STONEWALLING

or

Dealing with Negotiations University Style

 

By Ross Ferrell

 

SUMMARY

 

 

The University’s approach to negotiations is one of delay, inaction and few proposals, especially in its dealings with ACSUM and UMPSA.

This essay provides several examples, which confirm the University’s approach is an historical pattern.

Associations need a different approach in dealing with the University.

The basis on which to change this pattern is to change the landscape for labor relations in general.

Even though a well-prepared negotiating team is important, changing the landscape requires an Association to do much more.

A successful Association is a pyramid with active membership as the basis of it strength and influence.

Information and reasoned argument are the middle and top levels respectively of the pyramid and work most effectively in conjunction with a well organized membership.

An effective association needs structures and leaders in place at all levels for the membership to be involved and have a voice.

For the past several contract bargaining sessions, we have often accused the University of not negotiating, negotiating in bad faith or even saying that the University does not know how to negotiate. As an insightful person recently pointed out to me, the University does have a specific and clearly defined approach to negotiations. It is called stonewalling. Most employees who have been involved in dealing with the University will recognize this as an applicable term to what they experienced. Some negotiating team members come back with what they can only describe as feeling “raped.”

Not only must we look at the University’s approach to collective bargaining, we must also look at what allows it to continue to exist. Further, we must consider what the various Associations can do to change the University’s approach to dealing with us.

We all know just because a union proposes something that does not mean they will get what they asked for. They may not even get a minor change on the benefit or issue. However, stonewalling goes beyond that. It includes resistance to things like providing information. It includes delaying a response until after it may make no difference. It includes providing incomplete information. It includes drawing things out so that the offer they could have made several sessions ago appears after weeks of apparent useless argument. It includes management requested delays and postponements in meetings for negotiations and other contractual matters and then forcing negotiations to mediation or grievances to arbitration (that is bringing in a third party). The University then acts as if it wants to settle and wonders out loud what is taking the Union so long to resolve the problem or how we got to this point.

The recent negotiations may have crystallized in our minds the observation that this is was the University’s approach this time around. However, it also threw certain earlier negotiations into a similar light. During the negotiations that started in spring 2001 on more than one occasion, the University requested a delay or postponement of negotiations. These occurred prior to and after the mediation request. The delays after the University’s mediation request appeared strange because, in September, the University requested mediation on its own for both ACSUM and UMPSA. It claimed that it wanted to speed up negotiations. After that, the University stated that it wanted to review its finances and did not want to start mediation until November. During the early part of mediation, through the mediator, the University indicated a willingness to consider certain issues that it had rejected outright earlier. Later it backed away from any changes on those same issues. Once again, getting agreement on several issues was like pulling teeth even though they agreed to some of these changes, particularly in UMPSA’s case, at the last. Another aspect of the stonewalling approach in the 2001 negotiations was the negligent and slow-paced way in which the University handled several information requests from both ACSUM and UMPSA. These often had to do with salary, wage and benefit costs, and comparisons. 

Finally, the University’s approach to bargaining should be compared particularly to the Technical College units represented by MEA affiliates. During 2001, Technical College units settled by the beginning of the fall. They reached two-year agreements. In the Technical College faculty unit, there were some unresolved issues around certain working conditions. The Association and the administration agreed to reopen bargaining during the term of the 2001-2003 contracts to deal with those issues. Both Technical College units have higher levels of membership than either ACSUM or UMPSA.

In light of the 2001 negotiations, it is informative and helpful to put past bargaining sessions in a comparative context. The first one that comes to mind is the experience in 1999-2001 negotiations. At the beginning of those negotiations the University claimed that the increased health insurance cost prevented it from offering a wage increase comparable to those negotiated with state or technical college employees. It ultimately decided to go back to the legislature to request more money for employee compensation. It indicated that it would ask for enough money to provide all University employees with a 9% increase. The faculty had already settled for an increase of approximately 8%. In comparison, the Technical Colleges had settled agreements that were in the 8% to 9% range for their staff, in particular the MEA represented units. In the case of the Technical College faculty, the settlement included a costly and wholesale revision of the salary structure. The Technical Colleges went to the legislature requesting some funds to pay for the added cost of insurance. However, if the legislature had not agreed to provide more funding, they would simply have absorbed the cost in their budgets.

At the same the University was approaching the legislature about additional money for employee compensation, it was also asking for significant money for technology improvements and construction. The University obviously wanted a good atmosphere in which to lobby for these “bricks and mortar” appropriations and no employees complaining their problems in negotiations. They got much of what they were seeking for their pet projects.

When the University received the money from the legislature for compensation in the spring of 2000, it came back to the bargaining table with an additional 2%. This did not bring the offer up to the 9% increase over two years they had discussed and not even the 8% that the faculty received. The UMPSA and ACSUM negotiating teams had analyzed the University’s additional funding from the legislature and it showed that there were sufficient funds to provide at least an 8% increase. During the factfinding process and the post fact-finding mediation, UMPSA learned that the University’s intent was to make sure that only the faculty would receive an 8% increase. That it would only use the added appropriation to offer up to 7.5%. In light of the University’s proposals, the question is whether the University ever even intended to offer 9% to the non-faculty units. Or, was the University using ACSUM’s and UMPSA’s involvement in lobbying the legislature as a means of keeping them quiet while it sought funds for construction and other projects?

There is yet another example of the stonewalling approach in the 1997 negotiations. Both ACSUM and UMPSA sought dental insurance coverage for their members during those negotiations. The University would neither agree to pay for a plan directly nor to administer a voluntary plan. Ultimately it said it would deduct money for those who signed up. However, the University formally left all responsibilities for the administration of the plan in the hands of the Associations. When UMPSA and ACSUM made requests, the University would not handle any of the problems unless specific information was asked and the Associations provided specific directions. Much of the difficulty in administering the dental plan was not know to the Association members because these were dealt with by a couple of local Association leaders and MEA staff. This made it look like the Association was causing all of the problems. Yet, about the same time ACSUM and UMPSA set up their plans, the University established and administered a voluntary plan for the non-represented employees. Those employees were allowed to participate in the voluntary plan on a pretax basis. Something that the Association plans participants were not permitted to do. Again, the University expressed no willingness to cooperate with the Associations. 

It was not until December 2001 that the last of the Association plans was folded into the University’s voluntary plan, at least three years after they all came into existence. The University made no real effort to cooperate in the process until language was negotiated in the two contracts and finally implemented after their ratification. As a side light, the University benefited significantly by taking over ACSUM’s plan, it resulted in a lower premium because of ACSUM’s experience rating.

These are but three examples of the stonewalling approach taken by the University in negotiations and labor relations. There are probably others from earlier negotiations and even the ones cited. In addition, there is the University’s well known habit of going to arbitration or settling at the courthouse door on grievances and other complaints. We often try to put the University’s approach on the personality of the individuals involved from the other side. It is quite apparent that the people the Associations deal with are those the University wants them to deal with and that they reflect the approach the University wants to use.

The question becomes what is the best way to deal with the University? What has the most impact on their behavior? What resources do the Association’s have that will be useful in dealing with this type of employer and these tactics?

While stonewalling may include illegal or bad faith bargaining, the question is whether the legal processes are the most effective approach or a sufficient way to dealing with the University. The use or threat of prohibited practice complaints is sometimes helpful, especially as part of an overall plan. However, what any union needs to look at is an approach that changes the landscape.

The landscape for bargaining with the University has included their almost unilateral determination of the financial package and very protracted negotiations. While the negotiating teams from ACSUM and UMPSA has always been very skilled, knowledgeable and hardworking, they cannot deal with the University’s approach only through negotiating talent and research. The source for changing the landscape requires additional resources. We should always remember that an employer usually has two primary concerns, whether they work for profit or not. These are a bottom line and control of employees. It is often hard to say which is more important to them. So how do the Associations become more effective in representing employees?

Several years ago nutritionists started talking about a food pyramid for a healthy life style. We should view our need as propose a pyramid of power. The top of this pyramid would be the use of reason and argument. The middle would be access to and use of information. The base is people or members.

Let us be perfectly clear. The basis for any association’s power is in the current and future membership. The next level up is the Association’s access to useful information. The tip is the use of reason and argument to make its case on any issue.

In collective bargaining, reason only goes so far. For example, a rational pay structure is always a good idea. However, an employer may have its reasons for not wanting one. Those reasons may not seem fair or sensible to the leadership or the members of a union. But, they may make perfect sense in the context of the management’s mind – control or the bottom line.

The next level down and having more influence and power than reason is information. Remember stonewalling includes not providing information. Information is important in several respects. If the Association knows something that your management did not think it knew, this gives it an advantage in dealing with the bosses. Access to information is also important when talking about credibility with the membership and potential members. The association can become a source of trustworthy information. People often assume that the persons in charge got there because they know something or can do certain things that we do not. Thus, management starts with a presumption of greater competence than an association by default. If an association has information, it can often strengthen its arguments and make management look as if it is uniformed, not paying attention or unconcerned. Finally, information can be power because management may not want it circulated too widely. We often think of the press and the public learning things about an employer that it does not want out there. Sometimes management does not want employees to know certain things. In the case of the University, management may not want the Trustees, a governor or the legislature to know or hear certain information. Remember, in 2000, the University was concerned about the impact of adverse publicity over negotiations on its efforts to obtain funds from the legislature for construction projects.

However, the greatest source of power is the base of the pyramid. The great organizer Saul Aulinsky stated that the two major source of power in America are money and people. Money tends to dominate unless people organize. Information and reason are truly powerful if the people involved and affected are part of the effort to change the landscape. In the case of any employer, the employees not only need to be informed. They need to be part of the effort. They need to feel ownership of what is being done at the bargaining table or wherever the union is representing them and fighting for them. This issue is not solely based on solid, effective leadership. It rests on members who feel part of the solution and believe their thoughts count. Effectively, this means organizing the people we already represent both the members and the potential members.

Historically, in ACSUM’s experience there is ample evidence to support the conclusion that membership has a major impact on the attitude and approach of the University. The implementation of the restructured classification system was not fully funded until ACSUM, with the support of other Associations, put pressure on the University. At that time, ACSUM had about 800 members, over 70% membership.

As mentioned already, the Technical Colleges provide evidence that higher membership levels improve Association bargaining strength. Thus, ACSUM and UMPSA must look at building membership and participation in a serious way to improve power at the negotiating table and for advocacy in general.

There are no simple solutions to this “organizing.” One important aspect is having ongoing structures in place at the level closest to the affected employees. Having people locally who can discuss the issues with employees is crucial. People need to know that their participation and support is crucial to anything getting done. And, membership is important. An active membership is as much if not more of resource as the dues they generate.

In relation to the issue of a structure, ACSUM and UMPSA have them. There are sections in your respective constitutions and contracts that provide guidance. Under the contract, each campus is to have one or more grievance representative(s). They have negotiating teams, joint committees and the right to use a certain amount of time for association business. In your constitutions, each campus is to have an Association chapter. Associations can establish committees for various purposes including membership, bargaining and communications. Many of these need to have campus level committees or presences and are in the constitution. It is important as a part of any membership effort to have a functioning statewide and local presence. Membership and activism are not just generated on line or by newsletters even though they are essential to any such program. Local, identifiable leaders are crucial.

People also need to know that their issues are not just theirs but are shared by others. Participation and membership allow people to know that they do have similar concerns, problems and needs.

Obviously an organization must determine the best way that it can increase membership and involvement. The leadership as a group is the entity charged with this responsibility. It requires integrating the associations various activities as much as possible. It requires that the organization focus activities directly on membership as part of its efforts. It is helpful to have an overall plan. It is central to involve as many current and incoming members as possible in some part of the program. It involves trusting each other even when there are the inevitable disagreements. It requires seeing the issues of concern, particularly in a union, as being collective not just individual. It needs a structure in place that people can identify with and can use as a basis for the organization to operate. This structure may change and adapt but still needs to remain visible.

This in not a plan but rather some thoughts on what ACSUM and UMPSA might look at in dealing with a recalcitrant employer and in building support. Often both unions have had successes in dealing with the University. Yet, have these taken longer than they would if these associations had more active internal structures and more participation at the base of the “pyramid”, namely membership. Leaders are to often rated on how well they did it for the rest of us. We should be looking to say we all need to be in this together to do it for ourselves. The University would see a change in the landscape if the approaches were more focused on the base of the pyramid where the greatest potential for power lies. While every association proposes great ideas and great contract changes, in the end, leadership of union is seen as credible if management sees the leaders’ connection to the members’ wishes and support. That will be the basis for bringing an end to stonewalling.