« End of the Year Considerations | Main | No More Secrecy »


Moncler Jacka

I just sent this post to a bunch of my friends as I agree with most of what you’re saying here and the way you’ve presented it is awesome.


If the administration can apply any and all of the new clauses in the contract proposal that was voted down anyway, then why is there a need to put them in the contract?

I don't buy that. I know that there are management rights, but I think that they need the verbage from the Management Rights Clause and the rest of it to go into the contract to truly run amok on all of our dwindling rights.

The end goal, from what I have heard, is that we are on campus Monday through Friday 9am-5pm and our job description is that of the Lecturer position.

Is it worth it to leave some money on the table to avoid that scenario? It is to me...


The meeting was scheduled to increase attendance by all faculty. It was assumed that most faculty would be attending the 9:30 meeting and that more faculty had teaching obligations at 11am than at 8am. Any later meeting time would almost certainly result in lower attendance due to other work and non-work scheduling conflicts.


Maybe we need not worry if some cannot attend since nothing can be decided formally unless the members are notified in advance, right? Does the meeting have any relevance to the meeting with JL at 9:30 that I hope you all realize is not optional despite the invite that almost sounded as if it is an option.


Maybe we need not worry if some cannot attend since nothing can be decided formally unless the members are notified in advance, right? Does the meeting have any relevance to the meeting with JL at 9:30 that I hope you all realize is not optional despite the invite that almost sounded as if it is an option.


The schedules of those who spoke against the contract proposal were probably scrutinized and the emergency meeting will be held when they cannot attend!


It certainly is early but if it's worth it it is worth it!! I cannot imagine JL and co have given in on anything but who knows? Has anything changed enough to make a difference in how the majority feels about the proposed contract. I thought it was a dead issue. How come the FAOCC leadership can't be more specific as to what is going on so more of us might have the desire to sit through another screaming session? Why so secretive?


Does anyone know what the "emergency" meeting at 8am on Wednesday is about? Perhaps they can schedule the next "emergency" meeting for Sunday at 6am.

Herb Germann

The Highlights do not sufficiently address the contact proposal for a analytical evaluation.

(last sentenced got chopped)


Herb Germann

Frankly, I am horrified that this contract offer would be acceptable. It is a collection of more "give-backs" increase in workload without adequate compensation. It pits younger faculty against the senior faculty. It appears that after the college hires new faculty at low salaries they ask senior faculty to subsidize the college's low hiring practice. The Master Agreement of 2002-6 had safeguards and worker's rights protection. Giving- up longevity from five to six years now to the College offer is penny wise and pound foolish, if accepted. You need to have Math professor work out the loss of income over a 30-40 career by giving up longevity, as it existed in 2006. Acceptance of this agreement seems to providing a stick for the Administration to beat down and break the union? The last contract took out the word "shall" and replaced it in many situations with "May". If IU were back on campus I could not vote for this agreement without seeing it in context of the entire document.

Citing highlights without the Master Agreements language before the voter may constitute an unfair labor -practice.

John Larson and the Board, I believe have a goal to break the union and have used "divide and conquer" tactics

Since it has been a year without a contract, it serves no interest to rush into accepting a flawed deal. As I read the highlights several questions come to mind:

1. Is the $600 stipend added to the base? If not, why not?

2. Increases in minimums may be meaning less if no one is hired on these steps.

3. Why give up the BOP for $850 I do not have the entire language to understand all of this. Others may as well before voting

4. " Exceptional Service Award” Who decides this and what if Larson and company do not like a faculty. - What safeguards to prevent favoritism?

5. The Original Longevity clause compounded over a career meant could mean over $50,000. Has this item been adequately cost-out?

6. One Office hour for each 9 credits of overload - The compensation should be one additional overload credit. This is giving the college time without compensation.,

7. More often then not Faculty taught excessive overload credits when the colleges needed a body in the classroom.

8. Pay particular attention to ten & twelve month faculty- seems like union busting tactics to me.

9. Do not know what the "grievance timelines" are all about.
10. Promotion Committee make-up. Does it reduce or increase faculty input? Does it prevent favoritism?

11. “Management right clause” Be vigilant here. Faculty rights may be given up.

12. Giving up Rutgers’s rate is a "give-back” with the exception of 3 grad credits 80 of my post MA credits were at Rutgers Graduate School
13. Sick-Days - Be vigilant here also -Protection of faculty rights may be in jeopardy

14. Why would the College want to delete the NEA Code of Ethics? -Perhaps because they can now violate ethics with even more impunity. It may not have legal protection but it has moral and ethical force.

FINALLY - Do Not ratify a Master Agreement without adequate discussion, and without seeing the actual and complete proposed new Master Agreement. The Highlights do not sufficient.

Herb Cermann Professor of History 1970-2008


The VN is controlled by Larson now. There is no investigative journalism just feel-good OCC pieces.

Control the news. Larson & Co are smart. Evil but smart.


My question: "where's the Viking News?" are they reporting on the happenings and how it will affect their education? Or are they happy enough to just get a passing grade and treat it like a way station? Personally I think it's a sign of societal changes no one truly interacts or contemplates. It's all a rush to get a bigger education, a bigger paycheck, a bigger payout, without any regard for quality.


The next step is fact-finding. The members of this last negotiating team said that they will not serve again. That's a relief. That contract was disgraceful & never should have been presented to anyone.

Perhaps the FAOCC president can ask for volunteers for the next negotiating team instead of appointing members like she did for this last one?


Hi All: I was not able to be at the FAOCC meeting where I too would have cast a NO vote but my question is, "What Now?" Where do we go from here? Is the proposed contract off the table altogether or does a new negotiating team try to draft a whole new proposal? Is there a time frame or can we begin renegotiations right away? I'm proud of my colleagues but nonetheless it's all very frustrating.


Just for one moment, we rocked as an association. Let the retaliation begin...


For those within the FAOCC who think a productive, just, and humane workplace comes from authoritarian munificence, managerial prerogative, and corporate grandiosity, vote to ratify this Tentative Master Agreement and do right by rendering collective bargaining meaningless.


I wholeheartedly agree. Many years ago, Jon Larson said, I believe it was to the APP, something to the effect that our contract was the worst document he had ever seen. The proposed contract is the worst that I have seen in 25 years. Can dangling a 1.9% bone be enough to cause us to forsake so much of what has been hard won over the years? The proposed contract is pure and simple rubbish. Don't vote for it!

The comments to this entry are closed.