Updates to faculty layoff plan and other stuff

[Tere North]

I received a message to UPI members last week that stated that UPI members will have the opportunity to vote on contractual changes.

I would imagine that is for the next contract. They had a 5yr contract 2010-2015, which was extended for 2 years with a salary increases for the current FY16 and upcoming FY17. It is that FY17 1% raise they have so far refused to do away with, so it would take effect July 1, 2016. Thus, the contract that is up for debate and a required membership vote is the one that will take effect July 1, 2017, i.e., FY18.

[leatherface]

That sounds like a good explanation, Tere. In other words, they will not be giving up the 1% raise, and will allow others to take pay cuts and furloughs while they get a raise. Future negotiations aside.

[Leatherneck10]

I received a message to UPI members last week that stated that UPI members will have the opportunity to vote on contractual changes.

I would imagine that is for the next contract. They had a 5yr contract 2010-2015, which was extended for 2 years with a salary increases for the current FY16 and upcoming FY17. It is that FY17 1% raise they have so far refused to do away with, so it would take effect July 1, 2016. Thus, the contract that is up for debate and a required membership vote is the one that will take effect July 1, 2017, i.e., FY18.

"Next contract" is not even remotely the same thing as what I stated, namely "contractual changes." I have every expectation that I will be asked to vote in the coming weeks to make concessions on the CURRENT contract resulting in financial savings in FY17 (the 1% raise, plus additional givebacks)- or even potentially for savings in the final months of the FY16 budget year.

[Tere North]

"Next contract" is not even remotely the same thing as what I stated, namely "contractual changes." I have every expectation that I will be asked to vote in the coming weeks to make concessions on the CURRENT contract resulting in financial savings in FY17 (the 1% raise, plus additional givebacks)- or even potentially for savings in the final months of the FY16 budget year.

Shall be interesting to see what transpires

[leatherface]

Leatherneck10- Not wanting to start an argument , however,what was the justification by faculty of waiting until now to become a partner in the sacrifices regarding the current financial situation at Western? Why didn't the faculty jump on board when they saw others being laid off, furloughed or facing possible pay reductions? It seems to me if they were student centrist and concerned about their co-workers at Western, they would have lead the charge, not wait until others were picked to bite the bullet while they remained adamant about keeping their pay raise.

[Leatherneck10]

Leatherneck10- Not wanting to start an argument , however,what was the justification by faculty of waiting until now to become a partner in the sacrifices regarding the current financial situation at Western? Why didn't the faculty jump on board when they saw others being laid off, furloughed or facing possible pay reductions? It seems to me if they were student centrist and concerned about their co-workers at Western, they would have lead the charge, not wait until others were picked to bite the bullet while they remained adamant about keeping their pay raise.

I don't pretend to know what has been going on at the negotiating table- nobody here should- but I do know there has been a fair amount of frustration between rank and file faculty and UPI leaders about how the UPI Executive Board has handled this situation. As to your question, many faculty members are frustrated that the administration has not been out in front of the *real* problem facing Western- enrollment. Enrollment management is purely an administrative function. WIU's administration has failed the entire university when it comes to enrollment. Period. Had the university not lost a quarter of its enrollment over the last several years we would not be in this hole. If we still had 11,000 students we wouldn't be having these layoffs/furloughs/reductions. We would have had the tuition revenue to get us through this. And don't get the faculty started on the money pit/black hole that is the Quad Cities campus. It is a massive drain on the entire enterprise, and nobody is being held responsible for its truly woeful enrollment.

Remember also that the faculty did give back a significant pay raise a few years ago. (I'm not remembering exactly, but I think it was huge- something like 4%. This was volunteered by UPI- not even asked by Administration. That's not an insignificant giveback. Over the course of my working career that will equate to over $80,000 in lost salary, plus lost pension money that will cost me every month until I die.) When that happened UPI asked administration in return to try to get a handle on the enrollment problem as the real source of our problems. Nothing substantive was done (Noel-Levitz, anyone?) and enrollment has continued to decline. There have been plenty of excuses from administration, but very few good solution.

UPI ultimately will be a part of the solution. It has to be. Should it have happened sooner? Probably. Again, I have no insider information, but I sense UPI's leaders are frustrated that the Administration's solution the last several years has been to pursue payroll cuts to balance the budget, rather than balance the books through growing revenue.

[leatherface]

No, enrollment is not purely an admistrative function. The entire college should be involved in student recruitment. ENGAGED faculty promoting their programs, not just sitting and expecting some one else to bring in students. I have worked at three colleges over the years, and the ones with the most engaged faculty in student recruitment have had the best enrollment success.

Typical comment. Maybe this is why enrollment has declined. Faculty not creating an environment that participates in recruiting students. The most successful programs I have seen had faculty who cultivated prospective students, went to high school gatherings, allowed visitors in classes, joined with admission in contacting outstanding students that were interested in their programs, attended state functions where high school students participated ( music contests),asked to attend admission days in key cities or high schools. Any faculty member who won't do anything to help bring in students to their programs, and expect some one else to do it are fools.

Then they whine and cry- admission isn't bringing any students to us. Me, no, I'm not a part of that administrative function. ...losers

[wiu712]

Don't get the faculty started on the money pit/black hole that is the Quad Cities campus. It is a massive drain on the entire enterprise, and nobody is being held responsible for its truly woeful enrollment.

So what's the solution ???? Consolidate everything on the Macomb campus and sell the QC assets ???

[Tere North]

Eastern faculty voted down the 5.6% reduction in base pay and will now vote, and are expected to pass, a graduated base pay reduction based on salary level ranging from 2.5% @<$50K to 7.5% @>100K%.
http://www.dailyeasternnews.com/2016/03 ... -proposal/

[Leatherneck10]

No, enrollment is not purely an admistrative function. The entire college should be involved in student recruitment. ENGAGED faculty promoting their programs, not just sitting and expecting some one else to bring in students. I have worked at three colleges over the years, and the ones with the most engaged faculty in student recruitment have had the best enrollment success.

Typical comment. Maybe this is why enrollment has declined. Faculty not creating an environment that participates in recruiting students. The most successful programs I have seen had faculty who cultivated prospective students, went to high school gatherings, allowed visitors in classes, joined with admission in contacting outstanding students that were interested in their programs, attended state functions where high school students participated ( music contests),asked to attend admission days in key cities or high schools. Any faculty member who won't do anything to help bring in students to their programs, and expect some one else to do it are fools.

Then they whine and cry- admission isn't bringing any students to us. Me, no, I'm not a part of that administrative function. ...losers

------------

Faculty generally are not encouraged and supported to be involved in enrollment. There is no mechanism that supports it, except for in a handful of programs like music. That is the truth. There is no money for state cars to attend college fairs or to visit high schools. Faculty should not be expected to pay their own way to do this. Information on potential students is kept by administration and not routinely shared with faculty members. You are flat wrong in saying that faculty members don't want to do anything to help enrollment. I don't know a single colleague who has said no to helping Admissions- we're just not routinely asked.

Enrollment has declined because for years we had the wrong people managing it. The current director is better, but he had a major hole to dig out of caused by years of poor policy.