WOUFT Negotiation Blog

Today the administration brought out their tired slides showing how the university is already deficit spending in order to make the case that they cannot possibly afford any more money for faculty salaries. Although it's tempting to dwell on the fact that every time they bring out those slides the numbers are different depending on the audience, let's instead look at this issue of deficit spending.
Quite simply, deficit spending implies that you are paying out more than you are taking in - expenses exceed revenues. For example, if you make $25,000 per year, but you spend $30,000 per year, then you are deficit spending. For most of us that means having to finance the deficit using something like credit cards. And that is generally considered a bad thing.
Consider another scenario. Suppose you make $30,000 per year, but you only spend $25,000 per year. In this case, you are running a surplus of $5,000 per year - generally a good thing. After four years, you would have $20,000 in the bank, so you decide to buy a new $20,000 car. In that fifth year, you still make $30,000, but you spend $45,000 (your normal $25,000 plus the $20,000 for the car). Your revenues exceed your expenses by $15,000 - i.e., you are deficit spending. Is that a bad thing? Probably not - you did get a new car after all.
The important things to note are:

1. In order to end up with $20,000 in the bank, you must have run a surplus,
   
2. In this case, the deficit spending was not harmful (the new car), and
   
3. Your normal expenses ($25,000) are still less than your income ($30,000), even if you don't get a pay raise.
   

Now, let's consider the university's situation over the last couple of years. Supposedly, the administration on-campus ran up a huge fund balance (surplus), and that offended administrators off-campus. As a result, the administration was directed to spend down the fund balance as soon as possible, and the campus was denied a tuition increase (no pay raise).
How does this compare with the personal scenario outlined above?

1. In order to have a fund balance, the administration must have been running a surplus.
   
2. The fund balance was (deficit) spent on one-time items (e.g., sidewalks, chairs, etc.), and at the time, the administration claimed that it was impossible to spend that money for on-going expenses (e.g., salaries).
   
3. The administration did not gain any additional tuition, so all other things being equal, they must still have been running a surplus.
   

However, the administration claims that the campus is in a dire financial situation, and they cite the deficit spending as evidence. But, we have just seen that buying lots of one-time goodies creates the appearance of deficit spending, when in reality, it is not that bad. The administration would have us believe that they are spending down the fund balance for on-going, day-to-day expenses. But, they told us before that they weren't allowed to squander a fund balance for on-going expenses.
Of course, there are many items that affect the income and expenses of the university, and the university's situation may have changed over the last couple years. But have we seen anything so dramatic that it would not only convert a day-to-day surplus into a deficit, but that it would suck up a huge amount of fund balance, and still leave us in deficit? How could something so dramatic happen at a time when the state's economy is picking up to the point where the government is talking about refunding money to the taxpayers? Something doesn't add up.
Fundamentally, managing the money is an administrative task; it certainly isn't a faculty task. If the finances are whip-sawing back and forth like this in a healthy and improving economy, you really have to wonder about the real truth about the situation. Or if the situation really is this bad, what the hell are the administrators doing to make such a mess of this? In either case, why do the faculty have to pay the price?

So what's going on, and what happens next?
The general membership of the union authorized the bargaining committee to call a strike, if the bargaining committee sees fit. This does not mean there will be a strike. In fact, we all hope it doesn't come to that.

Mark Perlman (union president) and Peter Calero (bargaining committee chairman) addressed the Board of Higher Education last week (March 2nd). If OUS wasn't aware of the strike possibility, they are now.

Are there any negotiations going on?
Yes and no. In theory, either side can request a face-to-face meeting. At the moment, no such meetings are planned. At the very least, there will be another mediation session during finals week (Monday the 20th). During mediation, the two teams meet in separate rooms and mediators shuffle back and forth trying to reach a compromise. Because a strike is looming, the state will bring in two mediators - tag team mediation, if you will. It would not be surprising if there were negotiations and/or mediation during spring break.

What will happen to Spring quarter if there is a strike?
That's up to the administration. They have complete control over it. Maybe they'd shorten the quarter. Maybe they'd extend it. Maybe they'd refund part of the tuition. It's up to them. Keep in mind that the faculty at an OUS school have never gone on strike, so it's not like they have a "standard strike plan" up their sleeves. On the other hand, their general contingency planning (e.g., massive flu outbreak) may prove useful. Again, it's up to them.

What should students do?
Assume that the quarter will start on time, all scheduled classes will be taught, etc. It seems very unlikely that there would be a complete shutdown of the campus. If you're away from the area and don't want to come back if there are no classes, you should monitor what's going on. The Statesman Journal should be covering the story.

"Pay is issue in WOU strike talk"

Just try to get objectivity like this from the SJ.

Do you wish you could be a part of the WOUFT conversation? You are in luck!

Look to the left sidebar and click on the link labeled "How to Leave a Comment on WOUFT!" for instructions!

What are the main differences between the union and management salary proposals?
Under the union proposal, salary increases for the two year contract period will range from 8% to 14%. Eligible faculty members will receive step increases in 2006 and 2007, as well as step increases missed during the last contract period. In addition the union is asking for cost of living adjustments averaging 3% for each year of the contract and an additional step at the top of the salary schedule.

Under the management proposal, salary increases for the two year contract period will range from 4% to 10%. Eligible faculty will receive scheduled step increases and steps missed during the last contract period but will receive a limited “cost of living adjustment” of only 1% a year. In addition, management is proposing the distribution of “stipends” to faculty at the bottom of the salary schedule. These are one time payments that do not become part of the base salary. Although management had at one time proposed adding two steps to the top of the salary schedule, this is not included in their final offer.

Management is also calling for a radical reduction in faculty development funds, from $364,000 in 2003-05 to only $200,000 in this biennium.

What is meant by “compression” in the salary schedule?
Compression occurs when faculty of the same rank but different years of service end up with the same salary. This structural inequality of the step system is a consequence of the 2003-05 salary freeze.

When salaries were frozen during the 03-05 biennium, the step system was maintained by allowing every one to move up a step each year. However, these steps were not funded, so the salary connected to the higher steps was the same as the salary in the Fall of '03. This created compression because faculty at steps 1, 2 and 3 all made the same salary. When we "decompress" the steps we add 2% to step 2 (and all steps above it) and then add another 2% to step 3 (and all steps above it). For all steps from 3 up, this means a 4% increase in the value of the step. This does not, however do anything for the value of Step 1.

We are committed to “decompressing” the step system through the repayment of missed steps. Practically speaking this will mean a 4% salary adjustment for most members of the faculty.

Does “strike authorization” mean a strike will occur?
No. A vote in support of strike authorization means that the bargaining team will have the authority to set a strike date and will also have the authority to call for a strike. It does not mean a strike is inevitable.

Will the bargaining team continue to negotiate?
Yes. The bargaining team will continue to work for a fair settlement. Two state mediators will be assigned to work with both sides in another mediation session. The bargaining team is eager to negotiate a fair contract and believes that the leverage of a strike authorization will help motivate the administration to prioritize faculty salaries.

Who will make the final decision to strike?
Your bargaining team will have the final call on whether or not to strike. Although consensus is not technically required, your bargaining team has used this principle successfully up to this point and will continue to strive for consensus in all its decisions.

When would the strike occur?
If no progress is made in negotiations AND the bargaining team believes a strike is necessary, a strike would occur on Monday, April 3, the first day of spring term.

How long will a strike last?
This decision is up to the members of the union. Once a strike is called, the bargaining team and the members of the union will be meeting on a daily basis to assess the effectiveness of the strike.

What should I say to students who ask about the possibility of a strike?
It is fair to say that all of us are fundamentally concerned with our students’ academic futures. Indeed, for many of us, a fair contract is about the future of this university and our ability to recruit and retain quality faculty members. We need to make sure students understand our commitment to them. Nevertheless, if a strike does occur, we will be asking students to honor the picket line. If students have administrative questions about course credit, graduation, financial aide, tuition reimbursement, etc., they should be instructed to contact the Provost, the Chancellor and the Governor.

Will public events and extracurricular activities be picketed?
No. Athletic events, concerts, plays and other student-faculty events will not be part of the strike.

Will other unions honor our picket lines?
Oregon law prohibits other public employees from honoring our picket line. However, we can and should get cooperation from private sector unions who service the university or do business on campus.

Will we still receive benefits during a strike?
Yes. Because health benefit contributions are paid in advance, coverage will continue for the entire month of April.

Will we lose salary during a strike?
Before the union returns to work the terms of its return are negotiated. This includes loss of pay, make-up classes, immunity for strikers, and all other related issues. For example, in a faculty strike in Hawaii, there was no loss of pay or benefits even though the strike lasted three weeks. The university needed the hours to be taught for purposes of accreditation, and made arrangements for the faculty to make up missed classes.

What can the administration do to retaliate against the union for going on strike?
According to labor law, the employer has the option to “lock out” workers. This would lead to having to replace the entire faculty and is highly unlikely. Similarly, the university may limit access to our offices and block e-mail accounts.

Doesn’t hypocrisy make you angry? Doesn’t it just steam your veggies when someone tells you to do your best and then stands in your way, all the while asking why you aren’t doing your best? This is how I feel when I watch the administration of WOU ask the faculty to build competitive programs but then refuse to fund them sufficiently to actually hire and retain faculty.

I have watched as three different departments have struggled with new hires and the low salaries they are offered, and I am sure that other departments have had similar issues. In particular, I am talking about the Business, Computer Science and Composition/Rhetoric departments. The major issue all three of these departments have is that there is a shortage of qualified people needed to fill teaching positions. If there are more positions than people, then the people have the option of choosing their positions carefully. Most of them will take the positions with the best salary. This usually isn’t Western.

In the particular cases of Business and Computer Science, the problem is compounded by the fact that anyone who is qualified to teach at Western in Business or Computer Science (that is with a Ph.D.) can easily make double or triple their starting WOU salary in industry. Although we cannot hope to compete with industry in pay, we cannot even attract those people good-hearted enough to be willing to take a pay cut to teach because the salaries are so low. Every little bit of compensation would help attract and keep these people.

The most surprising of these three cases is the Composition/Rhetoric discipline…they are just writing teachers, right? How is it that we can’t keep them? (joke about serving fries omitted...deemed objectionable and devicive, and we don't want that!) Once again, it is supply and demand. Writing centers and writing programs are in demand now because the “market” says that universities need to produce strong writers. Not many people who major in English want to focus on writing and rhetoric, so there aren’t that many Ph.D.s running around looking for jobs. Those that are out there command about 20-40% more money than the starting salary at WOU. The English department has tried to fill four positions in Rhet/Comp in the last few years, and has succeeded so far in securing two faculty members. Two others left for better jobs, and at least three others refused the position because of pay issues.

So, to get back to the hypocrisy. The administration wants WOU to be distinguished in its fields, but doesn’t want to fund faculty salaries in a way that we can be competitive or even so that searches in highly competitive fields don’t fail over and over again.

Here’s the thing: if we can’t afford to pay for faculty for these fields, then perhaps WOU shouldn’t have these fields. Perhaps WOU should go back to the good old days when we were “the teaching college” and forget all of this liberal arts crap. Let’s forget about keeping up with the cutting edge in technology, understanding the business world, and, oh yeah, helping students learn to write thoughtfully.

Of what value are these things to the overall quality of a college, anyway? Does it affect someone’s opinion of this school if he discovers he has hired a sub-standard computer scientist from WOU? How about if he reads a cover letter from a WOU student that doesn’t follow a thought through a paragraph? What does it matter if manager discovers his employee, a former WOU business student, doesn’t understand accounting?

Of course it matters! Half-assing our way through things doesn’t help the school’s image, and it ultimately hurts its bottom line (which seems to be the only line the administration is concerned about, anyway). Paying for quality faculty and keeping them should be a priority for this school. Faculty trained in cutting-edge fields, be they technical, scientific, or even writing, should be paid what they are worth, and they are worth what the market offers them. Yes, we have people in these departments, working like Trojans to make up for the fact that their departments are under-staffed because they are under-funded (and they are all working on their sainthoods, by the way), but they shouldn’t have to. I mean, for Grover Cleveland’s sake, our English Writing faculty is being head-hunted away from us!

Please do something about this. Pay us all what we are worth.

Simply put, decompression is removing compression from the salary scale. Compression occurs when faculty with varying levels of experience are paid the same amount; a "new" faculty member making the same as someone who has been working for a number of years is an example of compression. A more extreme problem would be inversion where a person with less experience makes more than someone with more experience. Eliminating compression is one of the prime purposes of the salary step system.

(Just to be clear: there are some cases when a "“new"” person makes more than a person who has been here for a while, but it does not qualify as compression. For example, someone who has five years of experience at another institution arrives at Western, s/he would make more than someone who started straight out of graduate school the year before.)

In our current step scale, there is a glaring case of compression. Steps 1, 2, and 3 are all paid the same: $38,124. In other words, someone who started in Fall 2005 makes the same as someone who started back in Fall 2003. This is a result of the salary freeze that the union was forced to accept in the last biennium.

Our step system has 2% between each step, so step 2 should be 2% higher than step 1, and step 3 should be 2% higher than step 2. In the context of our negotiations, decompression refers to restoring the differences between these steps.

For someone at step 1, decompression does nothing for his salary. For someone at step 2, she would receive a 2% increase as a result of decompression. For anyone at step 3 or above, decompression would increase the salary by (just a bit over) 4%.

The fact that this increase applies to everyone at or above step 2 makes this a very expensive proposition for the administration. However, the compression and the need to remove it is a direct result of administrative actions in the past -– i.e. the two-year salary freeze.

One important thing to note is that currently decompression is scheduled to happen in May 2006 in both the administration's and (reluctantly) the union's offers. This means that the administration is getting something akin to a 2.9 year salary freeze. In an ideal world, this decompression would take effect September 2005. This was a significant compromise by the union but one for which the administration did not have to make any compromises.