In response to events in December of 2006, the EMU-AAUP put together this document in preparation for a meeting with the administration on 4 January 2006.

AGENDA AND FRAMEWORK, EMU-AAUP

1. AAUP reconstituted Negotiating Team [more details here]

2. Breach of Confidentiality Agreement [background here]

A. Given the extensive discussions in our last meeting about confidentiality and its importance to the negotiating process, and given the EMU-AAUP’s willingness to return to the table to discuss the offer, there was no need for the administration’s unilateral decision to release the confidential offer before further discussion with the AAUP about the status of confidentiality.

B. This action by the administration has undercut the ability of the two sides to rebuild trust and placed a further strain on goodwill.

C. Going forward, we assume the confidentiality agreement worked out last session is no longer valid and we do not believe another one can be negotiated in good faith. We agree that both parties should be able to exchange settlement proposals that will not be used in fact-finding, but do not expect or promise additional confidentiality with respect to anything written that is exchanged at the table.

3. AAUP Response to administration’s December proposal: A Framework for a Contract

Principle 1: We will analyze contract offers in terms of across-the-board wage increases plus retirement contribution minus health care to reach a net offer. While an average net increase per year is an important benchmark, an offer that is front-loaded with costs and/or back-loaded with compensation is not beneficial to faculty and will affect EMU’s ability to attract new faculty.

a) All increases in wages should go to base salary, and pay should be retroactive. Other settlements are not in the interests of faculty and create additional problems with salary compression, inversion and recruiting new faculty members.

b) Health care premiums will not be applied to first year faculty in their first year of employment. They negotiated their starting salary based on benefits information showing no premiums and the administration should keep that promise.

c) Premiums that are flat-dollar amounts affect those faculty members making the least money, so the total raise in year 1 should include flat-dollar amounts equal to or greater than any proposed premium. Subsequent year raises should include a flat amount equal to or greater than the absolute dollar amount of the increase in the premium.

Principle 2: The EMU-AAUP has already proposed a radical restructuring of health care, as evidenced below:

a) In 2004, the M-Care HMO was eliminated pursuant to our collective bargaining agreement

b) In this contract we have proposed to eliminate the Care Choices HMO at the end of the contract.

c) In this contract we have proposed to the modification of the Community Blue Plan to include deductibles and co-insurance (now called PPO-1) as proposed by the administration.

d) In this contract we have proposed to pay premiums on all the other health care plans, with higher premiums on the plans that cost EMU more money, and with increases in premiums on all plans for each year of the contract.

e) In this contract we have proposed to increase the prescription drug costs for the Traditional plan and PPO to a $10/20/30 payment that costs faculty more money out of pocket.

f) In this contract we have proposed to increase the costs of mail order prescription drugs as well.

Given these proposed concessions, and the spirit of cooperation we have shown in restructuring health care for the future, the EMU-AAUP expects the level of premiums to reflect this compromise:

a) The high premiums the administration is also demanding for the first year are unreasonable and adversely affect the ability to create a net contract that is fair to faculty. We continue to believe that such premiums should be phased in, especially considering the additional out of pocket expenses for prescription drugs and in recognition of how removing health care premiums on a pre-tax basis saves the administration money by avoiding payroll tax.

b) The final report of the 2004-05 Health Care Task Force specifically described the need to create a wellness program to control health care costs, and it clearly states that employee cost-sharing "...should be considered only as a last resort after the other strategies" (emphasis added). Faculty should not be asked to bear increased costs when the administration fails to take basic steps to control health care costs that are well documented to save money and are in everyone’s best long-term interests.

c) High premiums in early years of the contract will make EMU less attractive to potential new faculty.

Principle 3: Increases in promotion increments are necessary to reward faculty who have excelled and to continue to attract high-quality faculty who commit to EMU for the long term.

Principle 4: An increase in the administration’s contribution to the TIAA-CREF retirement program is necessary.

a) Many earlier proposals from the administration included this as a component, although it was dropped from the final proposal.

b) Both sides agree that a 1% increase in the administration’s contribution costs less than 1% across the board (no taxes or retirement contribution on the increased retirement contribution), so this is a cost effective way to create a fair contract.

Principle 5: A phased retirement plan with faculty replacement is good for the University.

a) This general idea was contained in administration proposals from 2004, and has been included in several proposals late into this negotiation as well.

b) New faculty members bring new energy, research ideas, and technological advances into the classrooms and laboratories of EMU.

c) New faculty salaries are much lower than retiring faculty salaries.

d) New faculty members are generally healthier than retiring faculty.

e) The replacement of faculty exiting through the phased retirement program can be in any department or program, allowing the Administration to hire faculty in strategically important areas of the University. The administration is still not obligated to replace other retiring faculty or other departing faculty, thus giving them considerable flexibility in staffing levels.

Principle 6: We remain open to the possibility of a contract longer than 3 years if it takes into account additional considerations:

a) Compression and inversion remain significant issues. Significant work was completed by the Joint Salary Task Force created in 2004 and its recommendations have not been implemented. Longer term contracts should

i. Include money for salary differential

ii. Have higher promotion increments than the last AAUP three year contract proposal

iii. Have a higher rate for CE overload pay than the last AAUP three year contract proposal

b) The 10% per year increase in health care premiums needs especially careful reexamination for longer periods in light of the administration’s refusal to develop a wellness plan. The final report of the 2004-05 Health Care Task Force mentioned wellness 22 times in 14 pages (and the AAUP’s health care presentation of 31 July 2006 also advocated a wellness program). This task force was Chaired by the Director of Benefits and included a consultant selected by the administration.

i. Faculty should not be asked to bear significantly increasing costs on an ongoing basis when the administration continues to refuse basic steps to control health care costs that are well documented to save money and are in everyone’s best long-term interests.

ii. Getting faculty to accept significant increases for five years and then creating a wellness plan to control costs is inappropriate.

c) The administration’s contribution to Medigap health insurance coverage should be tied to the percentage increases in health care premiums faculty are asked to pay.