EMU-AAUP president Susan Moeller sent around an email to faculty union members today titled “Negotiations with Administration on Phased Retirement has failed.” The text is below the “read more” part of this post. This was striking to me in a number of different ways:
- Just as a point of clarification: “phased retirement” is a pretty common thing in academia, and one that I think makes a lot of sense for everyone. From the point of view of the retirees, the phased plan (which basically involves dropping down to 50% time and 50% pay) allows folks to get used to the idea of being retired, something that I think can be pretty hard for professors. I can think of three or four of my colleagues who “retired” only to end up hanging around EMU, working part-time here or other places, etc. From the point of view of the institution (the retire-er, I guess?), phased retirement gives departments and the administration time to figure out how that retiree will be replaced. Keep in mind that it often takes years for a faculty line to be approved, and it can take a full academic calendar year to literally do the hiring. Plus it saves the institution a boatload of money.
- The sticking point seems to be/have been over language about replacing faculty– that is, someone goes into phased retirement and three years later, we hire a new faculty member. Now, I don’t know what the details were here. Moeller implies that the administration folks were completely unwilling to compromise and/or find middle-ground on this one, though I can understand why the administration might be unwilling to sign anything that automatically guarantees new faculty hires.
- This is certainly not an issue that is going to go away, and that might have been why the administration decided to back away from this now. Perhaps they are saving it as a chip for when the real contract negotiations get going hot-n-heavy in 2010.
- This might be the beginning of the end of the “Susan Martin lovefest” that has been on campus since Martin came into her office. As Moeller wrote, “we are disappointed in President Martin’s administration and hope that the absence of compromise here is not a prelude to next year’s contract negotiations.” I hope it isn’t a prelude either; I cannot imagine anyone on either side of the table wanting to go through the same kind of strike we had around here a few years ago.
Below is the full text of the email, minus an attachment that Moeller sent around, which is language for the program.
Dear Faculty Colleagues:
We are sorry to report that our substantial efforts to negotiate a voluntary phased retirement (VPR) plan with the administration are ending without an agreement. While the replacement of retiring faculty had been an ongoing point of contention, their latest proposal contained a number of unpleasant surprises, many on issues that had not come up through three face-to-face working sessions. If this had been formal negotiations, we would be talking with our attorney about an unfair labor practice for regressive bargaining.
The essence of the VPR plan is that faculty could have up to three years at reduced load (and salary) in exchange for an irrevocable agreement to retire, with the administration authorizing a search for that faculty member in the final year. Many retirement incentives have as their goal a reduction in workforce, which is not appropriate at EMU because tenure and tenure-track faculty teach just over half of the credit hours – and that number has been steadily declining. The administration benefits from being able to do better planning and from cost savings: a faculty member at 50% teaching gets 50% salary and those at the higher end of the pay scale have an incentive to retire. With more than one-quarter of EMU faculty over 60, there is the potential to save millions of dollars a year – as well as having a substantial impact on the workload of the remaining faculty.
The administration acknowledged that the savings from our proposed plan would be “substantial,” and they argued that they would authorize more searches than required by the replacement of faculty going through the VPR plan. (Keep this in mind when you hear talk about EMU’s budget crisis and what’s required from faculty to fix it.) But, after a working session with President Martin, where the AAUP made several substantial concessions, the administration’s response conceded nothing, and they even enhanced their position at the expense of faculty. In such circumstances, further bargaining is not in the interests of faculty.
The proposed language is attached, and in summary would have created a program where:
• In exchange for an irrevocable intent to retire, a faculty member could work between half time and full time during the fall/winter terms for a period of up to 3 years. Working full-time one semester and taking the other semester off could be done subject to core programmatic needs being met.
• During this time, the faculty member’s salary would be pro-rated (i.e., 50% for half teaching load) and they would receive full benefits through the end of the academic year they retire.
• As EMU helps faculty members at the end of their career with retirement, it commits to hire one faculty member for each one in the terminal year of their program. Other separations from the university (people getting other jobs) and regular retirements are not automatically replaced, just faculty in the VPR program. The language allowed for the suspension of the replacement in case of certain financial exigencies.
We believe this was a fair proposal that would have been a benefit for faculty and the university. The language granting replacement for VPR faculty was subject to financial contingencies, and was reached in a working session with the administration’s representative. However, officials higher up rejected the proposal, and President Martin asked the AAUP for further talks. In response to their concerns, we raised the eligibility age for the plan and limited it to a three year trial program. Even within these confines, the idea of the “Education First” university guaranteeing any replacement was ultimately not acceptable. (Indeed, language that had been present for multiple drafts and working sessions also suddenly became unacceptable as well.)
The AAUP took the initiative to push this issue over the last two semesters and we thank Paul Leighton and Ken Rusiniak for their hard work on this issue. We hoped to work constructively with the administration to save money, increase the ability to plan and solve some important issues before negotiations, with the goal of making negotiations more successful. We will continue to try and move these issues forward. But we are disappointed in President Martin’s administration and hope that the absence of compromise here is not a prelude to next year’s contract negotiations.
Please let me know your thoughts – and share them with the administration as well.
Susan Moeller
EMU-AAUP President
_______________________________________________
Emu-aaup mailing list
Emu-aaup@list.emich.edu
https://list.emich.edu/mailman/listinfo/emu-aaup
Recent Comments