Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:47:07 -0400
From: Ellen Horsch <eshorsch@mtu.edu>
To: Academic Forum <acadforum-l@mtu.edu>, negaaup-l@mtu.edu
Subject: Union Update

Good Afternoon,

In ongoing negotiations, the University met with the AAUP on July 9, 10,
16, 17, 18, 23, 24 and on Aug 6 and 7.

To summarize the current state of negotiations:

· Currently the University owes the AAUP a response on two articles
which we plan to address with them either on Aug. 16 or 17, our next
negotiation sessions.

· The AAUP owes the University nine responses on articles and to date
has only indicated that we can expect responses on three of them when we
meet this Wednesday.

· Currently we have tentatively agreed to 12 articles and have 7 in a
state of “no movement” which means that neither side has been willing,
at least at this point, to move from their most recent proposal position.

The University has offered several Interim Salary Proposals and on July
18, gave the AAUP our “last, best, and final” offer on an Interim Salary
Proposal covering faculty raises for 2007-2008. The Union continues to
threaten the University with another Unfair Labor Practice Charge if we
implement a merit salary increase for 2007-2008, but since we have not
yet been able to come to an agreement with the AAUP, the alternative
would be a wage freeze which would not be in the best interest of the
faculty or the institution, nor would it be consistent with our legal
obligation to preserve the status quo during bargaining.

A mediator from the Michigan Employment Relations Commission met with
both the Association and the University on July 24. There has not been
any date scheduled for the mediator’s return.

Toward the end of the mediator’s visit, the AAUP presented the
University with a “complete Contract Proposal package” with an
expiration date for response of August 7. This was presented as an “all
or nothing” proposal and was an unexpected change in our bargaining
process that came without any forewarning. Since the University did not
anticipate such a comprehensive proposal, we asked for additional time
to thoroughly review and discuss their proposal in order to reply
appropriately. The AAUP denied our request to extend the expiration date.

While in negotiations on August 6, the University discovered that the
AAUP’s “complete Contract Proposal” of July 24 was far from clear.
Listed under Table 1 of the AAUP Contract Proposal, the AAUP stated that
it was willing to accept many of the University’s currently proposed
articles including our Article 21, Salaries, proposed on July 10,
however, with the following explanation. They would accept the “Michigan
Tech language of the July 10 proposal, but with a 5% salary increase
(2% ATB, 3% merit) and no EFIP”. Our salary proposal of July 10 was
clearly proposed for 2008-2009, because we had an Interim Salary
Proposal, to cover the 2007-2008 salary adjustments, still on the table.

In further discussion with the AAUP, they acknowledged that they
intended the salary increase in our Article 21, to cover 2007-2008
rather than 2008-2009. The AAUP failed to notify the University of this
modification until the University questioned the AAUP about their
Contract Proposal on August 6, the day before the expiration date of
their offer. The University was not willing to accept the AAUP's offer
of an incomplete contract package that left out several important,
unresolved issues,
and a salary proposal which was also unacceptable. They proposed that we
would continue to negotiate those issues to be included in the next
year’s contract. In addition, the University was not confident that we
knew exactly what the AAUP was actually proposing as they seemed to be
making verbal modifications to their proposal during our discussions. We
formally rejected their proposal on the morning of August 7.
Notwithstanding our rejection of the package and our subsequently making
proposals on individual articles, on the afternoon of August 7, the AAUP
then extended the expiration date of the package proposal to August 31.

Also on August 7, the University withdrew our Article 22, Benefits
proposals in order to develop a proposal that may provide a more
competitive benefits package for faculty. Consistent with past
practices, the University has asked the Benefits Liaison Group (BLG) to
examine and assess the retirement contribution eligibility requirements
the University currently has in place. So that this review will not
disrupt the pace of negotiations, the timing for the normal BLG meeting
has been moved up to next week. Any recommendation made by the BLG will
take into account the benefits/costs of revising the eligibility
requirements. Please keep in mind that by withdrawing Article 22,
Benefits, the University is not planning on taking any benefits away
from our faculty but rather looking at possible enhancement to their
plan. This was made clear to the Union.

We will be meeting again for a half day session on August 16 and full
day on August 17. Our chief spokesperson, John Hancock from Butzel Long,
was not available for the month of August so we asked Robert Boonin, of
the same law firm, to step in so we can continue to make progress in
reaching a contract. His bio can be found at
http://www.butzel.com/bioppsea.cfm?PI_ID=11

I encourage you to review the latest proposals at
http://www.admin.mtu.edu/hro/adminresources/AAUP/ArticleHistory.htm.

In other labor relations news, the Police Officers Association (POA),
who represent the Public Safety Officers, Sergent, and Lieutenant,
ratified their contract on July 25 for a one-year contract that includes
an overall wage increase of 3 percent. The University will officially
start bargaining with the UAW Office Professional Union this week and
AFSCME this fall.

Please feel free to contact me is you have any questions.

Ellen

--
Ellen S. Horsch
Vice President for Administration
Michigan Technological University
Houghton, MI 49931

Phone: 906-487-1737
Cell 906-369-1737