A message from the AAUP Negotiating Team: Herb Gishlick, Judy Johnston, Tony Kosar, Joel Phillips, Nancy Westburg, and Jeff Halpern, Chief Negotiator
The AAUP and the University have been meeting all summer, and we have failed to close a single article!
The members of this team cannot remember any previous negotiation where we were this close to the beginning of the school year and the expiration date of an agreement without having closed at least a few articles. This summer not only have we not closed any articles; moreover, there has been no substantial progress towards a meeting of the minds on the issues that separate us.
You may ask whether this strong assertion is simply the rhetorical positioning that goes on in every union negotiation. This is not business as usual. The 2007 negotiation differs from earlier negotiations in both the strategic goals and the tactical approach that the University has chosen.
Over the years, the Rider AAUP and the University have jointly developed a system of governance and employment relationships which has come to serve well both the faculty and the University. Indeed, our system of governance and employment relationships is a model for university faculties nationwide. In recent negotiations, the parties have come to the table prepared to build upon the existing system, to help it evolve within the context of Rider's history and its circumstances. In June 2007, when we began this negotiation, the AAUP team expected that we would continue to build upon the foundation that had evolved over the years. The University, however, came to the table with the strategic goals of increasing administrative control and reducing the costs of instruction.
At the first negotiating session, on June 20, 2007, the University's attorney read a statement that made clear to us that President Rozanski's goals were not evolutionary, but revolutionary. The statement laid before us a set of demands that, if adopted, would dramatically alter the existing system of governance and employment relationships at the University. At the same time, the University attorney asserted the belief that faculty compensation is too high--here is the University's language: "Benefits, in combination with Rider's wages and workload, produce a cost of instruction that is significantly higher than that of our peer institutions. Indeed, the high cost of instruction at Rider, if unaddressed, is projected to seriously impede our ability to continue to attract the students."
In previous negotiations both the University and the AAUP came to the table with a tactical approach that could best be described as problem solving. Instead of simply presenting opposed positions, each side attempted to explain the real world problem which it proposed to solve by revising the agreement, and each side entered into broad ranging conversations to reach a mutually acceptable solution. At each negotiating session this summer, we attempted to enter into constructive conversations with our administrative colleagues, to build upon a base of common experiences, shared information, and a commitment to problem solving. The University team has only infrequently engaged with us in such conversations, and none of these has been full enough to produce acceptable solutions. On those occasions when we have been able to engage our administrative colleagues in discussion, we have made some progress, and we remain convinced that collaborative problem solving is the appropriate way to negotiate a new agreement.
In this year's negotiations the University has spoken almost exclusively through its attorney, and, for the most part, the University attorney has presented and simply repeated the University's position. Rather than discussing the need for specific proposed changes at Rider, the attorney has asserted that what the University was proposing was common at other universities. The University attorney, speaking for their team, has not responded constructively to our counter offers and our expressed willingness to be flexible in specific contract language. One example concerns the issue of the academic governance of the new College of Fine Arts. We tried to initiate a discussion of what format for academic governance might yield an effective and efficient curriculum in the new College, but we were told by the University's attorney that such concerns were none of our business.
At this point, the end of August, we have little hope of making progress in our team's negotiations with the University without a clear message from the united faculty that we are committed to achieving a fair and reasonable agreement and that the faculty are opposed to the radical transformations proposed by the University. To that end, the Rider AAUP has taken these steps:
1. Scheduled the AAUP convocation for 12:30, Thursday, August 30th, in the BLC Theatre. Attendance by all bargaining unit members is essential. AAUP leaders will give an update on negotiations and discuss how the faculty can most effectively send the message that it is united behind its negotiating team.
2. Established a new AAUP website http://rideraaup.org on a non-Rider server, so that the Rider AAUP will be able to transfer all communications to that site if it becomes necessary.
3. Entered into an agreement with the credit union allowing faculty to borrow funds to tide them over in case of a work stoppage or University lockout.