On Monday, the administration responded to our non-economic proposals and our replies to theirs. Their responses made clear that they are not yet ready to address substantively the reasonable demands we have made, demands informed by countless conversations with you and by the bargaining surveys you filled out.
Here are some of the most important points:
- Job security for NTTs and Adjuncts: The administration refused to offer NTTs and adjuncts more job security because they claim they need complete flexibility in hiring. They proposed language for evaluating these faculty members, who make up 75% of our union, and there was some progress on that front, but there were no contractually-defined benefits that would come with evaluation. No 3-year-plus contracts for NTTs or priority hiring or multiple semester contracts for adjuncts, even with the considerable flexibility we built into our proposals.
- Tenure-Track Hiring: The administration rejected our proposal for a 1% per year increase in the net proportion of tenure-track faculty, claiming that hiring is solely a management right, and that they were not going to agree to a quota. We pressed them to tell us how, if they didn’t like our approach, they plan to fulfill their commitment already in the contract to a “sizable complement” of tenured and tenure-track faculty. If we can’t quantify and come to an agreement as to what “sizable” means, what does their commitment in the contract signify? The language was put in the contract to address the concern over the dwindling percentage of tenured/tenure track faculty. Our students understand that the sharp decline in tenure-track hiring is a problem. Why doesn’t the administration?
- Hiring and Retaining a Diverse Faculty: The administration doesn’t believe that TAUP has the right to bargain for more diversity in hiring since, again, hiring is a management prerogative. But affirmative action is in our contract for a reason. We know that there are members of the administration who have been devoting themselves to this important issue. But clearly more resources need to be devoted to this effort, and the administration should be willing to share the good work it has done, is doing, and plans to do in order to address the significant challenge of recruiting and retaining a diverse faculty at Temple.
- The Administration’s Proposal to Make Discrimination Ungrievable: The administration claims that our members, our leaders and the labor lawyers who advise us, are not equipped to discern when someone has a viable discrimination case. This is their justification for removing the language in the contract which gives members the right to grieve when they experience discrimination at work. Instead, they believe that trust needs to be invested in the wholly-administrative processes guided by their in-house experts. This is a false dichotomy. It is possible to pursue a grievance that insists on holding the administration to account while also directing our members, as we do, to other processes open to them both inside and outside the university, such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. We are not comfortable with giving up our members’ hard-won right to a process entirely owned by the administration on such important matters.
- Clarification of Job Responsibilities for NTTs: In response to our proposal to clarify that full-time non-tenure-track faculty members cannot be required to undertake all three of the missions of research, teaching, and service, they proposed language that would allow for it. So as they refuse to commit to hiring more tenure-track faculty, they are interested in increasing the responsibilities of NTTs to resemble those of tenure-track faculty while not providing them with any additional job security. We believe this does not serve the interest of our NTTs, our students or the research mission of the university.
If the administration needs faculty who are required to do teaching, research, and service, the answer is simple. Hire more tenure-track faculty members. Temple has the money; it need not replace other faculty to hire new tenure-line faculty. The problem is that the university is not spending a sufficient portion of the tuition and fees it receives on instruction. This has been made clear through recent analyses by The Century Foundation and The American Council for Trustees and Alumni and the Chronicle of Higher Education. The demands on tenured faculty in running their schools and departments are too high. NTTs are being asked to do the work of tenured faculty. This is a condition that can be changed if Temple were to invest sufficiently in instruction.
- Student Feedback Forms: We have proposed that Student Feedback Forms not be used as the primary tool for personnel decisions (hiring, reappointment, tenure, promotion, merit) given the copious research that questions the validity and bias of student evaluations and the growing number of professional organizations doubting their utility. The administration believes any problems with SFFs can be addressed through the Faculty Senate’s SFF Committee, which is being renamed to reflect its broader mission to help in evaluating teaching. We are grateful for the valuable work of our colleagues and the administrators on this committee and we look forward to the implementation of their recommendations. Those recommendations will improve upon the instrument that is used in evaluating teaching. It will continue to play a significant role on personnel processes governed by our contract, and so how it is used needs to be addressed in our contract.
- Anti-union proposals: The administration is sustaining their direct attacks on our union. They are trying to diminish our numbers by reducing the number of employees with union protections, removing program directors and academic professionals from our bargaining unit. They want to take away the union office space, which has been on campus for 43 years. They are refusing to continue the practice of assisting the union in meeting with new faculty, librarians and academic professionals in the orientations that they receive from HR.
We regret that the administration has taken these positions. Rather than negotiating to improve the conditions that we work in at Temple, they are focusing on separating our members from access to their union. It runs counter to the rhetoric from our President and Provost, in which they state, “We believe the university and TAUP have been able to achieve this goal time and again for many years, and that this positive relationship should continue” (8/16/19). We do not accept the justifications offered for these proposals.
There were small signs of progress on issues such as the evaluation of adjuncts and NTTs, representation of NTTs on committees, and there have been some useful conversations on other issues. We continue to move forward, carefully considering the administration’s objections, concerns, questions, and the language of the proposals they have provided as we move forward in pursuit of compromise.
But as the summary above indicates, the administration is not hearing the demands we are putting forth and the values that inform them. It’s time to raise our voices. We know that Temple can do better. The administration has the resources. Our proposals are just and reasonable. It’s time for TAUP members to do what you can, and get more involved.
The union is not an organization that is separate from the people it represents. It is only powerful and persuasive through the solidarity shown by members who act.
Become a member of the union today to stand with your colleagues as we fight for better working conditions.
Join us at open bargaining: 9/13 from 11:30am-4:00pm and on other dates; RSVP here.
SAVE THE DATE: OCTOBER 15TH, 1PM RALLY ON THE LAST DAY OF THE CONTRACT IF NO AGREEMENT HAS BEEN REACHED
