October 17, 2000

Experience has shown that unless real pressure is placed on the administration, negotiations will not yield the most favorable result for the membership. For example, as the Negotiating Committee explained at the information meeting on October 10, 2000, it was only with the threat of a strike that the administration made its salary offer, an offer that had been delayed for months.

Now, having made a substantial salary offer, the administration may believe that MUNFA should be willing to concede on all major outstanding issues. For MUNFA's Negotiating Committee to be able to conclude negotiations on favorable terms, it needs a strike mandate from the membership. A strike vote does not necessarily lead to a strike. In the first and third rounds of collective bargaining strike mandates allowed negotiations to conclude without strikes. No one can guarantee that there will not be a strike, but a positive strike vote provides necessary leverage.

This Negotiating News summarizes, for those who could not attend the Information Meeting of October 10^th, the range of issues that concern many MUNFA members and which are as yet unresolved. It is, of course, true that some issues are more important to some members than others, but the only way that any of these issues will be resolved on favorable terms is through the efforts of the MUNFA Negotiating Committee. Its ability to negotiate the best deal on all issues which concern MUNFA's members depends on the strength of the support it receives from the membership.

• MUN's salary proposal discriminates against the significant number of academic staff members who do not hold earned doctorates. Some of these are in disciplines in which doctorates either are not conventional, or have only recently been instituted -- nursing and fine arts, for example. Others are experienced colleagues, some of them full professors, who have served the university well and with distinction. The administration's proposal, applied retroactively to colleagues who have for years done the same work as those of us with earned doctorates, is unacceptable. The MUNFA Negotiating Committee believes that, with a strong strike vote, it can negotiate a salary settlement that will not set the stage for ill will and bitterness in the years to come.
  
  
• MUN's salary proposal disadvantages sessionals in that it maintains the per-course stipend at $3,519, a figure that has been in place for more than ten years. This amounts to academic exploitation, a practice that could very well increase as academic staff members retire. The rate of pay for sessionals affects bargaining unit members. Contractuals who are in the bargaining unit often later find themselves as sessionals earning a per-course stipend; tenure track and tenured academic staff members who teach overload for whatever reason would likewise be paid the same pittance. The MUNFA Negotiating Committee should be empowered to try to make some improvement for the lowest paid and worst treated.

2. SALARY PROPOSALS -- MUNFA vs MUN:

• By the end of the Collective Agreement now being negotiated, MUNFA members will be where the comparison group was two years ago. However, in absolute dollar terms, the amount of money that MUN's proposal puts in the pockets of members is far less than the amount proposed by MUNFA. MUN's salary proposal is back-end loaded, which means that the largest amount of money is made available only in the last year of the Collective Agreement. MUNFA's salary proposal is front-end loaded, which means that the largest amount of money is made available in the first year of the Collective Agreement, and continues to be paid over the life of the Agreement. For most members, the difference in dollar terms considerably exceeds $10,000.

3. PENSION REFORM:

• Sooner or later the state of the MUN Pension Plan affects nearly every member. Pension reform has been under discussion for many years; little has been accomplished. Many academic staff members believe that this issue cannot be set aside any longer, and take exception to the administration's cavalier refusal to negotiate pension issues. Fearing retirements lived out in genteel poverty, members are concerned about indexation and with safeguarding the pension surplus. The MUNFA proposal for pension reform would provide the foundation for pension improvement by helping to ensure that the surplus would be used to improve the benefits of members. Although this change would not, as such, immediately result in improved pension benefits, it is the sine qua non for such improvements. Without reform, there are likely to be no improvements in any pension matters of concern to the membership. Without reform, there will be no indexation (or partial indexation). Without reform, the uses of the pension surpluses will continue to rest entirely with the Board of Regents. Reform would be based on a fair distribution of plan assets and would not disadvantage other members of the MUN Pension Plan, many of whom are themselves pursuing negotiated reform. The reforms proposed are not novel, and have been successfully implemented elsewhere. Reform would cost the university nothing. Without leverage in negotiations, there is little likelihood of improved pension benefits for MUNFA members.

4. OTHER FINANCIAL ISSUES:

A. EARLY RETIREMENT/SEVERANCE PACKAGES:

The administration has refused to discuss early retirement and severance packages. These are commonplace in university and public service collective agreements across Canada. They would facilitate faculty renewal, a goal which the administration has endorsed. The administration has not explained its refusal to entertain proposals on both these issues; it simply refuses to negotiate them.

B. CLAWBACKS:

Since it is only at the end of the next Collective Agreement that the administration's proposal would give members the salaries that they should have been receiving several years earlier, it might be expected that the administration would show some flexibility (or even generosity) on other financial issues. Instead, the administration envisions clawbacks which will actually diminish the amount of compensation members would receive.

• INSURED BENEFITS: The administration wants to cap its expenditures on insurance premiums. In consequence, benefits would decrease. If the administration succeeds, MUNFA members will likely find their insurance coverage, already poor by Atlantic Canada standards, diminished dramatically.
  
• PARKING: The administration wants the unfettered right to increase parking fees.
  
• PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ALLOWANCE: Although the $200 allowance has not changed in a decade, the administration is not interested in improving this benefit. In addition, the administration wishes to remove it as an entitlement and substitute the administration's judgement as to whether the professional expense development allowance should be paid.
  
• TRAVEL FUNDS: Despite significant increases in travel, hotel and restaurant costs, the administration insists on keeping the per member base calculation for the travel fund at 1989 levels.

5. WORKLOAD:

• In a number of Academic Units, workload norms have still not been reduced to five courses per year. MUNFA has proposed that these norms be reduced. The administration says no.

• Members are concerned about the possible loss of Clause 3.20, which provides a single course remission for academic staff members whose research records are above the norm. The MUNFA Negotiating Committee believes that it is important that this benefit be maintained. Once again, the administration wants to convert what is now an entitlement into something that is subject to the administration's unfettered discretion.

• The current Collective Agreement establishes a procedure for determining equivalencies of different teaching formats to the standard three hour lecture format. The administration wants to remove this provision. Without it these equivalencies will not be set in a collegial fashion. The administration will make the decisions.

• In addition, the administration wants to restrict the use of banked time earned from extra teaching to the year following that teaching. Thus it would become virtually impossible to accumulate banked time sufficient to free a semester for intensive research.

• The administration wishes to claw back existing librarians' rights to support for research and professional development. MUNFA opposes the change.

6. COLLEGIAL GOVERNANCE:

• The administration seems intent on limiting collegial decision-making. This is demonstrated by their refusal to discuss MUNFA's proposed Article 31, which would update and more directly incorporate into the Collective Agreement provisions governing appointment and review of academic administrators. Similarly, the administration negotiators refuse to discuss the insertion of the term "collegial approval" into the Collective Agreement. "Collegial approval" would merely require a meeting and a majority vote of the unit concerned in very limited and specific circumstances. The administration claims to support the principles of equity and mutuality. It is therefore difficult to see what is threatening to the administration in provisions for the right of colleagues to conduct academic business in an open and democratic manner.

7. THE TONE AND STYLE OF NEGOTIATIONS:

• At the beginning of negotiations, more than a year ago, MUNFA members were led to expect an atmosphere that would quickly lead to a satisfactory agreement. Instead, yet again, we are faced with the time-wasting and dispiriting attitude that has often characterized collective bargaining at this university in the past. In such circumstances, if MUNFA's members wish to achieve a Collective Agreement that both protects our interests and provides a basis for a liveable future in our university, we will have to make it very clear that we are not prepared to give up many of the things that matter in return for the administration's salary package. If the administration genuinely wants Memorial to continue as a university of distinction and achievement, as we do, it should begin by fostering positive and collegial relations with its academic staff instead of precipitating yet again an unnecessary crisis in negotiations.

MUNFA Negotiating Committee:

• Bill Schrank (Economics) - Chief Negotiator
• John Bear (Medicine)
• Elizabeth Browne (Library)
• Jon Church (Medicine)
• Malcolm Grant (Psychology)
• Clar Matchim (Business)
• Eric Mintz (SWGC)
• Jim Overton (Sociology)
• Elizabeth Yeoman (Education)
• Chris Youé (History)
• Marian Atkinson (MUNFA Executive Officer, non-voting member)

All issues of Negotiating News are accessible at http://www.mun.ca/munfa/negnews.html