TAUP and the administration met twice last week.  We made progress in discussions on adding a fact-finding step to the grievance process, representation of full-time non-tenure track faculty on committees, topping up salaries when prestigious fellowships are awarded, and on awarding half-units of merit in specific circumstances. 

But the majority of our discussion focused on:  

• limiting the role of Student Feedback Forms in decisions that affect people’s careers
• job security for adjunct and full-time teaching/instructional, clinical, practice, and research faculty
• increasing the diversity of our faculty
• clarifying the limits of what can be asked of full-time teaching/instructional, clinical, practice, and research faculty

We had substantive conversations on these issues, but significant differences remain. 

The administration believes that there is little reason to change the status quo at Temple as a workplace. Despite the huge increase in contingent faculty over the past 10 years, they believe that efforts to increase the percentage of tenure track faculty or offer much needed job security for NTTs and adjuncts who have worked at the university over time will be damaging to their need for flexibility in hiring.  Our proposals have considerable flexibility built in, but so far the degree of flexibility that the administration insists on would allow for little job security.

The administration has also argued that diversity and student feedback forms are not in the purview of TAUP, but the contract gives us ample warrant to make proposals on this key issue.  

 

• Job security for adjunct and full-time non-tenure track faculty:  

Contingent faculty who have been hired repeatedly at the university deserve a greater degree of job security.  We have proposed NTT reviews at 3 years and 6 years that would give them, respectively, a three-year or longer contract and then renewable three-year or longer contracts.  For adjuncts, we have proposed an evaluation process that would give priority in hiring to adjuncts qualified to teach specific courses and a greater likelihood of contracts longer than one semester.  We believe that committing to contingent faculty will cut down on workload in hiring and acclimating new teachers to Temple’s resources, policies, etc., and we believe that there are many ways in which a more stable workforce will benefit students.  Experienced teachers, researchers, clinicians, and practitioners deserve to be valued.   

In bargaining surveys, adjuncts and NTTs identified job security as their highest priority, and that goal was strongly supported by tenure-track faculty and librarians.  Seventy eight percent of tenure-track faculty and 80% of librarians supported a proposal such as the one we have put on the table for NTT job security.  Eighty percent of TT faculty and 96% of librarians supported the following statement:  “Adjuncts who have been hired repeatedly should be given priority in future assignments.”  Eighty seven percent of TT faculty and 96% of librarians supported giving contracts longer than a semester to adjuncts. 

Many excellent universities have been providing their contingent faculty with increased job security for many years, Rutgers, CUNY, Oregon, Portland State, and Michigan among them. From the discussions we’ve had with faculty there, this has not led to inflexibility in staffing or bad outcomes.  On the contrary, by giving valuable faculty members more job security, they have been able to devote themselves even more to their students, research and service. The same would hold true at Temple. 

In addition, it’s worth noting that the administration rejected our proposal for a modest 1% annual increase in tenure-track hiring, arguing that they were not sure that there’s a problem.  This important proposal remains on the table. 

 

 

• Diversity Hiring, Course Releases, Increased Compensation, and Limits on Using SFFs: 

On August 13th, TAUP made proposals designed to benefit all of our members, but women and people of color in particular.  We are calling for $7 million in additional funds to hire and retain a diverse faculty; course releases for exceptional service; a significant increase in the pool for increased compensation; and a limit on how Student Feedback Forms can be used in evaluating faculty. 

 

The administration believes that these issues belong solely to the Faculty Senate.  There are committees in the Senate working on these matters, and the union respects this important work. Indeed, we believe our proposals further strengthen the Senate’s efforts.  TAUP has reached out to the Committees on the Status of Women and Faculty of Color, and our proposal on diversity hiring and retention includes a requirement that the administration report to the Faculty Senate Steering Committee yearly on progress made and plans for progress on diversity.  

TAUP and the Faculty Senate are complementary voices on academic issues at the university. The Senate has a powerful advisory role with the administration, and the union can come to legally-binding agreements on issues, ensuring fair processes are in place for important matters such as tenure and promotion, reappointment, merit, and discipline.    

To clarify the urgency of a diversity initiative and why new contract language is required to address them, we presented statistics showing the current % of non-white tenured faculty from 2007 to 2017 which is very low.  We also shared statistics on the significant decline in the percentage of women full professors relative to associates. We shared a list of peer-reviewed studies calling the validity of student evaluations into question, as brought up the documented biases in student responses.  We will be sharing numbers from a survey showing that many women faculty and faculty of color report that they are burdened by service demands beyond what is expected of their male and white colleagues–what has been called “cultural taxation” in other studies.

Issues around race and gender are complex and sensitive, and we know that there are members of the administration who are working hard to address them.  But the administration has a long way to go to before Temple becomes as diverse and equitable a workplace as it should be. While we are open to discussing how these goals might be met through revising our proposals or suggesting other concrete steps and commitments, these issues must be addressed.  

 

• Discipline/Dismissal for Just Cause: 

The administration has proposed lessening the protections tenure-track faculty have from being dismissed for just cause.  They would do this by shifting them from the process that applies to tenured faculty to the less robust one that applies to full-time non-tenure-track faculty.  TAUP believes all full-time faculty deserve the same protections and thus that NTTs should be covered by the same procedure currently mandated for tenure-track faculty. 

 

 

• Clarifying job responsibilities for NTTs: 

TAUP has been receiving reports that NTTs are being asked to do an increasing amount of service and, in some cases, required to do service and research as a condition of their employment.  If they are also required to teach, as teaching/instructional, clinical, and practice faculty are (as well as many on the research track), this means they are being obligated to fulfill all three roles of the university’s tripartite mission.  This violates the contract, and we believe that not only must such violations be acknowledged and stopped, the language in the contract should be strengthened to discourage such violations in the future. 

 

 

Economic discussions on the horizon

The administration and TAUP have agreed to limit our current discussions to non-economic issues first, though some of these matters may have an economic impact.  Economic issues–wages, pension contributions, health insurance, childcare, and tuition benefits at other schools are, of course, critical and will be discussed soon. 

We are making the case that Temple can afford to say yes to our economic proposals. In two recent posts (part 1 here, part 2 here) we have shared data on the administration’s troubling low rate of instructional spending–the pot of money that pays our salaries–relative to other public Research 1 universities (where we are last) and to other schools to which we compare ourselves.  We have studied Temple’s finances and will be sharing further data soon.  

Though we will continue to inform you about what’s going on at the negotiating table,  we urge you to come and see what happens for yourself by attending open bargaining. Join us in the room as we negotiate– RSVP for an upcoming open bargaining session. 

There are other ways to get involved as well:

• If you are not already a dues paying member join TAUP 
• Come to the union’s General Membership Meeting on October 7th  RSVP or organize a meeting with your colleagues and TAUP leaders by emailing taupaft@gmail.com
• Help out: join us in spreading information through fliers on campus, or offer your unique skills (research, design, communications, etc.) to this effort.