|
|
|
On this page, we report on discussions about workload for non-tenure-eligible (NTE) faculty. AAUP-WSU and the administration agreed to separate these discussions from negotiations toward a first collective bargaining agreement (CBA) for the NTE faculty. AAUP-WSU is using a single team for workload discussions and CBA negotiations. All members of AAUP-WSU, and especially those among the NTE Bargaining Unit, are most welcome to contact team members about any issue pertaining to workload. See also the list of Executive Committee members on our Officers page.
Our team opened the session by presenting data showing, first, that a 12% class size increase would have been needed to preserve the administration's revenue from NTE teaching and keep NTE teaching loads to no more than seven courses per year, even with the three-hour courses that now predominate the curriculum, and second, that the administration has actually raised maximum class sizes by 13.5% from the previous academic year to the current one. These figures are based on data provided by the administration regarding sections taught by NTE faculty during the current and previous academic years.
The rest of this session was off the record.
The parties agreed that the main issues have now been aired, and that the administration will give us a written proposal at the next workload session, expected to be on Friday, May 17.
The administration opened this session by stating that the NTE workload agreement should be revenue-neutral to the administration; that is, the teaching done by NTE faculty should provide the same stream of revenue to the administration as it did before (before, say, the conversion to semesters, we presume the intent was). The administration also acknowledged that the workload issue was in effect responsible for the NTE faculty voting to unionize.
Our team stated that a starting place for these discussions should be the NTE workload policy that was passed by the Faculty Senate but rejected by the administration.
Our team stated that we would need to see data on whether the Senate-backed policy would have been revenue neutral. We believe that there is some chance that the Senate policy would indeed have been revenue-neutral, because
Thus we look forward to hard data regarding class sizes from the administration, expecting that it will enable the parties to reach an informed agreement.
This first workload session began with the administration suggesting that the parties discuss the issues.
Our team obliged, making the following points.
In response, the administration noted that some of the issues we mentioned would be covered in other bargaining (e.g., compensation, and criteria for promotion to Senior Lecturer). It also stated that the premise of the TET workload discussions was revenue neutrality (preserving the stream of income to the university generated by the teaching done by TET faculty) and workload neutrality; it then stated that NTE faculty had been teaching nine four-quarter-hour courses (three per quarter) under the quarter system, totaling 36 quarter hours, and they are now teaching eight three-semester-hour courses (four per semester) under the semester system, totaling 24 semester hours -- with the apparent conclusion that the conversion to semesters was workload neutral.
Our team replied that AAUP-WSU and the administration had been through this matter before.
We were alluding to workload discussions for TET faculty (summer 2009 through fall 2010) in which the administration initially insisted, in effect, that workload neutrality could be gauged by counting quarter hours taught per academic year and multiplying that by two-thirds to convert to an equivalent number of semester hours. AAUP-WSU understood well that the administration's position would yield revenue neutrality. But, we took the position that for most faculty, the primary measure of workload is not the number of hours per week in the classroom (which typically equals the number of credit hours taught), but the number of sections taught each term; and, with standard four quarter hour courses being replaced by standard three semester hour courses, the administration's position would yield more classes taught per term and thus an actual increase in faculty workload.
Importantly, the grand bargain on workload for TET faculty the parties eventually reached (1) largely maintained the number of classes taught by TET faculty per term. However, AAUP-WSU understood that (2) class sizes would have to increase, and we accepted (3) the change in pay for summer teaching noted above. One might say that (1), (2), and (3) were key provisions of the grand bargain.
We stated that the administration knows full well that there is a significant difference between teaching three courses at a time vs. four. We stated that from the perspective of NTE faculty, there is a problem (an assertion that met with a nod from the administration's side of the negotiating table).
The administration then sketched a rough calculation and concluded (apparently) that preserving the number of courses taught would cost the administration about $1.5 million per year, using the term "huge dollars" (approximate quote) to describe this figure. Our team agreed that $1.5 million is "real money" but that it amounts to only about 0.3% (roughly) of the university's annual budget [indeed 0.375%, or less than four-tenths of one percent, of the university's nominal $400 million annual budget]; and for comparison we noted the annual expense for intercollegiate athletics of $10 million.
Online, one may view the relevant budgetary figures for 2012 (see for example page 81 of 83 for the athletics figures) and for previous years by visiting the Ohio Auditor of State audit search page and typing "Wright State University" in the "Entity Name or Report Title" box.
We reiterated our basic point that in agreeing to the TET workload deal, the administration had in effect acknowledged that teaching loads are measured by the number of courses taught per term.
We asked the rhetorical question, "What do TET faculty do that NTE faculty do not?" and gave the answer research, and the administrated stated that by and large it agreed. We stated that NTE faculty are expected to offer teaching and service to the university, and that they can be promoted by doing those things (and those alone). We reminded that administration that TET faculty who do no research are assigned two extra classes per year under the grand bargain on workload that applies to them, concluding that a reasonable workload agreement for NTE faculty would entail the standard workload for TET faculty (that is, those engaging in research to a satisfactory extent) and adding two courses per year.
On the issue of class size, we asked the administration how long it would take for it to give us actual class size data. We stated that we understand that the new classroom building now being planned will support larger class sizes than those now typically feasible. (The evident conclusion is that the administration plans on even greater class sizes.)
We stated that though enrollments surged at Wright State for several years leading up to the calendar conversion, the administration did not exactly hire masses of new full-time faculty according;y. We stated that enrollments dropped with the conversion to semesters, though not dramatically more than one might have expected; and, that we have not heard any prediction that the enrollment drop is expected to persist. Alluding to forthcoming changes in STRS, we reminded the administration that it can expect many faculty retirements in the next few years. We concluded that the administration will have considerable flexibility. We stated that we too can be flexible, if the administration is willing to address our concerns in a real way.
We noted that the administration's rough calculation of $1.5 million failed to account for increased class sizes and decreased summer pay.
We reminded the administration that the workload agreement for TET faculty, with its explicit tie between research productivity and teaching load, might well induce TET faculty to be less willing to engage in service; and, we stated that NTE faculty might well evaluate what they do in the way of service.
We stated that the summer pay arrangement gives the administration an opportunity to do better than revenue neutrality if it only manages to market well WSU's summer course offerings. In this regard we noted that some deans are reportedly trying to force faculty to make recruitment calls (!) and that it would not be our fault if the administration fails to avail itself of an opportunity to increase revenues.
Finally, the parties agreed that the administration would come forward at the next workload discussions session (set for April 15, since two key members of our team will be unavailable on April 8) with some sort of NTE workload proposal.
Return to the AAUP-WSU home page.
This page was last modified on Tuesday, April 30, 2013. Corrections, comments, and suggestions are most welcome. Contact the webmaster for this page (Jim Vance) at jimvance.wsu@gmail.com, telephone 937-775-2206. To contact the chapter, please see our Staff, Officers, and Committees page.