Home

Frequently Asked Questions

Although the professors are back teaching, the issues that lead to the strike still have not been resolved and we do not have a new contract. At the present time, we are working under the old contract provisions governing wages and health care. Since the process continues through a state fact-finder, expect to see professors continue to do informational picketing and discuss issues of concern to us in many media.

What is fact-finding?

The AAUP and the EMU administration have agreed to a process known as "Fact Finding". This is a state-sanctioned process administered by an official from the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC) who is acceptable to both parties. The Fact Finder will examine the elements of each side's bargaining position and offer a recommendation for resolving the dispute between the two sides. The fact finder can choose the entire claims of either side, or select a position that is a compromise between the two side’s claims. The AAUP originally proposed both binding arbitration and a binding fact-finding process, which the administration has rejected. Under the current procedure, the Fact Finder's recommendation is not binding on the parties, but the AAUP has pledged to be bound by the fact finder's recommendation if the EMU administration makes the same commitment. The administration has refused to do.

  • For more information, see our fact-finding podcast (an audio file you can listen to in your web browser or download).

What are the current proposals of the administration and the union on faculty compensation?

The EMU-AAUP has proposed an annual average raise of 3.44% over 3 years, after additional health care costs are considered. The administration is offering an average 2.6% annual raise over 3 years, again after health care costs are considered. If we assume an average rate of inflation for the next three years at 3% (a conservative estimate), the union is asking for a small increase in our purchasing power, and the administration is asking the union to accept a reduction in their real (after inflation) wages.

The AAUP's current position on compensation (salary and benefits) is to seek a contract similar to the contracts negotiated at our peer institutions. Specifically, the AAUP is seeking a salary and benefit package that matches the average net settlement (wage increases minus health care givebacks) of peer institutions. This position represents a significant bargaining concession for two reasons. First, the wages for Professors are already below those of Professors at our peer institutions and the concession would not remediate this long-standing deficit.This inequity had already been acknowledged by a Joint Task Force comprised of both EMU faculty and EMU administrators. Second, the cost of living in the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti area is the second highest in Michigan.

As noted by EMU's Student newspaper:

"it should be clear that the interests of most students are in line with those of the strikers. While the administration threatens to increase tuition to pay professors, to drive a wedge between students and faculty, they have not seriously considered cutting administrative costs (though this is no surprise). Students would benefit from higher pay for faculty, allowing EMU to attract a higher caliber of professor (many young faculty have found that they are paid more at Washtenaw Community College than at EMU)."

How can EMU professors ask that their compensation keep up with rises in the cost of living when Michigan’s economy is so bad, and when other EMU employees are accepting cuts in compensation?

While it is true that some EMU employees have had wage cuts imposed on them, this is not true of all EMU employees and the administration paid itself almost $1 million in bonuses last year. Importantly, there has been no commitment by the administration to limit their own compensation increases. Remember that the EMU administrators are already paid salaries above their peers in the state while the faculty and other workers are paid wages below their peers.

EMU can afford to pay fair wages. EMU is in excellent financial condition. Every year EMU’s revenues exceed expenses; in 2005-6 revenues exceeded expenses by almost $5 million. The university has over $90 million in cash and investments, and the university has a low level of debt. Moody’s and S&P give EMU excellent bond ratings in recognition of the university’s strong financial condition.

Just because the auto industry has imposed cost-cutting measures on its employees doesn’t mean that other Michigan employers should do the same. Domino’s is not cutting capacity because Ford is; Masco is not laying off workers because Delphi is. Furthermore, one of Michigan’s strengths which will enable us to weather this economic transition is our great system of public universities. Our legislators, both Democrats and Republicans, understand that it is crucial that Michigan continue to invest in higher education so that our universities can prepare students for the jobs of the future. That’s why Lansing has not significantly cut appropriations to EMU over the past five years (and there was a significant increase for the 2006-2007 academic year).

We believe that EMU should not be imposing pay cuts on any of its employees. EMU-AAUP supports the efforts of all unions on campus to negotiate fair contracts.

Also, remember that the AAUP is seeking a contract whose net is similar to what our peers have settled for. Economic conditions are similar through out the state and mid-West, so an average contract settlement does not place an undue burden on EMU. The administration seems to have money for an outside lawyer to negotiate for them all summer, a high-powered Lansing Public relations firm to disparage faculty, and an outside consultant to write a fact-finding report. Although the administration refuses to disclose how much it is spending on any of these negotiation-related expenses, it is probable that any one of these expenditures would be more than enough to settle the contract on fair terms.

What are the major non-monetary issues in negotiations?

The faculty wants the administration to commit to hiring more professors. Over the past decade, the percentage of student credit hours taught by faculty has fallen from 70% to 55%. The administration refuses to talk about this issue, and even threatened to cut off negotiations if the union brought it up again.

Unlike corporations, public universities are committed to the principle of shared governance. This principle recognizes that, since the faculty-student relationship is the central purpose of the university, the faculty must have a voice in a wide range of policy decisions. The AAUP had sought language in the contract clarifying their input on the hiring of Deans, Provosts and Presidents.

The AAUP negotiating team had also unsuccessfully pushed for language on health and safety (being able to get access to reports written by consultants hired by the administration, being able to accompany outside consultants, and being able to hire their own consultants), and a phased retirement plan that included a promise the administration would replace retiring faculty.

What’s the difference between a professor and a full-time lecturer?

When a professor is hired, the job opening is advertised nationally, and the university receives applications from all over the United States and from other countries as well. A formal hiring process involving the faculty of the department and members of the administration is followed. By contrast, lecturers may be hired by a Department Head without any advertisement in professional job listings or input from faculty. Professors are required to have the highest degree in their fields (usually the Ph.D.), and to conduct research and publish in their fields, while lecturers are not required to have a doctorate or to conduct research. Finally, professors are able to earn tenure, the most important protection of academic freedom, while lecturers can not.

Eastern is fortunate to employ many lecturers who are excellent teachers and active scholars. Nonetheless, to insure the quality of an EMU education, we believe that at least two-thirds of student credit hours should be taught by professors - a postition also endorsed by EMU's Provost.

There is a third group of people are the fastest growing segment of EMU teachers: part-time adjuncts. These are people who teach only 1, 2, or 3 courses per term, receive minimal pay and no benefits.

The student newspaper noted many of these concerns in an editorial supporting the strike.

Why did the faculty go on strike on September 1?

When the old contract expired on August 31, the administration had moved little from its initial proposals of a 2% raise each year for a year year contract. Worse still, they wanted new health care premiums equal to about 3% of faculty salaries—a pay cut before inflation! The administration was also still refusing to fulfill its legal obligation to share with the AAUP information essential to negotiations, including data on health care. The administration’s inaction had already resulted in the AAUP filing two Unfair Labor Practice claims. Because the administration was not bargaining in good faith, the union had to go on strike to get the administration to start negotiating. In fact, by refusing to negotiate the administration showed that they intended to force the faculty to go on strike.

For more information, read the blog by the union's chief negotiator.

Why did the administration team walk out of negotiations? And what happened when the two sides returned to negotiations for 24 hours on September 12 and 13?

We don’t know. For reasons that have never been explained, President Fallon and Regent Chair Valvo had set a deadline for negotiations to conclude by 10:00 p.m., September 5, even if both sides were making progress toward an agreement at that time. At 10:00 p.m., the administration team walked away from the table, refusing to consider a new proposal from the union team. Their offer and the AAUP offer at that time is available here

The administration had maintained a public stance that they would not negotiate with the faculty while the faculty was on strike. Because of our concern for the students, the AAUP suspended their strike and agreed to re-enter negotiations with the administration. Although the union team made some significant concessions in this session, the administration’s offers involved no net change in the total compensation package offered to the faculty. They changed the length of the contract and played a shell game with the money, but the last offer at 4am proposed a net contract (wage increase minus health care giveback) of 2.6% a year over the three-year contract. In short, the AAUP “called the administration’s bluff” and have clearly demonstrated that the administration’s stance was intended only to end the strike and not to actually re-enter productive negotiations.

The professors have rejected the administration's offer and decided to take th ematter to a state-factfinder who makes recommendations. We had offered to submit both to binding arbitration and binding fact-finding, but the administration rejected both offers to use a neutral third party to resolve the dispute ina way that both sides must respect. We have agreed to accept the recommendations of the fact-finder in full if the administration will as well, but so far they have repeatedly rejected this offer.

Also recommended:

printer friendly version