Bargaining Session Report
We met with the Oakland team on Friday August 6th and economic packages were the topic of the day. From previous posts you know that the two sides are very far apart. Before describing the moves at today’s bargaining, we want to share with you the results of our analysis of the impact on compensation of each sides’ opening proposals:
Our opening package (July 22 diary post) represents modest progress. The across-the-board raises we propose are appropriate for the work and sacrifice made by our members and the fact that we served without raises through the past year of the pandemic. We did not request an increase in percent contribution to retirement or health care premium for full-time faculty. We proposed a significant increase in funds for market adjustment, but that amount is still well short of what is actually needed to bring Oakland salaries in line with peer institutions. We did propose improvements to medical, vision, and dental benefits and a new retirement benefit for special lecturers whose work generates significant revenue for the university and is essential to the university’s ability to serve all students.
In contrast, Oakland’s opening economic package (August 5 diary post) contains large cuts to our compensation. For full-time faculty there is no raise in base salary in year 1 and then only 1% merit pool raises in subsequent years. However, their proposed reductions in employer contribution to retirement and health care premiums are so severe that they cause a net reduction in total compensation. For example, in year 2, a faculty member making $75,000 per year could receive an approximate raise in salary of $750. (The 1% in their proposal is all merit pool so even $750 is optimistic.) However, that same year they would pay an extra $1738 in health care premiums (assuming they take the lowest cost options and assuming health care premiums do not increase). This same faculty member would receive 30% less in retirement contribution or a cut of $3,787. Therefore, total compensation would be a severe net loss: $750-$5525 = -$4775. That is a 6.4% loss in compensation.
The cuts to retirement contributions are especially insidious because faculty not only lose the amount of the contribution to retirement, but they also lose all compounded investment gains which would have been earned from that money for all future years until they retire.
To compare the Association and Oakland opening packages, we did projections of the effects over the first three years for two hypothetical faculty. Here are links for a tenure-track member and for a special lecturer member.
Positive news on Paid Family Leave
We do wish to acknowledge one bright spot in Oakland’s otherwise regressive opening package. We reviewed their proposal on paid parental leave. It is very similar to what we proposed except that it can only be taken during the academic year and they proposed that if a faculty member took FMLA leave within the prior year that leave time would be deducted from time allowed for paid parental leave. They also proposed that if both parents were bargaining unit members, only one parent would receive a 12-week leave.
Developments at the most recent session
At the August 6th session we provided a counter-proposal on economics. Neither side has modified its initial proposals for special lecturers, and our response to Oakland’s proposal on retirement, health care, and tuition benefits for full-time faculty is that there be no change.
We did move in some areas, but remain steadfast in our belief that our faculty deserve a fair compensation package and that Oakland’s position is extreme. We proposed that the increases in travel funds of our initial proposal be delayed to the second year of the agreement. In year 1 there would be an inflationary increase over previous amounts and then the necessary significant increases would start in year 2. We also offered a reduction in the amount for market adjustments. On paid family leave, our counter accepted most of their proposal but included a few modifications.
Oakland responded with some small concessions of their own. For full-time faculty they proposed a $1000 across-the-board raise in year 1. This is an improvement over their initial offer of $500 which would not have been added to base salary, but they did not change their proposed raises in subsequent years. In the area of retirement, they offered to delay the most severe cuts by one year, but the cuts would then persist for the life of the agreement.
There was some progress in understanding the Investment Committee proposed by Oakland and we are seeking to make sure that if adopted the faculty will have a rep in the room.
The two teams are scheduled to meet next on Tuesday, August 10.
To all Association members: The developments we have reported may be discouraging, but know that we continue to fight to get you a fair Agreement. To learn about what you can do to help, please remember to join the General Membership Meeting on Bargaining which will be held Wednesday, August 11, at Noon (Zoom). Google calendar invites have been sent and reminder emails will go out before the event.