oakland on Article VII (layoff and recall), Article XXI (long term disability) and XXIX (university calendar) were discussed. None were well-received by the Association. The calendar proposal sought far-reaching changes that  impacted both fall and winter term, opening the door for extensions both at the beginning and end of each term with no input from the Association. We offered to informally share a couple of alternate Fall calendar scenarios that may be able to meet the needs of faculty, students and the administration without sacrificing shared governance. Our proposal for paid parental leave was very briefly introduced at the close of the session and we intend to return to it at our next meeting.

The teams are set to meet again Wednesday, July 21.

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.

Our latest bargaining meeting with the Oakland team was Friday, June 25, 2021.  We discussed previous proposals by Oakland and presented two revisions of ours.

Pressing on our proposals

• DSS Accommodations. In a previous session (June 3) we proposed that Oakland provide a testing center and staff to proctor exams for all students who qualify for testing accommodations approved by Oakland that cannot be provided in the examination place. In the latest session we presented further arguments for this proposal.
• Workload. In previous sessions we and Oakland have both presented proposals about the process for review or revision of workload policies.  We advocated for ours, which seeks to make a clear process and a timeline for Oakland’s response when an academic unit wishes to revise its workload policy.  We also discussed Oakland’s proposal, which deals with the process when Oakland requests a review of workload policy.  We emphasized the importance of the faculty’s role in shaping workload policies in the context of shared governance and in light of the multiple elements of faculty workload.  Their proposal adds an additional layer of administrative review and empowers the provost to increase full-time faculty teaching loads.
• Arbitration Initiation. The two sides are far apart on this issue.  We presented a revised proposal with a list of arbitrators that represents a diverse pool and a compromise between those favored by Oakland and those favored by the Association. Oakland responded with a different list of arbitrators. We also pressed for a process that leads to prompt selection of arbitrators.

We asked the Oakland team questions related to their proposal on Appendix A:  Research and Full-Time Adjunct Faculty.

We previously proposed to replace the dated use of “he/she” throughout the agreement with the gender neutral pronoun “they.” Oakland suggested a different means to remove gendered language from the Agreement which we will be reviewing.

The two teams are set to meet again on Thursday, July 1.

Our latest bargaining meeting with the Oakland team was Friday, June 18, 2021. Oakland responded to some of our earlier proposals and submitted several new proposals to us. There was discussion between the teams and we will be responding at a future date.

This diary post is our longest to date; there were several proposals put on the table by Oakland that would have significant impacts on faculty working conditions.

New proposals by Oakland:

• Changes to Appendix A: Research and Full-Time Adjunct Faculty. Full-time adjunct faculty are full-time positions, but do not lead to job security. (Please see page 83 of the current Agreement for more details.) Oakland 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 does not confuse it with other uses of the term “adjunct”. The current Agreement limits the number of these positions. Oakland proposed that there should be no limit on the number of such positions.
• Department chairpersons in the bargaining unit. Oakland proposed that department chairpersons be removed from the Bargaining Unit. They would make the position of department chairperson administration instead of faculty.
• Graduate students teaching credit courses. Oakland proposed to increase the number of credits that can be taught by graduate assistants from four to six per semester.
• Post-tenure review. Oakland proposed the creation of post-tenure review. 
• Joint appointments. Oakland proposed a group of measures to allow faculty to be hired with joint appointments in more than one academic unit. Their proposal also includes language for how faculty with joint appointments would be reviewed/evaluated for promotion and tenure. In the current agreement, a faculty member only participates in the governance of their primary academic unit unless the secondary unit and both Oakland and the Association agree, but Oakland’s proposal would take the Association out of this decision.
• Grievances on CAP decisions. In our current Agreement, actions by FRPC  are not grievable.  (See page 23 of the current Agreement.) Oakland proposed that this also apply to CAP.
• Arbitration of tenure decisions. In our current Agreement, when a grievance goes to arbitration, the arbitrator’s decision is binding on both sides. Oakland proposed that in the case of grievances from tenure reviews, the arbitrator’s decision would only be advisory and non-binding.

On the proposal to remove  department chairpersons from the Bargaining Unit, we have already informed Oakland that we do not wish to entertain such a proposal.  (Note: This  subject is not a mandatory topic of bargaining.) We will be reviewing the other proposals above and responding to them. 

Oakland presented counter-proposals to two of those we presented on May 26:

• Credit for prior experience when hiring special instructors. In response to our proposal to give newly hired special instructors credit for prior professional experience, just as newly hired assistant professors are allowed such credit, Oakland made a proposal that would allow one year of credit for prior teaching experience.
• Review of workload policies. In response to our proposal to provide clear deadlines for review of workload policies, Oakland proposed a system that sets a series of deadlines  and creates review at both the Dean and Provost level. Their proposal gives the Provost the power to assign teaching loads which are based on credit hours.

We are in the process of reviewing their responses.

We did TA a few more simple language items:

• Preeamble. The two sides agreed not to change the Preamble of the Agreement (page 1 of the current Agreement, before Article I).
• Not open Article XV. The two sides agreed to TA Article XV with no changes made.
• Appendix G. This is updated to reflect current names of administrative offices where personnel records are held.
• Appendix K. The Department of Labor FMLA posting (page 98 of the current Agreement) will be replaced with the current document.

The two teams are set to meet again Wednesday, June 23rd.

We met again across the (Zoom) table with the Oakland team on Wednesday, June 2, 2021. We expanded on proposals we introduced last week and presented two new items to the Oakland team. Oakland did not bring any proposals to the table. Below are the items we proposed this week:

• Contact Information During Layoff. We propose revisions to paragraphs 62 and 63 of the current Agreement so that faculty on layoff will keep their Oakland email address and SAIL access. The proposal included changes to how faculty availability for recall is communicated and how faculty will be notified if a new position becomes available.
• Testing Space and Staff to Accommodate Students with Disabilities. We propose that Oakland provide a testing center and staff to proctor exams for all students who qualify for testing accommodations approved by Oakland that cannot be provided in the examination place and time that the instructor has set for their class as a whole. 

This past Friday, May 21st, we had an initial meeting with Oakland's team to discuss scheduling and ground rules.  Oakland's chief negotiator is Robert Boonin of Dykema Gosset PLLC and the other team members are Joi Cunningham, Peggy Cooke, Judy Didion, and James Hargett.

Wednesday we will be going to the table with our first proposals.  As promised at the Bargaing Rally, we will be keeping you informed about what we are doing in a transparent and timely fashion.  Expect new information to be released this week.

Thank you all for your continuing support.