Press "Enter" to skip to content

Bargaining XXXVI: Rudnick violates UO respectful workplace policy?

Thursday 8/29/2013, 9am-4pm, room 122 Knight Library.

The admin team’s fact-check on this post should be quite interesting.

Lead admin negotiator and noted tobacco company lawyer Sharon Rudnick violates UO Respectful Workplace Policy?

If you’d showed up you’d probably know what I’m talking about. Don’t miss the next session: Tuesday, 9/3, 10AM. Your chance to get more verbal abuse, and hear President Gottfredson’s counter-proposal on raises.

Turns out VPAA and admin bargaining team member Doug Blandy is in charge of enforcement, and if multiple, independent reports from those present at today’s exciting bargaining meeting are correct, Rudnick may have violated UO policy. Perhaps twice:

The University of Oregon is noted for its strong tradition of collegiality and support for all members of the institution. Hostile, intimidating or abusive behavior damages the strong sense of community so valued at UO. Please join us in working to ensure that each member of our community benefits from a respectful and inclusive working and learning environment. 

We recognize that the demands of our jobs and stressful challenges in our work and personal lives can occasionally lead to moments of impatience and irritability. However, we want to take this opportunity to remind you that, regardless of the provocation or reason, it is never appropriate or acceptable to vent frustrations or conduct workplace business by yelling, using profanity or acting in a demeaning or verbally abusive way.

Blandy’s email is [email protected] if anyone wants to file a complaint about his co-negotiator.

  • Practice drill for strike goes off well. ~100 faculty show up on a summer day when they’re not even on contract. News on the SEIU strike preparation in the ODE here.
  • Some chatter about discipline for Rudnick over her disrespectful treatment of faculty and library staff this morning. Does UO’s respectful workplace policy apply to $300 an hour lawyers? Any truth to the rumor someone caught that on a cell phone video? Email me at uomatters or just post it on youtube already.
  • Union holds firm on raises, only minor concessions. Rudnick seems to have new instructions from Coltrane, sounds ready to deal.
  • After lunch, still about 60 faculty in the room. No visible support for the admin team. No Altmann, no Moffitt, no Geller, no one with any actual authority to deal. No wonder this takes forever.
  • After getting all medieval on me for “posting of false and inaccurate information about bargaining” the administration’s bargaining team is now trying to keep me from posting copies of the presumably fact-based transcripts they’ve been taking at every bargaining session – their stenographer has been typing away all day. Latest here
  • Art 49, use of UO computers, a.k.a as the Stasi Clause. They own you.

Your Guarantee of Truthiness: All UO Matters bargaining posts are fact-checked by Geller and Rudnick’s secret team of well paid consultants, who post their spin on the official UO Admin site, here. If you pay Dave Hubin $285.98 he’ll even tell you who wrote it.

Disclaimer: My opinion of what people said or were thinking but were too decent, or well-paid, to say. Nothing is a quote unless in quotes. If you don’t like my blog read Luebke’s.

The faculty union needs you to show up at this session for as long as you can.
The union team will put its latest counter to Gottfredson and Coltrane’s 3.5% a year proposal on the table. Check out the data by rank and department. You are a long, long way from the Lariviere targets, and 3.5% a year is not going to cut it.

If you want to get a real raise, you need to show up and help put on the pressure. Word is that the much maligned part-time yoga instructors will be there to help out with stress reduction during the caucus breaks. Bring your mat, and be prepared to chant.

Raises: The elevator version:
We’re going down. During the first year of President Gottfredson’s administration UO faculty pay has fallen still further behind other AAU public universities:
  • Full profs: down from 85% to 82% 
  • Associate profs: down from 92% to 90% 
  • Assistant profs: down from 93% to 89%
The relative drops are mostly driven by pay raises at the other AAU schools, however UO’s average pay for assistants and fulls has actually fallen, presumably because of composition changes. The retroactive 1.5% ATB raise proposed by the admin’s for 2012-13 is only for 6 months, so it’s really only a 1% raise. Sneaky. Either way it is not close to enough to make up for the ~3% UO faculty lost relative to other AAU publics between Fall 2011 and Fall 2012. Much less enough to get the elevator going up. And the administration has been fibbing: UO benefits don’t make up salary gap.



9:04. Looks like 50 people so far. Rudnick is telling the faculty they can’t sit behind the admins – don’t want us seeing the transcripts they are taking down.

Admins walk out looking pissed. Cecil lays down the rules: It’s the library: whisper. No eye-rolls, those really drive Rudnick batty.

9:22: They’re back. Blandy, Rudnick, Gleason, Grado, stenographer.

Mauer: Let’s review. Here we are on progress and tasks needed. Our view is we can use this session and the 2 next week to get a final agreement. We need:

1) Work to do: IP – big disagreements. Workload, career paths, job security. We think we can both make reasonable compromises.

2) More difficult: Governance. We’ve had the Senate, but faculty have now voted to also be represented by UA. What led to that was an unfortunate history, not your fault. Admin believed faculty were not constructive on admin matters, faculty thought admin was incompetent. Key to success is to *not* supplant Senate, but to provide support for its role. Admin sees union as distinct, not as a partner with the existing forms of shared governance. (Too true – see Gottfredson’s rejection of Senate vote to get union support for constiution.) For nomenclature, faculty see themselves as the heart of the university. The faculty are dealing with the university administration – not The University. Nomenclature is not a game stopper, but it’s symptomatic of problems in your approach.

Librarian enters and says there are so many people it’s a fire code violation. She sends us to Room 101. Rudnick says this not consistent with ground rules, but OK.

101 is a great room, Senate meeting room. The faculty march in and fill it up. Very comfy:

But Rudnick is out in the hall telling Mauer “I am not going to bargain in a classroom. This is not acceptable. There are rules!” Say, where are the administration’s supporters?

Cecil calls a caucus: Mauer tells faculty what Rudnick said. Faculty member says “So, she wants us to take this outside?” Mauer gives him a stern look, tells us there will be decorum, goes back out in the hall to work his magic on Rudnick.

Are the admins going to use a big show of faculty support for the union to close down bargaining? That’s not what’s recommended in Frohnmayer’s “Negotiating for Dummies” guide:

Mauer comes back in, after a frank and open discussion with Rudnick. He told her the faculty came to see bargaining. (And practice for a strike?) A junior faculty member asks why Rudnick yelled at him when he tried to help move chairs. Says he’s never seen that sort of nasty intimidation. I’m guessing it’s his first session with Rudnick.

10:07: Rudnick and her dispirited looking junior admins file back in. “We need power. Where are the outlets?”

Mauer: “Now you understand the problem of having to switch classroom in the middle of a session”.


3) We have counter-proposals for all the economic proposals. You’ve said repeatedly that you’ve already spent the faculty’s money. We’ve made some compromises, here they are.

Art 20: Salary: (See spreadsheet above for details.)

New proposal cuts promotion raises from 10% to 8%. Keeps 3% pool for NTTF floors – unacceptable that a full time university instructor would make less than $36K.

Rudnick says “I’m chuckling about you saying you’d be happy for us to pay you more.” A $300 an hour lawyer without a clue. The crowd is stone cold silent.

Mauer: I’d now like to give you the rest of our economic proposals and then have discussion. Rudnick: OK.

Art 21: Fringe Benefits:

Mauer: We’ve dropped the child care benefits in an effort to reach an agreement. Rudnick: So we’re in agreement except for the part where you call us “The University of Nike Administration” instead of the “The University”. Mauer: Yup.

Art 22: Health Insurance:

Mauer: We’ve dropped request for a $1M fund to help get benefits for part-timers. We dropped this in order to focus on salary issues.

About 100 faculty in the room. No admin supporters are noticeable. Blandy and Gleason still haven’t spoken.

Art 23: Retirement Benefits:

Mauer: Nothing new here, we can’t do much about PERS. We are concerned about threats that UO might drop the 6% pickup. Other bargaining agreements specify that if this happens employees will be made whole. We won’t agree to less of a commitment from UO, unless you can give a coherent explanation for why we should.

Rudnick: That’s it? I’ll respond. For the 6%, admin would agree to shift it to salary if possible. But if legislation prohibits the pickup and takes money away from UO (come on, how much money does the state give us now?) we can’t agree to make you whole. We want you peons to face the risk, rather than have the university bear it, for example by perhaps having to cut Jim Bean’s sinecure, or cut back on athletic subsidies. That would be too much for JH to bear.

Mauer patiently explains optimal risk-sharing theory to Rudnick. Blandy looks interested, Gleason has his head down, reading UO Matters. Rudnick doesn’t understand risk-sharing. (There are two possible states of the world …).

Cecil starts running circles around Rudnick, giggles from the crowd. So why can other Oregon universities manage to make this commitment to their faculty, but not UO?

Rudnick starts trotting out $8M cost figure. That’s less than 1% of the UO budget.

Gleason speaks: It’s not like we’re going to put this money in our pocket! Sure Tim. What’s Bean getting paid? And the beamer? How much has the admin wasted on Bend and now Portland? How much in pursuit of their other pet projects? Athletic subsidies? Paying the Matt Court land bonds…

Green and Rudnick have a productive conversation. Turns out the language does not apply to ORP people – got to check that out closely.

Rudnick’s basic argument is that individual faculty are better prepared to bear the risk of having to pay the pickup cost than UO, currently sitting on ~$150M in reserves. It’s a stupid argument, but it’s hers and she just loves repeating it. Which is really dumb, because the more she says it, the more people in the room start understanding how wacky it is.

Mauer: We agree this may or may not come to pass. If it does, recall that the health of the University depends on the well-being and satisfaction of the faculty, and of new recruits. Threats to cut benefits are not going to help the university. You keep trotting out retirement benefits as a recruiting tool. Now you’re going to tell prospective hires they may lose 6% and you have no plan to make it up? (You’re trying to destroy the university, in order to save the administration.)

Rudnick: Budgets are tight. We could learn how to do better with what we’ve got, starting with optimal risk-sharing, but we’re too stubborn to listen to you on how to do it better, so I’ll just repeat my usual blather. Which she does. The crowd breaks out laughing.

Meanwhile, get your University of Nike T-shirt here:

Now she’s off on the university’s tight future budget. The projections for which she won’t share with the faculty. Shameless. “Tim Clevenger’s new job is not new, it’s part of an effort to reduce administrative costs, and those are substantial!” No kidding. I couldn’t make that one up.
Art 24, Leaves:

Cecil: We’re trying to codify what you’ve told us is current practice. People under 0.5 FTE don’t get sick time, but they don’t typically get docked for missing class for legitimate illness, or have to pay for a substitute, so long as they make it up.
Cecil: Paid 6 weeks parental leave: Suppose 1 parent works at UO and the other at another firm. Both could take family leave. We want to make sure they can do the same if both work at UO. Rudnick: OK.
Some back and forth on faculty on grants getting vacation time. Blandy keeps his mouth shut. Rudnick says she’ll go back to her handlers and find out what’s up.
Art 31: Release time for union officer and negotiating team.
Mauer: We’ve cut the number of releases UO grants to faculty for union work to 2.5, plus 2 more for bargaining. But, we insist we need the right to buy additional time from the university on the same terms as the university gives releases for other administrative work. We want a union that’s run by the faculty, not paid staff, this will help us do that. 

Rudnick: Would UO get to have input, in case releases put a burden on one department? Mauer: Sure, we want to do this cooperatively. Bramhall: Course buyouts happen all the time, let the union do it they way department’s typically do it. Sometimes % of salary, sometimes replacement cost of an adjunct, etc. Gleason: Prices would be negotiated case by case? Cecil: Yeah, if there’s no set rate. We could set a rate, if that’s easier for you. 
Blandy: Release time usually requires Dean approval. Cecil – sounds reasonable, lets work it out. Rudnick: OK.
Big change in the level of cooperation from the admins here – good sign.
Art 32, Sabbatical:

60% for full year, 75% for two quarters, 100% for one. (Change from current 80%).
Cecil: Caucus break? Rudnick: We’ll be back on these on Tuesday. I was told by Scott Coltrane to tell you that we appreciate your significant movement on this proposals. We appreciate it. So, there you are.
AEI issues:

Mauer: Some upheaval at AEI, raises concerns that if these are not addressed it may disrupt the bargaining process. Some refusals by the admin to explain what’s going on. We’re proposing substantial changes in use of adjuncts and NTTFs. Once we have a contract, we expect it will include stronger definitions of adjunct and career. People who are currently adjuncts will move to career. At AEI, some current adjuncts are now being told it’s up or out. Aside from the legal problems with what’s happening, it’s disruptive. Related problems with reducing contracts from 9 to 3 months, and the date to report for work has been changed. Finally, there are rumors about contracting out the entire operation. This would substantially affect what we need to address at the table.
Rudnick: No plan to disband AEI. Some thoughts about looking at tuition structure. Regarding the reporting change, they are being paid and they have to be available for training and meetings. It may be a chance in that no one has ever done it before. As for contracts, it remains that the AEI contract will not be up or out. They are creating 15 career positions, trying to move adjuncts into them. For the specific cases you mentioned on the phone, the woman will get a contract for fall. For the man, they can apply for the career position. We will sit down with them at $300 an hour and make sure they handle the transition to career positions better, since they seem to have some issues.
Mauer: Thanks, we appreciate it. Rudnick: We will also figure out contract terms. 
Lunch break, back at 1:15. They’re back:

Mauer: We’ve made a substantial move on the economics, we wanted to send a clear message and we expect reciprocation. Rudnick: I’ll meet with Gottfredson and Geller and Moffitt tomorrow morning, and we’ll get something done.
Olson: We’ve heard from the faculty, the perception, especially after the Football Palace, is that the university needs to show that its main priority is not athletics. (The athletic subsidies are enough for about 2/3 of the diff in raises. And lets not even talk about what the perception is for parents of potential University of Nike students in the state, or the rest of the country, thanks to Craig Pintens and the NY Times!)
Rudnick: It’s unfortunate that you have that perception and we wish you would stop reinforcing it. It’s too bad, but it’s your fault. The facts show otherwise. (She’s incorrigible – and so easy to set off.)
Appeals for promotion and tenure: Gleason speaks, Rudnick shuts him up, he looks pissed. 
Some stuff about what happens if new stuff comes to light during appeal – book gets accepted, etc.
Cecil: Under current law if denied tenure you can pursue a grievance and a civil case. You want faculty to pick one or the other? Rudnick: Yes.
More back and forth on details of tenure denial grievance process.
Art 49: Acceptable use of UO information assets. Admin counter.

See the live blog from XXVII: They Own Us for background. The synopsis:

In their Art 49, the admins assert ownership of all information stored by faculty on UO info systems. The old policy? The state may or may not have a property interest in information stored on University systems. Mere physical presence of information on a University electronic information system is not sufficient to conclusively establish the ownership and control of that information, just as physical presence of a paper document in a faculty member’s desk or filing cabinet does not establish an irrefutable presumption that the document is owned or controlled by the University.

Rudnick: Gleason found a typo on line one, good boy. We are trying to fix some of the more egregious claims in our previous proposal.

But, they still claim UO owns everything you store on a UO computer or network unless otherwise expressly stated in the article, and they can take away internet access if you misuse it. Crowd breaks out laughing.

Cecil: You’re insane, but if you want to claim the right to do this, it’s discipline, it’s grievable, and we’re going to want to see what UO administrators do with their computers too, to argue it’s not disparate treatment.

Rudnick: Oh.

Green: You’re serious about claiming you own family pictures and MP3’s I store on my UO computer? Rudnick: Yes. You own them too. (WTF?) We asked Geller about the practicality of this – carry two computers with me. Rudnick: That’s why I carry an iPad.

Seriously? She’s using her experiences at a law firm where things are subject to discovery to tell faculty at a university what to do?

Davidson: I understand that UO has a reason to access what’s on a computer for legal reasons – but why insist on ownership?

Rudnick: Some of that will have to be addressed in the Intellectual Property article. But the default is it belongs to UO.

Remember, at the moment UO has no written policy or procedures regarding who in the administration can read your emails or your files or for what purposes.

Gleason: What if I create on my UO computer but store on the cloud? I read this to say it’s mine.

Rudnick: Hold that thought.

Cecil: Suppose I post an anonymous comment on UO Matters? There’s a long tradition on the constructive use of anonymity for public comments. (Yup, back to at least Silence Dogood, a.k.a. Ben Franklin.

Rudnick: OK, come back with better language.

Rudnick: Even what you do at home on your own computer is a public record by Oregon law if it is related to you work at UO.

Mauer: Is complaining about work “work related”? Rudnick: No.

Rudnick: Work related stuff is public records and you don’t own them. (Really? She’s confused. You can own them but they can still be subject to disclosure and vice versa.

Cecil on it: Why can’t faculty have an expectation of privacy? Rudnick: A bunch of reasons. Work of the university, monitor university discipline, etc.

Cecil: Why not a rule saying you have some expectation of privacy – e.g. prior notification. Rudnick: We’d agree to notification after the fact. We are trying to be very clear: The default is that we own it.

Cecil: Suppose I own it and store it on computer – e.g. class notes. We’re going to propose some exceptions.

Gleason: Your class notes are a public record. Rudnick: Maybe not Tim.

Bramhall: So, if I do personal stuff on a personal computer hooked up to a UO network, I do have an expectation of privacy? Rudnick: Yes.

Davidson: Would you be open to limiting searches to cases where there’s a reasonable suspicion or public records? Seems unreasonable for there to be *no* expectation of privacy.

(I wonder if this all applies to students and their email too?)

Section 11: No using UO computers or networks to sell University of Nike t-shirts.

Rudnick appears to have second thoughts on all this: Maybe we should take a bunch of this out, and just reference the law? 

Moving on to promotions.

Rudnick making some concessions. Blandy still hasn’t spoken, but does nod occasionally. All this sounds good for the AEI folks.

Quick break, come back for IP.

Art 51, Intellectual Property, union counter.

Rudnick: If we pay you to think, why do you think that your thoughts belong to you, not your employer? (Uh, check the work-product stuff for lawyers and their clients, Sharon.)

Cecil: So, if we faculty are paid to teach students, does the university then own the students? Or just their brains?

Pratt: Idea is founded in academic freedom, and the idea that the business of the university is to help faculty in the creation and dissemination of knowledge, not to control that knowledge.

Rudnick: We own you and what you do. We get to profit from it, not you. You’re talking about academic freedom, not intellectual property.

Gleason: I’ve actually done my homework this time and read the AAUP stuff. We hire in the sciences, invest $1M in startup. Your proposal will mean we have to write a separate agreement for each such hire. You’re right, our proposal is draconian in the opposite direction. So, we need a compromise that’s workable.

Rudnick is so used to Gleason not making sense she even interrupts when he does.

Cecil: This language is from another university contract – they seem OK with it. Why not UO?

Rudnick: Sec 6 says it’s up to the BU member to disclose.

Olson: This comes from the standard Dept of Commerce deal, required by patent law for things developed by federal funds.

Rudnick: Sec 6 does not give ownership, just requires disclosure. But you want faculty to ave ownership.

Cecil: Maybe you should work on better language.

Olson: Which law do you think this is consistent with?

Rudnick: I don’t think it’s useful to talk about the law. My approach is more pragmatic, lets make a deal.

Mauer: I get it that you think it’s consistent with the law, Sharon. So are other ownership arrangements. So, what law are you talking about?

Rudnick: We can agree to very different ownership rights.

Olson: Look at the Stanford case, where the SCOTUS said university did not own IP, but could work out arrangements with university. UO currently does this well. Why do you want to mess this up?

Mauer: How much money is involved? Rudnick. No. But we’re worried about owning on-line courses, don’t want faculty to take them somewhere else.

Cecil is all over Rudnick on this.

My thought: We are going to end up with different rules for faculty in the bargaining unit and out of the unit. And since people move in and out, it’s going to be a mess.

Gleason: If I was hired by a corporation to do work, they’d own it. The university is just like that corporation. …. He’s slowing down, realizing this isn’t going in a good direction.

Pratt tries to make it clear to Gleason that universities have a slightly different social mission than corporations do.

Gleason: I don’t get the connection between academic freedom and intellectual propoerty.

Cecil: As technology progresses and the amount of money at stake increases, so does the importance of this. We’ve got competing interests, need to make a compromise.

Rudnick: I agree, let’s ignore the law which is very unsettled, and cut a deal.

Cecil: University currently shares 50/50 – why do you want to change it? We need more explanation – maybe we should get Randy in the room?

Rudnick: We spent the morning on economics, we’re going to cut a deal. But in exchange the university wants the money from your IP. So, we’re frustrated with you.

Almost 4:20, they’ll be back Tu at 10AM with a counter on raises. Be there.


  1. Anonymous 08/28/2013

    Confused Dog

    Could you please publish a table of the *latest* Admin raise proposal and the most recent counter offer. I know these have been published before
    but I have lost track of the current situation.


    • Anonymous 08/28/2013



    • Anonymous 08/29/2013

      Is there a way to provide a rough estimate of recent increases to administrative (not to mention coaches) salaries, by way of comparison?

  2. Anonymous 08/28/2013


    Yes, the admin proposal does suck but the Union proposal is only marginally better.

    Two comments:

    a) last raise (equity based) was in May 2011; Prior to that it was the 4% ATB in November 2008; This means no merit-based raises over the last 5 years and now the average merit raise is 2% –> no dynamic range. So what happens, departments review the last 5 years of annual performance documents and if your average you get 2%, if your exceptional you get 3%, and if, like me, you suck, you get 1% – hell take the 1% and shove – don’t care if its shove up the Union or the Admin.

    b) At least CAS had a rational approach to equity raises –> yes some people, mostly assistant profs, did not get raise as they were already above the peer average. But at least this approach was somewhat standardized and I am discouraged that, that approach seems to have been abandoned.

    FYI: The “inflation rate” from May 2011 to July 2013 has been 3.38%

    the source of this can be found at

    as they provide monthly tabulations

    • UO Matters 08/29/2013

      I added the original union proposal from March, which included 4% for equity. This would have funded the sorts of equity adjustments in the CAS/Coltrane plan. Rudnick objected vociferously. Hope you show up tomorrow to hear the latest!

  3. Anonymous 08/29/2013

    And the cost of living adjustment for living in Eugene vs say anywhere in California or the East coast is?

    • UO Matters 08/29/2013

      Say, why would the cost of living be higher someplace like Santa Barbara? Maybe many people think it’s a nicer place to live Now if only UCSB subsidized mortgages for faculty. Oh, they do? Hmm.

    • Anonymous 08/29/2013

      Denying that cost of living makes a difference is foolish. Put another way, I’d expect my total compensation to be significantly higher in SF or Seattle.

    • Anonymous 08/29/2013

      Are those housing programs really that great UOM? My friends at UCs say they suck.

    • UO Matters 08/29/2013

      My friend at UCSD lives in a $1M house with a pool and a view of the ocean, 10 minutes from the dept. I think if he sells the university gets some of the equity back, but yes, it’s pretty great.

    • Anonymous 08/29/2013

      Is your friend a new hire? It’s easy to be in a million dollar house in San Diego if you bought 20 years ago. What about those programs is so great? When I followed the link to the ucsd one, the only thing that I could see was a forty year term. Is that really a big deal? I can say that if UO offered a 40 year mortgage, you’d probably be laughing at it.

    • Anonymous 08/29/2013

      Read the whole thing.

    • Anonymous 08/29/2013

      Is that the best you can do? Why not tell us what’s so great about the program? I have friends at several UCs who tell me that it sucks. UOM put the program forth as this cool benefit that we’re missing out on that offsets our lower cost of living. I want the details before buying his argument. So far I’ve only heard vague responses like yours.

    • Anonymous 08/29/2013

      I looked at the UW program and it’s a joke. Save money on loan fees! Yeah that really offsets the difference in Eugene and Seattle housing costs. BS UOM.

    • Anonymous 08/29/2013

      I have friends at multiple UCs who have used the MOP and say they found it valuable. These are people who started as asst profs in the last decade or less. BTW nothing’s stopping UC faculty from buying on the open market, so if “it sucks” nobody would be using it.

      UW’s program does indeed look like a joke.

      Another thing to consider is that in addition to these programs that are advertised on websites and have formal institutional status, many universities have started offering housing assistance (such as down payments) during the negotiation process as a fairly common practice. I know from personal contacts that this has become fairly common at UCB, I don’t know how widespread it is among AAU publics more broadly. I have never heard of this happening at UO.

      Do these housing programs close the gap completely? Maybe, maybe not. But they surely narrow it quite a bit. And the larger point is that those cost-of-living calculators do not provide an accurate comparison of the actual costs faced by faculty at different institutions.

    • Anonymous 08/29/2013

      My colleagues at the two different UC campuses easily make 20-30% more than similarly ranked faculty here AND they enjoy the campus housing developments. I would gladly live in one of beautiful homes in those large developments at UC Irvine or San Diego.

    • Severinus de Monzambano 08/30/2013

      Why restrict the comparisons to expensive West Coast cities? Sure, Eugene looks cheap compared with San Diego or Santa Barbara or Seattle. But take an offer from the universities of Kansas, or Iowa, or Illinois and the (much better) salary you will earn there will buy you twice the house you can afford in expensive Eugene.

  4. Anonymous 08/29/2013

    If the union’s “latest counter” is any lower than it has already been taken, faculty should get up from tomorrow’s meeting and leave them to fight alone. NO LOWER!!!!!

    • UO Matters 08/29/2013

      Show up tomorrow and make your desires clear in person.

    • Anonymous 08/29/2013

      That’s easy to say on a blog. What are you willing to do to back up the tough talk? If you leave the bargaining team to fight alone, you take away their greatest weapon at this point.

  5. Anonymous 08/29/2013

    No wonder, who wants to be in UO’s classrooms… May be she wants the AD’s War Room.

    • Anonymous 08/29/2013

      So true. I always begin my classes with a hissy fit.

    • Anonymous 08/29/2013

      The Admin chief negotiator really treated a faculty member like shit when he was trying to help move a chair. Her fit was also harassing and mean.

  6. Awesome0 08/29/2013

    So the union counterproposal throws the junior TTF (by reducing promotion raises for the TTF, and focusing on NTTF’s) under the bus to maintain larger proposed raises for NTTFs?

    I would vote against the current contract, as its not in the best interest of improving the university, its too heavy on the improving conditions for NTTF’s. Is there a different perspective we junior faculty should have on this? I am happy to change my mind, but I need some perspective on this.

    • Anonymous 08/29/2013

      The perspective is simple… the union needs NTTF support more than that of junior TTF faculty.

      Are those outside offers sounding more appealing all the time?

      BTW… I wonder to what extent NTTF are hired away.

    • Awesome0 08/29/2013

      I notice that they did cut out the equity raises for NTTF, so its not that bad. But the reduction of promotion raises certainly doesn’t cost the union that much.

      In that regard it doesn’t focus on improving the university by retaining currently junior TTF, or recruiting better junior TTF in the future. Maybe the union bargaining committee needs a junior person, or at least to consult with a couple.

    • Anonymous 08/29/2013

      The Administrators are simply trying to wear down unity by holding firm on the salary. It will explode in their face, eventually. I do not know what crappy human relations advice they are getting, but it sure seems that they want the Nike business model imposed on a higher ed institution. Overall, it is a disgrace that this Administration has taken such a hostile path to the faculty.

    • Anonymous 08/29/2013

      It looks to me that the TTF total raises after compounding have remained the same whereas the NTTF raises after compounding have fallen by about 4%, am I missing something?

    • Awesome0 08/29/2013

      The promotion bumps went down for TTF by 4 percent, and down for NTTF by 2 percent.

    • Anonymous 08/29/2013

      It will be “interesting” to see how this plays out with NTTF on soft money. It could get ugly with the current state of grant support.

  7. Anonymous 08/29/2013

    Union better do something soon… people are packing up and won’t be returning for a boring show like this.

  8. Anonymous 08/29/2013

    I wonder how much of the erosion of state support is due to the athletic department. They spend left and right and Salem sees every penny of it. It makes it awfully easy for them to cut our funding when they see the insane levels of spending.

  9. Anonymous 08/29/2013

    “unacceptable that a full time university instructor would make less than $36K.” Are all NTTF full-time career university instructors? They certainly deserve at least that. But some NTTF are untrained, just out of undergrad lab assistants hoping to gain experience for a few years before grad or medical school. It would be great to pay them at that level, but no one will hire them when PhD fellows can be hired for not much more.

  10. Anonymous 08/29/2013

    Raising the equity portion–at the expense of ATB–is a confusing choice. I suspect half of faculty, or more, don’t want this. More equity means more raises for deadwood professors, who are furthest away from AAU peers, and less for the rest. Administration doesn’t want equity raises either, so it can’t be argued to be done for the sake of compromise.

    • Anonymous 08/29/2013

      Not necessarily, any deal on equity will get worked out with department processes, like the merit procedures. But I agree, we need actual COLAs. That will have to be our next contract.

    • Awesome0 08/29/2013

      I think it gives deans more flexibility, which can be really good. Large raises not attached to merit or equity (with is closely related to merit in my view) encourage moral hazard.

      For us junior TTF, if we want an “equity adjustment”, we need to work our butts off, and earn a legitimate outside offer. We’re young and mobile, but we want to stay. But we have to earn it, and trust our senior faculty to go to bat for us.

    • Anonymous 08/29/2013

      ^Sounds like it was written by a senior masquerading as a junior.

    • Awesome0 08/29/2013

      Or a junior a that is working his/her butt off. Outside confirmation??

    • Anonymous 08/29/2013

      As a “junior” who can so easily masquerade as a “senior,” Awesome0 should stand to do quite well on the market this year.

    • UO Matters 08/29/2013

      Awesome0 is junior, not senior.

    • Anonymous 08/29/2013

      And he’s a great colleague.

  11. Awesome0 08/29/2013

    Increasing the equity makes a ton of sense. Some departments, and some ranks with some departments are particularly underpaid.

    My department is woefully behind AAU, and the senior faculty are most certainly not deadwood. If anything, our department hasn’t sought all underpaid NTTF in order to increase the salaries of deadwood, like some others have when looking through the actual salary data.

  12. Anonymous 08/29/2013

    So, am I right then? After paying my dues, the union’s best (not yet agreed to by the admins) is not going to leave us as well off financially as would have been the case under the old plans for salary increases?

    • Anonymous 08/29/2013

      UOM has posted those details. Anything better than 9.5 will beat what the Administration offered non-bargaining unit faculty – which is 1.5 retro to Jan 2013, plus 7 over next two years. The cost of dues is a one time increase in our base salary of 1 or 1.25%. It is already nearly covered with the Admin’s current proposal to the union of 10.5% – which remains woefully unacceptable. There are of course other positive features of the current articles that have been tentatively agreed to.

    • Awesome0 08/30/2013

      The admins are giving themselves raises of 3.5 per year (last year was 3.5). So I think we can expect 3.5 per year for them. So our default is 10.5. Also with dues of 1.25 (assumed), we need at least 11.75, plus the raises are weighted towards the later years, so say 12 to even break even. If our comparators are increasing at 3 percent a year (like they did last) year, this slowly closes the gap, but not as quickly as we’d all like.

    • Anonymous 08/30/2013

      Dog says

      it depends on what “old plans” you are referring two.

      Under the old phase I, phase II, phase III, CAS equity planes (of which only
      phase I was executed) – we would have reached 95% salary parity as a function of
      rank and department – salary parity only – not total compensation (e.g. benefits).

      Phase I was May 2011
      Phase II was to be Jan 2012
      Phase III was to be Sept 2012

      Now we are almost a year removed from Sept 2012 – all offers are significantly
      worse than the former plan.

  13. jfboss 08/29/2013

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    • Anonymous 08/29/2013

      Snide comments notwithstanding, we’re plenty convinced that her competence is lacking. The only tricky part is separately identifying hers and Gottfredson’s. That is clearly worth additional attention.

    • jfboss 08/29/2013

      What I meant to say is that perhaps someone needs to address the Rudnick issue “officially” rather than simply complaining on the blogosphere. I have no idea how one would do that, however.

    • UO Matters 08/29/2013

      I deleted the original comment because the faculty member in question is untenured and because the admin has a long history of petty vindictiveness. Please repost w/o identifying characteristics.

    • Anonymous 08/29/2013

      Sure. I was nearby the “chair” incident. A colleague of mine was trying to be helpful and asked how many chairs the administrative side needed, after we moved into 101. Sharon Rudnick set upon my colleague, started screaming at him/her to “leave her alone,” and ended by shouting “Who are you? WHO ARE YOU??” At the least, someone on the union side should start raising questions (officially) whether that woman is mentally and emotionally fit to lead bargaining for their side.

    • Awesome0 08/30/2013

      This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    • UO Matters 08/30/2013

      I’ve deleted the comment above, just in case the author’s defamation insurance is not as good as mine, and because the law is not completely clear on whether or not a Grey Goose is “a drug”.

  14. Three-Toed Sloth 08/29/2013

    I want to know why this is so damn important to them. There are plenty of bargaining agreements out there that fall short of the Stasi model. The unyielding hard line they’ve adopted suggests that there is more to all this than some vague longing for “access” should the need arise (which they already have in any case).

    Die Gedanken sind frei. Oder eben nicht.

    • Anonymous 08/30/2013

      @ TTS: Scheinbar nicht die, die auf einem UO PC getippt wurden….

      @ UOM did you mean “corporations” at least once, here? “Pratt tries to make it clear to Gleason that universities have a slightly different social mission than universities do.

    • UO Matters 08/30/2013

      Thanks Tim, corrected.

  15. Anonymous 08/30/2013

    the lawyer did not seem to be in control of herself

    • Don Draper 08/30/2013

      At my firm we try not to drink the 3 Martini’s til lunchtime.

    • UO Matters 08/30/2013

      I should probably delete this Draper comment, since I think it’s highly unlikely that Ms Rudnick was drunk, and your insinuation is therefore probably defamatory.

      However, in my opinion, she does has some serious anger control issues – for whatever reason. These were apparent from the very begging of the bargaining process, and they’ve become an increasingly obvious impediment to progress.

      President Gottfredson has chosen to ignore these, for whatever reason. I’m not sure he can continue to afford to do so. I hope not.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *