To return to the INDEX, use the OS/2 logo.
This site provides open commentary on the 1995-99 State/UUP Contract and its implementation after ratification on September 19, 1997 (and signature on September 30) into 1999 and beyond. The purpose is encouragement of serious dialogue. UUP is United University Professions, the union representing faculty and professional staff of the State University of New York system. Submissions welcome. Paul Zarembka
August 18, 1997
Note: in the interests of an informed membership, we request that you distribute this statement and read it alongside the contract itself. The text here has direct links to the UUP Web Site, which has the full Contract Language and the leadership's Commentary with Questions and Answers also available.
We are a group of UUP Academics writing to ask you to reject the new proposed contract. We realize that our position here puts us at odds with our friends on the Negotiating Team and in the UUP leadership, who have done backbreaking work in gaining the State's agreement to this proposed contract. But we also believe that they value the sort of vigorous debate that we hope this letter will provoke. We believe that the proposed contract would seriously weaken job security, first for our Professional sisters and brothers, but ultimately for Academics as well. Moreover, we believe that it does not exclude the possibility of contracting in, and after the tension and hardship of the past two years, we simply cannot risk going forward with the proposed language. Too much is at stake here: our jobs, our futures, and the future of SUNY.
A long UUP leadership statement dated August 5 ("Questions and Answers About the Tentative Agreement") assures us that "absolutely no one can lose their employment." This claim mystifies us, and we believe it to be manifestly untrue, particularly for Professionals. The entire contract section discussing redeployment for Professionals describes a host of ways in which they could lose their jobs. Professionals with permanent appointments could see them turn into term appointments, which could then be non-renewed (3.2-6). Recently hired term appointment Professionals would simply lose their jobs, with a transition period but no chance for redeployment (4.1-4). And for all Professionals, the complicated redeployment options offer no guarantee at all of employment.
Nor are we convinced by the UUP leadership's statement that Academics face no real threat of contracting out. Why wouldn't a local private college, strapped for funds, be interested in a SUNY campus contracting out undergraduate instruction to its computer science department, which could then hire an army of cheap, non-unionized, term-contract instructors? Why wouldn't SUNY attempt to contract out as much as possible of the first two years of undergraduate instruction, putting a relatively prestigious "SUNY" stamp on cheaper courses taken at junior colleges, colleges, and universities, taught by overworked and underpaid instructors?
The UUP leadership says that the State doesn't want to contract out, for it would lose control over the contracted-out service or academic department, leading to a potentially disastrous decline in quality. But from the State's bottom-line point of view, that sort of disaster would have its bright side. The State contracts out Department A. After two years of shoddy contract work, it takes back control, and starts up a whole new department staffed by cheap, term-contract lecturers. The State has absolutely no contractual obligation to rehire the redeployed or unemployed former UUP members (6.4). At the cost of some paperwork and confusion, the State has busted tenure and permanent appointment, creating a cheap and tenure-free department for future redeployments from other campuses.
The UUP leadership assures us that the State would face prohibitive costs in time and money if it ever attempts to contract out. They give the example of an enormous, $3.9 million payment for two years' salary and benefits that the State would have to pay to contract out a university department. But the State would incur such costs only if it insisted on contracting out immediately--an unlikely scenario, given that cost- cutting is the name of the game. More likely, the State would announce its intention to contract out two years later. In that case the $3.9 million would simply be the salary and benefits the State would have paid the department's employees anyway, so that, at worst, the State would break even over the two-year transi- tion period. In reality, it would begin saving money right away, for the affected employees would begin leaving immediately, either redeployed to other openings around the state, or seeking non-SUNY employment. Those left behind would be employed for two years maximum to train their own replacements. Then they would be out of a job. Where, exactly, is the State's disincentive for contracting out?
The UUP leadership now claims "UUP always told you that we could never get a contract unless we agreed to give the State the right to contract out." Had any such statement ever actually been made, it would have been, at best, a poor negotiating strategy. In fact, the Spring 1996 Delegate Assembly passed the following resolutions by an overwhelming vote: "Be it resolved, that this Delegate Assembly strongly endorses President Scheuerman's rejection of consideration of any 'outsourcing' of services currently performed or likely to be performed in the future; and, be it further resolved, that this, while not binding on our Negotiations Team or tying their hands in any way, is an expression of both the needs and desires of the members we represent." The Spring 1997 DA reaffirmed this resolution in similar language.
Please consider one more horrifying possibility, perhaps the worst of all: THE STATE CAN STILL CONTRACT IN. Our entire protection against contracting in rests on a short letter from Linda Angello which is not part of the contract, not even part of the Memorandum of Understanding. But the MOU isn't fully grievable--it can't go all the way to arbitration (7.2b). And the Angello letter isn't grievable at all. Even if it were, its specific language would be disturbing enough: "However, in the event current PSNU [UUP] employees would be affected, the State shall not contract out for goods or services performed by PSNU employees with the following organizations: the Research Foundation, any campus foundation, the SUNY Construction Fund, University Auxiliary Services Corporation, or any Faculty Student Association" (p. 75, emphasis added).
This provides no protections for future UUP employees. More important, note that the highlighted phrase, "with the following organizations," modifies not the verb "contract out" but the noun "employees." So the sentence does not mean "The State shall not contract out with the following organizations for goods or services performed by UUP employees." Rather, it means "The State shall not contract out for goods or services performed by UUP employees who work with the following organizations." In other words, the only UUP members protected against contracting in are those who already work for organizations that contract in--a paradox, since no UUP members work for these organizations!
Moreover, note what Linda Angello actually promises: the State will not contract out to any organization centered on particular campuses ("any campus foundation," "any Faculty Student Association"), or to three particular statewide organizations ("the Research Foundation, . . . the SUNY Construction Fund, University Auxiliary Services Corporation"). But she does not promise that the State will not contract out to any other statewide organization, old or new. So, the State and SUNY could establish a new, statewide internal corporation and use it to commence contracting in.
Should we accept the proposed contract, then wait until early 1999, just after Pataki's re-election, to begin fighting to exclude outsourcing from the next contract? Or should we reject the proposed contract, maintain the contractual protections against outsourcing already in place, and send the Negotiations Team back to the table with a clear and strong message that the membership opposes any form of contracting out, while the '98 re-election campaign pressures Pataki to settle and move on?
August 29, 1997
Much discussion about rejecting the proposed contract seems to turn on the idea that "we can't do better, so accept this whatever it is and isn't."
Another perspective is that the proposed contract, by making contracting out available to the state, is simply dangerous in its own right. And that approving the proposed contract puts us in a dangerous situation that we're not in now with the present contract (held in force by the Taylor Law). That we're offered very little incentive in additional money and supposed "protections" to volunteer to put ourselves in this danger.
So what if we can't do better, so what if we don't get another contract for a while, at least we don't provide the state with a ready means to destroy tenure.
It seems to me that some things are obvious and ought to be figured in when analyzing the state's negotiating behavior and predicting their future actions: 1) they want to destroy tenure (and they're hardly alone in that); 2) they want to reduce SUNY's budget; 3) they don't much care about the quality or reputation of SUNY schools as educational institutions (so arguments about what will happen "if they do that"-- students won't come, good faculty will leave, good faculty won't come-- are irrelevant).
Contracting out is a nice way for the state to address 1) and 2). 3) says that the consequences of doing it won't bother them at all.
Prediction: If we give them the ability to contract out (or contract in, since the distinction may not be legally viable), they will. What is there to stop them if they do? We're assured that we're well protected but discussions indicate that the protections are only what happens after contracting out occurs and we're "displaced." And those protections--and the lack of procedural specificity in the contract language--are anything but assuring.
Now, what is it we gain that offsets this altogether probable danger that makes approval worthwhile?
August 30, 1997
In spite of the best efforts of those of us wishing to promote critical evaluation of the proposed UUP/State contract, we have now learned of an individual at SUNY Buffalo who received the Ballot BEFORE our Chapter Bulletin with its two articles recommending rejection. Not having received other than positive recommendations when she received the ballot, she voted immediately and now regrets her vote. We are convinced that this example is representative of a statewide problem given the rapid succession of contract language, the leadership's strong endorsement with the Q&A, and ballots, all within a few days.
All the advantages of publicity have been with UUP Central. You have even gone to the great length of sending a special mailing to the entire memberships of the three Buffalo chapters and the Oswego chapter criticizing "a small but vocal number of opponents to ratification [who] inaccurately characterize the tentative agreement and fail to offer an alternative." Two of us replied in detail and it is posted on the "Critical Commentary" Web Site
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
Separately, in an open letter of August 29, Harvey Axlerod, Grievance Officer for Professionals at the Buffalo Center Chapter, has asked you and Tom Matthews "would you please extend to the 'Loyal Opposition' the same courtesy and access to funds that you have? Specifically, would you be willing to mail to all the other 28 'non dissenting' chapters [chapters not getting the extraordinary mailing] copies of both our Special Contract Issues of the Buffalo Chapter Bulletin, and also include a reference to Paul Zarembka's web page on the issue."
Earlier, it had been proposed to you that the UUP Web site provide a link to the "Critical Commentary" site, but to no avail. That site now has seven items and the latest by Ron Rabin of Buffalo State College is short and concise and is attached below.
We request that the present balloting be rescinded and that UUP undertake to facilitate a statewide debate prior to a new ratification referundum. We are willing to work with the UUP officers and Executive Board to establish appropriate mechanisms.
Thank you for your consideration.