Bargaining Survey Series: Workload Report Back

Thank you to everyone who filled out LEO’s Workload Survey! 151 Lecturers from 66 different units (38 from Ann Arbor, 11 from Dearborn, and 17 from Flint) responded, so we were able to collect information and experiences from across the breadth of this university. Next Monday (Feb. 3) we will send out the second survey in our series: Performance Evaluations/Reviews.

The report of the Workload results and our analysis is below. If you want to work on any of the issues identified in this survey, or any issues that could be addressed through the collective bargaining process, please indicate your interest by sending an email to matt@leounion.org. Or come to the Bargaining Committee Survey Group’s next meeting on Tuesday, January 28th from 2:30-4pm at the LEO office (videoconferencing available). 

The winner of the $50 Kroger gift card is Rachel Petrak from the Flint School of Management! 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While there are units that have clear workload standards and written service assignments, the survey results demonstrate that almost all Lecturers are performing more work than their appointment letters indicate. One Lecturer stated that it would be difficult to do their job well without working over 40 hours per week, and another has sought out time management webinars as professional development. Most respondents listed numerous teaching duties that occur outside the classroom, and both Lecturer I/IIs and III/IVs described extensive service and administrative work. 

There appears to be much more variation as to how a full-time (100%) appointment is determined in Ann Arbor than in Flint and Dearborn. Almost all respondents from Flint and Dearborn stated that full-time work is four courses or 12 credits. Most Ann Arbor Lecturers stated that three courses counts as full-time, but this workload can vary across units or even within units from 9 to 12 credits. Very few Ann Arbor Lecturers stated that workload is calculated solely by credit. Some sort of course release for LIII/IV service work is a common arrangement on all three campuses, though this calculation is generally opaque.

Over 120 of the respondents stated that writing letters of recommendation is one of the duties they fulfill as a Lecturer. The other activities that appeared most often (in order of frequency): serving on committees (55), advising/mentoring (40), outreach/recruitment (30), planning events (20), reviewing other Lecs (15). Lecturers coordinate courses, direct programs, develop curriculum, serve on admissions and search committees, and manage labs. The non-teaching work described most by LI/IIs included serving on committees, curriculum development, event planning, outreach/recruitment, and directing programs. The service/admin of LIII/IVs is most frequently course coordination, various committee work, and advising. LIII/IVs are concerned about their own service creep as well as their LI/II colleagues (who are only supposed to perform service/admin work if it is “mutually agreed upon”) being exploited through their lack of job security or their passion for the work. 

Almost all respondents stated that they would receive or have received no compensation for supervising independent studies. There are a few units that count such work toward service expectations or consider supervising projects in teaching calculations. Many Lecturers indicated that they generally do not offer independent studies because of this lack of pay. Only four respondents answered that they have received specific compensation for an independent study. Three teach in Dearborn, one in Flint. Almost all Lecs who have supervised an independent study seem to have performed the duties as uncompensated labor. 

While both LI/IIs and LIII/IVs generally indicated (see quantitative results below) that getting definitions of "teaching duties" and "service" and "administrative duties" into the next contract could be an important bargaining plank, some wrote that they would be concerned about overly rigid definitions that would preclude them from doing things they cared about and wished to continue. These Lecturers felt that a certain flexibility in the definitions of our work would be necessary. Lecturers also expressed that they would not want contract language that would open the space for units to claim that something couldn’t happen “because the union doesn’t allow it” (a falsehood that occurs frequently already). 

Lecturers reported very little clarity as to how or why service and administrative duties are assigned, or how the labor required to complete those duties is converted into FTE. Service creep is very real across titles. Very few respondents receive actual service/admin assignments in writing each year, and very few units seem to have any system in place for determining the assignment and calculation of all this labor. More than half of the 60 responses to the question about the calculation of service indicated that service and administrative duties are assigned on an as-needed basis or that there was no system in place that they were aware of. No Lecturer was able to say that their unit had a written policy they had seen or were aware of. 

92 out of 115 Lecturers (80%) think that having a system in place for determining service allocation is either "Very Important" or "Somewhat Important." Just as the Union has negotiated that each unit must have written criteria for performance evaluations, language that would require units to develop written systems for service allocation could be bargained.