Refuting Rumors

Recently, I have heard rumors that the Union is being blamed for the failure of AACSB accreditation in the Ancell School.  Last week, an Echo reporter contacted me to comment on the rumor.  The story goes that the Union did not want the business faculty to have a nine-credit workload.  I hope this rumor is not pervasive.  I know I risk perpetuating it by addressing it here.  Nevertheless, this example is instructive on how the power and influence of the union is misperceived. 

To set the record straight: 
· At the last round of negotiations, the Union proposed a twelve credit load, nine credits of which would be teaching and three of which would be research--for all faculty.  We proposed phasing it in over time to defray costs.  Management dismissed the proposal as too expensive and dismissed each subsequent proposal as well.  It remains an issue to be discussed at the reopening of the contract in one-and-a-half years. 

· No one from Management ever officially requested a side letter or a specific agreement on a reduced teaching load for faculty.  I had a preliminary discussion with Gene Buccini about it, but no concrete proposal was ever made.  It is true that the Union would be unlikely to support a proposal if it applied to only some faculty. 

· Management can already give away all the discretionary reassigned time for research they want.  This is in practice in the Business School on a small scale already.  The reason that Management does not do this more often is not the Union:  it is money.  It is expensive to pay faculty to do research when classes need to be staffed. 

· It would be nearly impossible in Connecticut at this point to “sell” a nine-credit load to the BOT or the State Legislature.  However, a nine-credit teaching load with three credits for research for many members is achievable.  After my recent talks with Management here on campus, it is clear to me that there is support among their ranks for a reduced teaching load.  Many faculty—especially junior faculty—also desire more time to conduct their research.  Moving to that model is a win-win situation.  Given this situation, I trust that when the contract is reopened in a year and a half to discuss workload, we will make more progress than over the last year and a half. 

Clearly there actually are solutions to the workload issue.  So, why is the Union blamed by some for the accreditation failure and other frustrations?  People – management, administrators and faculty alike – tend to talk about the contract as though it were something upon which only the Union insisted:  as if the Union had written the contract themselves and has forced everyone to abide by it ever since. 

If only we were that powerful!  In fact, most labor relations situations, laws and conventions favor Management.  Yes, there are instances where arbitrators have awarded contract language that originated with the Union, and we have had protracted arguments about what that language should say.  Yet, basically, the document is a mutual agreement between Management and Faculty.  Both sides have clauses they like, and both have ones that hang like albatrosses around their collective necks.  It is convenient at times for the Union to say that “Management forced this on us,” just as sometimes it suits Management’s purposes to blame the Union for something they don’t like.  Be suspicious of anyone who acts as if the contract is not a jointly produced document and the culmination of years of working together. 

Misperceptions also occur because some of our members do not know what the Union does and how it operates.  If someone tells you the Union is preventing something, check to make sure it is true.  Conversely, if you want the Union to do something, tell me or other members of the Executive Committee what you want. 

Some of you may not believe me, but the Union’s main goal is not to thwart Management in its effort to run the University.  Mostly, my colleagues and I on the Executive Committee act as advocates and resources for members.  Every week, I field numerous questions ranging from how are summer school classes assigned, to where do I have to hold my office hours?  The contract is long and complicated, and I spend a good deal of time interpreting it to our members as new situations arise. 

As these questions come up, my duty is to ensure that established procedures are followed and that members have access to due process when there is conflict.  There are exceptions, but I am happy to report that most members are treated fairly.  Finally, the Union works to ensure academic integrity.  Although the AAUP Executive Committee is active in the Union, we are primarily teachers and scholars, and the integrity of the institution and its programs are very important to us.  For that reason we work to protect the tenure and peer review process. v --Katy Wiss

Fate of H.B.5533 & S.B.64 

Connecticut General Assembly bills H.B.5533 and S.B.64 both died in committee without a vote. 
H.B.5533, An Act Concerning Employment of Part-time Faculty at Public Institutions of Higher Education, was modeled on a similar bill that was passed by the California State Assembly.  It limited the percentage of part-time faculty at Connecticut's public institutions of higher education to no more than twenty-five per cent. 

S.B.64, An Act Concerning Prorated Salaries and Benefits for Adjunct Faculty Labor, provided prorated salaries and benefits to adjunct professors at colleges and universities in this state.  The bill’s phrasing covered both private and public institutions in Connecticut. 

CSU-AAUP Lobbyist Betty Gallo analyzed the bills’ demise:  “The real problem with the bills is the fiscal notes.  It is hard to sell bills that cost money in this fiscal crisis.  The other problem is that there has not been a large group of constituents calling, writing, testifying and lobbying legislators in favor of the bills.  That is the only way this type of change is ever going to happen, especially over the opposition of the universities.” 

We are looking for faculty who will commit to all or part of the lobbying process:  calling, writing, testifying and lobbying.  If you are interested, contact Heather Finn in the AAUP Office (aaupw@wcsu.edu or 837-9235).  When an issue comes up, we will notify you and ask you to call or e-mail your Senator, Representative, and members of relevant committees.v

Elections Update

Please vote for Council Member, using the ballot below.  The Nominating Committee, in accordance with our chapter bylaws, appoints the remaining candidates to their new terms since they are unopposed.  Results will be announced at the conclusion of voting. v

Ballot for WCSU – AAUP Council Member

Vote for one:
q John Caruso
q Jim Munz

The Council Member represents this Chapter on the CSU/AAUP Council, which meets monthly to set policy and negotiation priorities, oversee the contract on the state level, and work with our state lobbyist.  This term begins June 1, 2002 and continues until May 31, 2004.

Return to AAUP office, White Hall 111, by Thursday, May 16 at noon

Voting Instructions

1. Vote for one candidate.
2. Place your ballot inside a blank envelope.
3. Place the blank envelope inside a second envelope and address it to AAUP office, 
    White Hall 111.
4. Clearly print your name on the outside of the second envelope for check-off purposes.

Ballots due Thursday, May 16 at noon
The ballot is on the bottom of the back page of the Western Union. v