TAUP/TU Recent Negotiations History

August 26, 2009

 

 

 

August 17, 2009

TAUP Sets the Record Straight

 

TAUP has negotiated in good faith to move the contract negotiations forward. We are disappointed that management has chosen to mischaracterize our position and to misreport our words and actions at the bargaining table.

Temple President Ann Weaver Hart’s letter dated August 13, 2009, which was sent to faculty members’ homes, purports to be an up-to-date report on the latest developments in negotiations with TAUP. Unfortunately, President Hart continues management’s pattern of direct dealing with members of the bargaining unit.

President Hart’s letter says several things that are misleading and incorrect:

Here is TAUP’s side of the story:

On July 17 management’s negotiating team sent TAUP a revised set of proposals. They included changes on some important issues. After working hard for more than a week, on July 27, the TAUP negotiating team put forth a package of proposals. We made significant modifications on many issues, including a new proposal on fair share. We asked the state mediator, Mark Lamont, to convey our view that we would prefer not to negotiate in public.

The two negotiating teams met face to face on August 3 and again on August 6. In those meetings, we made considerable progress. We signed tentative agreements on all noneconomic issues, save Fair Share. Those issues included Promotion & Tenure; Termination & Discipline of Faculty; Nontenure-Track Faculty Classifications; Prescription Benefits; Work-Life Balance; and Prestigious Fellowships and Awards.

TAUP asked Temple administration’s team on August 3 what their response was to our July 27 proposal on Fair Share. Speaking for their team, University Counsel George Moore told us that they would discuss that in the context of the economic issues.

That is what we attempted to do. TAUP told the management team that we want to negotiate a package that includes all the issues, including fair share. Fair share is not the only remaining stumbling block to a deal. There are significant differences between the sides on economic issues, which we addressed at those bargaining sessions. (Read more about those differences below.)

TAUP never refused to negotiate the remaining economic issues. Our notes of the session on August 6 show that Art Hochner said, “We’re prepared to bridge all the differences.” He also objected to management’s efforts to reframe what he said and put words in his mouth. That session was halted by the state mediator.

Despite the implications of President Hart’s letter, TAUP consistently listened to and responded to every one of management’s concerns about fair share. But their current stance is simply to repeat the same old objections. On April 20, 2009, TAUP modified our fair share proposal, grandfathering out (excluding) all current nonmembers, covering only those newly entering the bargaining unit as of July 1, 2009. Our July 27 proposal dealt with all of management’s stated objections to fair share. Here is the actual wording:

D. Fair share fees

1.       All those who are currently in the TAUP bargaining unit or are on leave from the bargaining unit (i.e., paid, unpaid or administrative leave) will be exempt from being assessed any fair share fees.

2.       TAUP shall be authorized to collect a fair share fee, calculated in accordance with applicable law, from all those newly entering the bargaining unit as of or after July 1, 2009.

3.       Bargaining unit members who declare conscientious objection to the fair share fee, for any reason, shall be permitted to pay the equivalent of the fair share fee to any bona fide charity of their own choosing by payroll deduction through Temple. TAUP shall receive verification of such deductions.

4.       The provision calling for the 70% membership threshold will be deleted from the contract.

Management rejected any change to the fair share provision of the contract, stating that their position “respects individual choice by current and future faculty members, especially in recognition of our understanding that approximately 40 percent of dues collected go to the state and national AFT organizations for their use.” In fact, the figure is 31 percent.

TAUP’s July 27 proposal is a direct response. No individual would be required to pay fees to TAUP or to any of its affiliates. Individuals would have complete freedom of choice to donate the equivalent amount to any charity they choose. This goes well beyond the legal requirements.

Under the Pennsylvania Public Employee Fair Share Act, conscientious objection is required only for religious objections. Religious conscientious objectors are allowed to contribute the equivalent of the fair share fee only to a nonreligious charity that the union agrees to. Under TAUP’s proposal conscientious objection would apply to any reason, including not wanting to pay anything to the union or any affiliate. TAUP’s proposal respects individual choice. In addition, unlike the current language in the contract, no individual would be subject to paying fees to the union when the union achieves 70% membership. As of June 30, 2009, there were 811 TAUP members out of 1,280 in the bargaining unit, or 63.4%.

President Hart’s letter calls the charitable options a “forced” choice and claims it would not be tax deductible. TAUP’s legal counsel, both locally and nationally, says that these voluntary choices are tax deductible and finds no precedents for Pres. Hart’s claim. Temple management failed to provide us with any rulings or decisions by the IRS or the courts on this issue, despite the long history of fair share provisions under Pennsylvania law and the laws of other states.

TAUP’s proposal on fair share is a reasonable one, based on the back and forth between the parties. Temple management has shown no flexibility. The administration takes the position that fair share is non-negotiable, yet they accuse TAUP of intransigence on this issue.

President Hart mentioned the dire financial situation facing Pennsylvania and higher education. Fair share does not cost the University anything. It is an important issue to TAUP. Fair share not only strengthens the union, but it improves labor-management relations. Refusing to budge on it is a sign of disrespect. Almost every faculty union has fair share at universities in states that permit it, particularly in this section of the nation – including Rutgers, SUNY, CUNY, UMass, UConn, URI, UNH, UVT, UCincinnati, Kent State U, and the entire PA State System of Higher Education. TAUP is one of only three unions at Temple without fair share.

Because of the continued disagreement and impasse (both sides used this word to describe the state of affairs) on fair share, TAUP proposed a method for resolving the dispute. On August 6, we proposed to take this one issue to an independent arbitrator for a judgment. We believe this is a reasonable means to avoid further conflict and would clear the path to efforts to resolve the economic issues. We continue to believe that all issues should be resolved together, i.e., fair share in the context of the economic issues, as Mr. Moore put it across the table on August 3. Putting together a package of issues and proposals is very common in negotiation, especially as the two sides get closer to reaching a possible agreement. That is TAUP’s approach. It is disappointing that management would mischaracterize our actions and attack us.

Regarding economic issues, we have told management what our concerns are, emphasizing key points in our July 27 package.

Thus far, in negotiations we have been able to achieve agreement on these key points:

 

In addition, Temple management’s new proposals on some economic issues reflect movement toward TAUP’s stands.

Indeed, it is because of TAUP’s firm stances that we have achieved this much. Only by continuing to be reasonable and firm will we achieve more.

We do not understand why President Hart accuses TAUP of having “frustrated all of [her] efforts to advance negotiations.” Much progress has been made. We do not like many of Temple’s stances on the issues. But we are willing to negotiate on all issues. Temple Can Do Better.

 

--
TAUP
Temple Association of University Professionals
1900 N 13th Street
Barton Hall Room A231
Philadelphia, PA 19122-6013
Phone: 215.763.2287 or 215.204.7641
Fax: 215.204.7645
email: taupaft@aol.com
web site: www.taup.org
This message is from Temple Association of University Professionals (TAUP). If you received this communication in error, please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and delete the message or notify us immediately at (215) 763-2287

 

July 29, 2009

Contract Talks Continue

New Proposals Exchanged

Over the past two weeks, the TAUP and Temple negotiating teams have exchanged comprehensive sets of contract proposals covering all economic and noneconomic issues. There has been movement on both sides. Further face-to-face meetings are scheduled.

TAUP remains committed to reaching a fair and equitable contract.

July 2, 2009

Stop the Budget Cuts!

Thank you to all who have sent emails to the Governor, and your Senator, and Representative asking them to “Stop the Budget Cuts” in higher education. Governor Rendell has proposed budget cuts that have a direct effect on Temple University, the students and you! TAUP needs your help to send a message to Harrisburg protesting the cuts.

If you not had a chance to send the emails before now, there is still plenty of time to add your voice to the chorus of educators working in higher education.

Please click on the link below to make your voice heard NOW:

http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/taup

June 18, 2009

 

Hochner wrote that he is eager to meet with Mr. O'Connor so they can get to know each other and exchange ideas.

June 1, 2009

PROTEST TEMPLE ’S LAYOFFS

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3

NOON TO 1

 GATHER AT THE SOUTH SIDE OF RITTENHOUSE SQUARE

AT 19TH ST. INTERSECTION

Please join TAUP and AFSCME Local 1723 as we express our anger at last week’s cruel firing of a number of AFSCME employees. Temple's administration chose to implement its most nefarious union-busting action to date after most students and faculty were gone from the campus.

We will hold a protest rally near President Ann Weaver Hart's Temple-provided residence on the south side of Rittenhouse Square. Tell your colleagues, bring your friends.

Temple can do better!

FACT: Nineteen employees from the AFSCME local 1723 bargaining unit in the College of Liberal Arts and other campus locations were suddenly fired.

FACT: Dedicated employees were escorted out of their building by security guards, and locks to their offices were changed.

FACT: There was NO faculty input despite the impact on academic departments.

Read The Chronicle of Higher Education’s 5/29 coverage: http://chronicle.com/news/article/6558/faculty-members-and-union-protest-staff-layoffs-at-temple-u-as-cruel

 

May 29, 2009

They were informed that their jobs were being terminated. Some were told they could apply for newly classified positions outside AFSCME, but they were not guaranteed placement. According to information we have received, ten have lost their jobs completely. Long-term employees were escorted out of their building by security guards, and locks to their offices were changed. This is a heartless way, especially in the midst of a recession, to treat dedicated workers.

Is this the kind of treatment we expect from Temple? The decisions affect many departments, yet department chairs were apparently only informed about the decision. Despite the potential impacts on students and departmental functioning, there was a lack of faculty input and shared governance. Although this situation does not directly impact on TAUP’s contract, it affects staff who work closely with the faculty and facilitate their work and who deal with student concerns.

At a time that Temple is receiving federal stimulus funds – appropriated to help save jobs in this deep recession – we would like to know why long-term employees are treated so shabbily.

AFSCME is continuing to gather information about these actions. TAUP and AFSCME together call on Temple’s management to fulfill their contractual and legal obligations to their employees. We shall continue to keep you informed.

Temple Can Do Better.

May 11 , 2009

TAUP Proposes Binding Arbitration to Settle Contract

Today, May 11, in an effort to get a fair, impartial judgment on the remaining issues in negotiations, TAUP gave Temple’s management negotiators the following: 

TAUP proposes to submit all outstanding open negotiation issues – economics (pay and nontenure-track pensions); fair share; and duration - to binding arbitration.  All tentative agreements made thus far stand.  

It is apparent to TAUP that the two sides are not close to agreement on these issues.  We have been in negotiations for 11 months.  The morale of the entire Temple community is affected by the unsettled state of negotiations.  TAUP is willing to relinquish the decision to a neutral third party – for the benefit of the University community.

TAUP has made many efforts to achieve a reasonable settlement and has offered compromise proposals to reach a middle ground.  We believe at this point that the best option is to submit the remaining issues to binding arbitration.

Pennsylvania law permits the parties by mutual consent to request binding arbitration of contract disputes, but does not mandate it.

May 06 , 2009

Why Fair Share is Important to TAUP Members

A few members ask why we don’t just drop the fair share proposal.  Here are some basic points about why fair share is important for TAUP members.

• Fairness.  Some people (a large majority) pay for the services that benefit all.
• Services.  Nonmembers get lots of services that should not be taken for granted.
• Finances.  Union dues pay for vital activities; our costs are rising.
• Effectiveness.  We need more resources and staff.  The alternative is a dues increase, while fair share would most likely prevent an increase.
• Commonpractice.  It’s all but universal to have fair share – both at Temple and at other universities.
• Concessions.  TAUP has made a major move with our new proposal.  Temple management should do likewise.

Here are more details:

Fairness:  Some 830 people pay all the costs for the 1,300 people in the bargaining unit.  TAUP is required to represent and provide services to the rest for free.  It’s like being covered by an insurance policy that only some people pay the premium for.  Or it’s like receiving public services that only some people pay the taxes for.  That’s not fair.

Services nonmembers get:  The protections of a legally-binding agreement.  Pay and benefits that can’t be reduced unilaterally.  Tenure and promotion procedures that guarantee rights.  The availability of grievance and arbitration procedures to settle disputes instead of having to hire a lawyer out of one’s pocket.  And a host of other protections, benefits and services that are easy to take for granted.

Finances:  Our annual budget is fast approaching $600,000, funded by member dues.  Our expenses are rising.  We run a lean operation.  Our 3.5 person paid staff is overworked, with many extra hours and foregone vacation time.  They do a lot of work – supporting negotiations; processing grievances; answering questions; keeping records and accounts; writing and publishing Bulletins, e-Bulletins and webpage; supporting committees and officers; and so on.  TAUP also pays legal fees and the expenses of running an office.  Our leaders volunteer, taking time from their schedules and sacrificing both personal and research time to do union work.

Effectiveness: We need more resources and staff, or we won’t be effective enough to do all the tasks required of us.  It’s hard to conduct negotiations, pursue grievances and do all the other work simultaneously. Would our members prefer a dues increase or, with fair share, the likelihood of preventing that?

Fair share’s universality: Temple is one of a tiny minority (7) of unionized universities (about 170) that resists fair share for its faculty.  And 7 of 10 unions at Temple have fair share already.  Why are we treated differently?

Our new proposal for fair share only for new people is a major concession.  We call on Temple management to show similar willingness to compromise.

TAUP’s negotiating team appreciates the support of our members.  We need to stay patient, persistent, and united.  We are still talking with the management negotiating team.  Hopefully we can soon reach a settlement that is fair to all.

April 29, 2009

TAUP Makes Major Modification to Fair Share Proposal

TAUP has taken a bold step in hope of moving negotiations forward. On Tuesday, April 28, we formally presented Temple management’s negotiating team with a revised proposal on fair share (agency fee).

The new proposal grandfathers all current faculty, librarians and academic professionals who have not joined the TAUP. They would not be required to pay fair share fees. Under the proposed language, fair share fees would be assessed only on prospective bargaining unit members entering our ranks on or after July 1, 2009.

In addition, TAUP proposes to remove the 70% membership threshold from the contract. In the current contract, this threshold allows TAUP to collect fair share fees when its membership percentage reaches 70% as of November 1. At this time, TAUP membership stands at 64%.

The new proposal responds to management’s statements that they do not want those who have not chosen to join to have to pay fees to the union. TAUP honors that concern with this new proposal

In fact, anyone who is on leave from the bargaining unit currently, such as those on paid or unpaid leave and those who have taken administrative posts after having been in the unit, would also be exempt from fair share. Only new entrants into the bargaining unit would be covered.

TAUP believes that this is a reasonable, major concession that should lead to further progress on other noneconomic issues, as well as salary and benefit issues at the bargaining table.

The full text of the proposal follows:

Regarding Article 7 – Deduction of Dues

 TAUP proposes to modify its proposal on Fair Share (agency fee) to take account of the stated concerns of Temple administration by exempting all current bargaining unit members from fair share.

 TAUP proposes that:

  All those who are currently in the TAUP bargaining unit or are on leave from the bargaining unit (i.e., paid, unpaid or administrative leave) will be exempt from being assessed any fair share fees.

For further information about fair share, look at the e-Bulletin of December 11, 2008 (http://www.taup.org/TAUPWEB2008/2008-Bulletins/e-Bulletin20081211 Facts about fair share (agency fee) for TAUP.pdf)

 

April 27, 2009

What's keeping us from a contract settlement?

Some of our members apparently have gotten the impression that the Fair Share (agency fee) issue is holding up contract negotiations. Get rid of the fair share proposal and we would have a settlement quickly, they maintain.

That notion is incorrect. There are many issues holding up a settlement, fair share being only one of them. TAUP has been honest and upfront about what's separating us and Temple management. Key obstacles to an agreement at this point include:
· Across-the-board raises;
· Merit pay vs. "pay for performance";
· Increased compensation procedures and guidelines;
· Promotion raises;
· Fair treatment for NTTs, especially salary minimums for the lowest ranks, evaluation procedures and pension parity;
· Independent peer review of tenure and promotion and of sabbatical proposals;
· Fair raises for librarians and academic professionals; and
· Fair share.

Pay issues are not just about the amount of the pay increase, but also about how pay increases are granted. Those who wanted TAUP to agree to management's proposals in fall 2008 may have been thinking about the sum totals and not about how the components were structured.

Our economic proposals are reasonable. Basically, TAUP wants a decent cost-of-living raise for everyone and transparent, agreed-upon merit and increased compensation procedures that emphasize excellence. Management wants much greater discretion to determine individual pay increases and would provide only minimal raises for all.

Management wants to use a new "pay for performance" system that substitutes for merit pay. TAUP proposes to keep and improve the current merit system. Pay for performance would use a yet-to-be-defined criterion of "satisfactory" performance and a less developed procedure in place of the current procedure and standards of "exceptional" and "outstanding" performance for merit pay. TAUP is not against pay for performance, but we can't agree on criteria that we haven’t seen and don't understand.

Management wants total discretion to give raises to individuals under the increased compensation language of the contract. TAUP accepts that management should be able to increase individual salaries beyond what is mandated. However, TAUP wants a regular, defined set of procedures and guidelines for individuals to apply for increased compensation. Raises from increased compensation would address a variety of situations, including salary compression and pay equity. TAUP also wants a significant raise for promotion; management wants to keep it as it is.

So-called noneconomic issues are quite important too, including fair share. Again, our proposals are reasonable. Peer review of decisions through independent faculty committees is an important academic principle. TAUP believes that peer review should operate not only in departmental and collegial tenure and promotion procedures but also in the University Tenure and Promotion Advisory Committee and in the University Study Leave (or Sabbatical) Committee.

All of the economic and noneconomic issues outlined here are very important. That is why fair share is not the only issue keeping TAUP and Temple management from agreeing on a contract. TAUP is working very hard to assure that we negotiate an agreement that addresses all these key issues. Compromise and concession are necessary parts of the collective bargaining process, but unilateral concessions are not a good recipe for achieving a fair contract. Negotiation requires mutual sacrifices in order to achieve mutual gains. Both sides are still talking and seeking agreement. We have confidence that we will get a good contract if we practice patience and persistence.

 

 

 

April 17, 2009

Dear Colleague,

Let me make a personal appeal to you.  Please attend the rally on Monday, April 20 from 3:15 to 4:30.  I know it’s an extremely busy time for you.  I know the feeling that one more person attending won’t make a difference.  But, it is time to stand up and be counted, literally!  With the spring semester winding down and no contract agreement in sight, this is your chance to make your voice heard.  Every voice counts.  Even if you can come only for a short time, it counts.  You can count on me to work for all our interests.  I count on your support, too.

We all need to stand together to show Temple’s administration that the women and men who make up the core of our University are not happy.  After welcoming President Ann Weaver Hart with open arms, faculty and staff are confused by the hardball negotiations that she has directed, especially after coming to Temple exuding confidence in a new era of cooperation between management and TAUP.

Join us at our rally to demonstrate to President Hart that we want nothing more than respect and a fair contract.  Let’s all tell her that Temple can do better.

Sincerely,
Art Hochner
TAUP President

 

Monday
April 20, 2009
3:15 – 4:30
Alter Hall, Temple Campus
(Montgomery Ave, between Broad St. and 13th St.
on Temple’s Liacouras Walk )
 
Guest Speakers:
Randi Weingarten
President,
American Federation of Teachers
Jewell Williams
State Representative (D) District 197

TEMPLE CAN DO BETTER

 

April 10, 2009

This morning, April 10, Temple management engaged in direct dealing by making public a contract proposal without discussing it with TAUP negotiators.  TAUP received the proposal by email in the evening of April 8.   No attempt was made by management, either directly or through the mediator, to set up a bargaining session with the TAUP negotiating team before releasing the proposal.

Direct dealing is a form of bad-faith bargaining and can be considered a form of union busting.  It takes place when management goes around the union’s chosen negotiators and goes directly to members of the bargaining unit to make proposals and advocate them.  This violates the union's legal role as the exclusive representative of the bargaining unit.  Moreover, it undermines the bargaining process.

The Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board accepted TAUP’s charge, filed in November 2008, against Temple for several other instances of direct dealing.  The PLRB is currently hearing testimony on those charges.  The hearing began on April 2 and will continue on April 27.

TAUP and management negotiators agreed in early March to conduct talks through the mediator and explore the issues informally.  This is an accepted practice routinely used in contract negotiations to find mutually acceptable modifications to proposals before formalizing them.    Management communicated an offer informally and verbally through the mediator, as did TAUP subsequently on March 13.  Temple has not responded to TAUP's offer.

Temple management not only dealt directly by this latest communication, but by going public they unilaterally broke the agreement to conduct informal talks.  Ironically, TAUP and management had just agreed to further ongoing talks through the mediator.   Advance notice to the union before making their proposal official and public would have been normal protocol in negotiations.

Substantively, the proposal they sent out on email today is still for a 5-year deal.  There is no sense to 5 years, and the membership is firmly opposed to it, given the uncertain economy, especially since the federal stimulus funds, and therefore Temple ’s subsidy from the state, are only guaranteed for two years.

Come and discuss these new developments with TAUP negotiators:
TAUP Bargaining Unit Meeting
Tuesday, April 14
2:30 to 5:00
Walk Auditorium, Ritter Hall.

 

 

April 9, 2009

TAUP, Management and Temple University's direction

But is a dispute over money the major obstacle to concluding contract negotiations?  

 

No. This contract negotiation is not just about money.   It’s about the relationship between the administration and the faculty and staff.   TAUP is not about to sacrifice shared governance for an undefined “pay for performance” system that comes out of a top-down business model.

TAUP proposals protect shared governance in promotion and tenure, merit pay, and the sabbatical process, and ensure faculty participation and peer review in the critical aspects of the university’s mission: education. 

Help us decide how to achieve a contract that will foster shared governance, and continue to raise the bar at Temple.

 

Meeting of Bargaining Unit Members

Tuesday, April 14th

2:30-5:00

Walk Auditorium, Ritter Hall

 

Also - don’t forget:

Rally outside Alter Hall

Monday

April 20, 2009

3:15–4:30

Special Guest Speaker – Randi Weingarten

President, American Federation of Teachers

 

April 6, 2009

April 3, 2009

TAUP Rally
Alter Hall
Monday – April 20^th
3:15 to 4:30

TAUP will hold a rally outside Alter Hall on Monday, April 20, from 3:15 – 4:30.  Your attendance is vital to delivering a strong message to President Hart and her administration that we want a fair contract now.

 

The rally is an opportunity:

To protest that we do not want a university run from the top down.

To emphasize that President Hart is risking loss of the faculty's goodwill.

To alert President Hart that the continued deterioration of faculty-administration relations has an impact on the university.

To take exception to the  university's lack of transparency about its real financial condition.

To demonstrate your support of the TAUP negotiating team directly to management.

 

April 20 is the date for the ribbon cutting for the dedication of Alter Hall, new home of the Fox School of Business and Management.  President Hart, Trustees and many other administrators will attend.

 

The larger the turnout, the stronger the message!

Put April 20 on your calendar!  Be there!

 

OUR MESSAGE TO PRESIDENT HART:

TEMPLE CAN DO BETTER!

Temple will finally have to answer to charges of anti-union tactics in negotiations when TAUP get its "day in court" today, April 2. The Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (PLRB) will hold a hearing regarding TAUP’s charge against Temple of engaging in unfair labor practices (ULP) for direct dealing in numerous communications with members of our bargaining unit, in violation of state labor law.

 

TAUP filed the ULP in November in response to misrepresentations of negotiations, denigration of TAUP and false statements made in the Temple Times of October 13 and other communications directed at faculty and staff.  Later, as the University sent more emails and posted more misinformation, TAUP filed amended charges. The PLRB issued a complaint and scheduled a hearing.

 

TAUP and Temple are now in the tenth month of negotiations, the longest period without a contract in our 36 years of bargaining.  President Ann Weaver Hart delegated management’s negotiations to a firm that advertises its “union avoidance” expertise.  Just like in the Adamany days, this has resulted in the University’s implementing, not just hardball tactics at the bargaining table, but also an array of anti-union tactics.  Direct dealing with bargaining unit members, distorting and denigrating the union’s positions are illegal under Pennsylvania labor law.  Temple has been found guilty of unfair labor practices in the past.

 

TAUP remains confident that we can reach a fair settlement, but President Hart has to be willing to negotiate fairly.  Tricks and tactics from the union-busters handbook should not be employed.  Temple management should stop impeding the process of negotiations by engaging in unfair labor practices.

 

Our goal is a contract—President Hart should quit using University resources to pay for “union avoidance” strategies.  Those funds could be spent more wisely on salaries for the employees who fulfill Temple’s educational mission.

 

Temple can do better.

April 1, 2009

Meeting of Bargaining Unit Members, Tuesday, April 14th

We have now been almost six months without a contract.  The academic year is rapidly drawing to a close.

• Where are we in negotiations?
• Do you know what TAUP has actually proposed as a fair contract? 
• Do you know the implications of the administration’s last formal proposal?
• Do you know what you need to do to help get a reasonable contract?

It is vitally important that you attend the meeting for TAUP bargaining unit members on Tuesday, April 14^th from 2:30 to 5:00, in Walk Auditorium, Ritter Hall.  

Please put this on your calendar now and make every effort to attend. We want to answer the questions posed above, listen to what you have to say, and discuss:

• Why is the administration playing such hardball in negotiations?
• What actions must we take to get an acceptable contract?
• How can we support the Negotiating Team?
• What kind of environment do you want to work in?
• What is Temple’s true financial position?
• Where is President Hart in the negotiations?

Or, you might want to tell us:

• If your workload is being increased
• If colleagues are leaving for other universities
• If you want salary increases to be determined only by your dean
• If you want genuine shared governance
• If you want a strong union

See you at the meeting.

Art Hochner, TAUP President

 

March 26, 2009

March 24, 2009

Temple Can Do Better on Full-Year Sabbaticals

At many universities, to encourage research productivity, the percentage of salaries paid for full-year sabbaticals is high. For example, at Rutgers it is 80%. At Temple, such percentage was 50% (or less) for many years. In the last few years, as a result of TAUP's contract negotiations, this percentage grew to 65%.

TAUP believes, however, despite our success on this issue in the 2004-05 contract negotiations, that this percentage is still too low, and many faculty with strong research and creativity programs are unable to afford the full-year leaves. In order to get closer to what is needed, TAUP has put on the bargaining table a proposal that raises this percentage to 70%. It is a modest proposal, but it is forward-looking.

As a matter of fact, its cost to the University would be small. Had this 5% differential been in effect in 2008-09, the total additional cost to Temple would have been $145,800 (including Social Security and pension contributions). This is less than one-sixth of one percent of the total of base salaries.

Why doesn't Temple administration agree to TAUP's full-year sabbatical proposal in the negotiations? While our proposal is modest and inexpensive, it would emphasize excellence and show Temple's commitment to its research and creative faculty.

Temple can do better.

 

March 23, 2009

Increased Campus Visits: More Good News for Temple Finances

 

March 18, 2009

Temple Management Should Make Finances Open & Transparent

Temple management continually bangs the drum of bad financial news and cutbacks at other universities rather than speak specifically and openly about its own financial situation. When they do speak about their finances, they seem to put the worst possible face on things, such as lamenting the federal stimulus fund's restoration of cuts in state appropriations as a “one-time, stop-gap measure” instead of celebrating.

 

It’s time for the University to respond to TAUP’s calls for it to reveal the actual up-to-date state of Temple’s finances and their detailed projections for the future. This week's Temple News has an ad exposing Temple's financial shell game. You can find it at http://www.taup.org or download it directly at http://www.taup.org/TAUPWEB2009/TAUPAdShellGame20090317.pdf

 

First: what are the actual revenues to date? We know, of course, that investment income is down and that Governor Rendell made cuts in state appropriations this year of $10.5 million. (By the way, this figure comes directly from the Governor's website. Temple management claims that the state cuts total $11.4 million, yet they have not explained where the additional $900 thousand was cut.)

 

Tuition revenue, Temple’s main funding for education, has been increasing for years - by 125% from 1998 to 2008. Is tuition revenue this year greater or lower than expected? What about revenues from grants and contracts? There is every indication in the news, and even in the Temple Times, that enrollments (hence, tuition revenue) are strong and will remain so in the future. What's the full picture?

Second: what is the current picture on expenditures? We know that there is a hiring freeze and a travel freeze - though both are flexible when it comes to faculty. President Ann Weaver Hart has called for a $40 million cut in operating expenses for next year. Three-quarters of that cut is expected to come from the Provost's portfolio, but the administration has not explained why.

Meanwhile, management continues to pay for outside consultants and lawyers. For instance, in addition to using in-house negotiators, they are spending a great deal (how much? - Temple won’t say) on the services of a Ballard Spahr attorney to lead the team.

There does seem to be one place where Temple management feels they can save money. In contract negotiations management continues to propose a total freeze on wages for next year and vanishingly small pay increases thereafter.

TAUP is bringing these questions to the attention of students, parents and the wider public. The education of our students and the livelihoods of our faculty, librarians and academic professionals are at stake.

Temple can do better.

March 17, 2009

Temple Can Do Better on Promotion Raises

Promotions in rank for faculty and librarians usually take place only twice, maybe three times, in an entire career. Tenure or promotion is earned after many years of hard work and considerable effort. You only receive it if you have excelled in your profession.

At many universities, salary increases at promotion are considerable, in recognition of this achievement.  For example at UPenn the promotion raise is 15% of base salary. At Temple, such increases were limited to 5% for many years. In the last eight years, as a result of TAUP’s long years of effort in contract negotiations to boost it, the raise for promotion in rank grew to 7%.

TAUP believes, however, despite our success on this issue in the 2000-04 contract, that this promotion raise is still inadequate. In order to get closer to what is deserved, TAUP has put on the bargaining table a proposal that salary increases for promotions go up to 10%.  It is a modest proposal, but it is forward looking.

As a matter of fact, its cost to the University would be small. Had this 3% differential been in effect in 2008-09, the total additional cost to Temple would have been $107,300 (equal to about 0.1%, i.e., one-tenth of one percent, of the total of base salaries).

Why doesn’t Temple administration agree to TAUP’s promotion proposal in the negotiations? While our proposal is modest and inexpensive, it would emphasize excellence and show Temple's commitment to its faculty and librarians.

Temple can do better.

March 16, 2009

March 12 , 2009

TAUP/Temple Contract Talks Continue

Faculty and students are enjoying spring break while TAUP continues to work toward a fair contract settlement with Temple University. Talks between TAUP and Temple management have been ongoing through the state mediator.

Temple's financial condition is strong enough to provide decent raises. Its revenues from tuition have been increasing over the last several years, and the federal stimulus package restores state funding levels. We are confident that a fair agreement can be reached soon.

TAUP appreciates the support of the faculty, librarians, academic professionals, students, parents, alumni and general public, and will continue to keep everyone informed of our progress on our website (www.taup.org).

 

February 18, 2009

About Increased Compensation Funds

Last week we said that Temple management had announced a pool of $852,000 to increase the salaries of some faculty.  We urged Temple to disburse the funds.

 

Some faculty had been asking about the funds and thought we might be blocking them.  Since then, we’ve gotten a few more inquiries asking for further information.

 

According to Temple management, the administration commissioned an outside firm to conduct a study on pay equity. As far back as February 2007, the Faculty Senate’s Committee on the Status of Women and the Committee on the Status of Faculty of Color had urged them to study pay equity. Temple management did not report their methodology, results, or even the fact they were conducting a study, to these committees.  We have heard that management told a number of individuals (we don’t know how many) in summer 2008 that they were slated for a pay increase from these funds.  At that time in negotiations, management made no mention to TAUP of the study or of their plan to make these increased compensation awards.  

 

Temple management announced this fund and the study at the bargaining table in October, just prior to the contract’s expiration of October 15.  We asked about the study; they said they wouldn’t share it with us.  Of course, they didn’t share the names of individuals whose salaries they want to raise. They apparently decided that they would hold these funds hostage to the negotiations.

 

Temple management has insisted that this pool of money is part of their bargaining proposal and that TAUP should agree to the amount and to the distribution they have unilaterally determined.  Some faculty have been given the impression by management that TAUP is blocking these funds by not agreeing.

 

That is not the case.  The University already has the right to raise anyone’s salary under the terms of the contract that we are still working with.  Specifically Article 20, Paragraph C(1)d states, “Nothing in this contract shall preclude Temple from making additional compensation awards to members of the bargaining unit when Temple deems such additional awards to be in the best interest of the University; and such additional awards shall not be subject to grievance or arbitration.”

 

TAUP has not at any time blocked distribution of these funds.  We are simply asking management to disburse the funds that they want to spend, for reasons only they know about.  Temple management is trying to use these funds as a wedge in negotiations – and as a way of saying that they can’t afford a decent raise for everyone.

 

TAUP says that management can give out these raises without having to negotiate with TAUP.  We do not have to approve the amount or the distribution methods.  Management has all the power it needs right now to give out the raises.

 

February 13, 2009

 

In October, 2008, Temple management announced that they had created a pool of $852,000 to increase the base salaries of about 140 faculty members who were identified to have had their salaries lag behind their peers.

 

Under the current TAUP/TU contract, management has the right to increase member salaries at any time.

 

TAUP sees no obstacle to immediate implementation of these increases and urges Temple to distribute the funds without delay.

 

______________________________________________________

February 12, 2009

Today, Thursday, February 12, Temple management rejected TAUP’s innovative two-year proposal of February 3.   Their offer today sticks with a contract of five-years, as they proposed on January 21. 

 

In addition, their increases for across-the-board and merit/pay-for-performance remain the same, with one modification.  Temple management has included possible additional salary increases in the 4^th and 5^th years which would be tied to improvements in the national Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

 

The GDP measures the national economy’s strength.  It has nothing to do with Temple’s finances.  Temple finances have, in fact, been improving at the same time that the GDP has been declining. (click here to view chart)

 

In all other essentials, Temple management’s proposal is the same as what they gave the union in January.  There is a small difference because they filled in details on salary minima, overload pay, and summer research awards.

 

On February 3, TAUP proposed a two year deal that would focus on salary increases for the lowest paid and most vulnerable bargaining unit members, but would also provide a reasonable raise for everybody.  The union’s plan additionally includes merit increases, even if there has to be a salary freeze. 

 

TAUP remains committed to reaching a fair contract.

_______________________________________________________________

 

In October, 2008, Temple management announced that they had created a pool of $852,000 to increase the base salaries of about 140 faculty members who were identified to have had their salaries lag behind their peers.

 

Under the current TAUP/TU contract, management has the right to increase member salaries at any time.

 

TAUP sees no obstacle to immediate implementation of these increases and urges Temple to distribute the funds without delay.

_____________________________________________________________

Labor unions asked to withhold Temple donations

The following article appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer on Friday, February 6:

The Philadelphia Council of the AFL-CIO has asked its 120 member unions to withhold all donations to Temple University until contracts with two of its major unions are settled.

 

“Allowing a situation to deteriorate to such a point that you have workers working without a new contract for well over a year is in contrast to the reputation of Temple as a place for working families,” council president
Patrick Eiding wrote last month to Daniel H. Polett, chairman of Temple’s board of trustees.

The contract with the Temple Association of University Professionals, which represents about 1,250 faculty members, expired Oct. 15. The contract with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, which represents about 700 nonfaculty professional and technical employees, expired more than a year ago.

A Temple spokesman declined to comment last night.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Today, February 3, TAUP presented an innovative 2-year proposal to Temple management’s negotiating team.

 

·        Each bargaining unit member would receive a raise of $2100 to base salary, retroactive to July 1, 2008.

·        For 2009-10, the raise would be contingent on the restoration of state budget cuts.

·        Each of the 2 years, a merit pool of 1% of base salaries.  (If budget cuts are restored, the merit pool would be larger.)

·        We are willing to share in the sacrifices needed.

·        We propose collaboration through a joint committee to explore ways to reduce expenditures while preserving academic quality.    

·        Other issues, including e.g., salary minima, pensions for NTTs, sabbaticals, are detailed on the TAUP web site (click here to view).

 

At the bargaining table, Chief Negotiator Art Hochner read an opening statement.  You can read it in its entirety on the TAUP web site (click here to view).

 

TAUP continues to observe that Temple University maintains strong finances; nevertheless, our students, faculty and staff are not immune to the outside environment.  Our goals are modest but significant.  These proposals are put forth as a package.  The package comprehensively covers all outstanding issues, though we note that Temple’s last proposal was incomplete. We expect a detailed response and we look forward to reaching a mutually agreeable settlement.

__________________________________________________________________

 

January 21, 2009

Management's Regressive Proposal

PLRB Issues Complaint on Temple's Direct Dealing

____________________________________________________________

Management's Regressive Proposal

TAUP and Temple negotiators met Wednesday, January 21, to discuss Temple's new, diminished economic proposal. Temple calls for a 5-year deal, even lower than their previous 4-year pay package. Some details: Year 1: 2% across-the-board raise (ATB) + 1% merit; year 2: 0% ATB + 0% merit; and years 3, 4 and 5: 1% ATB + 1% pay-for-performance (PFP).

There are a few other details, including funds for increased compensation to be decided unilaterally by administrators. However, Temple had no proposals on raising salary minima (which primarily affects NTTs), overload compensation, or summer research awards. They do not offer to increase sabbatical pay for a one-year leave. They refuse to increase employer contributions to NTT pensions, or to move on Fair Share (though it costs management nothing). Nor do they mention remaining noneconomic issues, such as NTT appointments and tenure & promotion procedures.

At the negotiating session we appealed to Temple management to adopt the collaborative and problem-solving principles that TAUP advocated at the start of negotiations back in June. TAUP's Negotiating Team continues to work toward a contract that includes a fair across-the-board increase along with improvements in shared governance, sabbaticals, fair share and nontenure-track appointments.

Come to the TAUP meeting on Tuesday, January 27, 2009, in KIVA Auditorium from 2:30 to 6 to learn more about the proposal, to hear the TAUP Negotiating Team's reactions and to discuss what to do to achieve a fair contract.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

December 10, 2008

 

Governor cuts less than Temple projected

No response yet to TAUP’s package proposal

11. Temple : To keep fixed costs low, the university must be prudent.  They estimate that their proposals would increase our compensation by 18.03% compared to TAUP proposal’s 24.06%.  

___________________________________

November 20, 2008

Talks Continue

No formal contract talks between TAUP and Temple management are scheduled until after Thanksgiving. This is subject to change if the situation warrants. On December 2 there will be a meeting between the full teams at which Chief Financial Officer Anthony Wagner will discuss the financial data that the union has presented both to management and the bargaining unit members. (See the November 17 and 18 TAUP Bulletins) TAUP will bring its expert budget analyst, Jewell Gould, Director of the American Federation of Teachers Department of Research and Informational Services.

______________________________________________

November 10, 2008

Support TAUP's Goals: Sign the Petition

TAUP–Temple management negotiations that began in June have been continuing since the contract expired on October 15.  With the 30-day contract extension, TAUP is working toward an agreement by November 14.  We are meeting directly with the management team and indirectly through the state mediator.  So far, several important issues are close to resolution.  On the other hand, the two sides are still far apart on 1) salaries and merit; 2) sabbaticals: 3) fair share; 4) benefits; and 5) peer review involving promotion and tenure, merit pay, and sabbaticals.

 

What separates TAUP from Temple management?

 

Salaries:

TAUP

7/1/08 – 4% across-the-board (ATB) raise for all: 1% merit pool; 10% raise for promotion in rank; substantial increases salary minima, in summer and overload pay; $100,000 pool for increased compensation; pool for salary compression.

7/1/09 – 4% ATB; 1.5% merit; increases in minima, summer and overload, $100,000 pool for increased compensation; pool for salary compression.

7/1/10 – 4% ATB; 1.5% merit; increases in minima, summer and overload, $100,000 pool for increased compensation; pool for salary compression.

7/1/11 – 4% ATB; 2% merit; increases in minima, summer and overload, $100,000 pool for increased compensation; pool for salary compression.

Temple

7/1/08 - 2% ATB: 1% pay for performance (PFP); 0.75% bonus (not to base salary); no increases in minima; $852,000 pool for increased compensation effective 6/30/09

7/1/09 - 2% ATB: 1% PFP; 0.75% bonus; $50 increase in per credit summer pay; $150,000 pool for increased compensation effective 6/30/10

7/1/10 - 2% ATB: 1.5% PFP; 0.25% bonus; $50 increase in per credit summer pay; $150,000 pool for increased compensation effective 6/30/11

7/1/11 – 1.75% ATB: 2% PFP; no bonus; $50 increase in per credit summer pay

 

Merit vs Pay-for-performance:

TAUP – continue the current merit pay system, strengthening faculty control of decision process, raise units to $800 for faculty ($500 for Librarians & APs), with ½ units possible after the 1^st one; agree to explore with management a possible transition to a pay for performance system.

Temple – switch to yet-to-be-defined pay for performance (PFP) system; year 1 use current merit and tenure & promotion guidelines for evaluating performance for 2007-08, with $600 units, but eliminate required college merit committees; year 2 use current guidelines for evaluating performance for 2008-09, with $250 units; Provost establishes by 9/1/09 new PFP guidelines used to evaluate activities performed during 2009-10 and 2010-11 years; $250 units for final 2 years.

 

Sabbaticals:

TAUP – establish a true sabbatical system; no quotas, with faculty receiving leave every 7 years, providing they have submitted a reasonable proposal.

Temple – re-label study leaves as “sabbaticals;” retain current quota system where faculty compete with one another for a limited number of leaves.

 

Fair Share

TAUP – a reasonable fair share policy that shows that Temple management wants to work respectfully and cooperatively with the union.

Temple – opposes fair share, although it costs them nothing.

 

Peer review

TAUP – University Tenure and Promotion Advisory Committee should comprise only faculty.  Both parties agree to restore Council of Deans to process easier cases.  Keep the merit system with peer review at both the departmental and collegial levels.  Have true peer review on the sabbatical review committee.

Temple – have administrators on the UTPAC and on the study leave committee.  Pay for performance calls for only optional faculty review at the collegial level.

 

Benefits

TAUP – no increase in shared health premium costs; significant increase in NTT pension contributions

Temple – increase shared health premium when Temple raises it for management employees; no proposal on pensions

 

 

What has TAUP accomplished at the bargaining table?

 

Diversity – joint TAUP-Temple committee to discuss diversity issues

Promotion & tenure – revisions in procedures; expedited procedure for tenure upon hire.

Discipline & dismissal – new procedures involving mediation step; reduction in suspension without pay; define “insubordination” as not including “vigorous and respectful debate and disagreement.”

Renewal and nonrenewal of appointments – at least 2 months notice of renewal for NTTs

NTT appointments, procedures and promotions – trying to reach agreement on a degree of job security and guarantees of multi-year appointments plus fair procedures

Chairs – remain in the bargaining unit

Work-Life Balance – flexibility in teaching assignments for both tenured, tenure-track and NTT faculty for arrival to one’s household of a new child 5 years old or younger.

Librarians – no fixed-term librarian track; establish joint union-management committee to discuss guidelines for librarian evaluation and promotion.

New employees – Temple will provide more cooperation to TAUP in contacting and meeting with new employees.

 

We need your support and understanding of the vital issues so that we can quickly reach a fair, equitable and timely settlement.

___________________________________________

October 30, 2008

Fair Share - An Important Issue

In contract negotiations TAUP has made it clear that fair share is an essential part of a fair and equitable collective bargaining agreement. A number of legal rulings uphold fair share, including the US Supreme Court’s case Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977 ), which explains its necessity succinctly :

“The designation of a union as exclusive representative carries with it great responsibilities. The tasks of negotiating and administering a collective-bargaining agreement and representing the interests of employees in settling disputes and processing grievances are continuing and difficult ones. They often entail expenditure of much time and money. The services of lawyers, expert negotiators, and a research staff, as well as general administrative personnel, may be required. Moreover, in carrying out the duties, the union is obliged ‘fairly and equitably to represent all employees … union and nonunion,’ within the relevant unit. ... [a fare share arrangement] has been thought to distribute fairly the cost of the activities among those who benefit, and it counteracts the incentive that employees might otherwise have to become ‘free riders’ to refuse to contribute to the union while obtaining benefits of union representation that necessarily accrue to all employees.”

All unionized colleges and universities in this area have fair share. It allows everyone in the bargaining unit to shoulder his or her share of the cost of negotiating and administering the contract that provides salary increases, benefits and protection to all. Fair share costs the university nothing. Why won’t Temple management agree?

_____________________________________________

TAUP’s negotiating team met with Temple management’s team all day Monday, October 27.  We are still far apart on economic issues – particularly, pay and benefits – and on some noneconomic ones.

 

We are nearing agreement, however, on a variety of noneconomic issues, such as diversity, nontenure-track renewal and nonrenewal, librarians, and copyright policy.  In addition, having gotten management to take off the table their proposal to remove chairs from the bargaining unit, TAUP withdrew our proposal to change procedures for selection and removal of chairs.  This leaves the current contract language on chairs in place. 

Temple’s team also announced to TAUP at the table an $852,000 fund to raise salaries of about 140 of the almost 1,300 faculty.  The fund is in accordance with current contract language funding an annual minimum of $100,000 to encourage increased compensation.  They declined to share the internal statistical study giving the rationale for this distribution.  The study was initiated in response to the report given in February 2007 to President Ann Hart and to the Senate by the Faculty Senate’s Committee on the Status of Women.

 

Meetings between representatives of the negotiating teams contin

____________________________________________________