MUNFA and the Administration have now been negotiating for a month. On November 1 we received the Administration's proposals on two important articles in the Collective Agreement: Article 3 (Duties and Responsibilities of Faculty Members) and Article 30 (Salaries and Benefits). The latter article, by agreement, contains no salary figures.
MUNFA's proposal to negotiate shared responsibility with the Administration for the operation of a Pension Plan was dismissed. Despite the Administration's earlier explicit indication of interest in faculty renewal ("Preamble" to their initial proposals dated October 4), they now tell us that they are not making any proposals on early retirement and faculty renewal. They did say, however, that they would discuss these matters with MUNFA outside of negotiations. We are not sanguine about what we could achieve by 'talking' to them about something of this importance. Formal negotiation is the appropriate vehicle for handling such matters.
The Administration's proposed Article 30 would vary annual salary increments both within and between ranks. Further, it would have salary determined at least in part by a "merit system". What these two things mean remains obscure. The proposals passed across the table reference appendices which would presumably contain the appropriate details. However, and contrary to their undertaking to explain their envisioned salary structure, the Administration refused to disclose anything about it.
Other changes in the Administration's proposed Article 30 are troubling. A modification in Clause 30.17 would require that remissions for extra teaching be taken "in the following Academic Year," thereby preventing banked time from being accumulated into a research semester. The limit on the amount of money which the University spends on insured benefits, proposed in Clause 30.36#1x, would have the effect of disproportionately raising ASMs' premiums, lowering coverage, or both.
The Administration's proposed Article 3 on workload would completely eliminate collegial mechanisms for determining course equivalents. All non-standard courses, such as supervision of reading courses or graduate theses, would, with this change, be given a credit (or no credit) at the discretion of the Administrative Head. Proposed changes to Clause 3.13 would give Heads the power to 'suggest' to a Faculty Member that he or she accept an increased teaching load, albeit with a decreased expectation of scholarly activity. The Faculty Member would be obliged to "not unreasonably withhold his or her agreement." Unlike the current Collective Agreement, the proposal does not specify the number of additional courses that can be 'suggested'. And, for good measure, the Faculty Member would be required to provide signed consent to the suggestion. The old Clause 3.20 is removed, effectively eliminating course remissions for scholarship above the norm, again, except at the discretion of the Head. Clause 3.34 would give the Administration the right to assign to Faculty Members the teaching of Distance Education courses, making the teaching of these courses as part of normal load no longer voluntary.
In summary, the Administration has proposed substantive changes to our current Collective Agreement. They are making a concerted effort to increase the power and control of administrators while weakening the collegial processes within the University. This effort is also evidenced in their proposed changes to Clause 7.20, changes that would allow the Head to recommend for appointment someone not recommended by a Search Committee. An unwillingness to negotiate mechanisms for faculty renewal, various clauses designed to increase teaching workload, the introduction of conceptual oddities such as "effective academic service" for promotion and tenure considerations, and "international reputation as a teacher" as a criterion for promotion to Professor, do not bode well for a speedy resolution to negotiations. The Administration's proposals would make working conditions much worse than they are now, with an overt deleterious effect on faculty and students. These proposals bear little relation to the positive announcements and professions of collegial objectives (see the "Preamble") that preceded what we now fear will be an unnecessarily protracted process.
Perhaps equally depressing is the fact that our Negotiating Committee's repeated requests that the Administration articulate clearly and directly what problems their proposals are meant to address are not really being answered. Increasingly, we feel that there is a discrepancy between the public face which the Administration puts on its negotiating stance and the reality at the table where we see proposed clawbacks for which inadequate justification is offered.
The Negotiating Committee encourages members to examine the Administration's proposals. Please contact the MUNFA office to view them.
MUNFA Negotiating Committee: