December 18, 2024
“This is not an "appeasing us" speech. This is a wind-us-up-and-see-if-we're-serious speech.” Gregory Ferrence-Chemistry
The Opening Lecture
At the start of the session, UFISU Lead Dr. Ashley Farmer opened, as usual, by asking if the Admin Team would be presenting their economic counter. Finally, ISU Admin Lead Mark Bennett said yes. But before he got to their counter, he held us captive for a nearly 30-minute lecture. Bennett opened with an acknowledgement that we are underpaid in comparison to comparator universities (more on that later). He also recapped (yet again) the budget presentation Interim Vice President of Finance Dr. Dan Petree presented in a past bargaining session, as well as at several meetings on campus this past Fall semester. Bennett was clearly reading from a prepared statement while delivering his remarks, citing the usual tired arguments about the supposed enrollment cliff, how the university is funded, the increased costs due to inflation, and the restrictions to the university’s ability to raise tuition to generate more revenue. The general tenor was the same song they’ve been singing since the beginning of the fall as to why they have no funds to pay us fairly.
He then addressed our proposal, noting we asked for minimum annual base salary raises (also known as salary floors, or the lowest a salary can be in a given rank), cost of living raises (also known as across-the-board raises), merit raises, longevity raises and bonuses, promotional increases, overload compensation, and summer and winter pay. Bennett then gave their estimated total cost of our proposal over the next 18 months without explaining their calculation process, which was over $70 million and exceeded our own calculations by several million dollars. He claimed that the average faculty member would receive a salary increase that would far exceed the average of our comparators, which also does not match our calculations (which, we will note, were done by faculty members in Finance and Math Education - experts, in other words). Bennett also noted that his calculations did not include the costs we proposed for overload pay, summer and winter pay, professional development and travel funds, and other items in our economic proposals. While we appreciated that Bennett’s summary of our proposals refreshed the memories of some of our members in the room who haven’t heard some of these things since we started bargaining 10 months ago, we are well aware of what we proposed. We didn’t appreciate, however, Admin’s specious calculations and misleading estimations of expenses. We especially did not appreciate that Bennett reduced our worth to ISU by characterizing us as only expenses as opposed to recognizing that Faculty are an investment and that our work generates value for our students, our university, and our sectors and industries.
Admin’s Approach to Calculating Its Proposed Raises
Bennett then turned to discussing the supposed methodology for how the Admin developed their counter. He referenced numbers that they claim we used for making our calculations (which clearly indicates that the university has been monitoring our social media posts) and stated it’s unfair to compare us to the rest of the state given not all of the institutions are comparable. He talked about choosing 24 R2 comparators from the Midwest region but did not name them in the session (we have submitted an information request on this and other items related to their proposal). He said they looked at salary data generated by the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA) from 2024 as well as data from the AAUP over the last 10 years and that they contrasted this data with the average cost of living in each of the comparator locations versus in Bloomington-Normal. According to Bennett, the result is that ISU is ahead in average pay at the assistant level but that we fall behind at the associate and full levels. We requested they send us the comparators used for their calculations. These comparators do seem to be different from those they chose for their Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) reporting. Depending on the venue, they seem to choose the comparators that help them tell the story they want. We will share more information in January after we receive their list and perform our own calculations because we have serious questions about the accuracy of theirs.
Bennett then noted that their offer was a first offer but described it as a “strong offer” (as you’ll see in a moment, we disagree on that point).
The Admin Counter on Salary
Finally, after all of this preamble, Bennett handed us the proposal and noted that it is a counter to our proposals on Salary, Summer and Winter Terms, Funds for Travel and Professional Development, Leaves and Modified Duties, Release Time for Union Business, University Commitments for Academic Support, Health Benefits, and a modification to Duration (although notably, only Salary, Health Benefits, and Duration were actually included because they were rejecting the others; also noteworthy is that we proposed University Commitments for Academic Support specifically to benefit (?) students). The heft of ISU’s proposal comes in two areas: 1) annual base salary increases, and 2) minimum annual base salaries.
Their proposed annual base salary increases would come in the form of annual across-the-board raises and a guaranteed annual merit pool, which Bennett notes ISU has never done before. However, these annual increases would total fewer than 2.5% per year for the duration of the contract, and the bulk of that amount would be out of a merit pool, which means most faculty would not get the full amount. Not only does this small number fall far short of addressing inflation and cost of living increases, but it would unnecessarily pit us against each other to compete for a few hundred dollars every year.
For minimum base salaries (what we call salary “floors” in our proposal), the proposal outlines the lowest annual base salary can be for each rank, with increases at the same rate as the annual raises (0.5%) each year during the term of the contract. Bennett claimed that these numbers are mid range in comparison to other salaries in the state, however, we’ve done our homework and we know they are well under many salary floors, such as NIU’s. He also noted that these are minimums, so nothing would preclude ISU from choosing to pay higher salaries than these. How much do we trust that such power would be used equitably across colleges and departments on campus? Or at all?
Beyond these yearly increases, ISU’s proposal made some attempt to address the other pay discrepancies we addressed in our proposal. To address the low pay for Professors against comparators, they proposed an increase of $10,000 upon promotion from Associate (currently, that increase is $8,000). They introduced a merit increase initiative for Professors only that they would be eligible to apply for only after their fifth year at rank and every five years after. This application would include submitting a post-tenure review dossier, and the salary increase awarded would be determined by the Provost and President, not the DFSC/SFSC. We find this additional $2000 salary increase upon promotion to Professor to be insufficient for relieving economic pressures when salaries have stagnated for several years (decades even, for many), and that applying for a merit based increase of an undetermined amount only every five years is unreasonable (a lot of extra work for unknown payoff).
Three other items of note:1) They offer unspecified retention increases for faculty members with outside employment offers, which ISU already does. 2) They are proposing payment for overload pay and Winter and Summer courses to be set at a minimum of $2,000 per credit hour per course, which is higher than some departments are currently given and lower than others, but their proposal does not specify that the higher pay would be maintained. Finally, 3) we have to double check their proposal against our own calculations, but their counter does not seem like it will sufficiently address salary compression and inversion, which are huge issues on this campus.
UFISU Co-Lead Negotiator Dr. Ashley Farmer noted that Bennett’s preamble, summary of our proposal, and walkthrough of ISU’s counter made it clear that ISU sees faculty as expenses; she stated that we are an investment and crucial to ISU’s operations. Bennett responded that they are not saying that ISU doesn’t value faculty, but those of us in the room were not convinced. ISU can tell us they value us as much as they want, but it’s time for them to show us with significant movement towards fair pay..
Other Outstanding Proposals Presented by Admin
Bennett moved on, noting that we had been hesitating to discuss some noneconomic proposals until they submitted their economic counters, namely Management Rights and Entire Agreement. He then presented us with a packet of all outstanding proposals (“outstanding” in that they’re not yet agreed to, rather than being spectacular or amazing), including the ones we were about to give counters on (an entire tree was likely unnecessarily sacrificed for this gesture). Bennett noted a few minor typographical changes in Terms and Definitions, and explained that they were holding their position on Disability Accommodations (also didn’t need to print that one then). Ashley pointed out that Scheduling has been in their court for months but was not included in the packet; Bennett seemed confused and said he would get back to us about it. Ashley also noted that the Milner unit challenge language had been removed from Workload, and Bennett clarified that they are not waiving their rights in regard to the issue. What we want to clarify is a right they have under the Illinois Education Labor Relations Act anyway; they don’t need this language in the contract, and it serves no purpose other than demeaning our Milner colleagues.
Grievance and Arbitration
Next, it was our turn. We presented a package on Grievance and Arbitration, Nondiscrimination, Professional Ethics and Workplace Bullying, Proposed Amendments to Previous TAs, and a new proposed entry to Terms and Definitions on “Academic Judgement.” Ashley noted that the few remaining differences in Grievance are important to us but that we tried to find a solution that works for both parties. In short, we continue to hold on a timeline of 15 work days to initiate Step 1, and we added new language to Step 1 to address a point of divergence related to when faculty choose to represent themselves in a grievance. Because the union may still be involved in a grievance that a faculty member initiates without them, notification that a grievance has been filed is important. The admin team has rejected our previous language in this regard multiple times, but after some clarity in a sidebar at the end of the last session, we proposed adding a form at the end of Step 1, which will be signed by the department chair and the grievant and then filed with both HR and the union to note that it has been completed. Last week Admin also balked at our specification that academic judgment, by definition, cannot be malicious or capricious, so we proposed a clear definition that is also used in many other higher education collective bargaining agreements. Then we went to caucus for a little over an hour.
Workload and Scheduling
After caucus, we presented a packet including Workload and Scheduling. Ashley explained that we made significant movement by adopting the administration’s definition of full-time as “24 credit hours (or equivalent contact hours)” instead of our “30 credit hour equivalents.” Last session we verified that 24 credit hours would not solely designate teaching/librarianship (the equivalent of a 4/4 load in many departments) because “equivalent contact hours” would result in reassigned time for teaching and research. In short, at the last session, Bennett clarified that ISU is looking to codify its current practices for determining teaching loads. However, we recognize two things: 1) all of us do a vast amount of labor that does not match our reassigned time for teaching and service, and 2) some departments teach less than the equivalent of a 3/3 load (or 18 hours of teaching/librarianship). As such, our proposal included a lower teaching/librarianship cap of 15 credit hours as well as a note that any departments that currently have teaching loads at or lower than this would retain that lower load.
One thing that both of our proposals agree on in spirit (not quite down to the last detail yet, though) is that departments should have the power to determine teaching loads and reassigned time and set formal standards for how departments will determine workload. However, ISU’s proposal was vague on many details and included language that these department standards would have to both follow yet-to-be-created college and university standards and be approved by the Provost. Our counter puts more power in the departments, specifying that the college and university standards will only determine how much service for either would count towards reassigned time. In addition, we provide clear baselines for departments, establishing a minimum credit hour for quantifying the work we do on things like master’s and doctoral exams and culminating projects, independent studies, one-on-one student lessons, and other currently uncounted labor; we also include a baseline for how to count professional and public service. This is important because if a faculty member is doing a quantifiable amount of research and service beyond 9 equivalent contact hours, then we may be eligible for overload pay, course releases, or other forms of compensation. Importantly, in our proposal, we specify a process for the approval of department standards that would mirror the ASPT process, but that would conclude with both Provost and Union approval.
Other items of note include that we held on 3-credit hour releases for international faculty when completing their application for Permanent Residency (Green Card) and for tenure track faculty compiling their dossier for tenure and promotion because we recognize that these are labor intensive requirements. Ashley explained that we were rejecting their section on “Faculty Accessibility,” which would establish a minimum number of hours per week that we would have to be on campus in our office, a minimum number of office hours, and other restrictive rules about where and how we can work. Not only do we see this as an overreach, but as Ashley pointed out, a similar contract item at Eastern Illinois University caused major issues because faculty became less accessible instead of more (because faculty had to be on campus for Zoom office hours, for instance, even ones they scheduled by appointment, they overall held fewer office hours and students had a harder time meeting with them).
Next we resubmitted the Scheduling proposal (for the sixth time) that Bennett left out of his packet of outstanding proposals. Ashley explained that this proposal aims to provide guidelines for equitable scheduling based on the actual practices of some departments that are currently doing it well. The ultimate decision for schedules still remains with the chair, as Ashley clarified, but they must follow the collaborative process to ensure faculty scheduling needs are met to the best of their abilities. We also propose at least one day a work week without any teaching so that faculty have time for research and service and that faculty are not assigned to teach after 5pm or on weekends unless by mutual agreement. Bennett asked if these are current practices or are guaranteed in any department that we know of, and Ashley replied that they are informal guidelines that some departments use but that we want to standardize across the university. She noted that most chairs are acting in good faith to accommodate faculty.
At this point, it was about 12:30pm and Bennett noted that they would not be able to provide any other counters today. Ashley noted our disappointment with their Disability Accommodations proposal, stating that we made significant movement on our last counter and that we are holding on to our position going into mediation next month.
We hope to see many of you at the pre-mediation clap-in on January 13 where we will make the Admin Table Team walk a gauntlet of our members (as well as supporters from other unions on campus). The goal is for them to have to wade through a sea of green to get to their caucus room and show them our power. In addition, we will have our first General Membership Meeting on January 16 (time TBD with a likely Friday Zoom session as well, also TBD). Have a great break–let’s keep the fight going in 2025!