At Pace, Part-Time Contract Negotiations Continue–Slowly

The week of January 16th, 2006, Pace University and the Union of Adjunct Faculty at Pace (UAFP), represented by the New York State Union of Teachers (NYSUT), returned to the bargaining table for the 24th time since the fall of 2004 to resume a series of negotiations on the collective bargaining agreement the Union has proposed. The timeline of the bargaining reflects a slow but steady march toward consensus:

In June, 2005, the Union completed its presentation to the university of a comprehensive set of proposals; the following October, the university presented its counterproposals; at the most recent round of bargaining in November, 2005 and January, 2006, the Union responded to the university’s counterproposals. A great deal is at stake for Pace’s part-time faculty: according to statistics on the university’s website, 704 of Pace’s 1130 faculty members, or 62 percent, are part-time. (Notably, more than a third of Pace’s part-timers hold doctoral or terminal degrees.)

According to Eric Marshall, NYSUT Labor Relations Specialist and the Union’s lead negotiator, the talks are proceeding productively and in good faith.

“The university has not expressed a strong aversion to the contract,” he said. “I do believe we’re going to have a contract that the adjuncts will be proud of.”

The Union’s original proposals (which may be viewed and downloaded at http://organizepace.org/Proposals.htm) include provisions for health insurance, parity pay, and seniority and grievance rights, all of which the university has resisted accepting. In a November 21, 2005 statement on Pace’s website, Pace Human Resources Vice President, Yvonne Ramirez-Lesce, who has participated in negotiations on behalf of the university, called the health and wage proposals “unprecedented,” and expressed concern that the Union’s proposed seniority procedures would “undermine the University’s ability to control the quality of our academic programs and the quality of instruction that we provide our students.”

In an interview with the Adjunct Advocate, Marshall said he does not consider the Union’s proposals on wages and health insurance unprecedented. Marshall explained that the Union is seeking parity pay as defined by a formula that takes into account the hours that full-time faculty spend on research, committee work, and other administrative duties. As to the proposed health insurance benefits, Marshall said it “is certainly not unprecedented,” but “[A]s proposed, it would certainly be a blue chip benefit.” Marshall emphasized that the Union is prepared to continue working with the University, and that, if negotiations are taking time, it’s simply because of the large number of substantive issues yet to be discussed and resolved.
As to Ramirez-Lesce’s statement that the Union’s seniority-rights proposal would undermine quality control, Marhsall said,

“That’s the corporate line….I don’t believe it’s true.” Marshall pointed out that, even if the seniority provisions are implemented as proposed, they would not prevent the university from being able to review adjuncts regularly and dismiss those who perform poorly.

“Our view is there should be a value to the [adjunct’s] experience at the school…and with the students.”

In fact, the proposal for seniority rights as it appears on the Union’s website does not appear to abridge significantly the university’s ability to terminate underperforming adjuncts. It would merely prevent adjunct faculty from being “bumped” from class assignments if they have accumulated ten or more years of service; allow their class assignments to be based at least partially on years of service; and give adjuncts who create their own courses the seniority right to teach those courses.

When asked why he thinks the university is resisting some of the Union’s proposals, such as those for wage and health insurance, UAFP President John Pawlowski observed that, at bottom, it’s about money and what the university is willing to spend. Pawlowski, like Marshall, affirmed that the university appears to be negotiating in good faith, but forecasted that it could be at least three to four more months before negotiations reach a conclusion.