When can Rutgers freeze professors' pay? Union demands contract changes

[Tango Two]

After months of tense contract negotiations, Rutgers University officials and representatives of its professors union have reached a tentative deal to raise faculty salary minimums and improve family leave benefits.


But the two sides remain deadlocked on one big question: When can Rutgers freeze the salaries of its employees?

When can Rutgers freeze professors' pay?

 

[retired711]

This is not a theoretical question -- Rutgers instituted such a freeze in 2010, and therefore never paid the increases that it contracted for. I can understand why Rutgers wants and needs an "out" provision, but it would make sense to have more detailed standards and a less unilateral process.

 

[TonyLieske]

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
This is not a theoretical question -- Rutgers instituted such a freeze in 2010, and therefore never paid the increases that it contracted for. I can understand why Rutgers wants and needs an "out" provision, but it would make sense to have more detailed standards and a less unilateral process.

The problem is that they cannot predict ahead of time all the things that could ever happen.

As an employee, doesn't the fact that they only invoked it once, ever (and during on of the worst economic environments since the depression) give you some comfort that it isn't there so that they can screw you over whenever they want...?

The weird thing for me when this comes up is that Rutgers is a public, not for profit institution. Nobody is getting rich by being on the BoG or the BoT. The people the union are negotiating with are, oddly enough, just other employees of the same institution. I guess if you wanted to be fair, you could maybe add in a provision that in the event that the Union has its salaries frozen for the year that ALL salaries would have to be frozen for the year. That being said, I would guess that non-union salaries get frozen on a fairly routine basis anyway.

 

[retired711]

Originally posted by TonyLieske:

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
This is not a theoretical question -- Rutgers instituted such a freeze in 2010, and therefore never paid the increases that it contracted for. I can understand why Rutgers wants and needs an "out" provision, but it would make sense to have more detailed standards and a less unilateral process.

The problem is that they cannot predict ahead of time all the things that could ever happen.

As an employee, doesn't the fact that they only invoked it once, ever (and during on of the worst economic environments since the depression) give you some comfort that it isn't there so that they can screw you over whenever they want...?

The weird thing for me when this comes up is that Rutgers is a public, not for profit institution. Nobody is getting rich by being on the BoG or the BoT. The people the union are negotiating with are, oddly enough, just other employees of the same institution. I guess if you wanted to be fair, you could maybe add in a provision that in the event that the Union has its salaries frozen for the year that ALL salaries would have to be frozen for the year. That being said, I would guess that non-union salaries get frozen on a fairly routine basis anyway.

The union is upset because the use of the clause was recent and because the union thought that the money was there. (I disagree with them on the latter, btw). There does need to be some kind of out clause but maybe there could be clearer criteria, as I suggested in my post..

 

[retired711]

The University and the union have reached agreement on this and other issues related to a new contract. As I suggested above, the agreement provides for additional notice to the union and a chance for arbitration instead of the one-sided process formerly followed.