… because today the faculty union and the administration are talking about the deal from fact finding. Let’s hope it all works out!
UPDATE:
Perhaps we have a deal? This just in from Mullen speaking for Fallon:
MESSAGE TO THE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY
On Monday, the university and the EMU Chapter of the AAUP received the
report of the fact finder. Â Over the next four days, I worked with
others toward a comprehensive and systematic financial analysis of the
report’s recommendations, an assessment of its strategic implications
and a full understanding of the details. Â In addition, I consulted with
key personnel on campus and the university’s Board of Regents.  Based
upon the sum of these actions, I am pleased to announce that the
administration will accept the fact finder’s recommendations for the
negotiations process.This morning, members of the administration and AAUP bargaining teams
are working closely together on finalizing contract language. Â I am
hopeful that a resolution will be reached soon, today if possible,
leading to a tentative agreement.I look forward to working collaboratively to move the university forward
in service to its mission. Â I will update you as developments occur.Toward a stronger university,
John A. Fallon, III
President
Um, so does that mean we have a deal, or what?
I am very hopeful. At Bargaining Council yesterday, Paul Leighton, the chief negotiator for AAUP and a frequent poster here, mentioned that the union sent over a contract incorporating all of the recommendations of the fact finder for the administration to reject or accept when the two teams meet today to negotiate. And it seems, based on Dr. Fallon’s email below, in which the administration (at last) agrees to the fact finder recommendations in full, that the administration will accept that proposed deal.
” MESSAGE TO THE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY
On Monday, the university and the EMU Chapter of the AAUP received the report of the fact finder. Over the next four days, I worked with others toward a comprehensive and systematic financial analysis of the report’s recommendations, an assessment of its strategic implications and a full understanding of the details. In addition, I consulted with key personnel on campus and the university’s Board of Regents. Based upon the sum of these actions, I am pleased to announce that the administration will accept the fact finder’s recommendations for the negotiations process.
This morning, members of the administration and AAUP bargaining teams are working closely together on finalizing contract language. I am hopeful that a resolution will be reached soon, today if possible, leading to a tentative agreement.
I look forward to working collaboratively to move the university forward in service to its mission. I will update you as developments occur.
Toward a stronger university,
John A. Fallon, III
President”
Opps! I didn’t see your update, Steve. Sorry for the duplication. One thing that I just noticed: Fallon says “the administration will accept the fact finder’s recommendations for the _negotiations process_.”
Does that mean the administration will not necessarily accept the recommendations themselves, only the process? I hope not.
I read it as they will incorporate the fact-finder’s recommendations into the contract, but they will still have to negotiate the specific language of the contract. So, until the contract has been completed, assigned, and approved, the “negotiations process” continues.
Cautious optimism.
Now the bricks lay on Grand Street
Where the neon madmen climb.
They all fall there so perfectly,
It all seems so well timed.
An’ here I sit so patiently
Waiting to find out what price
You have to pay to get out of
Going through all these things twice.
Oh, Mama, can this really be the end,
To be stuck inside of Mobile
With the Memphis blues again.
-Bob Dylan
You know what they say about chickens. Guess the univeristy aministration can’t settle anything without trying to take yet another benefit away from us:
“Faculty Colleagues:
At negotiations today, the administration agreed to accept all of the terms of the fact finding report.
We believe this is great news, as we are very pleased that the administration accepted all of the recommendations.
However, there is still one outstanding issue: the maintenance of domestic partner benefits. We are trying to maintain and protect the maximum benefits under the law. Over the weekend, both sides are exchanging language on this issue, with the goal of trying to find a way where these very important benefits are preserved.
The AAUP made some suggestions on how these benefits could be maintained, but the administration did not fully agree. We believe our proposed language offered greater protection of these benefits than what the administration proposed. This matter will be discussed at the next negotiating session on Tuesday, April 10th.
On Monday, we will have a meeting of the entire faculty at 2:30 in the Roosevelt Auditorium. We will present the details of the fact finding report, and discuss the issue of domestic partner benefits.
Today’s session was very productive, and we hope that it leads to the result we all want – a contract we can be proud of.
Thanks for listening, and let me know your thoughts.
I hope to see all of you on Monday.
Howard”
And then this just out from Fallon:
**********
The EMU and EMU-AAUP negotiating teams worked until early afternoon
today. The session was very positive and constructive. As I understand
it, there was substantive agreement on the recommendations presented by
the fact finder. The parties will reconvene at noon Tuesday with the
expectation to finalize an agreement.
I will continue to update you as developments occur.
Toward a stronger university.
John A. Fallon,III
President
*********
I am not a lawyer, but I would assume that the hang-up here on the domestic partner thing is more or less because of the Michigan law that passed (was it more like 3 years ago? I can’t remember) that more or less said that state supported agencies couldn’t have these things in their contracts. I think this is a horrible law and I voted against it; having said that, it does put these talks into a place where they need to sort it out because of the language on this throughout the contract.
Of course, why they couldn’t have settled this issue earlier, especially when both sides KNEW this was going to be something that was going to come up, I don’t know. But at this point, I’m just happy that the language coming out from both the union and the administration seems to me to be “we have a deal.”
EMU has 1,975 employees who are eligible to receive benefits, within seven unions and three non-bargained-for classifications. A total of 19 employees are taking advantage of the domestic-partner benefit program.
That’s 1% of Eastern Michigan University employees eligible to receive benefits. President Fallon has previously stated that he is fully behind keeping these benefits. I’m sure the problem is merely a difference of opinion on what language is better, and what language adheres to the letter of the law.
I too voted against the law to take these benefits away. I think it is ridiculous that some people feel they must take other people’s rights away so that they don’t feel the sanctity of their marriage is lessened (WTF?). But it was passed, and now AAUP and the administration are working together to keep these benefits around somehow. It would be nice if AAUP would release the details of both sets of language rather than just say “Ours was better, but the administration just couldn’t see it.”
The University’s take on today’s negotiations was this:
“The EMU and EMU-AAUP negotiating teams worked until early afternoon today. The session was very positive and constructive. As I understand it, there was substantive agreement on the recommendations presented by the fact finder. The parties will reconvene at noon Tuesday with the expectation to finalize an agreement.
I will continue to update you as developments occur.
Toward a stronger university.
John A. Fallon,III
President
Note how the University does not try to make AAUP look bad. AAUP should try to do the same for the University, and maybe both sides could try to start building up some goodwill.
Re: the domestic partner benefits
Do they have to live together or have some type of “official” commitment? (not that Michigan law allows such a thing)
Can a man and a woman be “domestic partners”?
I am only opposed to these benefits if heterosexual partners cannot have the same options without having to be married.
For me it is not a matter of the sanctity of my marriage, it is about fairness for all couples. Homosexual couples should have to be held to the same standards as heterosexual couples when it comes to benefits.
My understanding, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that once a homosexual couple starts co-habitating they are eligble for benefits. Yet heterosexual couples have to be married before they are eligible. So I guess I’m saying that if this is allowed to stay in the contract for homosexual couples, they need to change the standard for heterosexual couples to match, meaning eligibility upon co-habitation.
I have two friends, a male and a female, that cohabitate, and have filed civil papers in the state of Michigan as domestic partners. They did this so that she could obtain health benefits from his employers benefits package. She had been previously divorced, and swore off marriage for life, so they became domestic partners instead, so in answer to your question, yes. A man and a woman can be domestic partners without being married.
mom2one, along with the whole hateful, freak-out “no gay marriage ever!” law that passed in Michigan and many other states in 04 (and I am recalling this now: an argument can be made that the reason why W. won in 04 was because the Republicans scared voters with issues like gay marriage), it became illegal for state enterprises (e.g., the department of state, EMU, etc.) to have contracts that gave out domestic partner benefits. So, as I understand it– and I could be wrong, and if I am, someone who knows should correct me– but the assumption of your last paragraph of your post is flat-out wrong.
In other words, no domestic partners– and certainly no homosexual couples– are eligible for benefits under the new law. Mind you, this means working for the state; there’s nothing to stop a private company giving bennies to whoever they please, which is why Brian’s friends are still probably getting benefits.
EMU, faculty close to accord Domestic partner benefits last step to end labor stalemate
Saturday, April 07, 2007
BY GEOFF LARCOM
News Staff Reporter
Professors and administration at Eastern Michigan University agreed Friday to accept the recommendations of an independent fact-finder on salary increases and health insurance co-pays, a major step toward ending the seven-month labor impasse at the school.
The two sides are still discussing one remaining issue, which is contract language regarding domestic partner benefits in the face of a recent court ruling.
http://www.mlive.com/news/aanews/index.ssf?/base/news-22/1175928619156530.xml&coll=2
EMU settles pay, benefit fight
Iveory Perkins / The Detroit News
YPSILANTI — Ten months of stalled negotiations between administrators and faculty at Eastern Michigan University over compensation and health care benefits is expected to come to an end next week.
The two sides agreed Friday to accept an independent fact-finding report’s recommendations. By accepting, faculty will contribute to their health care costs, and the university will implement a scheduled pay increase for professors over the next four years.
“We are very pleased that an agreement has been reached,” said Howard Bunsis, president of the EMU chapter of the American Association of University Professors. “We are not happy in terms of the health care, because some of the costs are quite substantial.
“But in the spirit of compromise we chose to accept the entire package.”
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070407/SCHOOLS/704070322
Two quick replies to Mom2One:
First, when the 2004 “no gay marriage” constitutional amendment faced the voters, it was claimed by its advocates that this was NOT about domestic partner benefits. And the amendment does not say anything about limiting any benefits of employment. Yet the state courts have liberally interpreted its language to cover domestic partnership benefits — making Michigan the only state in the nation to have its anti-gay marriage amendment interpreted so broadly. Michigan courts are dominated by conservative-activists judges who impose their own reading on the law, regardless of its actual wording.
Second, keep in mind that marriage in our society entails many benefits and rights – well over a thousand of them (including medical decisions making and automatic inheritance, etc., etc) – that gay and lesbian couples are excluded from. Health coverage thru one’s partner’s contractual benefits of employment is very important, but it is hardly the equivalent of all the rights provided by marriage.
So since gays & lesbians cannot marry in Michigan, Mom2One, it seems to me that your desire to be sure that gays and straights be treated equally logically requires you to endorse the rights of gays to marry in Michigan, and thus to obtain all the benefits of marriage. Otherwise, you’re saying you want gays treated equally with straights, while opposing the extension of marriage to gays, thus ensuring their continued denial of equality in our great state.
The pursuit of happiness, for many, includes marriage. Its blessing should not be denied to any two loving adults who seek them, in my opinion.
But that is a different issue than domestic partner benefits.
The EMU faculty contract defines domestic partnership “as a relationship of mutual care, support, and commitment in which the Faculty Member and his/her domestic partner are: 1) of the same gender, 2) at least 18 years of age, 3) not related by blood in any way that would prevent them from being legally married if they were not the same gender, 4) sharing a common residency, 5) not maintaining any other domestic partnership or marriage, 6) financially responsible for each other’s well being.” (EMU faculty contract, Article I). This is a benefit that the two parties to the contract have negotiated, and yes, it is available to people who cannot legally marry in Michigan. Its purpose is to provide tangible benefits of employment to EMU employees and their dependents. It is not marriage, and so the courts have incorrectly applied the 2004 amendment to such benefits of employment. Many who voted for that in 2004 would not have voted for an attack on the health benefits of children and partners.
I talked with some people on the negotiating team, and despite Fallon’s email about the administration trying to preserve these benefits as much as the new law would allow (“Eastern Michigan remains firmly committed to providing full benefits and equal services to all its employees. That includes domestic partner benefits”), the administration is actually seeking to interpret this law as narrowly as possible.
On the remote chance that the decision is overturned, the administration would continue these benefits; otherwise, all of the benefits would end for faculty at the end of the current (extended) contract. That would not be fair.
The faculty union, in contrast, is trying to ensure the maintenance of the status quo, while also changing the language to conform with the new law and assuring the administration that it will not seek any NEW benefits (e.g. those for non-married heterosexual couples).
Fallon’s earlier email is available online:
http://www.emich.edu/president/comm020507courtruling.html
I hope that he and the rest of the administration keep their word and stand by the principles articulated there.
EMU’s contract will be the first ratified in Michigan after the passage of the law, so it will set an important precedent for many contracts to come.
I find it difficult to have an opinion on the administrations handling of this portion of the contract without knowing the details of what their position is. If they are taking a position such that they are insuring compliance with the law, and not risking being taken to court over it, I guess I could understand that. Because, unless some language can be found that undeniably portrays domestic partnership as something completely different than marriage, you can be sure that opponents of gay marriage will litigate against the University, and that will be costly.
We have encouraged the University to follow the letter of the law regarding the Clery Act and the timely release of information to the community. Unfortunately, Michigan voters passed this law, and it has been wrongly interpreted by the courts to include domestic partner benefits. But it is a law that EMU will have to comply with also. I believe this was Cox’s goal all along, even though before it was voted on, it was inimated that they would not be trying to take existing rights away from people. Following is the actual language of the law and the ruling of the court of appeals…
Article 1 Sec. 25. of the Constitution of the State of Michigan
To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.
History: Add. Init., approved Nov. 2, 2004, Eff. Dec. 18, 2004
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 25, OF THE MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION MANDATES THAT THE ONLY AGREEMENT THAT MAY BE RECOGNIZED AS A MARRIAGE OR SIMILAR UNION FOR ANY PURPOSE IS THE UNION OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN IN MARRIAGE. THEREFORE, PUBLIC EMPLOYERS ARE PRECLUDED FROM EXTENDING HEALTH CARE BENEFITS TO AN EMPLOYEE’S SAME-SEX DOMESTIC PARTNER FOLLOWING THE EXECUTION OF A DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT, BECAUSE THE AGREEMENT REQUIRED FOR THESE BENEFITS TO BE OBTAINED EQUATES TO A PUBLIC EMPLOYER’S RECOGNITION OF A UNION SIMILAR TO A MARRIAGE By Judge Susan L. Dobrich
Hi Brian,
Here is an additional piece of info putting the decision into plain language from an Associated Press release Feb 22, immediately after the Court of Appeals decision. More info is also available by going to the EMU LGBT website. However misguided the constitutional amendment and the court of appeals decision, the gist of the law is clear. A Public Employer, such as EMU, can no longer provide domestic partner benefits once current contracts expire. Which is exactly the position EMU is in right now.
LANSING, Mich. (AP) – Public universities and state and local governments would violate the state constitution by providing health insurance to the partners of gay employees, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled Friday.
A three-judge panel said a 2004 voter-approved ban on gay marriage also applies to same-sex domestic partner benefits. The decision reverses a 2005 ruling from an Ingham County judge who said universities and governments could provide the benefits.
“The marriage amendment’s plain language prohibits public employers from recognizing same-sex unions for any purpose,” the court wrote.
A constitutional amendment passed by Michigan voters in November 2004 made the union between a man and a woman the only agreement recognized as a marriage “or similar union for any purpose.” Those six words led to the court fight over benefits for gay couples.
Gay couples and others had argued that the public intended to ban gay marriage but not block benefits for unmarried opposite sex or same-sex domestic partners.
The appeals court agreed with the Michigan attorney general, Republican Mike Cox, who said in a March 2005 opinion that same-sex benefits are not allowed in a state that does not recognize same-sex unions.
The legal challenge was mounted by 21 gay couples who work for the city of Kalamazoo, universities and the state.
“The protection of the institution of marriage is a long-standing public policy and tradition in the law of Michigan,” Judges Kurtis Wilder, Joel Hoekstra and Brian Zahra noted In the unanimous ruling.
Jeffrey Montgomery, executive director of the Triangle Foundation, a leading gay and lesbian advocacy group in Michigan, said the legal sanctity of marriage was not in question.
“This ruling will result in families being robbed of their health care and other basic necessities that are fundamental to protecting their well being,” he said.
The case will be appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court, said Jay Kaplan, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan.
“We’re very disappointed by this result,” he said. “It’s a misguided analysis, and they produced a heartless result. It was never the voters’ intention in 2004 to take away health insurance benefits from families and children.”
(Copyright Associated Press, All Rights Reserved)
The Attorney General Michael Cox has written more recently (April 5, 2007) in a motion to stay the case, that “the amendment as written does not preclude the extension of employment benefits to unmarried partners of a basis unrelated to recognition of their agreed-upon relationship.”
That is a difficult sentence to comprehend, but Cox seems to be saying exactly what many thought that the law was originally saying; i.e. so long as the relationship through which one gets benefits does not pretend to be a marriage those benefits can remain in effect, the preservation of the so-called “integrity of marriage” being at issue, not the (unjust) denial of benefits itself.
Brian, thank you for clearing that up for me. I did not know that heterosexual couples could become “domestic partners” rather than becoming married and still receive benefits. If that is the case then I think that domestic partner benefits are a good thing.
If the law passed in 2004 makes it illegal for state funded agencies to give benefits to couples that are not married and made it illegal for homosexual couples to get married then I think the universities hands are tied on this one. What Elaine posted is very clear and EMU would be breaking the law to allow such benefits. I think it is unfortunate that the people of Michigan passed that law with out reading the fine print. I hope EMU can find a legal way around it but I agree with Brian, you encouraged the university to follow the law regarding the clear act, to ask them to break it regarding a contractual issue would be inconsistent and compromise your integrity.
Hopefully sometime in the future the decision can be overturned.
Mom2One -
Thanks for your comment. But two replies: Voters in 2004 were not told, and the wording did not say, that that amendment would end domestic partner benefits for gays & lesbians. A court decision in Feb. 2007 interpreted it that way.
No one is advocating that EMU violate the law, as defined by the court. But there are ways of responding to a court decision that involve outright surrender, and ways that do not involve outright surrender. Nearly all legal issues can be debated… Experts on these areas of the law and employment benefits may well be able to devise a solution for the EMU faculty contract that meets the needs of the affected faculty members’ and their dependents, and also fits within the scope of the court of appeals ruling. No need to prejudge that merely attempting to do so is a violation of the law! Let the process proceed….
Peace and prosperity to all.
Hi Abby, I can’t find any “motion to stay the case” by AG Cox dated April 5, 2007. Are you perhaps referring to the motion to stay filed by AG Cox in 2005 – against the Ingham COunty decision permitting domestic partner benefits. It doesn’t make any sense that Cox would try to stop the implementation of the COurt of Appeals case – he won! Anyway, I would appreciate it if you could cite your source for an April 5, 2007 quote.
Not sure who Abby is Elaine, but one source for what you request is available at the following link:
http://www.unmarriedamerica.org/column-one/02-19-07-michigan-dp-benefits.htm
The date is correct; that is, more recent than the article that you cite (though, again, I make no pretenses to being a lawyer), but I meant to say that it was Cox’s response to a motion to stay rather than the motion itself.
The article above reads, in part:
“The Michigan ruling did, however, leave open the possibility of public employers giving benefits to unmarried couples if it is done in a way that does not mimic marriage.
‘The amendment as written does not preclude the extension of employment benefits to unmarried partners on a basis unrelated to recognition of their agreed-upon relationship,’ the court observed in its decision.
If the Michigan Supreme Court does not reverse the ruling, then public employers will need to discontinue them completely unless they are creatively modified to take advantage of this narrow loophole.
Two alternative methods come to mind.
They could expand the definition of ‘family’ and recognize unmarried adults in an ‘extended family benefits’ program, or they could institute a ‘household benefits’ plan. Either way, the courts should not find the program to be a marriage look-alike.
The District of Columbia has a plan which allows an employee to obtain benefits for an immediate family member, which can include an unmarried partner or a blood relative. The University of California has taken a similar approach.
By allowing relatives to participate, eligibility looks more like a ‘family’ plan than a ‘spousal’ benefits program. The Michigan constitutional amendment does not restrict the definition of ‘family’ — only the definition of ‘marriage’.
Employers could also create a ‘household benefits’ program, allowing each employee to designate one adult household member for benefits, whether they be a spouse, a relative, or a domestic partner. To prevent fraud or abuse, employers could require the parties to supply proof they are financially interdependent and have lived together for a specified period of time.”
A link to Cox’s own press release is
http://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,1607,7-164-34739_34811-161562–,00.html
Note that even Cox makes it clear that he objects to the “mode of recognition” of same-sex relationships resembling marriage, not the benefits accorded by means of that recognition.
If that was not the case, he would be violating one set of laws to defend his interpretation of other laws.
It seems clear that the negotiations have reached a sticking point. The administration is unwilling to sign a contract that appears to violate state law and which could incur significant legal expenses. The union is committed to protecting all of its members, regardless of their sexual orientation. I believe that both sides can justify their stands, but that reasonable alternatives exist. The most obvious one is to simply extend health care benefits to ALL domestic partners. A number of years ago, the AAUP surveyed its faculty to determine how many heterosexual couples would be interested in claiming health care benefits if they were extended to all domestic partners. At that time, as I recall, the number that would be interested in the benefit could be counted on one hand. If the same is true today, the incremental cost of treating all faculty equally would be minimal.
Undoubtedly, this has already occurred to the negotiating teams and is simply not being discussed in public. It is inferred in Kitchkittens comment above:
“The faculty union, in contrast, is trying to ensure the maintenance of the status quo, while also changing the language to conform with the new law and assuring the administration that it will not seek any NEW benefits (e.g. those for non-married heterosexual couples).”
I see no reason why the extension of health care benefits to a small number of faculty should be such a great obstacle to the final settlement of this labor dispute. If President Fallon is truly an advocate for the quick and fair resolution of this contract, then he should consider this avenue. The cost would be minimal (less than the legal costs of continuing the dispute or of breaking the law as currently interpreted). It would be expeditious. It would be legal. It would be moral and ethical. So what’s the problem?
The “problem,” Jim, is your statement: “It would be legal.” We don’t know that. What we do know is that it is 100% likely to be challenged and that it will take litigation to “prove” that it is legal. THe issue, as I see it, is not what it will cost to extend domestic-partner-like benefits to the approximately 9 faculty families affected, but what it will cost in terms of legal fees, legislative relations and public relations. As to “moral and ethical” I think that is a judgment which needs to be made by the faculty as a whole, as their well-being is also at stake. Many families will be affected by the new health care regulations, but we have collectively made the agreement that it was necessary to achieve the good of the whole. It is my understanding that the administration is making a good faith effort to reach a compromise on this issue – short of being willing to be the test case for an ACLU-devised attempt to find a narrowly based “loophole” so that the Court of Appeals decision can be circumvented.
Elaine,
You are correct that the opinion of its legality, is mine and has not been supported by any trial case law in the State of Michigan. However, all of the comments I’ve seen above and the specific declaration by the Michigan court about same-sex benefits suggest that it is highly likely to be legal and much less likely to result in litigation than an outright challenge to the ban. As to morality and ethics, I am not an absolutist, thinking that there exists only one moral or ethical interpretation. Neither do I believe that majority opinion necessarily determines what is ethical or moral. It is, rather, my opinion that the equal treatment of ALL domestic partners, regardless of gender, is both moral and ethical. That aside, I agree that the discussion should be opened to the entire faculty community. That is why I raised this possible solution in this forum. Your “understanding that the administration is making a good faith effort to reach a compromise on this issue” suggests that you are better informed than I. My concern is that BOTH sides consider all of the potential compromises and that we reach an agreement soon.
Here’s my uninformed opinion/questions on all this:
* The fact that this is the only thing hanging up the negotiations suggests to me that the administration really does want to make a deal. In other words, this couldn’t be some stalling tactic, which is why I think Elaine is right in her assumption that this is a “good faith effort.” I mean, if the administration wanted to stall a settlement, they would have picked something else.
* Isn’t the U of M in the same situation? What’s their solution to all this?
* I don’t know the contract lingo business at all, but isn’t there some way to say (basically) “we’re going to settle everything but this issue and ratify the contract, and when we get a solution to this topic, we’re going to amend the contract?”
* This (and some other things I’m doing in my teaching and scholarship lately) make me wish I had taken some law school courses. I guess it isn’t too late….
Sitedad, In response to your third point – isn’t there some way to say “we’re going to settle everything but this issue and ratify the contract, and when we get a solution to this topic, we’re going to amend the contract” – Yes. It is called an MOU – Memorandum of Understanding. At the Bargaining Council meeting last week we were told that there were two MOUs the administration was willing to accept: 1) that would state that if the Court of Appeals decision was overruled, we would go back to our current (2004-2006) contract language on providing domestic partner benefits and 2) that we would form a joint study committee (administrators & aaup nominated faculty) to explore various options that appeared to be legal for providing benefits.
Now I don’t know the exact language, but I take those MOUs to mean good faith on the part of the administration. I also agree with your notion of good faith i.e. if the administration wanted to stall a settlement, they would have picked something else.
Finally, I don’t know what U of M is doing. Does anyone else?
UM is actively exploring solutions. I think most of the faculty would like EMU administration to also actively explore solutions.
I just wanted to forward my congratulations to what seems like the impending end of a long fought battle, regardless of the perception of the final product. After being involved in lecturer negotiations in the past, I know the time, effort and emotion which is spent in the process and so those who have been involved deserve heavy thanks for their efforts. I also ask that there be a more concerted effort on behalf of regular faculty to include lecturers in shared governance as it will only strengthen the leverage of the instructional faculty as a whole. Do not fear those who are like you in all ways but name; it does not diminish your stature and they have much to contribute beyond their work in the classroom. I have “beaten this horse” repeatedly in past conversations with a few of you and it makes my heart a little heavy that those who I considered to be valued colleagues would still carry largely irrational fears relating to the inclusion of lecturers with regard to issues of governance in departments and programs. In the end, all would benefit from one union that included all instructional faculty. (Ok, now I sound like I am channeling John L. Lewis so I will stop). Again, I am happy to here a solution is near…
Thanks so much for your kind words, Jay! I assure you that I and many of our colleagues respect the hard work that lecturers do and believe in shared governance.
Below is a missive from Howard relating to some of the issues above.
“Faculty Colleagues
Tomorrow, at 2:30 in Roosevelt Auditorium, we will discuss the status of the contract negotiations.
We have agreed to all of the monetary issues, and we want to explain the key provisions of those agreements. The only issue outstanding is the continuance of domestic partner benefits, whose legality is questionable in light of Proposition 2 and the recent Michigan Court of Appeals decision. Your Chief negotiator Paul Leighton has written some thoughts on this matter on our blog at:
http://www.emu-aaup.org/node/273
Basically, we would like to see more from the administration’ in terms of engagement and creativity in seeking solutions, given EMU’s culture of diversity and the use they make of it when trumpeting the virtues of our university. Being proud of EMU’s commitment to diversity in the face of a challenge requires some further actions from the administration, which is why we are continuing to negotiate. For those faculty who are concerned about pushing this matter, please remember that the AAUP has spent thousands of hours improving this contract, so have confidence that we can resolve this issue in a way that does not jeopardize what we have all fought for. Indeed, those being denied benefits because of this issue have been on strike with us, have picketed with us, and have stood by us through this entire ordeal. Please show your support while we negotiate the best terms we can in the short time that remains.
While there are strong politics around the issue, the Negotiating Team and AAUP leadership are involved because this means the loss of benefits for bargaining unit members. Faculty have expressed unhappiness – even dismay – about the health care provisions, so everyone should be able to imagine the additional impact of losing coverage for a partner at the end of this year, which for some members happens at a time they are in the process of adopting children or dealing with serious illness.
We are all very proud of the commitment to diversity that we all share here at EMU, but we believe the real commitment comes in times of challenge. So, we are trying to encourage the administration to honor this commitment, through working together towards a solution where these benefits can be preserved or where their loss is best mitigated.
The AAUP has developed language that attempts to preserve these benefits under the law, though the legality of this attempt is unclear. That is why we have simply requested that the administration has a conversation with our attorneys tomorrow, in order to explore an alternative.
The administration has suggested forming a committee to study the issue.
We are open to this alternative, but we want the committee to be more than window dressing. The committee must have a structure, charge and resources fitting the challenge of defending diversity in the face of a challenge. This issue demands a thoughtful and creative process, and we hope that the administration will commit to doing everything within the law to maintain these benefits, even if this commitment comes after the contract is signed with all the other provisions intact.
Rest assured that we are not going to backtrack on the agreement we have reached on the important compensation, health care , and retirement issues. The faculty and union leadership has fought long and hard on these issues, and we will honor the provisions we have achieved. We simply want to make sure that we honor our commitment to diversity, examine every possible legal alternative to preserving domestic partner benefits, and make sure that the administration is committed to working with the AAUP to preserve these benefits in the future.
Thanks for listening, and I hope to see you tomorrow.
Howard
PS – the AAUP is starting an email newsletter for students and the community. There’s more information and a signup here http://www.emuprofessors.org/stayinformed
Please help spread the word.”