Below is a message EMU-AAUP President Bunsis sent to the faculty. Since sending it, we have heard that various administrators are claiming that there on ongoing ('secret') negotiations and a settlement is near. This is simply not true. We have met with the administration once about some technical matters related to health care (see agenda below), but neither side put forward new positions. We are currently having talks with the administration about the possibility of having a second session. Given recent administrative positions described below (no retoactive pay, for example), they seem to be moving further away from a settlement rather than closer.

Original message to faculty:

Faculty Colleagues

I am writing to update you on negotiating and fact finding news. Before I do that, please note the following date:

• We are going to have an AAUP holiday party at the AAUP office on Thursday, December 14^th, from 3PM to 7PM. Plenty of good food and holiday cheer will be served.

As you know, yesterday was the first hearing in the fact-finding process. Before we get to that, I want to describe the session we had with the administration last Thursday.

The agenda of the meeting was to discuss several technical health care issues. The administration was represented by Jim Greene (outside attorney), Jim Stengle (outside health care consultant), and Rhonda Kinney-Longworth (from Academic Human Resources). Paul Leighton, Susan Moeller, and I represented the faculty. We sought clarification on the following issues:

• The number of faculty is higher now than last year. Therefore, future health care premiums per person could be lower, and the administration could still realize the same amount of total health care savings. However, the administration did not agree to this, claiming that the targeted savings were on a per-faculty member basis. This is in contrast to what was reported by the administration during negotiations
• The administration would not concede that the new $10/$20/$30 drug card (and $30/60/90 for mail order prescriptions) would yield additional savings. We believed that this leads to additional out of pocket costs to faculty, and should help to reduce premiums. The administration claimed that these savings were built into their premiums, so they would not acknowledge the additional savings. We do not agree with this position, as it was not stated during negotiations.
• The new premiums (whatever level we eventually agree to) will be taken as payroll deductions. Therefore, the administration will not have to pay payroll taxes on these amounts, representing a savings to the administration. We again hoped this could lead to lower premiums, but the administration claimed that these savings were used in other areas. Specifically, the administration stated that these savings were used to reduce the fees on flexible savings accounts fees. However, the reduction of these flexible savings account fees was sold to us during negotiations as a concession to the faculty. The administration now admitted that this was not really a concession.

Conclusion of last week’s meeting: It lasted less than one hour, and not much was accomplished.

Now, onto yesterday’s fact-finding meeting:

The administration was represented by Jim Greene and Hartmut Hoft, Interim Dean of the College of Arts & Sciences, and the Chief Negotiator who represented the EMU administration during the unsuccessful negotiations this summer. The EMU-AAUP was represented by your fact-finding team, which included Paul Leighton (Sociology), Linda Woodland (Decision Sciences), Diana Wong (Management), Megan Endres (Management), Jim Carroll (Physics), and I (Dave Crary of economics is also on our fact-finding team, but could not attend). The EMU-AAUP attorney, Harvey Wax, was also at the hearing.

Here is what occurred:

• We first let the fact finder know what issues were outstanding. He was only interested in our final position on the issues. He was not interested in where we started. He stated that he did not think the two sides were that far apart. We did not present any new positions (as you will see below, positions will not be defended until February).
• There was one significant difference in final positions on health care. On the traditional plan, Jim Greene claimed that the plan would terminate after the contract expired. Paul Leighton pointed out that the administration’s final written proposal of September 13^th was in contrast with this, in that the traditional plan would still exist at the end of the contract, and would simply phase out on its own as people retired. Jim Greene said that there was a hallway conversation at about 5AM between Greene, Hartmut, Paul, and myself, and that the administration stated that the traditional plan would end. Hartmut backed up Green’s version, but neither Paul nor I recalled the specifics of this conversation, and we are very suspect of an alleged 5AM conversation that is in contrast to the written record.
• We then went over hearing dates. Harvey Wax and the team consistently asked for dates that were as soon as possible. The administration consistently wanted later dates. On December 19^th, there will be a hearing just to go over which comparable institutions will be used in the fact-finding analysis (we were ready to do it yesterday). By early January, the fact-finder will select which universities will be the comparable set. Then, we moved to dates for the hearing phase. At these hearings, both sides will present documentation to support whatever positions on the outstanding issues that they believe are appropriate. There were 4 dates set aside for hearings; two in late February, and two in late March. It will likely take 4 full days to go over all of the issues that are still outstanding, and these hearings include presentation of data, cross-examination of witnesses, and a discussion of historical factors as well. The fact finder stated that he hoped to have a final report by late spring. He did not think that finishing any earlier was realistic. As you recall, the average fact finding takes about 7 months, and a late spring completion date is not unexpected.
• The administration submitted 4 schools as their list of comparables. These universities are all much smaller than EMU, and they really are not the peer group that we believe is appropriate. However, these are the universities that Hartmut Hoft proposed are the appropriate comparables for Eastern Michigan University:
• UM Dearborn
• Northern Michigan
• Grand Valley
• Saginaw Valley
• We submitted the 13 universities in the Mid-American Conference (MAC). We did not base our claim on athletics, but primarily on a memo from the administration where the administration clearly states that initial salaries of new faculty members are determined by a comparison to the salaries of faculty members at MAC universities in the appropriate department. We believe this is very revealing. In the December 19 hearing, we will support the inclusion of these universities based on numerous other factors as well, and distinguish this from the administration’s list. The fact finder will then determine which schools from each list make up the final set of comparable institutions. It is likely the list will include schools from both lists. Your fact-finding team has worked very hard on this issue, and we will make a strong case next month.
• Another issue that arose during the hearing yesterday was retroactivity. When there is a settlement, we would like your 2006-07 salary to be adjusted for any raise that is negotiated. Yesterday, the administration stated that they will not be offering any retroactive raises. So even though the administration offered a 3% raise for this year, they are saying that if the contract is settled during the year, you do not deserve any raise for the work you have done up to that point. Rest assured that we will bargain hard for these raises.

After the meeting, the administration indicated some degree of interest in pursuing negotiations while the fact-finding was on-going, but gave no evidence of any willingness to modify earlier offers. We remain ready to engage in significant negotiations, if we believe they will yield positive results. I pledge that we are dedicated to achieving a fair contract, and we fully appreciate how working under the terms of the old contract is not ideal. However, consider that although we are not receiving raises, we are also not paying additional health care premiums.

More than anything, I know so many of you want this to be settled as soon as possible. Words cannot describe how much I share that sentiment. But we must do what is best for the faculty in this contract, as well as for future negotiations.

Last week, the Faculty Council passed a resolution pledging their 100% support for the EMU-AAUP, along with defending the academic mission of the university. I want to personally thank Faculty Council President Daryl Barton and the entire Faculty Council for their leadership on this issue, as this represents how united the faculty remain.

I hope you all have a nice Thanksgiving with family and friends. Along with many of you, we are cleaning the house today, and we will be cooking for family tomorrow. My wife and I make a very tasty apple/raisin/onion/celery stuffing.

Please let me know your thoughts on the above issues. We really want to hear your ideas and comments.

Thanks for listening.

Howard