Bargaining Session #6, July 2, 2013

At our sixth Bargaining Session, July 2, 2013, the AAUP-PSU Bargaining Team presented proposals for Article 17 (Academic Professionals) , Article 18 (Fixed-term and Research Faculty), Article 19 (Professional Development and Support), and Article 34 (Library Faculty Research and Development Days)

At the same session, the Administration presented proposals for both Article 17 and Article 18 that they advised were responsive to our counter proposals presented June 4.

Here are summaries of the day’s negotiations:

Article 17 (Academic Professionals):  Given the response from the Administration to our June 24 proposal, we amended the evaluation section of this article to be more in accord with their requests to alter the current contract language.  Among other rights, we proposed to retain the “developmental” approach to evaluation that allows for self-evaluation and the avoidance of any disciplinary sanctions outside Article 27 due to the evaluation.  We also proposed that notice periods for layoffs be lengthened so as to allow academic professionals time to locate a new position in a difficult job market.  We proposed that any annual review that was deemed satisfactory or better would result in a 1% pay increase for academic professionals.  We also proposed that unused vacation days be redeemed by the university instead of disappearing with the holder remaining uncompensated.  Finally, we proposed that university closure days should not affect academic professionals differently than other faculty in our bargaining unit.  Academic professionals should be permitted to work from home as other faculty do during university closures.  They ought not to suffer the loss of vacation or salary due to university closure unless they choose not to work from home.

In the Administration’s counter proposal there were some concessions about evaluation, although not to the level that we proposed.  They rejected all of the other proposals we made in this article, although they left open the possibility of some “merit” on the basis of positive reviews.

Each team is now considering the other’s current proposal, and we hope to achieve a better resolution in the next bargaining session, August 6.

Article 18 (Fixed Term Faculty and Research Faculty):  Similarly, given the response from the Administration from our June 24 proposal, we amended the evaluation section of this article to be more in accord with their requests to alter the current contract language.  Among other rights, we proposed to retain the “developmental” approach to evaluation that allows for self-evaluation and the avoidance of any disciplinary sanctions outside Article 27 due to the evaluation.  We also proposed that faculty should be awarded a 1% pay increase for each annual review that resulted in a satisfactory of better than satisfactory evaluation.  We proposed to increase job-security for faculty who are offered a contract after three continuous years of service at 0.5 or more FTE, by offering them three-year rolling contracts.  Upon satisfactory annual review, the faculty member will be offered a new 3-year contract.  We redefined seniority status as having successfully taught for 3 continuous years, and we proposed that 90% of fixed term faculty with seniority be offered the 3-year rolling contract.

Again, in the Administration’s article, there were some concessions about evaluation, although not to the level that we proposed.  They rejected all of the other proposals we made in this article, although they left open the possibility of some “merit” on the basis of positive reviews.  The Administration also proposed that the term “fixed-term faculty” be replaced with the term “non-tenure track faculty”.  Instead of the job-security that we hoped to achieve with the three-year rolling contract, the Administration proposed “indefinite employment” for non-tenure track faculty with the the following notices of termination of employment:

Less than 1 year of service                 30 days
1 to 3 years of service                         One full academic term
3 or more years of service                  Two full academic terms

Each team is now considering the other’s current proposals, and we hope to achieve a better resolution in the next bargaining session, August 6.

Article 19 (Professional Development and Support):

Based on analysis of the growing gap between available funding and faculty-staff requests for professional development and travel support at PSU, Bob Liebman presented the need for the following changes in this article.

•         Increase the annual maximum grant amount from the Faculty Development Program to $25,000 (from $15,000).
•         Increase the travel award to $2500 from $2000.
•         Increase the allocation to the Faculty Development program to $750,000 (from $500,000).
•         Increase the allocation for professional travel to $400,000 (from $250,000).

Many thanks to Christof Teuscher, Chair of the Faculty Development Committee, for providing the results of his survey of faculty and the Committee’s year-end report to the Faculty Senate so as to better inform both sides of the bargaining table. 

The Administration is considering this proposal.

Article 34 (Library Development Days):

We responded to the Administration’s June 2 proposal with our own version that awards Library tenure-track faculty 15 research days and non-tenure track faculty 10 research days each year.  We also proposed that university closure days should not affect the librarians differently than other faculty in our bargaining unit.  They ought not to suffer the loss of vacation or salary due to university closure.

The Administration is considering this proposal as well.


Next Session, August 6, Bargaining Session #7 Market Center Building, room 650:  Our current plans to present:

Article 17 (Academic Professionals):  AAUP will revise our previous proposal in an attempt to conclude our negotiations about evaluation and move toward the other provisions in the article that the Administration has not addressed with us yet.

Article 18 (Fixed Term and Research Faculty):  AAUP will revise our previous proposal in an attempt to conclude our negotiations about evaluation and move toward the other provisions in the article that the Administration has not addressed with us yet.

Article 32 (Family Medical Leave):  AAUP will submit a proposal to improve our current Family Leave article.

New Article:  (Academic Quality):  AAUP has been developing a new article that articulates goals and steps for achieving and maintaining high levels of academic quality for our students.


Constructive Actions in Bargaining:

SUPPORT AAUP BARGAINING: Please attend bargaining sessions.  Stay as long as you can.  Bring your colleagues, please.  Your presence makes a difference.

Upcoming Bargaining Sessions:

August 6, 12:30-3pm, MCB 650:   
Article 17, Academic Professionals
Article 18, Fixed-Term and Research Faculty
Article 32, Family Leave
Article 45, Academic Quality

September 10, noon-3pm, Smith TBA