This document contains commentary received with ballots on the recently approved contract. We have included all comments, without editing or responding to them. We welcome the kudos; we take to heart the negatives; and we plan to address in appropriate ways the matters of substance and concern expressed by our members.

We invite members who have suggestions or complaints to take a more active role in AAUP and help us address issues of concern.

Expressions of Appreciation
General Comments
FASIP
PTLs
Relations With Administration
Maternity Leave
Traditional State Health Plan

Thank you.

Good job, Bob and Rudy and members of the committee. Thank you!

Good job!

Thanks for all your hard work. It is appreciated! Contract looks good—better than what I anticipated. Good job!

Good job under the circumstances!

Rudy Bell, Bob Boikess, and the AAUP Negotiating Team deserve much applause and gratitude from the AAUP membership for a job well done. This contract will go far towards undoing the damage suffered by the national standing of the university in the past two contracts.

Good job! Both sides are winners!

Thank you for your persistence and hard work.

Thanks! Good for grad students!

Good job!

Thanks for your hard work!

Thank you for all the hard work at the bargaining table.

Thank you for all your hard work!

For GAs, receiving the refund for paid fees was a tremendous help. I am very impressed with salary increases. After seeing how much the AAUP works for us, I’m definitely joining—hopefully I’m eligible. Thanks.

Thank you for your hard work!

Nicely done; a fair bargain.

Fantastic!

Hard work! Good job! Thank you!

You did a wonderful job!

Thank you for working so hard for TA/GAs.

Nice job.

Thank you for all you have done on behalf of TA/GAs.

Much gratitude for your efforts!

Well done and thank you!

Thank you for all your hard work. I’m so glad to be getting my student fees back! Thanks for all you do, especially for the TAs.

Thanks to AAUP for all the effort.

Good job, AAUP.

Thanks for all your hard work!

It is a very good agreement given the impasse that occurred.

Thank you for your hard work.

Good job of hanging tough. Thanks.

The achievements of the negotiation are great! Thanks for those who dedicated to this process.

No comments (for now at least).

Thank you all for your very hard work!

Good work!

Yah! Finally. Great settlement for TA/GAs. Congratulations.

Thanks for all the work the AAUP has done to achieve this contract.

Thank you!

Congratulations!

Will clearly have to postpone retirement to get benefit of fourth year’s increase.

Yea!

Negotiating Committee—thanks for all your hard work (a Camden member).

Thanks and congratulations!

I would like to thank the negotiations team for their work, diligence and their time.

Great job.

Thanks!

Excellent work!! Yay for fee remission for 03!!

Thank you, AAUP Negotiating Team!

Good work, negotiators.

My thanks to the negotiating team!

Good job.

Thank you!

Thank you!

Good work—thanks.

Thanks to the bargaining team for all its hard work. It seems a pretty reasonable agreement.

Thank you for all your effort to improve the quality of life of the members of AAUP.

Thanks for all the hard work!

Thank you for the hard work through very difficult negotiations.

Congratulations on your efforts.

Thanks for all your hard work!!

Bravo!

The Negotiating Team should be congratulated for doing an excellent job.

Praise to the negotiating team. Given our absolute lack of power (can’t see this faculty every taking a job action), you did well.

Something is better than nothing. Reduce AAUP dues.

I am so thankful to be part of a union who fights for fair wages! When will TAs receive their refund check for last year’s fees?

This is the best that could be attained; however, faculty purchasing power has been eroded of the past three contracts. This new contract continues this trend. We should strive for an agreement which requires that contract negotiations be completed within six months of their start. This would avoid these bitter and protracted wrangling.

Great job by the AAUP Rutgers Council. Congratulations! Let’s not, however, make this an opportunity for the administration to make us overly complacent about our continued awareness of our legitimate rights. Eternal vigilance is the price for ethical employment. Caution!

I appreciate the efforts made by the AAUP negotiation team. Thanks for your hard work. Please don’t be fooled by the administration. The increase on TA/GA salary could be easily offset by the rising cost of housing. This is especially true for those living in family housing. If the salary is increased by 10% the rent is increasing 6%, the actual increase is only 4%. While I say yes to the ballot, I urge the negotiation team to raise the housing cost control as well. Otherwise, the administration is just playing another game.

The best we could do, under the circumstances. I still resent the administration’s control over FASIP. Thanks for your efforts.

Decent contract for TA/GAs. Glad that we don’t have to pay student fees anymore.

Great work by the negotiating team! The energy around the contract fight, among TAs at least, was exciting. How do we maintain and use this energy?

I don’t like the unequal treatment for new professors when it comes to health care, but I appreciate all your hard work. Many thanks!

I realize that this is a very big success, but I still believe that it is very tough for students to support themselves with this salary. I really believe that graduate students and TAs are not appreciated. Congratulations on your fruitful efforts to get us a raise.

You’ve done the very best you could with an appallingly irresponsible and gratuitous hostile administration.

Both the committee (in particular) and the union members acted professionally and debated honestly, and the result was even more than I truly anticipated. I thank the bargaining committee and Prof. Boikess, in particular, for looking out for the rank and file. I applaud Prof. Bell for being a proactive president and listening and reacting upon the faculty and executive committee recommendations. I believe this union is back on track.

Great job. Let’s start preparing for the next series of contract talks today. We are all still under paid, and the state just passed the millionaire’s tax bill. All citizens of the state need to learn about the inherent value of academia!

Too bad it comes too late to help me as a GA—my grant is up 8/31 and I will probably be paid hourly till I finish this fall, but I’m glad future TA/GAs will be helped. I commend AAUP leadership and the negotiating committee for standing firm in the face of the reprehensible tactics of the administration. McCormick and Kavanaugh should be ashamed of the ill will and discord they have fomented. And we thought anything would be an improvement after Lawrence.

Thank you for your strenuous efforts on our behalf.

Thank you for all the effort that went into negotiating the agreement.

Excellent work!

That’s really good…

Great job Negotiating Team!

About the best that could be done, I guess.

Fine.

Thanks for your hard work!

I appreciate the effort.

Thank you!

Congratulations!

Hooray!!!! Good job!

Thank you so much for the hard work!

Thanks for all the hard work!!!

Thanks to the negotiating team for their hard work!

Thanks for your hard work on our behalf!

Way to go!

Good job!

Thanks for all your efforts.

Thank you for a great job!

Good work!

Congratulations on a terribly hard job.

Rudy, you’ve done a superb job, and all decent-minded colleagues are fully appreciative, I am sure.

Thanks for your help!

Well done. Thanks to the bargaining team for all your efforts.

Let’s take it!

Good job! Thanks!!

Thank you to the bargaining team for all your hard work. It is much appreciated.

Very good work!

Okay.

Looks excellent to me!

Woo-Hoo!

Thanks to the negotiating team.

Thanks for your hard work!

Thank you to the negotiating team.

Thank you for working so hard to secure this contract with the administration.

Good job negotiating. I would like more attention paid to non-tenure track teaching.

I am particularly pleased with the increases for TA/GAs.

Thank you for working so hard on our behalf.

Many thanks to negotiating team!

It would be helpful to inform the TA/GAs when they might expect the full fee remission. Thanks!

Good for TA/GAs.

Good job.

I support strongly the Executive Council and the President of the AAUP in their efforts to bring us a fair and speedy contract.

Thank you for all your work. All TAs will be really helped with this new agreement.

Thank you for your efforts in the negotiation process!

Thank you!

Good work by the bargaining team!

Thank you for your representation!

Thank you, AAUP! While this may have not entirely met all of your demands, I think it is a great start. I appreciate all of the hard work you have done on behalf of the Rutgers faculty. Keep up the good work.

Good work!

Thank you for all your hard work.

Thank you for all your hard work. I can really use the fees reimbursement.

Appreciate your hard work.

Congratulations on reaching an agreement. We owe a debt of gratitude to the negotiating team, who had to struggle with an uncooperative administration team.

Thanks to the bargaining team and leadership.

Good job! Thanks.

back to top

I am disappointed with the effectiveness of our union. It seems that while other state institutions of higher learning were able to come to an agreement with their unions, Rutgers was able to delay and play (toy) around with the AAUP. It is a shame that we are looked upon as a union with no teeth.

Given the new budget outlook, raises do not seem very substantial for faculty, particularly given the lack of raises this year. However, it doesn’t seem the university is willing to settle for anything better, so this is a reluctant yes.

As an associate professor making $69K (CAY)--$59K (AY)—in a department where an untenured associate professor is making $75K and assistant professors are making $65K, I have major reservations about salary matters at Cook. It is becoming increasingly clear that administrative or legal remedies may have to be sought to right such inequities.

Whose average salary?

I have serious concerns about spousal tuition at Rutgers. This issue was never raised at all during negotiations.

Thank you for all your efforts, AAUP. I only wish the AAUP could also do something to stop steep increases in on-campus graduate housing rentals.

The increases for faculty should be higher. I don’t understand the lack of negotiating power with the AAUP.

From the TA/GA perspective: If there’s any way to avoid taxing us twice on our refunded fees, that would be consistent and nice.

It’s not a good contract, but I can live with it.

This agreement does not reward adequately those faculty members who are the most productive on all fronts. I am an associate professor making far less than the mid-range figures provided with no hope of ever reaching that level in the light of these projected increases. It is a very unjust agreement all-around rewarding most the least productive and engaged of us (TA/GAs excepted).

I do not feel that this is a good contract. It follows on two terrible contracts. The information provided does not present a side-by-side comparison with the State College contracts. Salaries have declined seriously at Rutgers. We now have difficulty getting candidates to accept appointments because of the salary offered—something that never used to happen. Also, the process, while admittedly difficult, was not quite on. The negotiation should have been left entirely with the negotiating team, without intervention by the President.

Good joke!

I am disappointed that there was no salary increase in year 2003-04.

I am disappointed that the equity issues for those of us making the lower end of the salary range (in a given rank) was not addressed. Please consider the above statement as a complaint.

I have some concerns about salary inequities for newly promoted associate professors. With my 10% raise, I will be at the average assistant professor salary, and there does not seems to be an adequate way to address these kinds of inequities.

We have a serious salary issue in the business disciplines, including the Human Resource Management group in SMLR. Our students are currently being paid more when they graduate and accept "lesser" positions at teaching and lower-tier universities than I make at R.U. as an associate professor. There will be serious retention and recruitment issues if this is not fixed. My salary is conservatively 20-30% below where it should be to be competitive externally.

That’s not enough.

I’m displeased that we have permanently lost ATB/FASIP increments for 2003-04.

I strongly disagree with the disallowance of new hires to choose the traditional state health plan—many excellent doctors become inaccessible.

The agreement presented should have included a raise for 2003-04 like the other NJ college faculty received.

I just wonder why my salary (I am an associate professor) is almost $20K below the example you listed. Just a question. I know you cannot answer.

Instructors with 4-year max contracts are screwed by this settlement—no raise in 1 or 4 years is inexcusable exploitation. End limited term contracts! Make all full-time positions tenure track!

I see that though I have been teaching at R.U. for 40 years, I am $10K below the "average" associate salary. My record is respectable, and I got zero out of the four merit years in the last contract. Can you look into this for real inequities?

With a COLA of 2.1% per annum, this only represents a 0.3% increase. Not too good when the President gets a $500K signing bonus!

Why must we wait another YEAR for an increase in our salaries?? This contract is no help to me at all!!

We went a year without a raise (03-04).

Contract fails to compensate for the woeful deficiencies of the previous contract, and repeats the shameful provision for 0% increase for the first year, as was the case in the previous contract. Rutgers is not a state college. AAUP needs to recognize this, and so does the Rutgers administration.

I am not satisfied with 0% for 2003-04; and although greatly appreciate the effort to finally reach the agreement, cannot accept this provision.

Thanks for NOTHING! We did not achieve parity with the state college package. Almost a 10% shortfall, especially considering timing issues. Also, we still have 50% of the settlement in FASIP. RIDICULOUS! Nonetheless, I am confident that the contract will be approved by the ignorant majority.

This settlement does not address: Rutgers slipping competitive position relative to other top universities; the low salaries of Rutgers senior associate and full professors relative to more recent hires. A merit system that operates only in some years is ludicrous. So faculty who published books in 20o03-04 are not worthy of merit awards, and those the next year are??

I think the AAUP should have made more explicit the financial impact of the delayed implementation of raises in years 3 and 4 (i.e., the ATB portion of the increase in year 3 actually translates to a 1.8% increase). I suspect many faculty members did not fully understand the effect of this, based on conversations with colleagues all of whom are pretty darned smart people.

I am very disturbed by two non-salary areas. Setting up committees to look into Parking and FASIP procedures, in my mind, is tantamount to allowing the administration "carte-blanche" to do what they wish.

I am troubled still by the designation of "typical mid range" faculty salaries. The numbers shown do not correspond to any numbers with which I am personally familiar. It would be helpful to haven an open, understandable presentation of salaries.

Why all the foot dragging when we could have settled a year ago, possibly economic gains for the first year of the contract. So, ultimately, we have no economic gains for the first year and increases that are no better than they would have been if AAUP settled a year ago. Bravo!

Please send me my $1000—I need it. And McCormick is a weasel and so is his henchwoman!

I deeply resent the fact that 50% of the salary increase money goes to FASIP because all or nearly all of the highest "merit pay" increments go to administration cronies, leaving those of us who do the real work of the state university—teaching the state’s students—underpaid. Future contracts should be entirely ATB.

AAUP must do something about parking. As a P1, I pay over $400 per year for the same parking space that an assistant professor pays $100 for. This is fair??? There isn’t even a guarantee of a parking space. We pay differential fees for the right to compete for the same parking space! If no enrollments in the traditional health plan by newly hired persons are permitted, how will the state keep faculty premiums from increasing? As the existing pool of traditional plan members gets older, and presumably sicker, we will be forced to pay higher premiums. This may "eat up" all salary increases we get over the life of the new contract. What is AAUP doing about that?

50% of salary increases, as merit raise is too large a fraction. 1/3 or 1/4 would be more reasonable given the real loss of income over the past 2 contracts.

8.88% in four years does not cover inflation by any means. 0% in the first year is unacceptable.

Although I appreciate and applaud the hard work of the bargaining committee, I feel that I must reject a contract that does not recognize the increasing economic gap between junior and senior faculty. I am prepared to strike for a better deal.

I am very disappointed to find myself in a situation in which our new hires in the department are paid close to twice what I get paid after several decades of teaching, research and service. I don’t seem to have much choice in this regard at this point in my career. Thanks to unusually good investments I find myself wealthy despite Rutgers. I intend to give most of this away. Normally, Rutgers would have been in for a good chunk of this. Not now. Not ever.

Fees for faculty! Retro pay for raises!

Student fee should be waived.

Too little for faculty; too much for TA/GAs.

My paycheck is smaller than last year due to increased expenses (parking, health care, dues) and no cost of living increased expenses (parking, health care, dues) and no cost of living increase for 2003-04. Cost of living increase should be the bare minimum especially with no FASIP opportunity. This is absolutely unacceptable for an R1 university—who continues to pay salaries well below those in the Midwest, for example, where cost of living is less. I appreciate AAUP efforts, yet am still disillusioned by R.U.

The listing of "mid-range and average" assistant and associate salaries on page 2 is WILDLY inaccurate relative to my department!! My salary is $20K below the mid-range after 24 years and consistently receiving the top merit increases in my department.

I’m abstaining because I’m retiring on July 1 and feel that I shouldn’t vote on a contract that I won’t live under in the future. I have, of course, lived under it for the past year, but the less said about that, the better.

I abstain out of lack of confidence, AAUP leadership!

This took far too long, and left a lot of people wondering just what is going on at Rutgers? Seems like we gave more than we got—in hindsight, if this is what you wanted, why not settle on it sooner and be done with it? Start sooner, in 06 if possible, and get more COLA for Rutgers professors.

I hope the TA/GA fee remission from Fall 2003 and Spring 2004 is issued to us soon. It would be good to have these ballots filed electronically and save all this paper.

I regret that over a 12-year period the modest increases in salary granted by two consecutive administrations have made Rutgers less competitive in hiring and retention of the best talents. Salary has been one issue for three decades in which this university had been competitive. No more…

I wish ATB for 2005-06 was 3%.

In future I would like to see the union advocate for childcare at Rutgers Newark. I also would like the union to consider the issue of parity between Rutgers Newark and Rutgers New Brunswick.

I wish the settlement had included some provision for increasing the numbers of faculty, and especially of TAs, even at the cost of some of the salary increase.

I commend the AAUP leadership and bargaining team, but I sincerely hope that the President and his administration will bargain in better faith next time.

I would have approved even without the 100% one-semester sabbaticals. I don’t think they are a good idea.

I want to see that we look into the way the administration distributes merit pay. There is a large inequity that exists, and we are talking about 50% of pay raises.

Reappointment of TAs should have a reasonable deadline. Such as every July 1^st or August 1^st. In ECE department it is always at the end of August that one can get the reappointment information. Those who lost reappointment will have no time to consider other funding.

AAUP needs to evaluate the tenure and promotion process set forth in the collective bargaining agreement. The university uses the external letters of evaluation as "secret evidence." While there is the neutral reader mechanism, this does not solve a fundamental problem—the 6^th Amendment right to confrontation. The tenure and grievance processes are quasi-judicial—each candidate is legally entitled to challenge all evidence in the promotion package. The university can maintain the confidentiality of the letter writers by redacting their identity. PLEASE look into this. The current system is at variance with labor law.

Please get a better deal on parking. The increasing percentage of salary is reprehensible.

I favored the AAUP attempt to improve GA/TA support. But I opposed the AAUP’s persistent rejection of reasonable offers from RU Administration.

Perhaps I missed it, but at one point in your explanation of the proposed contract, the "average" salary is slated to increase to 18.38%. Yet you say we have achieved overall parity with the state college package of 20.2%. Is the difference the 1% raise for promotions? If so, it would have clarified things to say so. Also, I’m sorry that new faculty won’t have the traditional plan available. I’m also sorry that the pay differential represented by TA 1 2-3 is gone. But very glad you were able to make substantial increases in TA/GA salaries and got the fees removed. Overall—good job. Thanks.

Our negotiators should be made aware of a rise in rent for on-campus graduate housing. Last year, rent was increased nearly 10% by the BOG. The BOG may take the increase in TA/GA salaries as justification for another drastic rent hike.

I believe overall this is a very good contract and the pay raises are acceptable. However, the loss of the ability to enroll in the state health insurance plan is a concern, as it is a major attraction/draw for potential graduate students. I believe the fee remission is a positive accomplishment. Is it possible for a graduate student to use that money (over $1000) to purchase into the insurance plan?

I hope this passes without further grief.

back to top

ATB only—no to FASIP!

Too much merit and administrative discretion—too little ATB—below inflation.

FASIP was not fair at all—it should have been reduced to 20%.

The FASIP portion of this contract is used as workplace political playback by the administration.

I will accept it if the contract considers following: While TA’s arrangement is fine, GA’s arrangement is not clear. GA’s salary comes from the contract/grant, which is set up during the proposal time. We can’t increase it without the approval from the sponsor. Therefore, for existing contract/grant, Rutgers should absorb the difference due to the salary increase. For the new proposal, we can put the GA’s salary according to the new standard. GA’s tuition also should be based on the in-state standard as many universities have done.

This will not even cover inflation over the four-year period.

The FASIP program still remains a problem, although it is recognized that the 50% is regrettably fixed in stone. Why other state colleges have 100% ATB, and not R.U., is still a mystery to me.

Junior faculty get overlooked again, since FASIP disproportionately favors senior faculty, who, by virtue of the fact are the ones who decide about FASIP, have a conflict of interest regarding merit increases.

The last administration used merit increases and promotions as a way to stifle academic freedom and discourse. This, of course, is known by many of us who received the 1% per year. The shameful way it was openly conducted and ignored by the AAUP cannot be forgotten or set aside. This must be monitored by the AAUP in the present contract. The threat to higher education is greater than simply a loss of salary increases over 8 years.

While I am voting "yes," it is with much reservation. I do not agree with half of our raise being from FASIP. This is not merit. This money goes to the folks who play the games administrators want them to play. Go back to mostly across-the-board increases.

Once again the idea of "merit or FASIP" pay is taken from the salary increment and is not truly a "merit" increase based upon superior performance. Also the "merit" system and its implementation rewards those faculty in step with the university policies.

I see the 50% FASIP as a sell-out to the administration, and I do not agree.

FASIP is unfairly distributed and should less %. Faculty should withhold grades in May; we should strike in December. This contract does not do justice to years of poor contracts.

Too little, too late; too much FASIP; no protection in FASIP.

Merit increases are badly abused and used to reward cronies of administration. It is having a corrosive effect on morale. Unless merit increases are eliminated, the downward spiral will continue.

I would be a lot happier with this contract if the procedure for determining FASIP awards were less arbitrary.

I am opposed to the FASIP section of the agreement. No union should agree to merit, much less 50% of the average salary increases. I have investigated the effect of FASIP in my department. The money goes unequally to those with higher salaries, and part-time people we ignored. In addition, the dean added significant amounts to some people’s salaries outside of the departmental FASIP committee’s recommendations. The evaluation forms had no narrative above the chair’s level.

I don’t like the FASIP part. The president wants collaboration—but at whose expense? An analysis of what is happening with grants and who does the work should give AAUP cause to think about academic freedom. There are several levels of corruption that must be examined before another contract negotiation takes place.

I would like to see 0% ATB and100% merit in next contract!

FASIP is still not geared to reward teaching. The Form 1.e. emphasizes research.

Thank you for your negotiating efforts. Future contract negotiations should take into consideration market based realities for certain professions. For example, as of January 1, 2007, PI professors awarded average FASIP will be paid BELOW current (2004) starting salaries for newly minted PhDs with no experience in the areas of business management and human resource management. In other words, graduating PhD. students will be making more starting this year (04) than I can reasonably hope to make by 2007. This inequity with the market-based salary levels makes it very difficult to recruit and retain qualified faculty in our field.

Let’s not go a year without a contract and with 0% increase next time around. How can we ensure that annually appointed research faculty are guaranteed equal consideration for FASIPs? This is currently a big hole in the plan, as far as I can see.

I’m not crazy about the FASIP and think that what gets rewarded is the same old stuff. I’m glad the AAUP (or the NBFC) is investigating how departments do the FASIPs—how uniform, fair, etc. I feel tired of putting out for the university and being unseen, etc. Nothing new. Right.

Best we could do. We have got to change FASIP.

back to top

I wish there were a provision that increased the minimum salary paid to PTLs. In my school (Rutgers Business School), the PTLs are getting the minimum per course of about $2500 with a maximum of about $3000 per course. I would gladly have accepted no salary increase to help these deserving PTLs. Next time increase the minimum by at least $1500 per course.

You must do something to improve the salaries and working conditions of the PTLs! It’s utterly absurd that TA/GAs will make practically twice the salary of PTLs and health benefits and tuition remission. Many TAs have no teaching experience; many PTLs have 20-25 years experience. The administration’s attitude toward these "field workers" on the Rutgers Plantation is totally unacceptable. It’s cold, condescending, indifferent, yet these people shoulder an increasing percent of the teaching load. This really needs to be given increased attention and support by our union. Double standards for these highly dedicated teachers should simply be repugnant and unacceptable to those members who are so much better off.

Good work on TA/GA pay. NEXT PLEASE—pay for adjuncts increased! This is a truer measure of tenure-track faculty good will, as adjunct pay reflects back little glory to tenure track faculty, unlike TA/GA pay (for recruitment).

I think the health benefits deal, or lack of, for PTL staff is a major concern. Otherwise, this is promising.

back to top

Good that you got so much for TA/GAs and protection for the indefinitely suspended. As you know, the administration stonewalled the Faculty Council on the latter.

I would like to offer my sincere thanks to all AAUP members for their consistent effort towards obtaining a just and acceptable contract from the university officials. I am happy with the results, but have learned the lesson of being constantly watchful of the administration. I wish strength and success to the membership.

The level of confrontation between Rutgers and the AAUP must diminish. AAUP ought to be more accepting of merit pay.

I guess it’s the best we can do. I am most concerned about the administration’s attitude toward the faculty and faculty governance.

Good agreement. It’s a shame that so much ill will was generated by the negotiations.

It is pathetic, but I suppose the best we can expect from the McCormick administration, which has shown no inclination to share governance with the faculty or its representatives on any level.

I approve, more correctly capitulate, but resent the administration’s handling of the whole process—the lack of any increase in 2003-04 and am dismayed by the naiveté they show as they simultaneously solicit us for donations to the Rutgers Foundation and political support through the "Friends of Rutgers." New administration—same old style.

back to top

It remains absurd that maternity leave does not, in fact, exist, save for the (now) 6-week disability provision. Given that many departments in NB practice an informal leave policy of one semester off for faculty, this amounts to inequity among the campuses.

It’s good that maternity leave is extended to six weeks, but it is still a joke. Dads get no leave at all. It is not a humane system.

Despite the increase, the maternity leave provisions are insufficient (you try going back to work full time only 6 weeks after giving birth).

back to top

As a gay person and employee of Rutgers for 13 years, my partner will only be able to obtain health insurance through Rutgers starting this summer…as this will mark the first time Rutgers no longer discriminates against gay faculty. Please make sure that my partner WILL be able to sign up for traditional state health plan. I am not a new employee, and she is not a new partner, so non-salary issue #12 should NOT apply to us. I suspect, however, that Rutgers will try to apply this rule to us. They had better NOT or I’ll go to court.

I would like to see some explanation somewhere for why the traditional state health plan is being dropped.

Not enough money. New hires need to have option of traditional health insurance.

Dental cap to 3000/year vs. unlimited is effectively a salary reduction of over $20K/year for senior faculty. Traditional health plan reduction payment is effectively ½ insurance. It covers nothing except for hospital effectively. The loss of dental and medical coverage (real and effective vs. virtual is a disaster for senior faculty and families.

Newly hired persons should be eligible for the traditional state health plan.

Your agreement to end traditional health plans for new faculty is a disgraceful capitulation. We would have done better with NJEA.

back to top