Lecturer Bargaining Update: Recap for 2/26/21
Disappointed with Admin; Encouraged by members
Overall, we were disappointed with the counter-proposals from admin this week. Management gave us counters on salary, professional development, inclusive teaching, and childcare. A lot of our language was returned crossed out, but management signaled interest in some of our ideas. In essence, their proposals were disappointing and underwhelming but not discouraging.
Most hopeful, 185 members attended bargaining, our highest turnout yet. Also, 238 members have signed the contract action petition. Please show your support for the platform by signing, and ask your coworkers to do it too!
The morning started with MoU on the academic calendar (since we are going to be starting in August for the next 3 years, at least). We discussed the implications for pay and benefits.
Then admin gave their response to MoU #7, aka the bridge between LI/LII to LIII/LIV. They agreed to some changes in MOU 7 but then they struck “range of instructional duties” putting the emphasis on service and administrative duties.
On workload, they came back with some minor changes to their proposal from last week. Jimmy Brancho led the response and asked pointedly “is the intent to increase workload with this proposal?” and they answered “No”. Jimmy insisted that the final section of their counter does not give us that assurance. We clarified the intent of our Workload proposal, which is to establish publicly available definitions of the “full-time FTE for each unit.”
The opening salary counter was underwhelming, to say the least. Seasoned Bargaining Team members reminded us that this is just the first of many and that if members continue to show up and we continue to organize we will move them as we have in the past. They did signal interest in providing longevity pay and correcting leapfrogging. Their counter included:
On Starting Minimums: No movement except for $2000 in year 3 for Flint and Dearborn. They struck the anti-leapfrogging provision of applying increases to the mins to everyone in the bargaining unit.
On Annual Raises: our proposal was 3%,4%,5% in the next 3 years and they offered 1.5%, 2%, and 2% (which does not keep up with inflation)
On Longevity Raises: They struck out our proposal and countered with a one-time lump sum payment of 5% of the lecturers’ salary after the second continuing review.
They struck out entirely the $30 million annually for Dearborn and Flint, claiming it was outside of the scope of our contract.
After the caucus, members of the Salary Working Group gave an impassioned response, which included this video and slideshow on why central funds are needed to support the long-term viability of the Dearborn and Flint campuses. Bob King led the response that highlighted how far behind UM is compared to similarly-sized public universities and community colleges. He ended by noting that we see the long-term viability of Flint & Dearborn as being crucially tied to our working conditions. Simone Sessolo followed with some concerns about their claimed “commitment to addressing leapfrogging” and yet they were axing our proposal. They responded that it could be addressed in part by a slowing of the increase in minimum salaries but were open to other ways of addressing it (including retroactively). Lise Urbaczewski followed with some examples from the caucus that illustrated how long it would take for lecturers to receive the lump sum payment that the admin is proposing anywhere from 19-30 years of teaching. By that time she said, “lecturers will have moved on to one of the more highly paid community college positions” cited in Bob King’s presentation.
In their professional development counter, they struck our proposal for $1500 to each lecturer with reimbursement, offering instead $3000 more in the general pot to each campus and an increase of $500 for each year after in the life of the contract. Jill Darling asked the admin to provide a rationale for this decision and the response was mostly just that “this is the way it’s been done” and that many departments already provide professional development funds. Jill noted the amount of time spent by lectures going through the application process was one reason for the proposal in addition to the many departments that do not provide funds. One member in the caucus noted that admin’s current proposal would amount to somewhere near just $30 per lecturer for professional development.
On Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion (DEI), there was more support for our DEI proposals on inclusive teaching and diversity in hiring. Management accepted our idea of an inclusive teaching award but with limitations, including canceling one of the collegiate lecturer awards. They accepted our increase of $3000 for each campus in the Inclusive Teaching Fund but countered with an increase of $500 instead of $1000 for each subsequent year in the contract. Although they crossed out the language around diversifying lecturer faculty, they’re hoping to address this through MOU 12 in our current contract.
They have completely struck out our Child Care proposal, which we modeled after GEO’s [link]. They suggested instead to utilize the resources on their websites and the Care.com membership fee that the University covers for employees that is obviously inadequate. Members of the caucus felt like this just added insult to injury considering the many struggles our members are facing right now during the COVID-19 crisis to provide care. They see it as a justice and equity issue. The rationale that no other employee group gets it is not good enough.
We’re turning up the heat this week in response to management's counters. Please use our our new Zoom backgrounds to “wear” to bargaining this week: https://bit.ly/LEO_ZVB. You can also check out/share our latest videos:
Then share your own story! Sign up to be interviewed, or send your videos, photos, & words to communications@leounion.org.