Month: September 2019

Negotiations Update 9/26/19: Progress Despite Major Differences

Signs of Progress

On Tuesday, we signed tentative agreements (TAs) with the administration on:

  • removing language from the contract that is now out of compliance with the Supreme Court’s Janus decision, which no longer allows public sector public sector unions to collect fair-share fees from those they represent 
  • removing a side-letter in the contract that had the Faculty Senate determine which subcommittee of the University Tenure and Promotion Advisory Committee a tenure case is assigned to; the candidate for tenure can now make the request 
  • the promotion of librarians to L4, the highest possible rank 

We are in agreement with the administration and at our next session should be able to sign TAs on:

  •  a new fact-finding step in grievances 
  •  sick-leave for librarians 

Following significant push-back from our side, the administration has withdrawn their proposal to remove academic professionals and program directors from the TAUP bargaining unit. In return, they requested language that will allow them to petition the PA Labor Relations Board in the future to argue their case there, which then can do regardless of whether there is language in the contract about it or not. In addition, we believe we will settle all of the non-compensation issues for TAUP’s academic professionals at our next session, including a shortened probation period, greater clarity in job descriptions and career path, and merit procedures.   

There were useful discussions on adjunct evaluations, the public posting of full-time jobs, the clarification of merit procedures for full-time faculty on the research track, and limits on the use of student feedback forms in personnel decisions.  

In addition to withdrawing their proposal to remove APs and program directors from the bargaining unit, the administration has dropped its proposal to remove members’ ability to grieve and arbitrate health and safety issues.  

To reciprocate and show good faith with the administration after their withdrawal of these proposals, the union withdrew our intellectual property proposal. Though there are important issues that need to be addressed in this area,  we believe many concerns can be pursued through the meet-and-discuss provision in the contract. 

So we are marking progress together, and hope the spirit of cooperation that led to it can be maintained, but this does not obscure the seriousness of the issues still on the table: 

  • Job security for contingent faculty: while the two sides continue to trade proposals on adjuncts and non-tenure track faculty, the administration has not moved at all on providing greater job security.  
  • Increased tenure-track hiring: the current contract contains a mutual commitment to a “sizable complement of tenure-track faculty.”  We have repeatedly asked the administration to clarify their understanding of that language in light of the clear and precipitous decline in tenure-track hiring at Temple, which leaves Temple with a lower percentage of full-time faculty who are tenure-track than almost all other public research 1 universities and most other schools. They have not acknowledged that this is a problem or provided any clarification on their interpretation of the contract language. 
  • Faculty Diversity: We have presented statistics that indicate the need for the administration to devote more resources to hiring and retaining a diverse faculty.  The administration has stated that hiring is a management right, and that they will not discuss it with the union. Since there is an Affirmative Action article in the union contract, it has been accepted as an area where the union and administration can have discussions, and we intend to pursue them further.  
  • Limitations on demands made on NTTs: Full-time non-tenure track faculty in two colleges are being required to engage in the tri-partite mission of research, teaching, and service, which is in violation of the union contract. We have proposed language to clarify and strengthen the prohibition that exist in the contract.  The administration has counterproductively proposed language that would allow NTT contracts that would include all of these duties. 
  • Protections for faculty in cases of dismissal: The administration has proposed moving tenure-track faculty from the current robust termination procedure, to the less secure process that currently covers NTTs.  TAUP has rejected this proposal by countering that all full-time faculty should be protected by a more deliberate process. This provision came into the contract in 2004. The administration has proposed the removal of current contract language on several issues. We are not interested in bargaining away hard-won rights for our members.
Economics Still to Be Discussed

The President and Provost’s most recent update states that “the parties have agreed to turn their attention to proposals on pay and benefits only after sufficient progress has been made on these other proposals.”  Though this was discussed, TAUP did not agree to this process, and no agreement was reached. We intend to continue working on non-economic issues, but we also believe with the contract expiration date of October 15th fast approaching, the sides need to know where they stand on wages and benefits.  

On the afternoon of October 4th, we plan to present our economic proposals on raises, healthcare, pension parity for NTTs, child care, tuition benefits at other schools and other issues that are likely to require much discussion .  The administration is under no obligation to present their benefits and compensation proposals until they wish to do so.  

Join us:
Open Bargaining:  Friday, October 4th at 9:30, when we present our compensation proposals Rsvp
contract expiration Rally:   Tuesday, October 15th from 1-2pm, mark the expiration of our current contract with guests City Councilwoman Helen Gym and State Representative Malcolm Kenyatta RSVP

Negotiations Update 9/19/19

On Friday and Tuesday, TAUP and the administration responded to each others’ proposals.  The two sides made progress and have tentative agreements on a few new issues:

  • Prestigious Fellowships:  Faculty compile the list of prestigious fellowships in their field, for the Dean’s approval, creating a more faculty- and college-centered approach to topping up salaries for recipients.
  • Tenure-Track Dossier Review:  Tenure-track candidates will propose which UTPAC (University Tenure and Promotion Advisory Committee) subcommittee reviews their tenure dossier
  • Half-Units of Merit:  Allowing the Provost to dispense ½ units of merit
  • NTT Representation on Committees:  A guarantee that an NTT representative will be on any committee making decisions on their merit, promotion, and sabbaticals
  • Adjunct Grievances:  We’ve agreed to a deadline that at minimum is twice as long as the current deadline

While this is welcome progress, the two sides remain far apart on many key issues:

  • The need to provide more job security for adjuncts and NTTs 
  • The need for contract language that will increase hiring and retaining a diverse faculty
  • The need to limit the role of SFFs in personnel decisions
  • Insuring that NTTs are only required to engage in 2 aspects of the tripartite mission: teaching, research, or service as a condition of their employment*
  • The need for more TT faculty * 

*For more more information, including data on TT and NTT numbers over time, see this post

The administration continues to stand by proposals that decrease the rights of TAUP members, including member access to union representation. This includes:

  • Removing the right to grieve and arbitrate discrimination as well as health/safety issues
  • Removal of the TAUP office from campus
  • Changing our long-standing practice of accessing new hires at their HR orientation
  • Moving academic professionals from our bargaining unit to another union
  • Removing faculty program directors from the bargaining unit, leaving them with no union representation 
  • Refusal to print enough copies of the TAUP contract to cover the number of members in the bargaining unit.

HOW TO SUPPORT YOUR UNION IN FIGHTING FOR PROGRESS ON THESE IMPORTANT ISSUES

Attend Open Bargaining:  Tuesday, September 24th from 8:30am-5:00pm at the 201 Hotel 201 N 17th St, Philadelphia, PA 19103. RSVP

Sign the petition your colleagues are circulating:  If you’d like to sign the petition and haven’t been approached by a colleague, email Jenna, our organizer at jsiegelaft@gmail.com and let her know the department you are in

Contract Training:  This training will provide an overview of the TAUP contract, and how to talk to your colleagues about it. September 20th from 12:30-2:00 pm, Ritter Room 100. RSVP

All Out: Contract Expiration Rally: Join your colleagues on October 15th from 1-2pm (location TBA) as we show administration that TAUP members, students, politicians, union allies and community members, demand a fair contract for  our professors, librarians, and administrative professionals. RSVP

Temple’s Decline in Tenured/Tenure Track Faculty and the Increased Burdens on all Full Time Faculty

The TAUP contract states: 

“TAUP and Temple shall express their joint commitment to tenure and the need to have a sizeable complement of tenured and tenure track faculty in a high-quality research university.” 

We have pressed the administration to clarify how they understand this commitment by proposing a 1% increase in the number of TT faculty as a percentage of full-time-equivalent faculty per year of the contract.  

The administration’s response to the proposal was that  they are not sure that there is a problem, and they’d never agree to a quota.  We are open to various approaches to address this issue, but it is profoundly troubling that the administration seems unwilling to acknowledge that this is an issue.  

The statistics are clear:  TT faculty at Temple in both absolute and relative numbers have declined significantly over the past 20 years, even as enrollments have been rising steeply.  In 2005, the earliest year for which we have enrollment data, Temple was at 29,583 full-time equivalent students. We are now at 36,423.

 

This, of course, is part of a larger trend in higher education; but simply citing that trend does not capture the disturbing degree to which Temple has embraced contingent hiring.  The chart below is drawn from data compiled by The Chronicle of Higher Education. (See Almanac 2019, “Colleges with the Lowest and Highest Numbers of Full-Time-Equivalent Students per Tenured or Tenure-Track Professor”) 

It shows that compared to the 94 other Public Research 1 Universities:

    • Temple ranks third from last in percentage of TT faculty relative to all full-time faculty
    • Temple ranks tenth from last in the ratio of students to tenure-track faculty
    • Temple is the only school that ranks in the bottom 10 in both categories. 

One mitigating factor here is that we have a large medical faculty that is mostly off the tenure-track.  But even if we restrict the set to TAUP schools and colleges, only 50.8% of our full-time faculty are on the tenure track, which would move us up to only 90th out of 95 Public Research R1s. (Of course, other universities might also improve their standing if we separated out their medical schools.)

The picture does not look much better if we consider Temple in terms of all public colleges and universities.  Out of 679, we rank 645th in terms of TT% of full-time faculty and 476th in terms of TT faculty per student.
These numbers all show that Temple has turned away from tenure-track hiring even more sharply than all but a few of its peer institutions.

The decline in tenure-track hiring at Temple has had many bad effects.  It has increased the service burden on a shrinking pool of tenured faculty. Faculty in departments that have seen sharp declines struggle to offer broader and deeper graduate programs. 

It has also led to an increase in the responsibilities heaped upon NTTs.  Even though they are paid significantly less and teach more, they are being asked to do an increasing amount of service and in many cases to publish as well. Yet because they lack the protections of tenure, many feel obliged to say yes whenever a Chair or Dean asks them to take on more responsibilities–even serving as Chair of their departments. Moreover, in two colleges we know of, they are being required to engage in the tri-partite mission of research, teaching and service as a condition of their employment even though this is explicitly prohibited in the current contract.

TAUP has responded to these concerns. In addition to proposing more tenure-track hiring and more job security for NTTs, we’ve proposed to strengthen the language that prohibits management from forcing NTTs to engage in more than two of the three parts of the tripartite mission (research, teaching, and service) as a condition of their employment.  Nothing in our proposals prevents NTTs from opting to do this work if they so choose, and the union has always opposed the position taken by many administrators that NTTs on non-research tracks shouldn’t be rewarded with merit for the research they do. What we all need to object to is the demand that NTTs engage in teaching, research, and service. 

The administration’s response to our position is a proposal which would change the language of the contract to allow NTTs to be required to engage in all three missions!  

If the administration wants to require faculty to do teaching, research and service and is worried about meeting accreditation standards, they should hire more tenure-track faculty

As we search nationally and internationally for the best tenure-track faculty, we should remember that, to borrow from the famous speech by our founder, Russell Conwell, there are Acres of Diamonds in our own backyard:  contingent faculty who have already proven their excellence in their experiences teaching at Temple, and, in many cases, their excellence in research and service as well.

The administration claims that hiring more more TTs would require a loss of NTT and adjunct jobs.  This is based on the assumption that Temple is already spending what it can and should on instruction.  Temple’s strong financial statements reveal that they can spend more, despite the familiar drumbeat of austerity.And considering our university’s very low standing among the institutions with which it compares itself when it comes to spending on instruction, Temple should be investing more in its faculty.. 

As we have pointed out, Temple is dead last among public Research 1s in the percentage it spends on instruction for every dollar it takes in from tuition and fees; it also lags far behind the peer institutions it picks in the amount it spends on instruction per student, a gap that has nearly doubled in 7 years;  in the most recent available data, it ranked sixth nationally in the sheer amount of dollars it takes in from student tuition and fees minus what it spends on instruction.  The proposals TAUP has put on the table would set Temple on a path toward improving its dismal record.