Report of the Bargaining Committee: Fall 2020 Bargaining Survey

Report from the Bargaining Committee on the Fall 2020 Bargaining Survey:

Thank you to the over five hundred Lecturers who added their voices and perspectives to our collective bargaining process by completing the survey. Your responses will help guide the work of the bargaining committee as we build the platform. While this work is necessary and important, we only get what we are organized to take. Contact your campus chair to learn how you can get involved in building our collective power to improve the working conditions of all Lecturers.

Ann Arbor Chairs: Jimmy Brancho (jimmybrancho@gmail.com) & Erin Lavin (erin@leounion.org)
Dearborn Chair: Erik Marshall (erik@leounion.org)
Flint Chair: Steven Toth (stevenxbox13@gmail.com)

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

I.  Response Rate: 547 Lecturers responded to the survey. The chart shows the breakdown by campus and job title (a few people omitted this question).  Notably a higher percentage of Ann Arbor respondents were LIII/IVs (39%) than Flint and Dearborn respondents (29%).

II. Salary Issues: We generally agreed that all the salary issues were very important, although campus parity scored slightly lower. There were not enough significant differences by campus or job title to justify breaking these numbers down.

III. COVID Issues: Responses to COVID questions depended significantly on the particular issue.  Generally, respondents agreed that they expected to work more to prepare for teaching during the pandemic. We generally agreed that unit safety was adequate.  However, a significant number of us disagreed that we had confidence in university leadership, that there was sufficient financial support for professional development, that we had enough say in workplace safety issues, and (for those for whom it was relevant), that there was adequate dependent care.  It is hard to know how to interpret the observation that we have confidence in unit safety but not in the university’s overall safety plan.

IV. Point Allocations Across Issues: For this question, we asked ourselves to allocate 100 points across the full range of issues on which we might negotiate. Although salary issues, in particular annual increases and minimums, received the highest average scores, only a minority (39%) of us allocated their highest number of points to them. In other words, these two issues received the highest averages in large part because we all agree on them, while other issues are crucial for some segments but not others. A major strategic issue will be whether to negotiate on issues that are moderately important to everyone vs those that are extremely important to a smaller group. The first chart shows average number of points allocated by issue, while the second shows what percent of us gave an issue their highest number of points.

There were a few significant differences in point allocations by campus and job title.  Ann Arbor respondents cared more about the teaching professor title and about continuing review. Flint and Dearborn respondents cared more about minimum salary and campus parity. 

By job title, generally Adjuncts and Intermittent Lecturers responded similarly to LIs, so they are not charted separately here.  These results are quite intuitive: for example, LIs (and Adjuncts/Intermittents) cared more about minimum salaries than other job classifications.  LI/IIs cared more about parity than LIII/IV (possibly this is because LIII/IVs were more highly represented in the Ann Arbor respondents group, and the parity issue is of greater concern among Flint and Dearborn respondents).  LIIs and LIVs cared more about leapfrogging than LI/IIIs.  LIVs cared most about continuing review (unsurprisingly), LIII/IVs cared more about a teaching professor title, and LI/IIs cared more about a bridge to LIII/IV classification.  

Although it is satisfying that these breakdowns make sense, it also means there were no great surprises in the data. While it is clear that not every platform idea would benefit all Lecturers, we can fight together for issues that matter to smaller populations because they are necessary and important. The bargaining committee will determine its priorities in the coming weeks. If there are issues that you care strongly about, we encourage you to organize in support of them. We get what we are organized to take!