TL;DR
The Unified Bargaining Committee met with management at Administrative Services Building II on October 8. The session began with our team questioning management about why they rejected every word in our crucial job security proposal for lecturers, Article 28, Fractional Appointments, as well as in Department & Campus Provisions for Fractional NTTs. Were they rejecting the substance of these proposals or just indicating that they object to them being part of a unified contract for all 3 unions? They said the latter is the reason. But that remains to be seen, if and when they return with a real counterproposal.
On a positive note, later in the session, management agreed to our fifth proposal on Article 2, Academic Freedom, and thus we reached the second tentative agreement of our campaign. The result: what has been university policy, subject to unilateral change, will become enforceable contract language. This is a big gain for all of our members!
Highlights from the Session
Union Challenges Management’s Strikethroughs of Lecturer Job Security Proposal
On short notice, a score of lecturer members turned out to the bargaining session via Zoom to show their unhappiness about management’s failure to engage on lecturer job security — and their resistance to treating us as one faculty.
After we questioned their motives for striking every word in our Article 28 proposal without suggesting any alternative language, management replied, that while they reject the term “fractional NTTs,” which would move all of us into a single contract, they are open to discussing the substance of the proposals themselves.
Bryan Sacks spoke on the crucial need for increased job security for lecturers, explaining that after the salary wins in the last contract, the university immediately took measures to suppress them. For example, departments replaced senior lecturers with lower paid unfunded grad students, claiming “academic need.” Additionally, course minimums were manipulated in order to cancel classes taught by lecturers. It has also become routine for senior Winter/Summer instructors to be paid less than full salaries for classes deemed “underenrolled” due to newly prescribed minimums.
An especially egregious instance occurred at the Graduate School of Education, where several lecturers suddenly had many more students in each class while the number of courses they were appointed to teach was reduced, effectively negating their newly won salary gains.
Bryan summed up: There are no pedagogical justifications for these actions. Instead, this was, and continues to be, cost-cutting at the expense of lecturers. Bottom line: job security is the number one priority for our members, and management must take the substance of our proposals into account at the bargaining table, regardless of their objections to our “one faculty, one contract” framing.
Tentative Agreement on Academic Freedom Article Won
Today, the Rutgers AAUP unions officially reached a tentative agreement on Article 2, only the second one achieved, after 6 months of sessions, 100 days after our contracts expired. This policy, thoughtfully shepherded by the member-led Academic Freedom committee, will be essential for protecting members of all ranks. We now have language that applies to everyone, including adjunct faculty and clinicians, and is fully enforceable and grievable. Unlike almost any other academic worker contract, our contract now ensures that “librarianship” is specifically mentioned and that this important work is covered by our academic freedom protections, along with teaching, research, publication, artistic expression, and the other key areas of our work.
Wins like these only come when our membership unites. It is notable that management made concessions on this article following an increase in mobilization from members at our October 1 rally in Newark and October 6 welcome committee action outside of the bargaining location.
Management Counter on Article 11A
The intent of this article is to improve the grievance procedure for non-tenure-track faculty. Since these faculty initially receive one-year appointments, if they are not going to be reappointed, their notice period is relatively short. We believe the grievance procedure (including any re-evaluation following a remand of a case) should be completed before they are off the university payroll. Management rejected our proposed language requiring a twelve-month extension of employment to account for this situation. We will next propose contractual language that ensures the grievance and any re-evaluation will be completed prior to the expiration of an appointment.
Next Steps
The next bargaining session is scheduled for Tuesday, Oct. 13, at 10 a.m., at Liberty Plaza in New Brunswick. At that session, the union will present counters on 11A, 5, and 7.