|
The contract for the adjunct faculty of Emerson College,
the Affiliated Faculty of Emerson College, American Association of University
Professors (AFEC-AAUP), was negotiated over a two and a half year period,
from late 2001 to May 2004.
Some background on the players: The Negotiating
Team, made up of adjunct faculty members David Akiba,
Leslie Brokaw, David Daniel, Brian McNeil, and Richard Williams, began
meeting in December 2001. Team members were all volunteers, driven by a
desire to be part of a professional community as well as by curiosity, self-interest,
and a general commitment to social justice. The group was a representative
subset of the school’s nearly 250 adjunct teachers: Akiba,
Daniel, and McNeil were long-time, heavily-committed teachers who had taught
at Emerson for over a decade with course loads that met or exceeded those of
tenured teachers, while Brokaw and Williams were newcomers who taught one or
two courses a semester. The group’s make-up helped the team create balanced
positions.
Background on other players: The
Negotiating Team was assisted by staffers from the AAUP’s
Washington D.C. office. Pat Shaw, an AAUP lawyer, was
the group’s counsel for the entire process, traveling from D.C. to Boston at least two
dozen times for negotiating sessions. AAUP staffers Rich Moser, Mike Mauer, and Barbara Gottfried were extremely active in
helping organize membership drives and political strategy from 2000 through
2004. Emerson was represented
at the negotiating table by the College’s inhouse
lawyer, outside lawyer (Paul Lyons, of the Boston lawfirm
Foley Hoag LLP), and, for periods of time, its Vice President of Academic
Affairs (Dorothy Arum during 2002, and Linda Moore for the last meetings in
2004). Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service Commissioner John Martin
joined the meetings in 2003.
The contract development process: The
Negotiating Team started out by reading the contracts of the fulltime union
of Emerson College and the part-time unions of University of Massachusetts, CUNY, the
Congress of Connecticut Community Colleges, and Roosevelt,
Rider, and Hofstra
Colleges. Some
contracts were online, while others were passed on by the AAUP. Over winter
break in January 2002, the team wrote a full contract proposal, borrowing
both general thematic ideas and specific language from other
contracts and bearing in mind the goals and priorities of the Union
membership as expressed in polls and Emails. The team presented the contract
to the school in January 2002, and negotiations began shortly after that.
The final contract:
The final contract that was signed in May 2004 bears a
passing resemblance to the Union’s
initial proposal. It is fair to say that the initial proposal represented an
“in a perfect world” scenario. Still, the Negotiating Team thought it was
important to use the opportunity to articulate truly just, if aggressively
bold, contract language. For 29 months the Union team met with the College’s
team some 30 times, exchanging proposals and counter proposals and
counter-counter proposals. The meetings were often frustrating,
occasionally exhilarating, and sometimes bizarrely comical. Eventually we
shaped the 17-article, 26-page (in Word format) document you find here.
= = = =
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
A point-by-point summary of the contract:
Article 1: Recognition
This defines who is in the Union.
The team “Day School” refers to the regular undergrad and graduate classes
(not summer school or continuing education), and does include classes that
are taught in the evenings.
Article 2: Academic Freedom
This details our academic freedom within the classroom.
The language in 2.1 came primarily from the College.
Article 3: Faculty Status
This details issues including appointments to teach,
personnel files, and what constitutes “just cause” for termination.
Article 4: Salary and Benefits
The Union had proposed a
tiered pay system, where salary would increase based on tenure at the
College. The College adopted and then adapted that idea, and provided the
chart that lays out per-credit salary for part-time faculty across
disciplines. The Union pushed for and won
significantly higher wages within the chart, particularly for people who have
taught fewer than 64 credits at Emerson – the majority of us. For chairing or reading theses and directed
studies, the Union had proposed simple
(higher) flat rates; the College insisted that we be paid by a percentage of
what our wages would be for a full course. Although a little complicated to
calculate, the agreed upon percentage payment is substantially higher than
the old flat fee. For medical benefits, the College told the Union that it would be impossible to offer buy-in for
all Union members into the College’s medical plan. What we did achieve is a
50/50 contribution by the College for medical benefits for long-time faculty
who teach a ‘full’ course load of 16 credits a year.
Article 5: Workload
This was one of the most contentious issues. This article
limits part-time faculty to teaching 16 credits a year – four courses, for
most of us – within the Day School and Continuing Education. This cap is new.
The Union argued fiercely that it was not in
the College’s interest to cap the credits, but the College insisted on this
provision. We did manage to get long-time faculty who have consistently
taught more credits “grandfathered” so that they can teach the 20-32 credits
they have in the past – 16 credits in the day school, plus additional classes
in CE. All teachers can teach as many
summer school classes as they’d like.
Article 6: Grievance Procedure
This details the process that a faculty member may ask the
Union to undertake if s/he feels that the
administration is violating a provision of the contract. This section of the
contract – which is quite long -- was negotiated relatively painlessly. The Union FAQ explains how to file a grievance.
Article 7: Representation
This section details how the College will provide
information about new faculty to the Union,
what types of meetings the Union can hold on
campus, and how our dues structure works.
Article 8: Non-Discrimination
This states that neither party will discriminate against
any faculty member because of anything, including Union membership or lack
thereof.
Article 9: Past Practices
This states that any past practices by the College not
detailed in this document end once this agreement goes into effect.
Article 10: Separability
This says that if one part of this contract is judged in
conflict of any law, only that section of the contract will be judged invalid
– the rest of the contract will stand.
Article 11: No Strike / No
Lockout
Another very contentious issue of this contract. The Union had proposed standard No Strike language. The
College wanted far more restrictive language. After many, many, many meetings,
we ended up with something close to the College’s initial proposal. This
provision says that we may not, as either Union members or individuals,
either strike or “picket, leaflet, handbill, sympathy strike or in
any way or manner interfere with the work and business of the College.” We
recognize that this language may be unsettling to many members of our
bargaining unit. It is important that all part-time faculty review this
Article.
Article 12: Faculty
Responsibilities
This details our responsibilities as faculty members, from
meeting our classes at the scheduled times to turning in grades promptly. The
Union felt this information would be better
presented in a faculty handbook than Union contract, but the College insisted
on its inclusion here.
Article 13: General Provisions
and Definitions
This section defines terms such as “academic year” and
“AAUP representative.”
Article 14: Management Rights
This says that the College retains pretty much all power.
Article 15: Waiver of Rights
This says that if either party ignores some violation of
the contract, that does not set a precedent.
Article 16: Pre-existing Rights
This is similar to Article 9 on Past Practices, stating
that this contract is inclusive of all claimed rights.
Article 17: Duration
This states that the contract will be in effect through June 30 2008.
Memorandum of Understanding:
Workload
This names the teachers who are grandfathered to teach
more than 16 credits because of their long-time service to Emerson at these
levels. The number of credits assigned by the College to each person was
determined by the College.
Course Code Key
This explains what each acronym on the Salary Chart stands
for.
|