While I am in support of the issues the faculty at Oakland U. are striking for, in these economic times a little give and take is necessary. I am a professor who lost my job in May due to a campus closing and haven't been able to find work. Anyone who currently has a job should be thankful and not make too many demands until the economic climate improves.

I am, and have been, in somewhat amazement over the absolute head-in-the-clouds attitude that I have seen portrayed on campuses during these economic times. Please, come out of the Ivory Towers and realize that the nation is in a severe recession. Belt-tightening will be the norm for some years to come. The small classes, morning-only office hourse, overload restrictions, limitations on contributions and medical benefits might just be like that for the next few years. Too many faculty members want to compare their "pitiful" existence to the administration of their colleges. The administrators make the hard decisions and have the responsibility if the wrong decision is made. Unfortunately, the students will ultimately pay for this. We will see more faculty lose their jobs because of the "righteous" decisions of faculty groups to demand all ...... or nothing. Good luck, your decision affected 18,000 students last week. Most of these students will vote with their feet. How many of the 600 faculty will still be teaching at Oakland when the dust settles?

I'm not familiar with the argument, but it would seem that if the institution opened the books and held a couple of meetings with faculty to lay out their current and future position, many of the questions could be resolved.

What this article failed to reveal is that the strike by the AAUP faculty against Oakland University is illegal by Michigan state law. I guess the rules and the law apply to everyone else except the AAUP faculty. The faculty should remember a previous illegal strike and what happened with Ronald Reagan's response. Perhaps it is time for the Oakland University faculty to wake up to the economic conditions in Michigan, with the nation's highest unemployment, a collapsing economy, and a state government that only understands more taxes and fees. When almost everyone else in professional positions in Michigan has taken salary cuts and benefit reductions (if they are still fortunate enough to have a job), the Oakland faculty want salary increases and the same cushy package deals they received before the recession. They need to get some serious reality testing. Otherwise, the Oakland University administration should take this opportunity to fire the strikers and replace them with some of the thousands of applicants that we constantly hear about in the Chronicle as looking for faculty positions.

Way to go, professors...you showed the students who pay your salaries just how much you care about them. Me first, and only then can the students can get an education.

My sister and brother-in-law live right near this school. He's out of work with several mouths to feed and these (tenured, let's not forget) prima donnas strike because they might not get a raise?

All the facts are not present in this article and this strike is not only about money. It is about serious attempts to undermine faculty governance and phase out tenure. Whether you agree with these things or not, faculty are not walking out because they didn't get a raise, but because they want a say in the future of their institution and the kind of education they provide to their students.

If faculty salary and benefits depended only on the good will of their students and their parents we' d all be living out of our neighbor's garbage cans - at least those of us working in public universities. Granted, this is not the best time for a job action, but as the events of the last few years in my system (the PASSHE) have shown, there is no "good time" to go out on strike. Those of us who find ourselves part of a group that act as if there will be (we just have to wait for it), and so refuses to exert any pressure in their own behalf by striking, are consistently taken advantage of as a result. The "poor students" argument is naive; the students I worry about most are those that live in my house, share my last name, and whose education and future are dependent on my economic status. When society at large worries about my "students" as much as they expect me to consider theirs, then I might listen to such an argument, not before. My best to the Oakland faculty for having the guts to stand up for themselves.

You are creating a bad name for AAUP by going on strike when students need you most in classes in tough economical times. Wake up Oakland U. faculty! Do the right thing, go back to classes as you continue your negotiations.

When has the AAUP ever said, "Money is tight. Be glad you have a teaching job. Get back in the classroom"?
A rhetorical question. Answer: Never

Mrmars is correct in his assessment. Not the best time for a job action, as he says, but money is always "too tight" for faculty salaries everywhere in education. Our society expects teaching to be a philanthropy and begrudges every dollar paid to faculty of all sorts. You can always find exceptions, of course, and good well-managed universities, but the sentiment that professors are lucky to make a living at all is not unique to this economic situation.

I imagine that all the posters imploring the faculty union to "think of the children" and "consider the Michigan economy" have recently written to their bosses to demand that their own salaries be reduced to improve the competitiveness of their own organizations.

Let he who has *voluntarily* tightened his own belt cast the first stone.

In response to chguk- the scenario you lay out is exactly what has occurred at many organizations in SE Michigan. Some of the largest organizations (e.g. hospitals) reduced the salaries of their executive and leadership employees in order to avoid cutting jobs and salaries for the other workers. While no one is thrilled to have their salary and benefits cut, there are times when leadership by example speaks louder than spoken words. My experience in academia is that faculty are paid quite generously if they are productive; I never had a particular issue with my level of compensation. But I also work diligently to achieve large amounts of grant money and keep a productive record of peer-reviewed publications in high-impact journals. If a faculty member is dissatisfied with the compensation at Universities, I suggest that they enter the business arena and fight it out for the high-paying positions. Those positions have work demands that are vastly greater than in academia, have ZERO job security, and are stunningly stressful. Take your pick. I believe that this is the wrong time and the wrong situation for an illegal strike, and it will end up doing more harm to the Oakland University faculty than any good that could come from it.

davi2665 - I wasn't referring to organizations deciding to reduce salaries (obviously that happens a lot), I was referring to individuals volunteering to reduce their own compensation, independently of what the organization decides (this does not happen, or at least hardly ever).

It makes me laugh that people who presumably endorse capitalism as a means of regulating society are criticizing the Oakland faculty for profit-seeking.

Alright I created this account just so you can hear all of the facts as to why the faculty went on strike. And a reminder to all of you that they are not just doing it for themselves but also the students that attend this university.
Tuition for students at Oakland University was raised by 9%, which is higher than any other college by far in the state. The president received a 40% raise which makes his yearly income roughly $450,000. This is almost more than what the president of our country makes. On top of this, the faculty was asked to take a 10% paycut.
The university makes a profitable amount of roughly 15 million dollars every year. Does that add up to you? Why did the students have to pay more for no reason, they have no facts to back up this raise in tuition.
Times are rough, and all of America understands this. So why the raise for the administrators and not faculty? Why the increase in tuition while the university loses state and federal aid?

No, ladies and gentlemen, the faculty is striking for the students, not just for themselves. They want answers and should not be walked on. I am personally an alumnus of this school and they will have my support on that picket line, along with the growing aid and support from the students of this university.

The president of Oakland University had his salary raised to $350,000 per year, which, even now, is not a particularly competitive salary in the market of University Presidents. His previous salary was totally pathetic, and not even competitive with deans or VPs. Even the provost's salary is pathetic for the level of responsibility he has. Those decisions are Board decisions. The increase in tuition of 9% still provides students with an excellent education with a modest financial outlay, especially compared with private universities whose tuition is many times higher. I do not condemn the faculty for seeking their own financial interests- that is presumably what a capitalist economy is all about (unless your are in an business regulated by our new government czars). However, the effort to seek better compensation, conditions, etc., should be done through continuing negotiations, not through illegal strikes. I fail to understand how withholding instruction from the students is "for the students." I also am struck by the silence from the proponents of the strike about the loss of student aid and resources from the state and federal governments that have helped to create some of the financial problems that Oakland faces. Remember what happened to the air traffic controllers and their illegal strike.

The strike is illegal. Get back to the bargaining table where disputes can be settled. Otherwise, it would be hoped that the University and a judge have the balls to render the appropriate fines to the parties violating state law and if appropriate ship the union leadership that authorized this illegal act to a warm cell where they can see life from behind bars rather than from their cozy offices and classrooms.

Might make a good book or research paper...

Waster89-please tell me the "administrators" to whom you are referring. You cite one, the president, whose salary, as davi2665 pointed out, is a decision of the Board (not that the president could have declined to accept the raise). Are there other administrators, such as mid-level admin like deans, department directors, or department chairs that received increases? You state that the faculty were asked to take a 10% cut--what about the staff? I'm sure they had a similar cut to their salaries, if not more.

The argument the Oakland faculty have put forth is tiring and self-centered. How many times in the past has there been a tuition increase at Oakland? How many of those times did faculty raise the issue that the tuition increase was unacceptable? I have a feeling that like our faculty, not even a peep.

Stop the nonsense, pull your heads out of the sand, face the real world and suck it up! Those of us working in state-funding higher education in NM (and in K-12) are feeling the bite with no salary increases (been there before a number of times), with the exception of promotion pay for faculty--not received well by staff I might add, and increased contributions to our (faculty, staff, administrators) retirements.

Do what's best for the students--get back in the classroom and provide learning opportunities. We are all in this together so pull out your paddles and row!

By the way, chguk--my brother-in-law, who works in management at FEDEX, made the decision, along with all management, to accept a 5 to 8% salary cut last fall in order to ensure that union workers would not sustain a cut and no one would lose their job through RIF. Unbeknownst to them, the union had voted to sustain a salary cut to ensure that all, including management, would retain their jobs.

Regarding the salary cut thread.

The president and upper administration took double-digit pay raises, and then the president declared a pay freeze, weeks before bargaining began. Faculty are also being asked to accept much worse health benefits with larger co-pays and premiums - in effect a pay cut.

Now if the president and the upper administration had not taken the pay raise, and had said, we need to do this, and took the same pay cut as the faculty are being asked to take, there might have been a different response from the faculty.

But this point obscures what this job action is about. One issue. The place of the faculty in the governence structure of the university. There are two main issues here. First, a medical school, which appears to be taking significant moneys from the general fund (and student tuition), and for which the university will not release any documentation regarding its governence and accreditation (the administration will not release the accreditation document submitted to the LCME in August to the faculty). Second, the university proposes unlimited fixed-term lecturers (five year terms), no doubt for the less "profitable" parts of the university.

Finally, several labor groups on campus have been working without a contract for months. If the faculty does not stand up to the administration, everyone else who works at the university will remain in this situation, with pay cuts and so on being imposed.

This at a time when the fiscal situation for Oakland University is very sound indeed. There is no financial crisis at OU, and it has substantial cash reserves. And it is clear to the faculty that the administration intends a culture of a "for-profit" state university, run along the lines of a large community college, with huge classes and so on. As faculty have explained to students, we value their experience in small classes taught by highly qualified research faculty (with doctoral degrees and active research programs).

The interests of faculty and the interests of students are the same. A well-compensated professional faculty exercising genuine governance of the institution, especially in setting the curriculum over which they are the experts, will provide the solid education that students deserve and parents and others expect. It's not good for students to have a beaten-down faculty, as most commenters here are advocating.

I teach in the same public university system as mrmars. The last time our conract was renegotiated, PASSHE stalled all negotiations for over a year; hence, we all worked for one year with no contract--and no raises. The new contract called for us to work yet another year with no raises, then a pittance the next. (Note: for over a year of negotiations, PASSHE wanted us to accept a four-year contract with 0% raises.) It also removed several step increases. While this was going on, the Board of Governors paid a cushy severance package to the outgoing Chancellor, and the universities continued to increase the number of administrators to the point where the administrator-to-student ratio was nearing that of faculty-to-student. This semester, as part of the money-crunching strategy, we have all accepted increases in course enrollments that go beyond the union-approved caps, and we've taken many other steps to save wherever possible. Some departments are not able to replace faculty who have left, travel funding is way down, holds have been placed on equipment replacement, promotion numbers have been shaved, etc. And yet we, the faculty, are the ones being asked to take another hit by going a third year with no raises. And let me add that the raises we are talking about are less than 3%. Because we are the most visible force in the university, we are always the ones pointed out as the greedy fat cats (who, of course, only really "work" 12 hours/week) when the PR machine gets rolling. When I see the administrators giving back a percentage of their salaries, I'll consider forgoing my contract-negotiated raise.

Regarding the president's recent huge pay raise, it appears that the newly hired Dean of the Medical School was given a salary higher than or very close to that of the university president, and so the university trustees gave the president a raise so that his salary would be substantially more than the new medical school dean.

First as some have pointed out this is not about money primarily. However even it it were, I have one question to any saying Profs should just accept the cuts to their overall compensation.

Would you accept a cut if you had the means to fight it --- if your organization was doing well financially (which OU is). Be honest! Can you think of any example of this occuring. EVER!

So lets all get real and be honest!

Plain and simple. If you don't like your job, quit. Otherwise, shut up.

No, we don't need any more submissive drones. If you don't like your job, get your boss to change it.

prof1000/prof291...If I understand the situation @ OU, no one is asking anyone to accept the management's proposals unilaterally or to be a "submissive drone." Michigan has a strong history of collective bargaining and contracts are agreed upon "at the table" not on a picket line. That is why strikes are illegal and it is overdue that the OU union leadership are taken to court &/or jailed as violators of the law. What is so complicated about the ramification of breaking the law? Is this not what we teach our students? OR, is just this another example of "don't do as I do, but as I teach?"

A bit hypocritical don't you think???

University professor = one of the lowest paying professions for the level of expertise required. Why do we allow ourselves to be taken advantage of over and over? Oakland U could have timed it better, but then again, so could the administration. I work at a school that complains they haven't enough money to maintain faculty lines but then hires more administrators to sit around and invent nonsense causes. Because I do not know the particulars of this strike, it is hard to form an opinion. However, I can't fault the faculty for standing up for themselves. This is probably not selfishness but rather self preservation.

Dear 22216726,
The statements here are full of bitterness, suggesting that in these "times" professors should just shut up. That was the sentiment of the comment just before mine, and the extension of that is that is how all workers should behave. One hears that all the time...if you don't like it, leave. Be glad you have a job. Keep your mouth shut. I reject that premise, and the concept of the authoritarian workplace.
Sincerely,
prof291

I suspect those who are strongly predisposed against the work action will ignore this but hopefully some people are open minded.

I hate the idea of being on a work action. I hate the idea of students suffering the consequences and even missing one class.

But I hate worse -- the administration USING Michigan's difficulties and the suffering of so many to propel their own agenda. Michigan's economy is in awful shape -- OU's finances are very strong.

What I hate worse is actions that will destroy the school -- such as a 9% tuition increase, and moves to bring in unqualified instructors.

Please keep in mind, that prior to the work action --- Administration presented most issues as NON NEGOTIABLE. They withheld documents they are legally required to produce and have been taken to court for it. NO PROGRESS WAS BEING MADE for months before the work action. Now things are getting resolved within days.

Regarding a strike being illegal, you are correct. This work action does not become a strike, though, unless and until a court labels it as such. Technically we are not doing anything illegal. If a court says to go back to work we will. But things will be resolved long before that -- because both sides are now compromising, after the work action.

Regarding 22216..., thanks for the comment which although I disagree with -- at least was a point worth bringing up.

I absolutely hope my students fight for what they think is right -- even if means civil disobedience.

I am a graduate student at Oakland University and I, along with my peers, will stand behind and support our faculty 100%. This job action is not only about pay cuts and administration pay raises. The university is trying to take control over our faculty's intellectual property, such as lectures and lecture material, something that directly effects the student body. The school is also trying to limit faculty involvement in the insitution. Our professors speak for themselves and they speak for the students.

The last few days I have stood beside my professors holding signs and I will continue to do so this next week if I have to. I suggest to the many people who have read this article to do further research on this job action because this article does not tell you the entire story.

In the past the faculty at OU has made the mistake of standing up to the administrators on academic issues. That is why the administration wants unlimited non-tenure track hires; they want complete control of the institution. That is why "faculty governance" is the first issue here.

As for money issues, OU has a triple A bond rating, substantial reserves, and is a profitable school. How will it help Michigan's poor economy if the OU faculty, who have worked hard to make OU a strong school, take a pay cut?

Forget the paycut, hold salaries at their current levels. Cut sabbaticals, and new tenure track hires. Detroit has plenty of experienced and qualified people to be adjunct instructors as needed to save funds now.

First of all, Oakland University is not on Strike or an illegal one. OU AAUP filed a complaint with the appropriate body (MERC) in the state of Michigan regarding unfair bargaining on behalf of the University. Bargaining has gone on since May, with OU ignoring all AAUP proposals. The AAUP team is very experienced in professional and good-faith bargaining processes, and proceeds with guidance from expert council in this area of law. The stop work is legal once there is no active contract and the university has demonstrated its non-bargaining stance. The med school for example is an Academic Unit, voted into creation by AAUP members, and state law provides that OU supply information on this unit, its governance and funding so AAUP can bargain knowing WHO they are bargaining for. This is the kind of blocks that led to colapse of bargaining. This did not start just last week, it started last May.

As far as tenure goes, OU wanted to remove a current cap on the number of non-tenure track faculty such as research professors (currently about 15) and raise to around 160. So basically you are not going to hire tenure track faculty again in that mode. Good research programs form over years, and tenure at OU is obtained only after passing three full reviews on various criteria. The quality in Faculty that results is of total benfit to the students they teach. Students learn from scholars who are actually advancing knowledge in the subject taught. Other little poison pills dumped on the AAUP over the long weekend were to give over intellectual property rights to OU. Who of our posters here are ready to give your institution the rights to take your lecture materials and use them as they see fit? Tenured or not.

http://standingupforyourfuture.org

has all the OU issues summarised and presented in detail.
The AAUP complaint action would have happened even if cost of living wage adjustments were already settled and not an issue. Permitting replacement with non-tenure track faculty, allowing removal of contract sections that force the administration to follow specific process in governance and creation of new programs and units, giving OU ownership of Faculty's scholarly and teaching materials, reducing the pay for summer teaching (but not the tuition of course), and withholding the med school LCME application from the AAUP bargaining team are but a few of the problems.

As for tuition, OU AAUP has a long record of pointing out to the Board of Trustees of OU at BOT meetings that they do not need to increase Tuition. By the way, most increases this year at other Mich Univ/s are in the 4-6% range. OU also started the argument off in the media by stating they had to do 9% and not 11%, and that if faculty do not take zero% in EACH of the next THREE years they may have to do 11! An Ohio Metric analysis of OUs economic health rates OU at least 4.5/5, and public universities are considered healthy if they have over 3/5. In 2003 OU AAUP offered and accepted 0% for the first year, and modest increases in 2nd and 3rd, for the sake of OUs economic health, based on sound economic analysis. That same analysis shows OU is in far better shape then in 2003. Michigan needs to educate people for a new economy that competes in the world, and good faculty who are productive and can get tenure move when they have to. There are many tenure track jobs advertised around the US, currently in this "economic climate". This is the first Michigan institution to try to offer the two-tier health care options: if you have the right BMI and pass other fitness tests, your health care is about what you have now, but if not you get more copays, and then get to cover 20% of your hospital bills out of pocket. Once Faculty take this, all OU staff will get it too. The clerical workers at OU have been without contract for 18 months. This is standard for their union. They are next.

http://www.oaklandaaup.org/BargainingDiary.asp

You can read at this link, above, about the Tentative Agreement between the OU AAUP and Oakland University. This details the CHANGES to the contract.

Note that many of the issues are not financial ones, and that the Faculty took 0% in the first year. Some success at keeping fair health care options. Also stood up for tenure. The potential future medical school unit will not have faculty in the AAUP. They will have no shared governance points from the AAUP contract to count for the accreditation review. Will this help or harm getting med school certified? Time will tell, and we will eventually see how it compares to CMU's medical school application.

See what happens when fair bargaining occurs? Agreements.

If you teach part time you are most likely unempoyed by now and looking into why you spent years and money in graduate school.Striking for adjuncts is never even an option.Administrators are many times self serving tyrants with little or no concern ofr part time faculty.How will they fight back? They cant.End of story.

If you teach part time you are most likely unempoyed by now and looking into why you spent years and money in graduate school.Striking for adjuncts is never even an option.Administrators are many times self serving tyrants with little or no concern ofr part time faculty.How will they fight back? They cant.End of story.

Shariyat5 is correct,

and this points out the vulnerability for teaching staff that do not have a strong bargaining unit. OU- AAUP chapter was the pioneer unionized faculty in the US.

In Canada, Faculty bargaining units also exist at their universities. Several contracts back, into the 1990s, OU-AAUP demanded inclusion of some Special Instructors who teach over a specific credit load. This has provided some contract protection of our non-tenured colleagues who could not bargain as a group in the past. Some instructors, for example must have longer than one year contracts offered, and some contract access to health care options. Research Professors are also partly covered in the AAUP contract now at OU. This only came about because Tenure Track AAUP members fought at OU, to begin to include these groups in collective bargaining. This is a good example of how your tenured colleagues can elevate your status and stability in the academic work place. You should have such benefits, in the USA, of all places on earth. Don't you think?

If you have never taken time to read your own bargaining contracts at your institution, get it and do so today. It may be very interesting to you to also read the OU-AAUP contract, the 2006-2009 version is a PDF online at http://www.oaklandaaup.org

It will be clear to anyone reading that book sized contract, that OU-AAUP has fought to improve the quality of university education, and it has served OU well. As a relatively new institution OU does make it into the Forbes top list of colleges, and much of that depends upon points for class size and percentage of scholarly tenure-track teachers etc. It has kept OU's enrollment growing throughout the the economic downturn that has been active in Michigan since 2001's rapid declines in the US auto industry.