Lest there be any doubt:
“Our goal is (to) outlaw government collective bargaining in Michigan, which in practical terms means no more MEA,” wrote Jack McHugh, of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, to state Rep. Thomas McMillin, R-Rochester Hills, the newly appointed head of the House Education Committee in a June 1 email.
Not only would this mean no more MEA, it would also mean “in practical terms” no more WMU AAUP.
These are the stakes in the 2012 election.
We have submitted the following charge to the Administration for the Joint Committee to Resolve Salary Inequity:
Salary inequities are not beneficial for the public image of the university, can be detrimental to the morale of university employees and, in cases involving gender and ethnicity, may lead to costly legal action. The WMU Chapter of the AAUP and Western’s Administration both agreed on April 22, 2011 that they would promptly develop a process and strategy for addressing salary equity issues (if any). At a minimum, they agreed to consider the Sibson Consulting report (2011) and the President’s Commission on Gender Equity report (2010) as input for this process. For the purposes of WMU-AAUP bargaining unit members, this committee shall replace the role earlier performed by the President’s Commission on Gender Equity, albeit with a significantly expanded scope.
This new Joint Committee to Resolve Salary Inequity is charged with four main goals:
- Develop a plan, to be implemented and carried out during the period of the current Western-WMU-AAUP Agreement, for addressing all existing gender and ethnic salary inequities among WMU-AAUP bargaining unit members;
- Develop a plan and schedule, to be implemented by 2014, for Western to get on a clear path toward resolving existing salary compression issues, noting that in some cases such issues may represent age discrimination;
- Determine if there are WMU policies and practices that will lead to salary inequities in the future and, if found, delineate those policies and practices in a report to Western and the WMU-AAUP;
- Develop a plan, with recommendations for an implementation timeline, to minimize or eliminate the impact of such policies and practices.
There is no implication that the work of this committee could eventually eliminate the concerns of every individual faculty member with regard to his or her specific pay because individual perspectives on inequity are driven by numerous factors and because individuals do not have access to all potentially relevant information about the qualifications of their colleagues. Nonetheless, the work of the committee is intended to address individual salary inequity issues using procedures that are reasonable and fair.
It’s time for the Administration to release the data and let the committee go to work.
Yesterday, public university faculty won a major victory in Ohio. By a nearly 2 to 1 margin, the voters of Ohio repealed legislation (Senate Bill 5) that prohibited faculty from joining unions.
As the AFT noted, the “citizens of Ohio took back their state with a historic vote on Nov. 8 to repeal Senate Bill 5. The vote, which marks the first time that the collective bargaining rights of public employees have been upheld on a statewide ballot, sends a clear signal that Ohioans will not sit idly by while politicians scapegoat hard-working public employees for an economic crisis they did not create.”
Similarly, the AAUP sent out an email this morning stating that “Ohio voters realized that budgets cannot be balanced, nor can the economy be improved, by stripping workers of their rights. This country’s financial problems do not stem from overpaid firefighters, librarians, and faculty, but from economic policies that encourage the rich to get richer while undercutting basic services for all.”
It’s time to bring the momentum to Michigan, so that we can restore our collective bargaining rights and protect our academic freedom, tenure and faculty governance.
From Dr. Dan Farrell, Professor of Management:
Dear Colleagues,
I believe I recall volunteering to be the AAUP rep this year so I attended the contract briefing Friday. Below is my take on the highlights.
1. There is a new statement on academic freedom. Previously the contract did not address this issue.
2. There is improved language regarding leaves and sick time. These are most relevant if you are planning a maternity leave or have other family issues.
3. There is extensive new language regarding faculty development. Mostly this clarifies the process, establishes an advisory group and so forth.
4. There is new clarification regarding on-line instruction, open instruction and so forth. There is no language requiring faculty to participate in this type of instruction. Payment, credit for such courses and some language regarding the university’s preferred course design are included. Those interested in this type of instruction should read carefully. The new language is extensive in this area.
Personally, I see no problems with this contract. I think it would be wise if each of us stops by the Berhnard Center Tuesday and casts a vote. Given the expedited contract process the faculty was not as visible this year. A strong turnout can send the needed message.
Dan Farrell
The vote on the proposed changes to the WMU-AAUP Contract will be held on TUESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 8:00am to 5:00pm in ROOM 212 BERNHARD CENTER.
Absentee ballots may be cast by email, but votes cannot be assured anonymity. Absentee ballots will be accepted until 4:00pm on Tuesday, October 11.
The Detroit News is reporting that Governor Snyder and his supporters in the legislature may try to privatize Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan.
Governor Snyder’s opponents and Blue Cross oppose this idea, noting that we need “the company to do more to improve health care quality and security for all the people of Michigan, rather than operate as a profit generator for stockholder owners.”
In addition to serving as yet another attack on the unions whose leaders serve on the Board of Directors for Blue Cross, Governor Snyder’s efforts would directly affect WMU because Blue Cross administers our health care plan. It remains difficult to see how selling Blue Cross to the same private company that now owns Blue Cross in Ohio, Indiana and Wisconsin and allowing that company to skim profits off of our premiums would lower our costs or improve the quality of our health care plan.
With a 70 percent market share, it’s easy to see why an out-of-state firm would want to gobble up Blue Cross and enjoy a near monopoly status. That same 70 percent market share, however, makes it unlikely that any new firms would enter the market to compete with a privatized Blues Cross.
Not all of our victories as a faculty occur at the collective bargaining table or in grievances. A month ago, for example, the administration once again attempted to unilaterally modify our Academic Calendar, this time by adding a week to the fall semester. Our contract (Article 38, section 1) expressly requires the administration to negotiate with us through our union regarding such changes.
Our union objected to this unilateral change, and offered several alternatives. Last week, the administration backed down and withdrew its modifications to the Academic Calendar. It may seem like a small victory, but it is a victory nonetheless, and it sets a precedent that the administration, no less than the faculty, must comply with its obligations under our contract.
According to the Detroit News, the Michigan Court of Appeals found that our state Constitution protects us against the legislature’s decision to require state employees to “contribute” 3% of their salaries to the state’s health care plan.
Most Western faculty are covered by the TIAA/CREF retirement defined contribution plan, but about 10% of the faculty are covered by the state’s defined benefit plan and were forced to make this contribution.
It’s nice to see the middle class win one.
