NUMBER ONE (JANUARY 2003)

BARGAINING FOR THE NEW CONTRACT HAS BEGUN.

ECONOMIC PROPOSAL PRESENTED BY AAUP

DETAILS ENCLOSED

On Friday December 13^th, 2002 the negotiating team of the AAUP met with the negotiating team of the administration to begin the negotiations for a successor contract to the current agreement, which will expire on June 30^th, 2003. 

After the preliminaries, the AAUP presented its proposal for Article VIII Salary Provisions and explained in great detail the basis for the proposal.

·        The proposal seeks to reestablish the hospitable economic climate that was such an important component of our ability to attract to Rutgers the many outstanding faculty members who came here during the period of our spectacular improvement.

·        The proposal in general seeks to help repair the damage that was done by the previous administration to the relationship between the faculty and the administration.

·        The proposal especially seeks to undo much of the economic damage that was done to the faculty in the last two contracts by a hard-line administration that showed little concern for the morale of the faculty and eagerly exploited the unwillingness of the faculty to become confrontational during a difficult period for the University. 

             How close will the final agreement be to this proposal? The answer obviously depends on many factors; but two are especially important.

1.      We must work with the new administration to reestablish the environment of trust and respect that is essential for us to continue improving as a university.

2.      We must support the collective bargaining efforts of the AAUP, in order to demonstrate that the faculty and the TAs and GAs are strongly committed to achieving a fair and good contract that serves the interests of the university.

The economic damage that was done to the faculty in the last two contracts manifests itself in several ways.

a.                The “state package.”  For many years, the value of the negotiated salary improvement package at Rutgers was comparable to what other state workers and in particular the State College faculty negotiated with the state. While the details of the exact way in which the money was distributed might have been a little different at Rutgers, the relative amount of money was about the same. But in the last 4-year agreement, the salary improvements that the Rutgers faculty received were substantially less than what the State College faculty received. Our proposal seeks to remedy that inequity. 

b.               Our salary “ranking.” Until recently the Rutgers faculty was among the very best paid faculties at public universities in the U.S. We have now slipped significantly, notwithstanding the increase in student enrollment at Rutgers, notwithstanding the assertions by the administration that the faculty has continued to improve, and notwithstanding that the citizens of NJ have the highest per capita income of those of any state in the U.S.  Our proposal seeks to restore the Rutgers faculty to its position among the group of faculties at the top of the salary rankings.  

c.                Real salary. Now that cost-of-living and inflation data are available for just NJ, it is clear that the real salaries of many faculty members have actually decreased during recent contracts and we wish to recover those losses. 

d.               The absence of step movement. This absence, especially for faculty at the lower ranks, has caused serious salary and morale problems among this group and among those senior faculty who are trying to build and improve their programs. 

e.                The misuse of the FASIP. This “merit” program is being used to punish a few faculty members by not giving them an appropriate award, rather than rewarding faculty for singularly meritorious accomplishments. This abuse is the result of the relatively small across-the-board (ATB) and relatively large FASIP allocations in the last contracts that required use of the FASIP as a substitute for an ATB program. We propose to change the balance between the FASIP and the ATB so that the FASIP may serve its intended purpose.  

f.                 Inadequate Promotion Increments. The fairest, most thorough, most collegial method we have for assessing merit is the promotion and reappointment process, especially when it includes the award of tenure. Accordingly we propose additional salary improvements for the award of tenure and for reappointment of tenure-track assistant professors. 

g.        Difficulty Recruiting Top Graduate Students. The TA/GA proposal is based on achieving comparability with our peer universities. The proposal is also based on the size of nationally awarded fellowships given by the Federal government for graduate study.

 

We plan to send Bargaining Bulletins at regular intervals to keep you informed as we continue to make proposals, and to ask for your help when it is needed.

The members of the AAUP negotiating team are