Feel the need to comment? Let your voice be heard!
May 17, 2012
Joint meetings with the various health insurance providers may have moved closer to reality today, but still have not been scheduled. These meetings should provide valuable information about the current and potential health plans, information that we must rely on when the teams eventually put together financial and benefit packages later in the bargaining process.
After learning that the Administration team had no responses to our proposals of last week, and had no proposals of their own to present, we introduced several more proposals dealing with issues ranging from phased retirement eligibility to discipline procedures to the grievance procedure to childrearing leaves.
For those of you who might be interested, check out the Administration's view of the negotiations.
May 10, 2012
At today's table meeting we learned a great deal more about Mr. Boonin and his style of negotiating. When we again brought up the idea of written ground rules Mr. Boonin refused to agree to a schedule of meetings, he refused to agree to a timeline to respond to our proposals, he refused to agree to a schedule to present proposals or even acknowledge that Oakland might have proposals to present, he refused to agree to justify Oakland proposals in writing but hinted that he may simply explain them verbally. He tried to insist that he would not even tentatively agree to a solution to any particular issue until all of the potential issues in that entire section of the Agreement were resolved. He ultimately backed off from this highly unusual position, and we were able to come to agreement on a few ground rules.
We then presented minor proposals dealing with a few typographical errors in the Agreement, extending leaves of absence to visiting faculty and incorporating a factor in chair pay for part-time faculty. We also brought to their attention that they have given the six of us a room to work in that can comfortably accommodate about four people. They have promised to find us other accommodations.
May 3, 2012
The first bargaining session of the summer was... uneventful. Mr. Boonin expressed his wishes for a speedy and mutually beneficial settlement, and outlined his thoughts on the bargaining process. We presented a more formal and complete set of process steps, and will seek to have them approved in writing at our next meeting on May 10. We took the opportunity to remind their team of continuing issues surrounding information delivery. The teams briefly discussed needs in terms of space and secure locations in which to work.
April 28, 2012
While the Bargaining Forum has been analyzing their survey of the faculty, we have been continuing to meet with academic units to discuss potential bargaining issues. This process, while time-consuming, is enormously helpful and very enjoyable. Meeting with faculty colleagues, connecting once again with old friends and meeting new ones, sharing hopes and frustrations through stories and anecdotes is always inspiring and invigorating to your bargaining teams. We thank you for the opportunity and are immeasurably grateful for your continued support.
We have discovered that Oakland has agreed to pay $295 per hour – nearly $5 per minute – of Michigan taxpayer money in order to have Mr. Boonin renegotiate your Agreement with your bargaining team. Negotiating through outside agents is a common way for employers to avoid substantive discussion of thorny issues that may have arisen in the relationship between the parties. Since outside agents have little or no knowledge or understanding of such issues, they have no context or experience with which to discuss them. Negotiations therefore reduce to focus only on the mandatory and relatively easy topics of wages, hours and working conditions and omit areas which are often vitally important to a constructive relationship between the parties. Oakland has agreed to pay dearly to avoid difficult topics and uncomfortable discussions during these negotiations. We have not altered our plans to pursue hard topics whenever necessary in order to provide a healthier and more productive environment for instruction, scholarship and service.
We have been very busy preparing initial proposals for our first table meeting, tentatively scheduled for May 3rd. We were recently informed by Mr. Boonin that he expects to receive all of our language proposals at our first meeting, but that he intends to provide his proposals “in due course.” We were also told that at this meeting we will hear Mr. Boonin's expectations of the procedure to be followed for the remainder of the negotiations. Mr. Boonin’s expectations, opinions and behavior notwithstanding, we will proceed with these negotiations in our usual thoughtful and considered manner… and we will keep you informed.
April 7, 2012
The bargaining data requested from Oakland is still not complete, and some of it that has been delivered is simply wrong and must be redone in order to be useful. Why is this such a big deal? Consider just the following two items out of a very long list.
The faculty data that was requested more than 11 weeks ago (and that has always been delivered within a few days in the past) arrived last week with “gross payroll” amounts instead of the “salary” we requested. Gross payroll is base salary plus everything else, like chairperson stipends, research payments, pay for summer teaching, etc. Benefits and other payments, such as summer pay, are calculated on base salaries. Reporting gross payroll as salary is not only incorrect, it would present a very skewed picture of faculty salaries to an outside person, such as a fact-finder or mediator. Once we noticed this error we immediately insisted on receiving base salaries, as we had always gotten in the past with identically-worded requests. After several more days with no response from Mr. Boonin, we were told that the numbers we originally asked for will take perhaps another week or more to compile and deliver.
Another bit of information we requested is Oakland’s donation history for the last three years, including donations that were targeted to any specific part of the university. Mr. Boonin has steadfastly refused to deliver any details of Oakland’s donation history, stating (quite incorrectly) that all of the information we requested is readily available on Oakland’s website. The information we’ve asked for is necessary for us to have a complete picture of Oakland’s financial health. We are now beginning to wonder just what is in this donor info that we have not been allowed to see.
We are reluctant to begin bargaining without a complete understanding of every aspect of university life that may be impacted by our decisions. Mr. Boonin continues to push to begin negotiations before May 15. He has been informed several times that we are hesitant to begin early unless all of the information in the original request is completely and accurately delivered. It remains to be seen if that will occur, but we continue to be hopeful.
March 31, 2012
Information from our initial request, now 10 weeks old, continues to trickle in slowly. Unfortunately, due to either miscommunication or unfamiliarity with terms used at Oakland, some of the data that has been delivered is not what was requested and must be recompiled, adding to the delay. Mr. Boonin correctly pointed out this week that our Agreement does not require a contract exception to begin renegotiations before May 15. In response we offered to begin talks on April 30, immediately after the end of the Winter semester, provided that we receive all of the information we originally requested by April 9. Unfortunately, the April 30 date does not fit into Mr. Boonin's schedule, so the starting date for renegotiations, and of the complete information delivery, is still uncertain. We will, of course, keep you posted of any new developments.
March 24, 2012
Last Monday, March 19, we received four more items on our list and a promise to deliver the rest "within the next few days... this week." As of this morning, however, no more has been delivered and it is unsure where the remainder of the information rests in this convoluted process.
In the course of the last nine weeks Mr. Boonin has asked twice if we are interested in starting negotiations before the May 15, 2012 date specifed in the Agreement. Yesterday morning, in order to keep lines of communications open and moving forward toward productive negotiations, we offered to work with Oakland to ratify a contract exception that would allow talks to commence on April 30, 2012. So far there has been no response to this offer.
March 17, 2012
The updated facts: It has been more than a week since we were promised more bargaining information, data that we requested more than 8 weeks ago. We’ve heard not a peep from Mr. Boonin or any member of the administration team in that week, despite further attempts to contact them. All options to seek relief from this behavior in every available venue are being considered; the ramifications of each option are being carefully weighed against the ultimate goal of achieving an acceptable and timely settlement.
On a personal note: It is hard to overestimate the damage the administration’s behavior has already inflicted on the upcoming negotiations. Bargaining is a process that must be based on a level of trust and mutual willingness to move towards a settlement if it is to function effectively. We can hope that the administration can see the damage they are doing and act swiftly to correct the situation before the bargaining climate deteriorates even further. That hope, however, erodes with each passing day.
March 9, 2012
As expected, a flurry of bargaining information arrived yesterday evening, just before we were to file for relief with the Michigan Employment Resources Commission (MERC). The information is not yet complete, some of it seems very odd and suspect, but at least it is finally flowing. Mr Boonin (who was Oakland's lead attorney in the Micah Fialka–Feldman case) has assurred us that much more information will be forthcoming very soon after his upcoming trial, which begins next week.
In other encouraging news, a new OU audit report, commissioned by your OU-AAUP Executive Committee, on the financial health of the university concludes "...since my last report, which covered the years 2001-2009, the University’s financial condition has improved. There were improvements in the University’s balance sheet, its income statement and in operating cash flows. The composite scores, along with all of the other data analyzed in this report, indicate that Oakland University remains in excellent financial condition."
March 4, 2012
Having heard nothing along the Oakland-limited channels of bargaining communication in over three weeks, we made yet another attempt to contact Mr. Boonin and obtain the information Oakland is legally obligated to provide - with no response. Yesterday we sent a fax, followed up by an email, reminding Mr. Boonin of his legal obligation and informing him that if the information is not received within the week (Oakland has had the request for over 6 weeks) then we will begin seeking relief in court.
Within 20 minutes of sending the fax we had a response. The reply led off with "I really don't appreciate the tone of your communications so far" and ended with blame being laid on an unexplained yet highly debilitating "IT glitch." Filtering out the blustering, the gist of Mr. Boonin's reply was that he has not yet compiled the information and that he will not deliver it along a defined schedule. We are, of course, preparing to pursue legal action as promised... and we will keep you updated.
February 9, 2012
The 2012 Bargaining Team began preparing for negotiations in the summer of 2011, when we attended the AAUP Summer Institute in Boston. We attended workshops on negotiation tactics and strategies, and got caught up on several issues of national importance. During the Fall 2011 semester the Team met every other week, and went through the 09-12 Agreement line-by-line identifying strengths, weaknesses and potential issues that might come up in the summer of 2012.
The Winter 2012 semester has so far been a flurry of activity. The Bargaining Forum has been assembled and has begun to meet, and will soon be soliciting the opinions and priorities of the faculty via an electronic survey. The Team has begun to meet with any of the academic units that wish to meet with the Team (if your unit hasn't scheduled a meeting, please work through your Bargaining Forum representatives).
In the Fall 2011 semester, President Russi offered that, during the Winter 2012 semester, joint AAUP/Oakland committees might explore a few of the more complicated issues in advance of bargaining. In response, the AAUP suggested a couple of topics for exploration, most notably the possibility of simplification of the review process. To date none have been acted upon and it seems that the offer for preliminary, exploratory talks was less than serious.
We were concerned that the administration had not named a negotiation team before the start of the Winter 2012 semester. Instead of waiting for an announcement, we made an initial request for bargaining information on January 16. On January 23, President Russi informed AAUP President Karen Miller that Oakland had appointed a bargaining team (Chief negotiator Robert Boonin [an attorney from Butzel Long], Peggy Cooke, Leigh Dzwik, James Hargett, Kathleen Moore and Darlene Schott-Baer), but had none of the data we had requested. On January 31, we were informed that all communication must go through the administration's chief negotiator, so we immediately resubmitted the request for data to him. After more than a week, the request was acknowledged today as having been received. We can only hope that these delays in communication and information delivery are not indicative of what will occur during the course of the negotiations.