Finally, after a pause of almost three months, we are negotiating again.

During the period from December to March the AAUP team transmitted proposals (see below) and requests for information to the administration bargaining team and made repeated requests of them to meet at the negotiating table. But it wasn’t until March 14 that their team was willing to return to the table and present us with a number of their proposals; and it wasn’t until March 28 that they began responding to some of our proposals. But at this time, despite repeated requests from the AAUP, the administration bargaining team still refuses to meet more often than once every two weeks.

 

Q & A

Q. Why did the administration bargaining team wait so long before returning to the table and why won’t they meet more often?

A.  We believe that those who are negotiating for the university hope that if sufficient time passes without a negotiated agreement, the AAUP team will feel pressure from its members and agree to a disadvantageous settlement. But, we also believe that if we keep our members properly informed, they will not be fooled by such a strategy.

 

Q. Who are the members of the administration bargaining team?

          A.  The composition of the administration team at this time is very similar to that of the administration team that negotiated the last contract in 1999. The chairperson of the team is John B. Wolf, Executive Director of University Labor Relations, who is an attorney. The lead spokesperson of the team is Lester Aron, Esq., a member of the law firm of Sills, Cummis et al, retained by the university for this purpose. The academic administrators on the team are Roger Dennis, Provost – Camden, former Dean of the Law School – Camden; Stuart Deutsch, Dean of the Law School- Newark; Michael Klein, Dean – School of Engineering; and Douglas Blair, Social Science Dean-FAS. The other five members of the team are nonacademic administrators.

 

          Q. What kind of proposals has the administration bargaining team submitted to the AAUP?

          A. Two common threads run through the substantive proposals presented by the administration bargaining team.  One is an attempt to reduce faculty input and decision making in areas where the faculty at Rutgers has until now played a prominent role. Another is to reduce the effectiveness of the AAUP as a representative of the interests of the faculty and TA/GAs.

 

          Q. How has the administration negotiating team responded to proposals and requests for information from the AAUP?

          A. Although their responses to our proposals have been very limited so far, and many of our requests for information have been ignored by them, the same two common threads are identifiable as in their proposals.

 

          Q. What are the proposals the AAUP has transmitted or intends to transmit to the administration negotiating team?

          A. Our proposals fall into several main categories.

 

Economic

1.   Our initial proposal for salary provisions (Article VIII)* was transmitted in December and described in the first Bargaining Bulletin you received.

2.   We are currently developing a proposal on “benefits” that will include various negotiable matters and we have retained an expert consultant to assist us.

3.   We have already proposed (Article XIX) the following benefits for all employees we represent: a parking registration fee of $10 annually; admission without cost for an employee and accompanying guest to all cultural and intercollegiate athletic events held at Rutgers; and use without charge of certain recreational facilities for spouses and domestic partners of employees.

4.   We have already proposed extensive changes in the FASIP Procedures (Appendix B). The overarching theme of our proposal is to put in place a bona fide merit program that will assist us in achieving our goal of becoming a better university.  The main features are

(a)      a commitment of an important amount of funds to a program to reward significant meritorious accomplishments;

(b)     merit awards of substantial size, skewed to favor junior faculty;

(c)     decision making by the faculty to play a key role in awards;

(d)     a program that is transparent and accountable

 

The actual proposal is seven pages long, but some of the details by which we seek to achieve these goals are:

(a)      funding that is significant (approx. one million dollars per year), but still relatively small compared to the across the board increase;

(b)     allocation of the available funds to the three geographic areas of the university, but no further disaggregation of funds in advance of the selection process;

(c)     notification to departments of their proportionate share of available campus funds for informational purposes, but not for the purpose of limiting decisions about recommendations or awards;

(d)     specified ranges of awards by rank;

(e)      self-nomination with supporting material by faculty members;

(f)      consultation and accountability at each step in the process for disagreements with actions at earlier steps;

(g)     promulgation of the identity of the recipients of awards and the nature of their accomplishments;

(h)     a streamlined procedure under certain limited circumstances for appeals of decisions and of procedural violations

 

Faculty Rights

1.       We have proposed some changes to the reappointment/promotion procedures (Articles XIII/XIV) to remove ambiguities and inconsistencies;

2.       We have proposed a change in the adjudication of disputes by faculty over misapplication of University Regulations, policies or procedures. At present if such disputes are not resolved at earlier stages of the process, they end with advisory arbitration. In recent years, the administration has rejected virtually every arbitrator’s award favorable to the faculty member. We are therefore proposing that such disputes end with binding arbitration. Among the contract provisions that would be affected by this change are Professional Duties (Article XV), Family Leave and Disability Resulting from Pregnancy (Article XVI), Leave of Absence Without Pay (Article XVII), Conditions of Employment (Article XXII), and Sabbatical Program (Article XXV)

3.       We have proposed changes in the designation and privileges of AAUP representatives (Article VII) and changes in the way in which the AAUP is informed of and can respond to changes in University Regulations (Article XIX), so that we can better represent the members of our bargaining unit;

4.       The administration negotiating team has presented a proposal that would eliminate virtually any possibility for a faculty member to challenge a personnel action using a process internal to the University. Not coincidentally, every such challenge by a faculty member in the last two years has been successful, and 88% of all such challenges since 1996 have been successful. The AAUP is strongly committed to maintaining and protecting the right of a faculty member to challenge a personnel decision that is procedurally incorrect or biased. Stay tuned.

 

Teaching and Graduate Assistants

We have proposed a number of changes in the procedures and regulations that apply to TA/GAs in the areas of appointment, reappointment, and workload. (Articles XI and XII).

 

The AAUP negotiating team hopes to send you more frequent Bargaining Bulletins, now that the administration negotiating team has finally returned to the table.

As always, we value your ideas, advice, and criticism. Do not hesitate to communicate with any member of the AAUP negotiating team directly.

The most effective way to lend your support to our efforts to achieve a fair and good contract is to be a member of the AAUP, rather than merely a payer of the representation fee.

 

The AAUP Negotiating Team