An Open Letter from the Governing Board

Leave a comment

WE ARE WORTH MORE THAN 0%

10+ months fighting for a fair contract, advocating for the needs of the full-time faculty, librarians, and HEOP counselors.

9.97% increase in inflation since August 2021.

89+ days working without a contract.

7.625% pay cut for full-time faculty, librarians, and HEOP counselors for fiscal year 2020-2021.

68% of 119 full-time faculty and librarians who participated in a survey last week said they would vote Yes on a strike authorization vote.

5 members in the university leadership (at least) are leaving the institution at the end of the semester.

4 outstanding information requests still remain from the AAUP-Utica asking the University to explain their financial position.

3 extraordinary faculty (at least) are leaving this institution to take other jobs.

2 talented students (at least) withdrew within the last few weeks from the University in order to transfer to other institutions because their major was cut by the Board of Trustees on February 16, 2023.

1 year after becoming a “University,” the Board of Trustees voted to cut 13 programs at the behest of President Laura Casamento.

This past year we’ve been given

0% respect and shared governance

0% justification and transparency

0% raise in salary

Our working conditions are our students’ learning conditions. We are worth more than this; our students are worth more than this. We are all worth more than 0%.

Leonore Fleming, President, AAUP Utica/AFT 6786

AAUP-Utica Governing Board Officers

Douglas Edwards, Vice President             

John Peter, Treasurer                                    

Jim Brown, Secretary                                     

Adam Pack, Immediate Past President         

Xiao Xiao, Immediate Past Treasurer            

Kirstin Walker, Grievance Officer                  

AAUP-Utica Governing Board Members At Large

Linnéa Franits

Ariel Gratch

Amy Lindsey 

Jeffrey Miller  

Deborah Pollack

Daniel Tagliarina

aaup-utica-govering-board-letterDownload

Three Faculty Senate Resolutions about the Confidential Presidential Search Sent to the Board of Trustees

On Thursday, November 3, the voting members of the Utica University Faculty Senate received the following message from the Faculty Senate Presiding Officer:

On October 19, 2022, at a Special Meeting of the Faculty Senate, we passed Resolutions #2022-001 and #2022-002. At a subsequent meeting on October 26, 2022, we passed Resolution #2022-003. Copies of each of those resolutions are attached hereto.

Please be advised that all three (3) resolutions were communicated to the Secretary of the Board of Trustees on Monday, October 31, 2022. This morning, I received a confirmation email from the Board Secretary indicating that the resolutions were electronically communicated to the Board.

The three resolutions passed by the Faculty Senate are below:

Your Weingarten Rights Turned 44 Today!

Forty-four years ago, on Feb. 19, 1975, the Supreme Court ruled that an employee has the right to request union representation in any meeting that she or he feels could result in discipline or termination.

You Are Being Asked Questions That Might Lead To Disciplinary Action: What Do You Do?

If you believe that discipline will result from a meeting with management/administration (in legalese, “an investigatory interview”), you can insist that a union representative be present during this interview. This is part of your “Weingarten Rights,” which references the 1975 United States Supreme Court case NLRB vs. Weingarten. Weingarten Rights apply only to members of a collective bargaining unit and are among the many benefits of having a union.

When an investigatory interview occurs, the following rules apply:

Rule 1) – You must make a clear request for effective union representation before or during the interview. Often an employee may not know at the outset that a meeting with management could lead to discipline. If such a meeting is or becomes an “investigatory interview,” you should assert your right to have a union officer of your choosing present. You cannot be punished for making this request. (Note: If the union representative of your choice is not available in a reasonable time period, it may be necessary for an alternative union officer to represent you.)

A typical Weingarten request would be: “If this discussion could in any way lead to my being disciplined or terminated, or affect my personal working conditions, I respectfully request that my union representative be present at this meeting. Until my union representative arrives, I choose not to participate in this discussion.” Or you may simply say, “I want my union representative here.”

Rule 2) – After you make this request, the interviewer has three options:

a. Grant the request and delay the interview until your union representative arrives and has a chance to consult privately with you. (Note: The right to representation is the right to effective representation, which translates in this rule as the right to consult privately with the representative before the interview. The union representative should also know what the meeting is about ahead of time so that he/she can effectively advise you.)

b. Deny the request and end the interview immediately; or

c. Give you a choice of: (I) having the interview continue without representation or (II) ending the interview. (Note: It is not wise to choose the first option.)

Rule 3) – If the interviewer denies your request and continues to ask questions, this is an unfair labor practice. You have the right not to answer any questions until you have union representation. You cannot be disciplined for refusing to answer the questions, but you are required to sit there until the supervisor terminates the interview. Leaving before this happens may constitute punishable insubordination in some cases.

The AAUP-UC represents all members of the bargaining unit, both those who pay dues and those who do not, and is obligated to come to your aid without prejudice. If you are summoned to a meeting with a member of administration and discover that it is an “investigatory interview,” assert your right to have a union representative present.

Download a printable PDF of this information here

Samuel Gompers On Labor Day

No day in the calendar is a greater fixture, one which is more truly regarded as a real holiday, or one which is so surely destined to endure for all time, than the first Monday in September of each recurring year, Labor Day. With time, this day of the year is taking deeper hold in the respect and confidence of the people. It is regarded as the day for which the toilers in past centuries looked forward, when their rights and their wrongs might be discussed, placed upon a higher plane of thought and feeling; that the workers of our day may not only lay down their tools of labor for a holiday, but upon which they may touch shoulders in marching phalanx and feel the stronger for it; meet at their parks, groves and grounds, and by appropriate speech, counsel with, and pledge to, each other that the coming year shall witness greater efforts than the preceding in the grand struggle to make mankind free, true and noble.

  – Samuel Gompers, President of the American Federation of Labor.
“Labor Day. What It Portends.”
American Federationist.
September, 1898.

Your Weingarten Rights Turned 43 Today!

Forty-three years ago, on Feb. 19, 1975, the Supreme Court ruled that an employee has the right to request union representation in any meeting that she or he feels could result in discipline or termination.

You Are Being Asked Questions That Might Lead To Disciplinary Action: What Do You Do?

If you believe that discipline will result from a meeting with management/administration (in legalese, “an investigatory interview”), you can insist that a union representative be present during this interview. This is part of your “Weingarten Rights,” which references the 1975 United States Supreme Court case NLRB vs. Weingarten. Weingarten Rights apply only to members of a collective bargaining unit and are among the many benefits of having a union.

When an investigatory interview occurs, the following rules apply:

Rule 1) – You must make a clear request for effective union representation before or during the interview. Often an employee may not know at the outset that a meeting with management could lead to discipline. If such a meeting is or becomes an “investigatory interview,” you should assert your right to have a union officer of your choosing present. You cannot be punished for making this request. (Note: If the union representative of your choice is not available in a reasonable time period, it may be necessary for an alternative union officer to represent you.)

A typical Weingarten request would be: “If this discussion could in any way lead to my being disciplined or terminated, or affect my personal working conditions, I respectfully request that my union representative be present at this meeting. Until my union representative arrives, I choose not to participate in this discussion.” Or you may simply say, “I want my union representative here.”

Rule 2) – After you make this request, the interviewer has three options:

a. Grant the request and delay the interview until your union representative arrives and has a chance to consult privately with you. (Note: The right to representation is the right to effective representation, which translates in this rule as the right to consult privately with the representative before the interview. The union representative should also know what the meeting is about ahead of time so that he/she can effectively advise you.)

b. Deny the request and end the interview immediately; or

c. Give you a choice of: (I) having the interview continue without representation or (II) ending the interview. (Note: It is not wise to choose the first option.)

Rule 3) – If the interviewer denies your request and continues to ask questions, this is an unfair labor practice. You have the right not to answer any questions until you have union representation. You cannot be disciplined for refusing to answer the questions, but you are required to sit there until the supervisor terminates the interview. Leaving before this happens may constitute punishable insubordination in some cases.

The AAUP-UC represents all members of the bargaining unit, both those who pay dues and those who do not, and is obligated to come to your aid without prejudice. If you are summoned to a meeting with a member of administration and discover that it is an “investigatory interview,” assert your right to have a union representative present.

Download a printable PDF of this information here

AAUP-UC Supports Long Island University Brooklyn Faculty During Lockout

Long Island University Brooklyn recently locked out the faculty in the middle of contract negotiations. This union busting attempt to starve the LIU Brooklyn faculty into submission is deplorable and the labor movement stands in full solidarity with the Long Island University Faculty Federation (LIUFF).

The AAUP-UC has sent a letter to LIU Brooklyn’s president urging the administration to end the lockout and engage in good faith bargaining immediately.

We’ve also been in touch with the LIUFF. The faculty are holding strong and have no intention of submitting to the administration’s disgraceful tactics.

If you want to support the faculty at LIU Brooklyn, you can take a moment and fill out the petition located here.

You can also follow what is happening with the lockout at the LIUFF website and the LIUFF Twitter account @LIU_FF.

Several stories have also been written about the lockout including Lockout Lessons and Locked Out On Labor Day.

At a time when academic freedom and integrity is under assault at institutions of higher learning across the country, it’s important that we stand united with the members of the LIUFF as they fight for a fair and equitable contract.