On November 10, 2009, Dr. Peter Albertson sent out a memo to the University Medical Group (UMG) faculty in which he addressed a few key points that had come up in his conversations with UMG faculty. In this memo we will quote his points and provide a perspective from the UCHC AAUP Faculty Association.
Point 1: Most clinicians (non-tenured) have individual binding contracts and receive a letter each January to reappoint them to the faculty. This is a legal contract between the institution and that faculty member that specifies the salary and other terms of employment for one year. During that year a faculty member's salary cannot be reduced.
AAUP Response: Virtually all clinical faculty are in-residence appointments. Another term for this status of employment is "at will," meaning that the employee can be terminated by non renewal for no cause or as some people call it "at whim." The annual letters may also serve as dismissal letters, a fact that many clinical faculty find unsettling. In the recent past, the University has asserted its right to unilaterally decrease the salary of clinical faculty within the term of employment based on productivity benchmarks. For the most part, clinical faculty lack job security and these procedures of employment are detrimental to career development.
In a recent audio conference with the union officers and the executive director of the UMDNJ on November 12th, UCHC faculty learned that at UMDNJ, if a clinical faculty member has not been appointed into a tenure track position after five years of employment, that faculty member is entitled to a multiyear contract. Multiyear contracts have been discussed at UCHC over the last decade, but administration has chosen not to implement them.
Point 2. One of the terms of employment is a 6 month notice period for each party. This means that the institution must give a faculty member a 6 month notice if it anticipates a salary reduction or other change in terms of employment. Historically, salary adjustments have occurred on January 1 at the beginning of each contract year. There is no plan by administration to change this practice.
AAUP Response: Here, the administration simply thumbs its nose at the in-residence clinical faculty. It asserts its right to arbitrarily and unilaterally alter a faculty member's salary. The statement that the administration has "no plan to change this practice" is indicative of the attitude when one party has all the power and the other has none.
Point 3. If you are unhappy with this method of negotiating salary adjustments carefully consider that as a union member a small group of your peers would negotiate salary and other terms of employment for the entire faculty, collectively. If this is not what you want, please consider your vote carefully.
AAUP Response: Dr. Albertsen characterizes the alternatives as either one negotiates salary on an individual basis or collectively; this is a false distinction. Should the faculty vote to support a union, then the collective bargaining agreement that follows will only establish minimum salaries and will not interfere with the capacity of a faculty member who is able to individually negotiate higher salaries and raises.
With regard to the process of collective representation, the UCHC Faculty Association issued a memo on November 12th (see the website: www.uchcaaup.org) detailing the steps that would be followed if the faculty elected the union. Clinical faculty, as the largest component of the faculty, will be well-represented in the formation of a union constitution, the election of officers and participation in the collective bargaining committee. The election of officers is conducted by secret ballot of all faculty members.
The collective bargaining negotiation is mischaracterized by Dr. Albertson as being done by "…a small group of your peers." The process in fact involves a large group of your peers (union officers, members of the executive committee and the collective bargaining committee) and technical advisors (an executive director, labor lawyers and faculty from UConn, Storrs with previous experience in negotiation) and you if you are interested in participating. Ultimately, the entire UCHC faculty will vote in secret ballot on the acceptability of the collective bargaining agreement.
Point 4. If you are unhappy with other aspects of the institution such as the proposed merger with Hartford Hospital, with the administration, or you are just plain unhappy with the Health Center, please do NOT equate a vote for a union as a referendum on these issues. There are other ways to address these issues. As Chair of the Clinical Council I would be happy to pursue this if there is sufficient interest.
AAUP Response: The upcoming election is a referendum on whether you wish to have a participatory role concerning how important issues are addressed at the Health Center. One of those issues is the proposed merger with Hartford Hospital. The planning of the merger is an example of the limited voice of clinical faculty. The clinical faculty have been all but ignored in the formulation of the University policy proposing the merger and the implications of this merger threaten your job security. The merger with Hartford Hospital is correctly perceived as one that will lead to loss of state employee status for the UCHC clinical faculty. Examination of Hartford Hospital's recent actions concerning its current employee benefits does not bode well for what awaits the UCHC clinical faculty in a post-merger period.
We agree with Dr. Albertson that clinical faculty need to "vote carefully" because their livelihood, clinical quality, standards of education and opportunities for research depend on it.
Clinical faculty need a voice. Vote for collective representation while leaving your individuality intact.
The UCHC AAUP Faculty Association.
Visit www.uchcaaup.org FAQ to read AAUP is a No Strike Union
No comments:
Post a Comment