Decrease in Health Premiums?

In general, I see all health care issues as union issues, because faculty unions negotiate these benefits in collective bargaining agreements. That said, I have decided to reproduce Senate Chairman Sergio Lopez-Permouth's recent email. It raises at least two important issues: 1) We have no real agreement with the university regarding our health care benefits. Even though Faculty Senate has done a reasonably good job of preventing further damage to our benefits, we are at the mercy of the university; 2) University officials seem happy to spin this issue in an attempt to mislead some of us. Below is Sergio's message. Your comments are welcome.

Dear Colleagues,

As you all know, Luis Lewin, Associate Vice President for Finance and Administration for Human Resources, sent out an e-mail in the afternoon of April 23 informing us that our premiums for Health Insurance will be going down this year. Unfortunately the complete picture is that the decrease in our premiums has been partially bought through increases in employee contributions. Said increases will have a much larger impact on employee family budgets than the little reductions on premiums mentioned in Mr. Lewin’s e-mail message.

I find it discouraging that the administration released such a misleading statement promoting the impression that we have good news while the reality is that our salaries are frozen while our overall contributions to Health Care through deductibles and copays are in fact growing. To make matters worse, the net growth in our out-of-pocket expenses for health care hits those employees with smaller salaries the hardest, especially those whose families may be dealing with illness.

Please rest assured that Faculty Senate will continue to pursue this issue in support of all Ohio University employees.

Sincerely,

Sergio

Sergio R. Lopez-Permouth, Professor of Mathematics,
Director of the Center for Ring Theory and its Applications
and Chair of the Ohio University Faculty Senate
Ohio University
Athens, OH 45701
Phone: 740-593-1262
FAX: 740-593-9805

Faculty Senate Contact Information:
Pilcher House 202
Athens, Ohio 45701
Phone: 740-593-2640

Unionized Faculty Visit OU

Guest Speakers Discuss Faculty Unionization at Reception (The Post).

Many faculty have wondered how a union would affect our Faculty Senate. According to the article, "Faculty Senates on their (the guest speakers') campuses now focus on academic issues rather than salaries and benefits." The full story is below. Your comments, of course, are welcome.

A group of professors urging faculty unionization held a reception Friday for faculty in Ellis and Gordy halls to discuss the option.

The Ohio University chapter of the American Association of University Professors had wine and hors d'oeuvres available for faculty who came to hear four professors from unionized campuses in Ohio talk about unionization.

After the speakers - two from Wright State University and two from the University of Akron - discussed their own experiences on unionized campuses, they took questions from approximately 20 OU faculty who attended.

Questions ranged from how the union has affected Faculty Senate and non-tenure-track faculty, to how to sway anti-union or undecided faculty, how unions pick their leaders and the limits of a union.

The visitors said Faculty Senates on their campuses now focus on academic issues rather than salaries and benefits. They also recommended a lot of one-on-one interactions to convince undecided faculty to sign cards.

OU-AAUP is running a card drive to gauge interest in voting on a union. The president of OU-AAUP has said faculty who submit cards are calling for a vote, not voting for the union.

The answer to most questions, however, was that it depends on the campus. Each contract, union structure and negotiation process is slightly different.

Marsha Dutton, vice president of OU-AAUP, said she was pleased with the attendance and the event.

"(Turnout) was quite a lot better than I thought," she said, adding, "Every time I hear people come from other campuses, I get really revved up because they make it so clear that if you have bargaining power, you can make it happen."

AAUP will sponsor similar events in some of the other colleges in the coming weeks.

Unionize for Senate Control

Collective Bargaining Needed to Restore Senate Control (The Post)

The following letter to the editor was written by Phyllis Bernt, Professor in the School of Information and Telecommunication Systems. Your comments are welcome.

As a former Faculty Senate chairwoman and advocate for shared governance, I was appalled (though not surprised) when the deans unveiled their plans for reorganizing departments and colleges. What I found appalling was the lack of faculty involvement in the deliberations that led to those plans. There were no broad-based meetings with faculty to discuss the critical issues concerning curriculum, program development and promotion/tenure involved in such important decisions. Indeed the faculty in the School of Human and Consumer Sciences (whose college will be disbanded) came to the Faculty Senate in order to publicly express their concerns to the provost and to complain that their dean had refused to talk with them at all. The provost has said that the faculty will be allowed to "refine" the deans' plans, but that is too little involvement, and it happens far too late.

Not only has this whole process shown amazing arrogance (are the deans the only people on campus who have good ideas about how to organize departments and colleges?), but it also exhibits an incredible lack of respect for the faculty, who know their disciplines, their students and what is needed for quality teaching and research.

The Human and Consumer Sciences faculty came to the Faculty Senate to talk with the provost, not to ask the senate for help. That is telling, but not surprising. Many of those who oppose collective bargaining say that the Faculty Senate by itself can represent faculty interests. I no longer agree. I served on the Faculty Senate for 10 years, interacting with three different presidents and four provosts. For three of those years I served as Senate chairwoman. What I learned from those experiences is that the Faculty Senate only has as much influence as any given administration allows, and, over the years, administrations have accorded the Senate less and less influence, especially concerning issues of salary, benefits and working conditions. Indeed, the current provost has repeatedly said that the Senate should restrict itself to issues of curriculum and not play an advocacy role for the faculty.

As universities become increasingly corporate and geared toward top-down management, the role of the Faculty Senate, which is based on the concept of shared governance, becomes more tenuous. The balance in the shared governance equation increasingly tilts toward the administration; without an enforceable contract, the Faculty Senate will have great difficulty in righting that balance. A collective bargaining agreement can clarify the role and influence of the Faculty Senate and can provide a framework for negotiations in which faculty interests are strongly represented.

If I had any doubts, the way in which the planned reorganization has been handled has convinced me that the faculty at Ohio University need both an effective Faculty Senate and collective bargaining to represent their interests. An enforceable contract, negotiated through collective bargaining, can strengthen the influence of the Senate and restore the voice of the faculty.

CIF Should Debate OU-AAUP

Unionization Debate Persists Among Faculty (The Post)

According to The Post, the OU chapter of AAUP and the OU Committee for an Independent Faculty (CIF) both claim to be "gearing up for more debate this quarter." That's a good thing, as some faculty have yet to decide whether or not to support unionization. Although this blog provides a forum for those who support and those who oppose unionization to express their views, it would be helpful if the primary advocates of unionization (i.e., OU-AAUP) and the primary detractors of unionization (i.e., CIF) met in person to debate the advantages and disadvantages of collective bargaining.

According to The Post, Faculty Senate Chairman Sergio Lopez-Permouth volunteered to organize a forum for the two groups to discuss unionization. Although the OU-AAUP was willing to send a representative, Lopez-Permouth did not hear back from the CIF originally. According to The Post, the CIF is still discussing that option.

I encourage AAUP and CIF representatives to accept the Senate Chairman's offer to organize a forum (or two, or more) so that the issues can be discussed in detail and in a public venue. Should OU faculty unionize? That's a question that cannot be answered sufficiently via blog entries, email messages, and flyers. Let's resolve to debate this issue in good faith, and in a public forum.

As always, I encourage your comments.

The Post on Shared Gov.

Editorial: Public puzzle (The Post)

In this editorial, The Post took OU to task for "Once again, ...attempting to withhold documents that should be public records." Apparently they were denied after requesting access to the reduction strategies that OU departments and offices submitted to the Budget Planning Council.

In the editorial, they offered the following view of shared governance: "The economy is weak, and cuts will need to be made. But the constituents of this university need to be a part of the decision making. Shared governance does not mean the university's top brass makes a decision and the students, faculty and staff discuss it afterward. It means that the people discuss every step, offering input and helping to shape solutions before the university makes its decisions - a closed council with "representatives" is not enough. Yes, it's messy. The pieces don't always fit together just right. But if OU is serious about transparency, the discussion needs to be carried out in the public forum."

The drive toward unionization focuses on shared governance, so I thought this editorial might generate some discussion.

Union Brings The Right to Participate

On March 11th I blogged about the Provost's recent announcement regarding an administrative proposal to restructure some of the colleges. I mentioned that the proposal was created by the academic deans, although "faculty will be asked to assist in the refinement of the proposal." In other words, the important decisions have been made by the administration, but the faculty can work on the details.

Joe Bernt from OU-AAUP recently sent an email to faculty that included a flyer entitled "Why Were Faculty Excluded from Planning College Reorganizations and Eliminations?" The flyer discussed this mess in detail, and it asked, "Would collective bargaining have changed this situation?"

Would collective bargaining have changed this situation? Yes. The union contract negotiated by faculty at the University of Cincinnati stipulates in Article 27 that faculty shall "be entitled to share significantly in the responsibilities for program development, program review, department review, and department and college reorganization."

The faculty at the University of Cincinnati, represented by the AAUP, have an enforceable contractual right to participate--to have a voice and responsibilities--in decisions regarding restructuring.

Tired of being ignored? Claim your voice: sign an AAUP card today asking the State of Ohio for a vote on collective bargaining!

Download a card from http://www.ouaaup.org/card.html

Health Care Mess Avoided with Union

President May Bypass Faculty Senate's Rejection of Health Benefit Cuts (Athens NEWS, 3/12/09)

OU President Offers Plan with Fewer Health Benefit Cuts (Athens NEWS, 3/14/09)

The news articles above are important reading to see a sampling of the messes we can AVOID by moving to collective bargaining. Here's a quick and dirty summary...Ohio University is in the midst of a budget crunch for a variety of reasons ranging from reductions in state funding to excessive increases in administrative salaries. That said, the administration is interested in shifting more health-care costs to faculty. OU's Budget Planning Council recommended a variety of cuts, but Faculty Senate rejected their plan and offered another. That's where the "negotiations" essentially ended. This past Friday, President McDavis unilaterally made sweeping changes (some positive, some negative) to health benefits for Ohio University employees. The new benefits will take effect July 1, 2009. End of discussion.

Had we been unionized, we would have avoided this mess altogether. Our collective bargaining agreement would have outlined our benefits and the associated costs. We wouldn't need to worry about any unilateral changes, because the agreement would lock our benefits in place for the duration of the contract. Then, several months before the contract expires, faculty representatives and university representatives would enter into honest negotiations. Regardless of whether we'd end up paying more or less for our benefits, we'd have a legitimate say in the final agreement, we'd vote on it, and then that agreement would lock our benefits in place for the duration of the contract.

Provost Announces Restructuring

Today we all received a message from Provost Krendl. Although her message did not address collective bargaining, part of it was particularly relevant. Many faculty are pushing for unionization because they feel marginalized. Although shared governance is given lip service, the administration is making important decisions without adequate input from the faculty. In today's message, the Provost introduced a proposal for restructuring some colleges. The proposal was created by the academic deans, although "faculty will be asked to assist in the refinement of the proposal."

In other words, the important decisions have been made by the administration, but the faculty can work on the details. In my opinion, that's insulting, and it undermines the essence of shared governance. I would like our faculty to develop a collective bargaining agreement in which shared governance is operationally defined, using specific guidelines and concrete examples, so that when the administration believes restructuring is necessary, they will understand that faculty input is needed before important decisions are made. Below is the text of Provost Krendl's message. Your comments care welcome.

Dear Colleagues:

Thirty years after the last significant collegiate restructuring of the university, major shifts have taken place in the landscape of higher education. How we learn, what we learn, and why we learn have been transformed through the computers that sit on our desks, the degree to which boundaries between disciplines have changed or have been erased, and the host of challenges (most of them global in nature) that dominate our scholarship and teaching. The goal still remains to ensure that the "means of education shall forever be encouraged," but those means are changing in ways that even the most prescient could not have imagined thirty years ago.

In light of those changes, the academic deans of Ohio University are finishing a proposal outlining alternative means of structuring some colleges. That proposal grew out of discussions about how a new set of academic structures could capitalize on areas of existing strengths, promote emerging strengths, realize new revenue opportunities, and create administrative efficiencies. At the heart of the proposal is a conceptual framework that creates organizational structures to support the academic needs of the next generation of students and faculty. The framework was built on a set of goals that are listed below. I anticipate that the proposal will be finished early next week, and as soon as it is completed I will provide copies to the faculty.

As I indicated during a meeting held on March 5, 2009, with the chairs and directors, faculty will be asked to assist in the refinement of the proposal. To facilitate the gathering of input, deans will hold open forums in some colleges and departmental or school meetings in others. Our ultimate goal with academic restructuring is to move from proposal to implementation planning before the end of Spring Quarter.

Sincerely,

Kathy A. Krendl
Executive Vice President and Provost

ACADEMIC RESTRUCTURING GOALS

Proposed realignments, where applicable, must:

* Support emerging areas of academic strength.
* Allow colleges and academic programs to develop more fully their potential and their institutional missions.
* Create new opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration.
* Identify ways of more strategically allocating resources.
* Facilitate the creation or consolidation of academic programs needed to further the university's long-term academic aspirations.
* Offer new possibilities to enhance research and creative activities.
* Assist with the university's ability to enhance student performance.
* Confront and resolve issues that have been longstanding barriers to operating as one university.
* Offer the potential to help the university meet external mandates, particularly those associated with the University System of Ohio

AAUP Better Option for Faculty

AAUP's Effective History Makes it Better Option for Faculty (The Post)

This letter to the editor was written by Katherine Jellison, Professor of History. It was in response to the CIF's suggestion that the AAUP is an ineffective organization.

The latest public statement from the Committee for an Independent Faculty (OUCIF) states that the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) is an "ineffectual" organization. Faculty certainly need to determine the effectiveness of anyone they might choose as their representative, but OUCIF's charge, which casts doubt on whether OU faculty can trust the AAUP to represent them competently, is erroneous.

OUCIF's assertions refer to a 6/8/2007 article in the Chronicle of Higher Education by Robin Wilson, who reported that the 92nd meeting of the "premier faculty association" of the U.S. focused on the organization's financial and membership problems, and that the AAUP's role in collective bargaining remained controversial among non-union members. The AAUP challenged Wilson's portrait as "rife with anonymous sources, misrepresentations and partial quotations that changed the meaning of what was actually both said and meant" (www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2008/MJ/Feat/warr.htm), but the key point to note today is that regardless of whether Wilson's characterization was accurate in 2007, this snapshot in time is not accurate now. A year after the original story, on 6/27/2008, Wilson told Chronicle readers that AAUP had a "restructuring plan in place" that represented "big steps on the path" to organizational health. In addition, membership had risen 7 percent that year, and deficits were erased.

AAUP is the only organization in the U.S. to work exclusively on behalf of university faculty. Local chapters and state conferences supplement the national organization. In its 93-year history, AAUP has provided the foundational statements on academic freedom, shared governance and the host of professional standards that guide the academic mission. Its collective bargaining chapters, which are locally controlled, empower faculty to protect these standards through legally binding negotiation procedures. The OU Faculty Handbook is based on AAUP principles.

Ohio has a strong AAUP conference and extremely successful AAUP chapters, some of which serve as collective bargaining representatives. Even as the national AAUP grappled with its managerial challenges two years ago, the faculty at the University of Akron entered into their first ever collective bargaining agreement. Nationally, too, important work proceeded despite the bumpy road. For example, AAUP was instrumental to the successful outcome of the most important court case concerning tenure in recent years. Otero-Burgos v. Inter-American University was a significant victory and will have major implications for the future (www.aaup.org/AAUP/newsroom/Highlights/otero.htm).

AAUP-led collective bargaining offers OU faculty a proven, effective, professional alternative to the conditions we currently find ourselves in: salary freezes, shifts in health care costs to faculty, limitations on health care options by removing Holzer Clinic from the PPO network, attempts to redefine the provost position as strictly administrative, displacement of Faculty Senate committees by administratively appointed groups and the sundry other measures that have eroded real faculty influence at OU for more than a decade and a half. Is there another, better option that, like collective bargaining, gives faculty legal powers to protect its livelihood and authority in matters of shared governance? The answer is likely to be no, and so I urge all faculty to consider signing the AAUP cards we have received in our boxes (or print one out from www.aaup-ou.org/card.html). By doing so, we are requesting an election to determine whether or not we should form a collective bargaining unit under OU-AAUP auspices. Let's seriously explore all options, especially collective bargaining, which can give us the legal resources we currently lack.

Health Care and OU-AAUP

Today I have two email messages to post for posterity. One is another half-baked message from the Committee for an Independent Faculty (CIF). They are questioning whether the AAUP is an "effectual organization." If interested, you can visit their site for the full text of their message. They refer to a 2007 article in the Chronicle that describes some problems the national AAUP had at the time. But as usual, the CIF has tried to mislead faculty by telling only a small part of the story. For example, the CIF failed to mention the AAUP's response to the article. Although the CIF would like faculty to believe otherwise, the AAUP is a strong, well-established organization. Since 1915, the AAUP's primary mission has been to advance academic freedom and shared governance. And don't forget, Ohio University has had a local chapter since 1935!

Let's move on to some information that is helpful to Ohio University. Kevin Uhalde, the President of OU-AAUP, has recently emailed faculty to clarify the AAUP's position on heath care issues soon to be discussed in Faculty Senate. The text of that message is below. Your comments are welcome!

Dear Colleagues:

I apologize in advance for sending another general email so soon. But I've been asked by a number of colleagues to clarify OU-AAUP's position on important health care matters soon to come up in Faculty Senate.

The health care discussion is important no matter where you stand with regard to unions. For me, it's also a clear cut reason why we should want a union sooner rather than later.

I started taking my son to Holzer Clinic when the pediatrician we'd seen before packed up and left. That's Athens, of course. Affordable houses, short commutes, wonderful people. But many professionals don't stay long. Seeking care for premature babies (or even ordinary childhood illnesses and allergies), for cancer treatment or heart problems, and especially on weekends or in the middle of the night, all quickly reveal the challenges of small town living.

It means having limited options and that means those options we have are precious for happiness and well-being.

The most important discussion to take place about health care in recent years is taking place now. Unfortunately, as so often at OU, the discussion is taking place after many potentially life-changing decisions have been made without our being involved.

The administration would like to take this year -- a year when the increased cost of health care is in fact much lower than in recent years, when our health care nonetheless continually runs a surplus, and a month after the president acknowledged breaking the rules by imposing a premium increase without seeking Faculty Senate approval -- in this year the administration would like to make health care worse and more expensive for us all.

On top of that, the administration wants many of us to take ourselves, our children, and our parents to new doctors whom they approve. Those would be the doctors that cost less, always a good sign of quality. Or stay with the ones we know and trust but pay more.

The administration has tried to guilt faculty out of protesting over such actions by pretending the alternative is layoffs but that is not the case. Meanwhile OUCIF faculty quiver at the "horrors" of unions and compare them to smoking cigarettes.

A collective bargaining agreement would prevent sudden drastic actions and require the administration to involve faculty in a meaningful way. The administration at University of Akron attempted similarly drastic reforms while the faculty was organizing after a successful election: the administration paid over a million dollars for what was ruled to be unfair labor practices. An AAUP officer and health care expert (currently Eastern Michigan Professor of Accounting, Dr. Howard Bensis) conducts workshops to educate faculty for negotiating health care benefits and does site specific analyses.

The bottom line for OU-AAUP is that if tough decisions must be made, the faculty is better off making them for ourselves. That can happen with collective bargaining. The only way to know whether other faculty feel the same is to have an election. So please consider clicking on this link now (http://www.aaup-ou.org/card.html) and sending in a signed card today.

Respectfully,

Kevin Uhalde
Associate Professor of History
President, OU-AAUP

Faculty Health Care Under Attack

Shifting Cost: Faculty Expected to Foot Climbing Health Care Bills, Not Administrators (The Post)

This Post Editorial noted that the faculty will once again be forced to shoulder financial burdens while the university administration overlooks its own extravagance. According to a new plan for health care benefits, faculty premiums would increase from 9.85 to 12.15 percent. Co-pays would increase from $15 to $20, and co-insurance limits could increase by up to $2,000 per family or $1,000 per individual. Budget Planning Council member Dennis Irwin said, "It's essentially a shift in cost from the university to the faculty."

And to make matters worse, OU recently announced that Holzer Clinic will become an out-of-network health care provider as of July 1. This will force up to 20 percent of Ohio University employees to change physicians or face increased medical costs.

According to the Post editorial, "...the number of top-level administrators continues to increase, and those administrators often receive exorbitant salaries that rise even in the midst of a university-wide slump. The most obvious example? President Roderick McDavis received a controversial $85,000 raise this year. We're left with a bloated administration, bloated executive salaries and individual leaders who seem totally unwilling to make sacrifices for the good of the whole."

THAT SAID, today the university announced that President McDavis will give $50,000 to university scholarship programs. According to a news release, he and his wife will donate $10,000 a year for the next five years to OU's Urban and Appalachian Scholars programs. We should all appreciate this gesture, but we'll also need to put it in perspective. After receiving an $85,000 raise this year, McDavis will still enjoy an extra $75,000 in his wallet each year over the next 5 years. His raise is more than most of us make in an entire year, and it would go a long way in funding our financial crisis.

What is the CIF's Platform?

It's Becoming Clearer What The Independent Faculty Group Wants (Athens NEWS)

This letter to the editor was written by Kevin Mattson, Professor of History.

I have read with interest the materials produced by the Ohio University Committee for an Independent Faculty. Here’s what I’ve learned so far: They don't want a faculty union, they've studied faculty pay at other institutions, and they enjoy printing their statements on lime-green paper.

But here’s what I don't understand: What exactly does the group want? Besides being critical of a union that has not yet established itself, what does the organization stand for?

Well, now I have learned. It didn't come from OU CIF itself; it came from news reports from the Post and The Athens NEWS. Here is the CIF’s de facto platform as I understand it, a logical extension of the idea that no change is for the better:

They are satisfied with a pay freeze for faculty in the same year that the president enjoys a $85,000 pay increase. Even if that seems to defeat some central aims of Vision Ohio about faculty compensation.

They are satisfied with a plan, to quote the Post, that pushes "greater costs onto employees," including faculty. They are satisfied with premiums that would increase from 9.85 percent to 12.15 percent, even though the university has run a surplus in our health care under current plans.

This is the meaning of independence on our campus. And I wish that instead of simply arguing against the formation of a union, that the CIF would start to use these as their talking points on the future course they would like to see faculty chart at OU. It sure is an impressive track record.

Kevin Mattson
Department of History
Ohio University

In contrast to the CIF, the OU-AAUP is committed "to work for the betterment of Ohio University through the protection of Faculty rights and responsibilities, thereby promoting the best possible learning environment for our students and best possible working environment for the faculty."

Interested in learning more about the OU-AAUP's platform? Click here.

Card Drive Slowly Moves Forward

Faculty Union Drive Slowly Moves Forward (Athens NEWS)

The OU-AAUP card drive continues to "chug along," although OU-AAUP President Kevin Uhalde acknowledged that more signatures are needed before calling an election. Uhalde estimated that about 1200 faculty are eligible to sign cards, but that OU-AAUP will not seek an election until they receive cards from about 60% of them. "Uhalde explained that AAUP leaders, before they will seek a vote, want not only to feel that they would have a good shot at winning a union, but also to see evidence that unionization is truly something most faculty want, and that they’re willing to organize around the effort rather than relying on AAUP to do it."

Do you need a union card? If so, you can print one at http://www.ouaaup.org/card.html

Acad. Freedom vs. Corporatization

Faculty Should Reflect on Which Governance Model is Best (The Post)

This provocative letter to the editor was written by Chuck Overby, Professor Emeritus of Engineering. According to Overby, faculty should carefully examine the type of governance model they think is best for Ohio University, because the AAUP and the Committee for an Independent Faculty (CIF) offer significantly different models.

Overby states that "AAUP's model is based on their 1915 founding principle of protecting academic freedom and its intimately related constitutional 'first amendment' right-to-speak. As 'university corporatization' grows across America, the AAUP has found it necessary to build a collective bargaining tool on its solid 'academic freedom' foundation."

According to Overby, the "CIF's model is basically the corporate model with little room for free-speech ideals."

Overby concludes by asking, "Which model, the CIF's or the AAUP's, might be the better model for 'academic governance' at OU...?"

Great question. I'd love to hear your comments.

Safety From Budget Cuts

Faculty Must Seek Unionization For Safety from Budget Cuts (The Post)

This letter to the editor was written by Joseph W. Slade, who is a professor in the School of Media Arts and Studies. According to Slade, the Budget Planning Council plans to recommend (a) "freezing salaries in fiscal 2010, with the exception of employees who are contractually obligated to receive raises;" (b) "postponing a $1.2 million investment in raising faculty salaries as called for in the Vision OHIO plan;" (c) "increas[ing] employee premiums, co-pays and co-insurance levels and add[ing] a deductible;" and (d) excluding Holzer Clinic physicians from "in-network" coverage beginning July 1 because they cost too much.

Slade acknowledges that these are tough times and that there is a need to cut expenses. However, he believes that the administration's proposed cuts reflect problems with their priorities. According to Slade, "OU's administration seems to have decided that the $85,000 raise for the president and the six-figure salaries of a bloated administrative staff should remain off the table. Instead, faculty members are the problem and they should be made to bear the brunt of the cuts. The administration cannot touch unionized employees (janitors, groundskeepers, and maintenance staff represented by AFSCME). These individuals have salary increases (3.5 percent for the coming year) and locked-in benefits guaranteed through the life of their contract. This contract is a multi-year agreement negotiated through collective bargaining. Faculty members, however, are an easy target for cuts in livelihood because they lack the protection of such a negotiated, binding, multi-year contract."

According to Slade, "Budget cuts invariably reflect the priorities of the people who wield the knife. The self-serving goals of OU's administration are crystal clear. But who's looking out for the university and its faculty - the core of the university and the guarantors of its academic mission?"

As you might expect, Slade urges faculty to sign and submit a union card. Slade reminds us that "sending in the card is not a vote for a union, nor is it a commitment to join the AAUP. It is simply a request that the AAUP hold an election to determine if we want to be represented by them."

Message From OU-AAUP

This message was written by Kevin Uhalde, President of OU-AAUP.

Dear Colleagues:

Last summer, a Faculty Senate resolution sparked the first serious talk of collective bargaining on our campus in decades. During the fall that discussion moved from the senate to the campus as a whole. OU-AAUP's role has been to provide information and collect cards in support of an election. Within the last couple weeks, every full-time O.U. faculty member should have received a packet of information, including a card and stamped envelope.

Our primary concern right now is to provide information to all faculty members about how collective bargaining works at universities in Ohio and elsewhere. As more of you volunteer to help carry on these conversations in your own schools and departments, we'll be able to do this the best way possible: face to face, colleague to colleague.

Meanwhile, I want to draw your attention to our website (http://ouaaup.org/), which we've loaded up with a variety of information. Very soon you'll be able to send us your questions directly without revealing your name. You'll even be able to print cards on demand.

The website address is http://ouaaup.org/. As always, we welcome your questions and suggestions. For ideas on how to be involved see http://ouaaup.org/action.html. The best way to show your support is to sign a card, become a member, and start talking with your friends and colleagues. There will only be a faculty union if most of us want one. If you want one, let us know.

Sincerely,

Kevin Uhalde
--
Associate Professor of History
President, OU-AAUP
uhalde@ohio.edu / kevin.uhalde@gmail.com

Contracts Protect Salary/Benefits

OU's Union Contracts Suggest the Benefits of Collective Bargaining (Athens NEWS)

This letter to the editor was written by Kenneth Brown, Professor Chemistry. It's short and sweet, so I've reproduced it in it's entirety. Your comments are welcome. (Based on recent comments, I'm particularly interested in hearing from those who have yet to make a decision about unionization. Do you find Brown's letter persuasive? What information would help you make a decision?)

To the Editor:

Last week at a budget forum, OU Vice President William Decatur informed the university community that while most university employees, including faculty, will see a $1 million to $5 million reduction in health-care benefits and get no raise, those in the AFSCME and FOP unions will get a 3.5 percent raise and suffer no change in their health-care benefits. That's because they have a contract with the university, and the rest of us do not. Now our "friends" who call themselves the Committee for an Independent Faculty have been trying to scare faculty out of unionizing by calculating the bazillions of dollars that would be paid as union dues over the next few millennia. But the truth is that if we had a contract with the university, we'd probably be getting a 3.5 percent raise (or thereabouts) next year and no cuts to our health-care benefits. So even after paying union dues of about 0.75 percent of salary, faculty would still be better off to the tune of about 2.75 percent, and their dues would be covered forever. Which option would you choose? A 2.75 percent raise with your union dues covered in perpetuity and no loss of benefits, or no raise and at least a $1 million cut in benefits? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Unionization Leads to Success

Collective Bargaining Allows Peer Institutions to Succeed (The Post)

This letter to the editor was written by Tracy Leinbaugh, Associate Professor in the Department of Counseling and Higher Education. It was in response to the Committee for an Independent Faculty's message that I blogged about below (2/21/09). The CIF discussed the relationship between unionization and institutional quality, and they noted that unionized institutions tend to be ranked lower than non-unionized institutions. According to Leinbaugh, the CIF failed to share some important information.

For example, Dr. Leinbaugh reminded us that three of our aspirational peer institutions and many respected universities enjoy the benefits and protections of collective bargaining [e.g., University of Connecticut (OU peer institution), University of Delaware (OU peer institution), University of New Hampshire (OU peer institution), Rutgers University, University of Rhode Island, University of Vermont, New York Institute of Technology, Bard College, City University of New York (23 CUNY campuses), State University of New York (64 SUNY campuses), New Jersey Institute of Technology, Rider University, University of California (5 campuses: Berkeley-San Francisco, Davis, Riverside, San Diego, Santa Cruz), San Francisco Art Institute, and California State University (23 campuses)].

Dr. Leinbaugh also informed readers that our peer institutions with collective bargaining outperform Ohio University on numerous measures of quality, including freshman retention, student/faculty ratio, graduation rate, and U.S. News & World Report rankings.

And here's another great point that Dr. Leinbaugh made...Many universities (including nearly all the rest of our aspirational peer institutions) are located in states that PROHIBIT faculty from collective bargaining, and thus it is impossible to know which institutions would opt for collective bargaining if they were legally able to do so.

In closing, Dr. Leinbaugh stated that collective bargaining does not tarnish or devalue an institution. The CIF knows this, as does the OU administration. That's why they selected three aspirational peers that enjoy the benefits and protections of collective bargaining.

Will Unionization Reduce Quality?

Many faculty have received an email from the Committee for an Independent Faculty (CIF) that discusses the relationship between unionization and institutional quality (as measured by the U.S. News and World Reports annual rankings). Excerpts from that message are below. My comments follow, and your comments are welcome.

Hello _____:

This message is from the Committee for an Independent Faculty (OUCIF). We represent a grass-roots effort; a group of concerned faculty dedicated to maintaining shared governance, quality, and faculty independence at Ohio University.

What is the relationship between institutional quality and presence of a faculty union? Consider the latest annual U.S. News & World Report 2009 edition of America's Best Colleges. Correlating these rankings with faculty unionization produces the following results for various groupings of “National Universities”, as defined by the Carnegie Foundation’s 2006 Basic Classifications. A negative correlation score indicates that unionized schools tend to have lower ranking than non-unionized schools within the group. A perfect correlation score of -1.00 indicates that no unionized school is ranked higher than any non-unionized school in that category.

The message then displays two tables, each demonstrating that unionized institutions tend to be ranked lower that non-unionized institutions. You can view the tables at http://www.oufacultyindependence.blogspot.com/.

To their credit, the CIF acknowledges that correlation does not prove causation. After all, it would be a stretch to claim that unionization leads to reduced institutional quality. Instead, their primary point seems to be that "perceptions matter" and that unionization would lump us together with unsavory, low-quality schools. It's interesting that the Provost made this same point back in October when addressing Faculty Senate. She stated that "faculty unions are most popular at certain types of institutions" and that "an institution is judged in part by the company that it keeps." However, the Provost and the CIF keep forgetting that three of our "aspirational peer institutions" (University of Connecticut, University of Delaware, and University of New Hampshire) are unionized. If unionization is so troublesome, why were these three universities selected as a relative standard for our own future success?

Unionization will not reduce the quality of this great university. Under a collective bargaining agreement, we will still be the same teachers and scholars we've always been. Although our daily routine on campus will change very little, we will enjoy the security of a stable, transparent contract and the benefits we've negotiated. We'll no longer need to worry about the administration unilaterally attacking health care benefits and policies set forth in the Faculty Handbook, because our negotiated agreement will be backed by state law.

Remember, faculty have no reason to mistrust the AAUP. Since 1915, the AAUP's primary mission has been to advance academic freedom and shared governance. Ohio University has had a local chapter since 1935. Even our Faculty Handbook (Section I-A) pays homage to the incredibly influential 1940 Statement of Principles of the American Association of University Professors. These principles, which virtually all faculty embrace, are at the core of what it means to be a faculty member in a democratic society.

Concerns Go Beyond Salary

AAUP's Faculty Employment Concerns Go Beyond Salary (The Post)

This letter to the editor was written by Judith Yaross Lee, Professor of Communication Studies. It was in response to an email from the Committee for an Independent Faculty. (I blogged about the email on 2/12/09.) The CIF stated that the cost of unionization isn't worth it (dues are estimated to be .75% of one's salary). According to Judith Yaross Lee, the CIF misrepresented the AAUP's position.

A recent e-mail from the Ohio U Committee for an Independent Faculty (OUCIF) misrepresented the positions of our local AAUP chapter and facts about academic unions. I'd like briefly to clarify both for the benefit of the Athens community.

First, OUCIF implies that the OU-AAUP campaign for collective bargaining is primarily about salaries, when in fact it is about ALL of the conditions of faculty employment, especially shared governance. A chief goal of OU-AAUP is to incorporate the provisions of the Faculty Handbook into a legally enforceable contract, both to ensure administrative compliance as a matter of principle and to maintain the rights and responsibilities of faculty in academic planning and oversight. Our concerns about faculty salaries arise in the context of overall university priorities; we note that faculty raise pools take a back seat to many other non-academic matters because the faculty voice in setting strategic priorities has been muted in recent years.

Second, OUCIF suggests that faculty get nothing of benefit from the payment of union dues, when in fact dues pay for legal assistance in collective bargaining (the university has its own attorney). In any event, projected AAUP dues are far less than anyone's annual raise, as negotiated through collective bargaining - less than 1 percent, typically about half that. One of my colleagues estimates that everyone's dues would be paid forever if collective bargaining improves our salary pool over the administrative offer by just 0.25 percent annually for the first three years.

Finally, the agency fee in lieu of dues reflects the reality that ALL faculty in the bargaining unit, even if they choose not to join the union, get the benefits of the contract. They are therefore asked to pay a roughly equivalent amount to that portion of dues dedicated to bargaining. Different unions and states have different policies about how agency fees are handled. I don't know the practice for agency fees in Ohio, but when I was at CUNY, this money went into a scholarship fund for students rather than to the union.

CIF Discusses Cost of Unionization

Many faculty have received an email from the Committee for an Independent Faculty (CIF) that discusses the costs of unionization. The text of that message is below.

Any potential benefits of a union need to be weighed against the actual costs to faculty members. Faculty members who join AAUP would pay approximately .75% of their salary in union dues per year. At this dues rate, and assuming an annual raise of 3% (the average annual salary increase at OU over the past 6 years), a faculty member earning the average salary of $74,590 would pay the following dues:

Year 1 $559
Over 10 Years $6,414
Over 20 Years $15,033
Over 30 Years $26,616

Even faculty members who decline to join the union would incur a cost by paying an agency fee, which can be as high as the union dues. This financial cost represents just one cost of unionization. We don't think it’s worth it.

It's true that unionization will bring union dues, but the CIF isn't telling the complete story. For example, according to AAUP-OU, "On average, chapter members pay roughly 0.75%. But membership is voluntary. As a non-member, you might pay 0.55% of your salary as a 'fair share,' as at Akron, or nothing, as elsewhere." In other words, the faculty will decide whether non-members will pay a fair share or not, and if so, how much.

And wouldn't there be costs if we decided NOT to unionize? For example, it's likely that OU faculty will receive no raises, or raises that amount to chump-change, particularly after our health care costs are increased. But unionized campuses will enjoy the raises and the benefits they negotiated previously. For them, there will be no surprises, because their compensation will be treated by their administration as a fixed cost, which is backed by state law. Because our compensation is not backed by a legally binding agreement, it is constantly vulnerable to attack, as we all know too well (e.g., our health benefits are being attacked as I type). The bottom line is that we have little control over our own fate. That's just one indignity we suffer without collective bargaining.

I'd love to hear your opinions about this issue. Please consider posting an anonymous comment. No login is required.

Faculty Should Take Responsibility

Time to Move Past Era of Trusting in Administrative Benevolence (Athens NEWS)

This letter to the editor was written by Marsha Dutton, Professor of English. It's worth reading if you're interested in knowing why some faculty are considering unionization. In fact, it would be helpful if more faculty spoke out, if only to share with others why they do or do not support collective bargaining.

Dutton wrote about her early days teaching at OU, when the administration decided her salary and benefits, and she had no reason to distrust those decisions. Like most faculty, she was busy with teaching, research, and service, but through the wisdom of hindsight, she now believes it is somewhat irresponsible for faculty to trust that the administration will treat them appropriately. According to Dutton, "It is time for us to stop relying on paternalism and to start speaking on our own behalf. It is time for us to create a bargaining unit with a contract and faculty handbook that the university cannot violate....It is simply too dangerous to rely on others instead of taking personal responsibility."

Laws Wouldn't Affect Faculty Union

Union Discussions Should Stick to Reality and Facts (Athens NEWS)

This letter to the editor was written by Kevin Mattson, Professor of History. It was in response to Lee Ervin's letter to the editor that I blogged about below (2/2/09). Ervin stated that if the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) becomes law, it would be possible to enact union representation via a card drive and that a union vote would not be necessary. According to Mattson, Ervin is misinformed about this issue.

According to Mattson, the EFCA would apply to the private sector, not a state institution like OU. Mattson also reminded readers that the local chapter of AAUP and the OU administration are both on record stating that they desire/require an election, regardless of how many union cards are filed. Furthermore, Mattson reminded readers that contract negotiations would not begin at "level zero," as several fear mongers have suggested. State laws require that parties "bargain in good faith," and in this case that means an institution cannot punish a union by stripping its members of existing salaries, benefits, etc. (This basic issue keeps coming up. If any readers are expert in this area, please consider submitting a blog entry via email. I'd be happy to post a brief primer.)

Ervin trashed the idea of unionization in his letter, and he suggested that union representatives are more interested in collecting dues than in helping the university. As you might expect, Mattson found that insulting (and untrue, of course), so he set the record straight.

Will New Laws Affect Unionization?

New Laws Could Change Playing Field of Faculty Union (Athens NEWS)

In this letter to the editor, Lee Ervin, a former OU student now living in SC, stated that political support for the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is growing and the legislation is likely to pass in the U.S. House and Senate. According to Ervin, EFCA would make it possible to enact union representation simply by presenting an employer with signed authorization cards from a majority of the employees.

This issue is relevant to Ohio University because the Committee for an Independent Faculty (CIF) and the AAUP-OU have been debating whether "signing a card is in fact a vote for unionization" (for more background information, see blog entries from 1/20, 1/26, etc.). As it is now, I believe that reasonable people who have followed this discussion understand that Ohio University will not unionize without an election. But according to Ervin, federal laws may change, and that might change matters locally.

Ervin went on to trash the idea of unionization, suggesting that faculty may need to begin contract negotiations from scratch, giving up every right and benefit we now enjoy (hasn't this argument been discredited already?). He also suggested that union representatives are not necessarily interested in what is best for the university, but are indeed interested in collecting union dues. Seems like a very cynical point of view. Is there data to back it up? Are our local union organizers money grubbers interested only in exploiting the faculty and bringing the university to its knees?

I'd love to hear your opinions about these issues. Please consider posting an anonymous comment. No login is required.

AAUP-OU Responds to CIF

The following message, written by Kevin Uhalde (President of AAUP-OU), is in response to the CIF's message that I blogged about below.

What was it that Mark Twain said about statistics?

OUCIF, already well known for spreading cheer and collegiality at OU, has more good news in its most recent circular: for 12 years you've enjoyed 1.2% bigger raises than your unionized colleagues at other Ohio universities (see the link below if you haven't yet received the good news). Try not to gloat!

Of course you probably aren't gloating, even if 1.2% impresses you more than it does me. That 1.2% isn't an advantage you're likely to have noticed, because it's the difference between two averages that themselves derive from cumulative raise percentages, not the kind of figures you use to plan a household budget.

Still, let's look at the data the OUCIF is using. Try it this way: if you're a full professor at OU, your cumulative raises over the past 12 years rank 9th out of the state (behind OSU, Miami, Bowling Green Toledo, Wright State, Akron, Cleveland, and Kent). If you're an associate professor at OU, 10 other universities in Ohio have given your peers more or higher raises. Cumulative raises for assistant profs rank 9th.

9th place, 11th place, and 9th place. Remind me why the data doesn't support unionization?

Oh, Group 2s and 4s. If you're not tenured or tenure-track faculty and want to know how your raises stack up, sorry. Since OU pretends many such faculty aren't really full time, it's not surprising there's no comparable data. And you also may have never received a raise. But it's worth noticing that unionized schools that do have data show cumulative raise percentages from 37.5% to 57%. Tell me again what's the downside?

OUCIF says OU-AAUP now is not only "misleading" faculty but making "errors" to boot. Akron and Wright State, they say, clearly shouldn't be included in salary studies of unionized schools because they weren't unionized the entire 12-year period. Uh, okay. Akron's raises had flatlined before its faculty unionized. As soon as a union looked like a possibility, the administration showered them with a mid-year raise, followed by a $1,000,000 market adjustment pool. Their first contract was for a 19.4% raise pool over four years. Wright State will get 5% next year and 5% the year after that. By the way, what's our raise pool for next year looking like?

Given the heavy representation of business and marketing faculty in the OUCIF, I shouldn't question its salary analysis. I'm a medieval historian, after all. But why remove OSU as a statistical outlier among non-unionized schools, yet include Shawnee State? Shawnee isn't even represented by the AAUP. Ah, but it pulls the unionized raise average down much further than OSU pulls the other group up.

I prefer one-to-one comparisons to see how we've been treated compared to our peers (9th place, 11th place, 9th place). And that's where I find that I'm in 11th place at a university that is supposed to be part of the "Ohio Ivy." If the averages are more important to you, that's fine. In the end, salary data can be sliced any which way to show what a person wants to show. But 12 years ago is also when our Board of Trustees vowed to move OU faculty pay into the top quartile of Ohio: it still hasn't happened.

OUCIF has offered to correct the "errors" we've made. I'd thank its members and then respectfully ask that they stop fretting over the AAUP long enough to do some work of their own, and then offer faculty a positive plan for improving OU and our place in it that doesn't involve collective bargaining.

(Oh, Mark Twain might have been the person to come up with the three types of lies, of which statistics are the third, but I'm not sure about that. Feel free to correct my error.)

Kevin Uhalde

CIF Challenges AAUP Salary Data

Many faculty have received an email from the Committee for an Independent Faculty (CIF) that challenges a salary analysis conducted previously by AAUP. The text of that message is below. Comments, of course, are welcome.


Hello _____:

This message is from the Committee for an Independent Faculty (OUCIF). We represent a grass-roots effort; a group of concerned faculty dedicated to maintaining shared governance, quality, and faculty independence at Ohio University.

Some faculty are unhappy and frustrated with the current administration and are turning to unionization as a last resort. Clearly, AAUP would like salary data to favor unionization as well.

An analysis of AAUP’s own salary data does not support unionization on economic grounds. Indeed, the analysis shows that over 12 years non-unionized faculty in Ohio received on average 45.5% in cumulative salary increases, while unionized faculty received 40.0% in cumulative salary increases.

The non-unionized public universities in Ohio are a well-respected group comprised of OSU, OU, Miami, and Bowling Green. The AAUP FAQ states that after eliminating OSU as an outlier, the data favor unionization. But that is NOT true. Even removing OSU, one still comes out ahead WITHOUT a union: 41.2% vs. 40.0% in cumulative salary increases.

Where did the AAUP data go wrong? They made two errors. First, they misclassified Shawnee State as a non-unionized school. In fact Shawnee State has been unionized with the NEA since 1989. Second, they included Wright State and Akron in the study, but those schools unionized during the 12-year study period! The error is particularly serious with regard to Akron, which unionized in 2005. For nine of the 12 years studied Akron was a non-union school and yet AAUP tries to count all 12 years as unionized! We have corrected this error by removing Wright State and Akron from the analysis.

You can access the table at oufacultyindependence.blogspot.com, or by opening the attached PDF file.

The AAUP FAQ's conclusion is inaccurate and misleading. Keep in mind that on top of the lower salary increases one would also have to pay union dues (or agency fees) at an estimated 0.75% of salary per faculty member per year (on average $559/year)—whether or not you join the union!

While it is obviously true that salary is not the only issue, nonetheless faculty voting on unionization have a right to know the truth about salaries and the fees due to a union.

Unionization Merits Consideration

I recently visited the FutureOU.org Web site and found an intelligent, well-written editorial by Dr. Dave Drabold, Distinguished Professor of Physics. Dr. Drabold has given me permission to repost his original editorial on this site.

Recent experience shows that the Ohio University administration (Trustees, President, Provost) does not share faculty priorities. This is evident in allocations to intercollegiate athletics, hiring of administrators and consultants, limited faculty hiring, Senate resolutions going unsigned, and cuts to academic staff who help to deliver education and facilitate research. Repeated attempts of Faculty Senate, Distinguished Professors, other groups and individuals, have failed to bridge the faculty-administrator divide. The current grim budget scenarios make our need for meaningful influence urgent, and Collective Bargaining (CB) has the potential to advance faculty interests on salary, job security and medical care, all of which are at risk. Since CB is worth a close look, I advocate signing a card. By the way, I am perfectly convinced that arguments circulating about “signing a card is a vote to unionize” are specious for Ohio University.

This is not the same as an endorsement of CB. Indeed, there are downsides to a union. The greatest weakness is that CB does not dictate a change in priorities: there is no guarantee that CB will suppress further enrichment of intercollegiate sports or the hiring of several additional six-figure administrators. CB leads to an additional bureaucracy, and requires hard work, discussion, and consensus building to function effectively. I believe that the faculty was correct not to endorse CB under President Ping.

It is clear that the administration will express interest in meeting faculty concerns to avoid CB. I suspect that fear of CB is what led to the presence of two faculty senators attending some Trustee meetings. Whether we ultimately unionize or not, I want to publicly thank our AAUP colleagues for their efforts, which I believe have already advanced the interests of Ohio University faculty.

My vote on CB will be determined by answers to the following questions: Does intercollegiate athletics take a substantial hit? On what basis are decisions made about academic and administrative cuts? Do academic support staff in the departments receive some consideration after years of cuts? Do we make attempts to make “one time” savings by selling suitable assets? Will the composition of the Provost search committee conform to the specific guidelines of the Faculty Handbook for academic positions, or will the administration attempt to redefine the provost as a non-academic position? Does the administration publicly and officially acknowledge the Faculty Handbook as a legally binding document? Will OU continue to identify itself as a teaching institution that requires business functions, or will the administration redefine OU as a business whose revenues happen to come from education? These are some of the questions that confront us.

The administration’s response to questions like these will make my choice clear, one way or the other.

Dave Drabold

Defining Shared Governance

Campus Officials Discuss Shared Governance (The Post)

Scholars Trade Ideas for Shared Governance (The Post)

OU, National Teaching Staffs Define Shared Governance (The Post)

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think most faculty would agree that our problems with the administration focus on shared governance. The three articles above discuss various ideas for defining what shared governance is. Although most academics have a sense of what shared governance is, or what they think it should be, the basic concept proves to be quite difficult to nail down. I wondered what the Faculty Handbook has to say about shared governance, so I visited the Faculty Senate Web site and searched for the phrase electronically--no hits! According to the search engine, the word "shared" doesn't exist in the Handbook, and the word "governance" produces just 4 hits. The most relevant is an elegant but vague sentence stating that "Professors accept their share of faculty responsibilities for the governance of their institution" (Section I-A-2-C). Exactly what that means is unclear.

In my opinion, we need to define shared governance both conceptually and (perhaps more importantly) operationally. Although a mutually-agreed-upon, conceptual definition will help put shared governance into perspective, an operational definition that identifies recommended procedures, guidelines, and examples will help us put shared governance into practice.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. In Article 27 of the University of Cincinnati's collective bargaining agreement, shared governance is defined conceptually. Part of the conceptual definition includes the following statements, "Joint effort and shared responsibility for governance will take a variety of forms, as situations require....Shared responsibility for governance is based upon mutual trust and respect for diverse interests and perspectives and is an iterative and consultative process." That sounds good, but the definition is too vague to do much good, and the language of the contract seems to recognize this problem. The conceptual definition continues by stating, "To be effective, shared governance clearly defines roles, scope of authority, and responsibility for decision-making among faculty governance bodies and university administrators." Then, in the sections that follow, shared governance is defined in more operational terms.

For example, the agreement states that the faculty shall make their own regulations governing the admission and exclusion of students, the courses of instruction to be offered, grading policy, recommendations for degrees, honors and prizes, other fundamental areas of curriculum, and such other matters as may be within their jurisdiction. They shall also be entitled to share significantly in the responsibilities for program development, program review, department review, and department and college reorganization.

The agreement also states that the faculty shall have the right to consider matters affecting the university and shall be given sufficient time to make available to the administration, to the board, and the AAUP, its aid, advice, and counsel in such matters.

The agreement also states that faculty shall have a voice through faculty representatives elected for that purpose at the unit, college, and university level in the formulation of long-range plans and in decisions relating to their implementation. Similarly, faculty representatives elected for that purpose shall have a voice at the unit, college, and university level where decisions relating to the use and creation of existing or prospective physical resources are being made.

The agreement also states that with respect to faculty priorities in those areas not specifically dealt with through the collective bargaining process, both parties to the agreement recognize the Faculty Senate as the primary governance body representing the faculty which shall have the right to advise the President and the Vice Presidents.

In some cases, the agreement is detailed enough to include timelines. For example, "Well in advance, but at least ninety (90) days before the final budget recommendation of the President to the Board, procedures shall be established by the administration in consultation with the Faculty Senate, for reviewing the existing budget and for reviewing requests of the individual Vice Presidents for changes in their budgets. Upon written request the Faculty Senate shall have access to financial information which is relevant and necessary and can reasonably be made available, including monthly budget summaries."

In general, the more we can define shared governance in detail, the better our relationship with the administration will be. The University of Cincinnati's contract proves that shared governance can be defined (at least partially) in some detail. If the OU faculty vote to unionize, we should define governance as clearly as possible in our collective bargaining agreement.

Faculty Handbook Attacked, Again

Faculty Reacts to McDavis’ Concessions on Provost Search (Athens NEWS)

Faculty Should Decline Joining Illegitimate Search Committee (The Post)

According to the Faculty Handbook, academic search committees must have between 6 and 14 members, the majority of the members must be faculty, and the committee must be chaired by a faculty member. Although this sounds very straightforward, President McDavis has argued that the Executive Vice President and Provost is an administrative position, so the search committee need not conform to the standards of the Faculty Handbook. To their credit, Faculty Senate passed a resolution on January 12th criticizing the composition of the committee, stating that it violates the Faculty Handbook. Although President McDavis offered to revise the structure of the committee, it is not yet clear if the Senate will accept the revisions, as the proposed changes do not meet all the conditions set forth in the Senate's resolution.

Most Senators seem to agree that it is important to defend the Faculty Handbook and the principles on which it is based. As the administration continues to chip away at policies long established in the Handbook, some faculty worry that the Handbook could become irrelevant. Several times on this blog I've mentioned that one benefit of collective bargaining is that our agreements with the administration become backed by state law. Because the Faculty Handbook is not protected in this way, the administration seems quite willing to challenge it as they see fit. Although Faculty Senate will continue to fight the good fight, I'd prefer that they have the law on their side.

As I mentioned previously, President McDavis has argued that the Executive Vice President and Provost position is an administrative position, so the search committee need not conform to the standards of the Faculty Handbook. I wonder if he would have made the same argument with the Handbook protected under a collective bargaining agreement? I don't know the answer to that question, but I suspect Faculty Senate would have a more manageable fight on its hands if the Handbook was indeed backed by law.

Keep fighting Senators!

AAUP-OU Responds to CIF

As I noted on January 20th (see below), the CIF once again is using unrealistic claims to scare faculty away from signing union cards, even though their arguments have been discredited (see the CIF's most recent letter). In the following letters to the editor, Kevin Uhalde, president of AAUP-OU, responded to the CIF and set the record straight. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if the CIF is interested in setting the record straight. Reasonable people who have followed this discussion understand that Ohio University will not unionize without an election. Others who perpetuate myths seem more interested in spreading lies to scare faculty away from signing cards.

CIF Once Again Spreading Fallacies (Athens NEWS)

Fear That Staff Will be Tricked Into Unionization Irrational (The Post)

Faculty on Board Committees

Measure Would Add Faculty Reps to Committee

According to Outlook, the Board of Trustees’ Governance Committee will forward to the full board a resolution that would allow two non-voting faculty representatives to participate on board committees. However, the faculty members would not participate on the full board.

Specifically, the Governance Committee is recommending a resolution that extends ex-officio, non-voting board-committee representation to two Faculty Senate members. The Senate's Finance and Facilities Committee chair would serve on the board’s Resources Committee and the Senate’s University Curriculum Council chair would serve on the Academics Committee.

Although faculty need to be represented on the full board (as opposed to just a few committees) for meaningful shared governance to work, this is a step in the right direction. It seems as though the threat of unionization is making the Board of Trustees at least somewhat more responsive to faculty concerns. A unionized faculty would have even more clout.

Board May Gag Its Members

Post Editorial: Trustees Consider Free Speech Issue

The Board of Trustees will review a "Statement of Expectations" this week. If adopted, the policy would gag individual trustees from voicing dissent about board decisions. According to The Post, the policy suggests "The Board must speak with a single voice...Board Members should refrain from publicly criticizing actions of the Board, the President or other members of the University Community." As you might expect, the proposed policy has been widely criticized as an assault to transparency, sound decision-making, and meaningful shared governance.

Most people would agree that meaningful shared governance is built upon cooperation, mutual trust, and respect between the faculty, the administration, and the Board of Trustees. It's difficult to see how gagging individual trustees would benefit relations between the faculty and the administration, particularly when you consider that FACULTY ARE NOT REPRESENTED on the Board.

Would a collective bargaining agreement change things? It might. The following language can be found in the agreement between the University of Cincinnati and the AAUP:

Faculty representation on the Board...shall include the chairperson of the University Faculty Senate and two elected representatives of the University Faculty. They shall have the right to suggest proposals for consideration by the Board and the President, and to attend with voice, all meetings of the Board, except executive sessions, and Board committees including academic affairs and finance. (Section M.2)

Discredited CIF at it Again

Faculty Union’s Not Such a Great Idea (Athens NEWS)
This letter to the editor was written by Rebecca Thacker, from the College of Business and the Committee for an Independent Faculty (CIF). The CIF distributed similar information to several faculty today via email.

Even though their arguments have been discredited, the CIF once again is using unrealistic claims to scare faculty away from signing union cards. Their argument is essentially the same as it was before. According to the CIF, "signing a card is in fact a vote for unionization." As I (and others) have stated previously, it is possible to circumvent an election only if the union initiates it (which it would never do), and only if Ohio University also agrees to recognize the union without an election (and Ohio University would NEVER agree to do this).

According to Rebecca Watts, who is Chief of Staff to President McDavis, the administration would indeed request an election before recognizing a faculty union. In other words, the card drive is completely legitimate, faculty should not hesitate to sign cards if they support unionization, and the Committee for an Independent Faculty should stop trying to scare their colleagues.

If you need more evidence that the CIF is making disingenuous claims, consider reading the following Post article or the following blog written by Kevin Uhalde, President of the AAUP-OU

Claim That AAUP Could Bypass Union Election is Unrealistic (11/24/08, The Post)

Cards Really Aren't Scary -- Part 2 (1/20/09, AAUP-OU)

Unionization Locks-in Benefits

When times are tight, it's reasonable to consider budgetary adjustments. For example, as health-care costs continue to rise, the university community must make tough decisions regarding who should shoulder additional financial burdens. Based on recent news, it's clear that faculty will be required to dig deeper into their pockets. According to Outlook, several health-plan adjustments are being explored, including higher premiums, higher copays, and for the first time ever at OU, a deductible that would need to be reached before insurance benefits would kick in. And although the administration has not yet decided if they will implement a pay freeze (OU Budget Group Delays Decision on Pay Freeze, Athens NEWS), it's unlikely that faculty salaries will keep pace with the cost of living next year.

One key strength of unionization is that employee benefits are locked into collective bargaining agreements, and then they become fixed costs that administrators are unable to alter unilaterally. According to Ken Brown, "All unionized campuses in Ohio have kept raises intact for next year," and I assume that's true for their health benefits as well. There's nothing wrong with wanting our salaries and benefits to be locked-in for the coming years. The administration clearly understands the benefits of that sort of security, as some of the university's highest paid officials (i.e., President McDavis and Coach Solich) have recently locked-in their salaries and benefits for several years.

Union is Taking Over Senate?

So Much for Shared Governance; The Union is Taking Over (Athens NEWS)

In this letter to the editor, Don Flournoy (Professor in the School of Media Arts and Studies) claimed that Faculty Senate is being taken over by the union. He stated that he sees a small group of faculty "wanting to be the ultimate decider on everything that goes on at OU, showing not the slightest concern for its effect on collegiality and shared participation of students, deans, civil service and administrative staff, community, and yes, trustees."

Furthermore, he suggested that "faculty have more important things to do" rather than spend their time running the university, and that our university can't afford a unionized Faculty Senate that is at odds with the rest of the community.

I'd love to read your comments...

In Old Days, Faculty Had Clout

In The Old Days, OU Faculty Had Much More Clout Than Now (Athens NEWS)

In this letter to the editor, Chuck Overby (OU Emeritus Engineering Professor) takes issue with The Committee for an Independent Faculty (CIF) for "suggesting that a faculty union might reduce the Faculty Senate's clout within the university, compared to what it had enjoyed during Charles Ping's 1975-1994 presidency."

Overby reminded us that in 1978, the Ping administration "finessed" the Faculty Senate out of considerable clout when it stripped faculty of the right to remove college deans by a democratic vote. According to Overby, "A faculty removal vote required the President and Provost to comply with the faculty's wishes." Overby stated that this right was exercised a couple of times in his early years at OU. According to Overby, our right to vote was replaced with the current dean's evaluation procedure, which transferred removal rights to the Provost and President.

Perhaps a faculty union could help us regain the right to vote on the deans?

FutureOU.org

http://www.FutureOU.org/

Today I received an email announcing a new Web site, FutureOU.org, that "aspires to provide a neutral venue for thoughtful, serious discussions that will lead to a brighter future for Ohio University."

Question: Is the site designed to promote the AAUP collective bargaining drive?

Answer: From the FutureOU.org FAQ page..."No. We are not a one-issue site. Collective bargaining is, of course, an important current issue, and we welcome discussion of it on this site. The editors, however, urge contributors not to let their stance on this one current topic become a lens through which to view the larger questions about OU's future. Instead, our broad sense of institutional values and direction should inform our thinking and attitudes to specific issues--including collective bargaining."

Because the editors welcome discussions of collective bargaining, I wanted to make sure you're all aware of its existence. Below is a welcome message from Steve Hays, who is one of the Web site's editors.

Wage Freeze?

In yesterday's blog, I wondered if faculty would receive a raise next year, and I suggested that without a bargaining agent, we really have no say in the matter. According to The Post, ("Emergency Meeting Held to Discuss Wage Freeze"), "The Budget Planning Council is considering a recommendation for a university-wide raise freeze for next year to help ease budget woes."

I guess we all saw this coming, including the administration (of course). That's probably why over the last few months we've heard that President McDavis received an $85,000 raise, the new Executive Director of Communications and Marketing will receive $157,500, Coach Solich will receive $400,000 through 2013, and the new VP for Diversity will receive $137,000. It's no wonder we have budget woes!

Money Available For Admin (II)

Again I ask, When times are so tight, why is the university continuing to spend so much money on administrative costs?

Today's Post was kind enough to remind us that in addition to his base salary of about $380,000, President McDavis enjoys several lavish benefits ("Finalized Contract Raises Salary by $85,000").

$45,600 in deferred compensation, to be awarded at the completion or termination of his contract

A home at 29 Park Place and a residence budget of $78,242

A car allowance of $12,000, with insurance provided by the university

One quarter/semester of paid professional leave during his contract

Up to 25 days of paid vacation each year

Full access to the university's airplane

$2,200 cell phone allowance

I wonder if faculty will receive a raise this year? I guess we'll simply accept whatever the administration offers. We have no other choice without a union.

Defending Handbook/Health Care

According Faculty Senate Chairman Sergio Lopez-Permouth, Faculty Senate will discuss several resolutions Monday night (1/12), one of which will focus on employee contributions to health care. According to the resolution, the Faculty Handbook states that changes to employee contributions must be submitted to the Faculty Senate for approval. However, in violation of the Handbook, employee contributions were raised on July 1, 2007 without consideration nor approval by the Senate. The resolution demands that contributions roll back to the prior rate and that excess contributions be returned via a premium holiday.

Several months ago, I posted a blog that asked, Is the Faculty Handbook legally binding? Back in the days when faculty physically signed contracts, it was clear that our employment was based on the terms and conditions set forth in the Handbook. But things are much less clear nowadays, and according to John Biancamano, OU's Director of Legal Affairs, the Faculty Handbook is "in a general sense" still part of the faculty contract. We should all be deeply concerned when our legal rights are only "generally" protected by a "contract" we no longer have a right to sign, particularly when we realize that the administration has failed to honor the procedures set forth in the Faculty Handbook.

By negotiating a collective bargaining agreement with the university, faculty will no longer need to worry about these matters. The agreement will list our benefits plainly, and because the agreement will be backed by state law, the administration will be unable to force unilateral changes.

Union Help Wanted!

A colleague forwarded the following email to me. I've edited it to remove the sender's identity.

Dear Colleagues,

I ...have also been involved with OU's chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) in the effort to establish collective bargaining (unionization) at our campus. Our chapter president, Kevin Uhalde, supplied me with your names and contact information.

I write because in one form or another, perhaps on the card you signed and submitted stating your desire to decide through secret ballot whether or not we should have collective bargaining at OU, you indicated a willingness to get involved in the campaign. We now need your help.

We are laying the groundwork for a sustained communications and outreach effort to the wider faculty in the lead up to a mass distribution of cards. Our goal is to produce a series of "white papers" (around 500 words each) that address issues and grievances of central concern to the faculty. These white papers will provide serious and documented analyses of the issues and explain how collective bargaining can help resolve them. The white papers will be placed on our website and distributed in other ways, as well. We also wish to develop a series of flyers that we will begin distributing weekly as soon as possible. We want to accomplish all this by the end of this month.

We need your help in researching and writing this material. If we have enough people involved, the work required will be manageable. We are all extremely busy people. But, we also have an opportunity now, at this moment, to restore an effective faculty voice through the instrument of collective bargaining. We need your help, whatever you can give, and we need it especially this month.

If enough of you write back saying you want to pitch in, then I will call a meeting to discuss the range of issues we need to address and divvy up the work. Again, if enough of us are on board, we can make quick and relatively easy work of this task. Along the way, you will learn what it is involved with collective bargaining and become important resources for your friends and colleagues as we move forward.

Please let me know as soon as you can if you'd like to get involved. We need you.

(For more info, contact aaupou@gmail.com)

Money Available For Administrators

During lean times, we expect to see belt-tightening. For example, as I mentioned below, administrative workgroups are exploring a variety of options for reducing costs, including "savings that could be realized through...changes to employee and dependent benefits." That's right, the university might decide to contribute less to our health care.

When times are so tight, why is the university continuing to spend so much money on administrative costs? According to The Post ("New Director No Stranger to Business"), the university recently hired a new Executive Director of Communications and Marketing. She'll earn $157,500 per year, more than twice the salary of a typical faculty member.

AND THAT'S NOT ALL...According to The Post ("Semester Transition Budget Rises with More Costs Expected"), the university's transition to semesters is $324,000 over budget and still rising. But it's unlikely the extra money will help alleviate the burden the transition will have on most faculty, as only a select few who lead the transition will receive "buyout" funding. According to Faculty Senate Chairman Sergio Lopez-Permouth, all faculty should be compensated, as all faculty will be forced to convert their courses to a semester format. I assume most faculty would agree, but without a bargaining agent, the faculty is in no position to negotiate a fair deal. We'll be forced to accept whatever the administration offers, which for most faculty will be absolutely nothing.

Without a union, the faculty will continue to get steamrolled by the administration.

Students Dissatisfied w/Admin

Today's Athens NEWS contained two articles describing student dissatisfaction with OU's administration. It's interesting that many students share the same concerns as faculty, and that many students support faculty unionization.

Student Activists Meet at OU (Athens NEWS)

This article reported that OU's chapter of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) hosted a national retreat over the weekend. During the spring 2007 Student Senate elections, the OU SDS chapter organized a "no-confidence" vote against OU President Roderick McDavis. In that election, 78 percent of student voters said they had "no confidence" in the President's ability to run OU. According to the article,

SDS members at OU have recently leaked plans of a new 'student union' being formed among a coalition of student groups seeking to challenge the OU administration, and to ally with university faculty members who are pushing for a faculty union.

Many Students Know Little About OU’s Board of Trustees (Athens NEWS)

This article provides some basic information about OU's Board of Trustees. It reminds us that faculty have no representation on the Board and that students are represented by two non-voting members. According to the article, both of the student trustees are in favor of voting rights. One student trustee stated that full enfranchisement is necessary to lend true legitimacy to the Board. That's a great idea, but OU's Board of Trustees cannot even approach true legitimacy until faculty are represented as well. But don't hold your breath. According to Board Secretary Tom Davis, "higher education is comparable to a major corporation." Unfortunately for us, most high-ranking corporate officers treat faculty as pawns.

Protect Health Benefits

Budget Cuts Hit University Outreach (Athens NEWS)

According to this article, Gov. Strickland has spared "core education funding" in his fourth round of state budget reductions, although some OU programs that provide outreach to southeast Ohio will sustain further cuts. To address budget reductions, the Budget Planning Council is examining major expenditures and revenue sources to develop financial recommendations.

In addition, administrative workgroups are searching for new ways to generate revenue and reduce costs. The administrative workgroups are exploring a variety of options, including "savings that could be realized through...changes to employee and dependent benefits."

It's not as if we didn't see this coming. Back in November, Ken Brown (Professor of Chemistry) suggested that the university may be preparing to shift additional health care costs to its employees "Budget Scare May Be Pretext to Get Your Health Benefits (Athens NEWS)". According to Brown, "It’s a tactic we've seen used or attempted more than once during this long period of fiscal trouble. So we know what to expect just around the corner: higher monthly contributions, higher out-of-pocket maximum costs, and, for the first time ever at OU, a health-care deductible."

And without the right to negotiate benefits with the administration, he claims there's not much we can do about it, except form a collective-bargaining unit. "As long as we lack the right to negotiate benefits with the administration, we can expect to be the scapegoats when budget deficits loom and when administrators are prowling for ways to pare the budget."

According to Brown, the message is clear..."Protect your health-care benefits. Vote for collective bargaining. And join the AAUP today!"

** Consider sharing your comments! This blog allows readers to respond ANONYMOUSLY. No login is required. Please share your insight as well as your questions, comments, and concerns. Post an ANONYMOUS comment today!