CWP COLLEGIAL FEDERATION

Welcome to the C.W. Post Collegial Federation (Faculty Union), Local 3517, New York State United Teachers (NYSUT), AFT, AFL-CIO.

Contact us at: Long Island University/C.W. Post Campus, 720 Northern Blvd., Brookville, NY 11548

Telephone: (516) 299-2853     E-mail: hq@cwp-collegialfed.org

News Alert:

Due to a conflict, the CWPCF Executive Board meeting has been rescheduled. The new date is Friday, October 13, 2006 at 2:30 p.m. in room 242 of Pell Hall (Life Science). Please make every effort to attend this first executive board meeting of the 2006-07 academic year.

At midnight September 03, 2006, the negotiating team and Administration agreed on a Contract. It was ratified by the membership overwhelmingly by secret ballot at the membership meeting of September 04, 2006.

Back by popular demand: C.W. Post Faculty Salary Charts

##################################

8/24/2006

Dear Members of the C.W.Post Collegial Federation,

            There is no real progress at negotiations to report to you at this time. Things stand very much the way they were at our last membership meeting. However, we still have negotiating meetings planned for Monday through Friday, August 28 through 31. Up to this moment, the Administration is still proposing a 3% raise for the first and second years of a Contract with increases in health care contributions that are greater than the amounts of the raises. (See the attached analysis by professor Wahrmann, Accountancy.) Obviously, this means a cut in our net pay at a time when the cost of living has risen by approximately 5%., and at a time when enrollments are burgeoning.
            Even more remarkably, Administration is still taking the position that no matter what concessions we make on healthcare, they will not offer a salary raise that even meets the inflation. (See www.bls.gov, Consumer Price Index - Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA, Series CWURA101SA0. The consumer price index went up from 206.5 last July to 216.8 this July. The quotient is 1.04987… i.e. The cost of living rise from last July to this July is 5%. From June to June it was even higher.) There is no way that administration’s attitude on this matter, can be justified at a time when our school is doing better than ever before. The erosion of our base pay relative to the cost of living will affect our pensions, and will still be with us in the likely event that at some time in the future there is an improvement in the healthcare situation nationally.
          It is notable, in this respect, that the contract now being offered to the faculty at Hofstra has a salary component that is greater than 5% for each of the next three years. It also includes at least two of the proposals that we have made at these negotiations, and that have not been accepted by Administration: 1. Released time for both tenured and untenured faculty members; 2. Administration contributions to a dental plan.
            We, of course, are hoping that there will be significant improvement in the situation by the time of the scheduled opening of classes on Tuesday, September 5. Rather than interfere with the possibility of continuing negotiations past August 31, through the weekend, we have decided to hold our membership meeting at the latest possible moment:

Monday, September 4, at 1 P.M. in Life Science 139. Labor Day, the day that was established on behalf of the nation’s labor unions.
            Our position has been, and continues to be that we are willing to help with health care costs, and with the process of facilitating the movement of faculty from more expensive plans to less expensive ones (without reducing benefits) providing that in each year of the Contract there is a raise that covers the inflation, and provides an additional amount to continuing faculty members for having worked for an additional year, and a reasonable amount for equity. (As we have proved over and over, a cost of living raise plus a suitable increment for continuing faculty does not mean any more than a cost of living raise in the amount of wages paid by Administration in view of the normal flux of retirements of higher paid faculty members, and hiring of lower paid replacements.)

            I have included below a list of give-backs proposed by Adminstration, that are still on the table. (Needless to say we have not agreed to any of them. Note: it is not an exhaustive list of all Administration proposals or give-backs.)

Loss of tuition remission to take Ph. D. courses. (We had won an arbitration on this matter, the arbitrator agreeing with the clear wording of our Contract that we have a right to tuition remission for all credit course.)

Loss of tuition remission for our dependent children to take individual study courses unless these are an absolutely essential part of the dependent’s program, and under-enrolled courses, except in the case that in the dependent’s senior year there is no other way for him/her to graduate.. (We had won an arbitration on this matter; the Administration’s proposal is likely to create new difficulties for our dependent children.)

Loss of tuition remission for ourselves and our spouses to take independent study credit courses, and under-enrolled credit courses (a benefit which is guaranteed by the Contract which is now expiring).

Three days on campus for all faculty members.

Yearly reports to Administration on prospective plans for the coming year and achievements of the previous year; with the requirement that these activities are at least at the level required of probationary faculty members. As you know, the level required for probationary faculty members is a moving target, which in many cases has proved to be very hard to reach.

External review of candidates for tenure.

All chairs of small departments to be reduced to only 3 credits of released time for the whole year; Chairs of medium sized departments reduced to 3 credits in each of the two regular semesters even in those cases that they now enjoy 6 credits of released time. (Medium-sized departments must have both 7.5 full-time faculty members or adjunct equivalents, and must sell 2,700 student credits; Large departments must have 15 full-time faculty equivalents, and sell 5,400 student credits.) Large departments will have 6 credits of released time in each semester; but this is contingent upon acceptance of 8, below, for all chairs.

If a Dean refuses to seat the Chair “elected” by the Department, it no longer goes to a panel of four people, three of them campus faculty representatives, and one Administration, but now to a panel of four with two Administration representatives, thus, making the overturning of the Dean’s decision effectively impossible.

Hiring of faculty members with tenure.

Stiffening of the requirements for obtaining Sabbaticals; e.g. requiring presentation of all previous Sabbatical reports, and applications as part of an application for Sabbaticals..

Ending the maintenance of lines provision for Library faculty.

In solidarity, Ralph Knopf

ANALYSIS OF THE ADMINISTRATION’S PROPOSAL ON SALARIES AND HEALTH CARE CONTRIBUTIONS

The Administration has proposed a 3% salary increase in each of the next two years.

The current proposal offered to the union for healthcare insurance coverage is based on the faculty member's current salary as follows:

Annual salary              Proposed Contribution            Current Contribution
$ 60,000                      14%                                         7%
$ 70,000                      16.50%                                    7%

$ 80,000                      18.80%                                    7%

$ 90,000                      20.70%                                    7%

$100,000                     22%                                         7%

Considering the Oxford Freedom Plan, as an example, the results would be as follows:

At a salary of $85,000 and the proposed salary increase of 3%, a faculty member's increase in pay would be $2,550 per year. Assume this faculty has a family. The premium is projected (by the Administration) to increase by 16% for the coming year. This would make the family premium $1,718/month or $20,616/year. The increased cost to the faculty member would be ($20,616x 20%) less ($17,771x 7%) or $4,123-$1,244 =$2,879 of an increase in health costs to the employee. This would result in a gross pay loss of ($329) ($2,550-$2,879)per year.

The reduction in pay to Aetna HMO coverage is even more severe. Resulting in a decrease in salary for a family plan of ($891).

If the member were covered under the CIGNA Plan, the difference is greater. This plan the administration has stated will increase by 21% in costs. The family plan will go from $34,080 per year to $41,236. The result for a Faculty member with a family earning $85,000 follows.

            $85,000 x 3% = $2,550 increase in salary

            $34,080x 7% =    $2,386

            $41,236 x 20% = $8,247
            A net increase in cost to employee $5,861-$2,550 = ($3,311)/ year

UPDATE on Negotiations 7/26/06

   Negotiations are now scheduled for Aug. 11 and Aug. 18; and some unspecified day (days) at end of August.

   Administration’s position on wages and health care remain unchanged:

   For the coming semester, a 3% raise despite the fact that tuition for next semester has gone up more than 5.75 %, and that the June to June CPI has gone up more than 5%, combined with health care contributions of 8.3% of salary (up from 2.9% of salary) for the average faculty member on the CIGNA PPO family plan, and 4.1% of salary (up from the present 1.5% of salary) for the average faculty member on the Oxford Freedom family plan, and 3.7% and 3.6% of salary respectively for the two HMO’s, both up from no contribution at all.

   In short they wish to reduce our take-home pay (i.e. when health care costs are factored in), and reduce further our real pay (i.e. when the cost of living is factored in) at a time when the University is boasting that it is doing better than ever before, and enrollments are mushrooming..
   Administration’s proposal with respect to our working conditions remain unaltered except for the following new proposals. (It has not withdrawn any proposals about which we have informed you in the past.)
1. All faculty members must be available “not less than 3 days per week to meet with students, participate in committees, ,provide department and campus administrators with appropriate academic assistance. This assistance shall be understood to include, but not be limited to, responsibilities related to accreditation and registration requirements as well as participation in admissions and student retention functions,. In keeping with these requirements all faculty members are expected to maintain a consistent presence on campus each week throughout each semester.”

2. Administration persists in its insistence that all faculty provide it with performance plans for the next year, and reports on performance in the previous one. They now add: “Such professional development is expected, at a minimum, to meet the   standards in place for faculty members on their probationary years of service.”
The Administration proposes to do away with the maintenance of faculty lines provision for our Library colleagues.

To quote from a report just released by our Brooklyn colleagues:

“ The Present University Position Guarantees Declining wages and a loss of Academic Freedom and Prerogatives!”

   As you know, the Brooklyn faculty, like our own, have passed a “NO CONTRACT – NO WORK” resolution.

Update on Negotiations (June 13, 2006)

Dear Member of the C.W.Post Collegial Federation;
   I am sorry that it is necessary to interrupt your vacation time with a letter of this sort, but unfortunately it is urgent that I do so. As you know, we began these negotiations with the hope that we could set the stage for a prolonged period of labor peace by limiting our demands for the most part to the bare essentials: the maintenance of our standard of living, access to health care, and the preservation of our rights. We also made it clear that we were willing to increase our contribution to health care within sensible limits, and to cooperate with administration’s efforts to establish incentives for faculty members on a voluntary basis to migrate to cheaper health plans
   Unfortunately, the response to our efforts has been a full scale attack by administration on every front. We have no choice at this point but to call you to meeting to seek your input into the situation.
WE HEREBY URGENTLY CALL YOU TO AN EMERGENCY MEETING ON JUNE 29, THURSDAY, AT 11:00 A.M. IN LIFE SCIENCE 139
   Our Brooklyn colleagues faced with the same situation have already passed a No-Contract-No-Work resolution.
Below is a brief summary of what has taken place at negotiations.
UPDATE ON SALARY:
   To date, administration has not agreed even to offer a raise that matches the present rise in the cost of living, let alone an increment for having worked for an additional year. Retirees on Social Security got a 4.1% cost-of-living raise this year. Associated Press, May 17, reported, “So far this year, consumer prices are rising at an annual rate of 5.1 percent, much faster than the 3.4 percent increased registered for all of 2005.” Yet Administration has offered us only a 3% raise this year, and proposes no more than this for any year of their proposed five year Contract. Newsday, June 9, notes that Long Island University has obtained a five-year lease of class-room space from Suffolk Community College, and, “The rent would be $70,000 the first year, with inflation increases in later years.” And you can bet your bottom dollar (if you have any left) that tuition, also, will, as usual, increase by more than inflation during the five years; and given the usual flux of retirements of the highest paid faculty members and their replacement by lower paid ones, the wage bill will go up scarcely a half of the proposed rise of 3% in continuing faculty salaries.
   It is interesting to note that Administration sought to influence the negotiating team by reprinting for us a Newsday article describing the settlement at Suffolk Community College as “…a 2 percent increase, retroactive to Sept.1, 2005, and annual increases of 2.75 percent in 2007, 2.85% percent t in 2007, 2.95 percent in 2008 and 2009, and 3 percent in 2010. I am told that the same print-out was distributed at a Dean’s meeting. The article failed to mention that Suffolk Community College, like the Elementary and High School systems, and the police, has a step plan, and that therefore in addition to the above-mentioned increases in the step chart, continuing faculty members receive an additional increment (of more than 4.16%) by going up a step. (It is likely that the total wage bill will not, however, go up more than inflation as a result of the usual flux of higher paid faculty members retiring while lower paid ones take their place. Step plans are designed to deal with this flux.)
    Even neglecting the gigantic hit upon our standard of living that Administration has in store for us on health care, our negotiating team cannot in good conscience agree to doom our faculty to 5 years of a salary package that will bring financial hardship in its train.
    Our position on salary continues to be that each year of whatever length contract, the increase in salary should have three parts:
1. An amount equivalent to the rise in the cost of living (so that our faculty does not move backward in their real incomes) ;

2. An increment for having worked for an additional year; we proposed that this be equal to the national rise in productivity, as reported by the Labor Department (the formula advocated by Samuelson in his economics text-book);

3. A significant equity plan.
UPDATE ON HEALTHCARE
The Administration has on the table a healthcare proposal (for the first year) that provides for a percentage of premium cost for different salary ranges, different insurers, and different types of insurance.
   A full analysis of this has been made by our economics advisor, and will be distributed at our emergency membership meeting. I will only give some highlights of this analysis.
Below is the percentage of a faculty member’s salary at various salary levels that a faculty member will have to pay for the family plan, under Administration’s proposal.
CIGNA PPO FAMILY PLAN

Salary

$60,000

$70,000

$85,000

$90,000

$100,000

Percent of Salary he/she must pay

8.3%

8.3%

8.3%

8.1%

7.8%

   You should compare these percentages of salary with the Administration’s proposed salary raise of only 3%
       CIGNA POS FAMILY PLAN

Salary

$60,000

$70,000

$85,000

$90,000

$100,000

Percent of Salary he/she must pay

5.6%

5.6%

5.6%

5.5%

5.2%

     OXFORD FREEDOM FAMILY PLAN

Salary

$60,000

$70,000

$85,000

$90,000

$100,000

Percent of Salary he/she must pay

4.1%

4.1%

4.1%

4.0%

3.9%

       AETNA

Salary

$60,000

$70,000

$85,000

$90,000

$100,000

Percent of Salary he/she must pay

3.7%

3.7%

3.7%

3.7%

3.5%

    This 3.7% is up from the present 0%.
       VYTRA

Salary

$60,000

$70,000

$85,000

$90,000

$100,000

Percent of Salary he/she must pay

3.6%

3.6%

3.6%

3.5%

3.4%

    This 3.6% is up from the present 0%.
   It should be clear from the above that even though there is a little relief for people with higher pay in the Administration plan, everybody with a family plan will end up with a cut in real pay. The percentages of salary for plans other than the family plan were somewhat less, but still huge. (E.g. For a faculty member with only a spouse, with pay less than or equal to the average, the percentages of salary were, respectively, for the five above insurances: 5.4%, 3.7%, 2.8%, 2.5%, and 2.7%.)
   The above Administration proposal was for continuing faculty. They have proposed that all new faculty be put on the OXFORD GOLD PLAN (a concoction of LIU which has high out of pocket expenses), and that the new faculty pay 25% of the premium.
   The administration proposal sketched above was the answer to our last effort to find a way for faculty to contribute to healthcare costs, with sensible limits on the percentage of salary, and at the same time to cooperate with administration’s effort to establish an incentive for people to move from more expensive plans to less expensive ones.
   Our plan, of course, was contingent upon the Administration agreeing to the kind of salary increase described above. Given this kind of salary increase, we proposed that each faculty member contribute 10% of health care premium except that this amount should be capped by different percentages of salary depending on the expense of the particular plan. For instance, for the family plan, each faculty member would contribute 10% of premium except that this would be capped by the following percentages of salary (i.e. 10% of premium or the percentages of salary given below, whichever is less).

Maximum percentage of salary
CIGNA PPO FAMILY                            4.0%
CIGNA POS FAMILY                            2.7%
OXFORD FREEDOM FAMILY             2.0%
AETNA FAMILY                                    1.8%
VYTRA FAMILY                                    1.8%
HIP FAMILY                                           1.8%
OXFORD GOLD                                     0.0%

   Obviously, the maximums for the employee alone, employee only with Spouse, etc. were to be less. (E.g. for the employee only with spouse, they were respectively: 2.5%, 1.8%, 1.3%, 1.2%, 1.2%, 1.2%, 0.0%.)
UPDATE ON QUALITY OF LIFE AT WORK
    Administration, not content with a full-scale attack on our standard of living, also made a frontal attack on one of our most important pillars of faculty governance.
    They proposed to take back the gain we had made in the negotiations of 1988 which provided that if a Dean refuses to seat a Department Chairperson elected by the Department, and the Department sticks to its guns, the issue will be placed before a resolution panel consisting of three faculty representatives and the Academic Vice President (See Article VIII, Departmental Governance, Section 2a, 2b, 2c of our Contract),. This procedure has worked quite well in cases where the faculty of the Department has been united, and the campus faculty has approved of the Department decision.
    Administration now proposes that the resolution panel should have two Administrators instead of one, and only two faculty representatives, thus making it virtually impossible to overrule the Administration’s decision not to seat the elected Chair!
   The other Administration proposals were already in the packet that you received from them in the Spring: yearly reports on professional activities of the year and plans for the next; a stiffening of requirements for Sabbaticals (requiring, for instance, that the application include the original application for every Sabbatical taken in the past, and a report on the achievements of that Sabbatical respectively); and the Academic Vice-President’s choice of a vehicle for student evaluations.
In Solidarity,
Dr. Ralph Knopf , President, CWPCF
P.S.
Please send back the following form to the C.W.Post Collegial Federation (or e-mail the information to the Union Secretary: Maria Zarycky, in the Library):
Name____________________________________________________________
Summer Address______________________________________________________
Regular home phone number_____________________________________________
Summer phone number_________________________________________________

ANALYSIS OF ADMINISTRATION’S PROPOSAL ON HEALTHCARE BASED ON THE INFORMATION DELIVERED TO THE FACULTY BY ADMINISTRATION ON HEALTHCARE COSTS: (by the Union’s advisor on economics)
1. Per Administration Document      Total Health Care Costs including CIGNA Retirees is $5,010,809.
2. Total Health Care Costs excluding Retirees is $4,827,908. (This is the relevant cost for current faculty.)

3. Total Employee Contributions is $315,238. (Note that 37 faculty in HMO’s VYTRA and AETNA at present do not have to make any contributions i.e. 10% of the faculty.)

4. Faculty Contributions as a percent of Total Health Care Costs (excluding Retirees) is 6.5%. Faculty Contributions as a percent of total Base Salary is 1.1%.

5. The Administration Proposal that we pay 25% of the costs of premiums means that Total Faculty Contributions would be $1,206,977, up from $315,238 (a 283% increase), and it would represent 4.2% of Total Base Salary. In other words, the Administration is proposing that on average every faculty contribute 4.2% of his/her salary for health care, and the Administration offered only a 3% salary increase. The net effect is that the Administration is proposing a cut in pay. And when inflation is factored in the situation is even worse.
6. The Administration has proposed faculty pay 25% of the cost of all premiums. We illustrate below the impact of this proposal on different salary levels and different plans. (Note that Administrators have offered to pay at least 25% also. The last column of each chart shows the effect that this would have on those making $20,000 a month.)

CIGNA PPO

Type

Monthly

Premium

Current

Payment

25% of

Premium

25% Payment as a Percent of:

$5000 $6000 $7000 $8000 $20,000

Employee

$ 877

$ 61

$ 219

4.4

3.7

3.1

2.7

1.1

E/Spouse

1,917

134

   479

9.6

8.0

6.8

6.0

2.4

E/Child

1,804

126

   451

9.0

7.5

6.4

5.6

2.3

Family

2,939

206

   734

14.7

12.2

10.5

9.2

3.7

OXFORD FREEDOM

Type

Monthly

Premium

Current

Payment

25% of

Premium

25% Payment as a Percent of:

$5000 $6000 $7000 $8000 $20,000

Employee

$ 489

$ 34

$ 122

2.4

2.0

1.7

1.5

0.6

E/Spouse

1,007

70

   252

5.0

4.2

3.6

3.2

1.3

E/Child

     848

59

   212

4.2

3.5

3.0

2.7

1.1

Family

1,481

104

   370

7.4

6.2

5.3

4.6

1.9

CIGNA POS

Type

Monthly

Premium

Current

Payment

25% of

Premium

25% Payment as a Percent of:

$5000 $6000 $7000 $8000 $20,000

Employee

$ 608

$ 43

$ 152

3.1

2.5

2.2

1.9

0.8

E/Spouse

1,338

   94

   335

6.7

5.6

4.8

4.2

1.7

E/Child

-



Family

1,983

139

   496

9.9

8.3

7.1

6.2

2.5

AETNA

Type

Monthly

Premium

Current

Payment

25% of

Premium

25% Payment as a Percent of:

$5000 $6000 $7000 $8000 $20,000

Employee

$ 450

$ 0.0

$ 113

2.3

1.9

1.6

1.4

0.6

E/Spouse

    904

0.0

   226

4.5

3.8

3.2

2.8

1.1

E/Child

   796

0.0

   199

4.0

3.3

2.8

2.5

1.0

Family

1,328

0.0

   332

6.6

5.5

4.7

4.2

1.7

VYTRA

Type

Monthly

Premium

Current

Payment

25% of

Premium

25% Payment as a Percent of:

$5000 $6000 $7000 $8000 $20,000

Employee

$ 433

$ 0

$ 108

2.2

1.8

1.5

1.4

0.5

E/Spouse

    971

0

   243

4.9

4.1

3.5

3.0

1.2

E/Child

-



Family

1,278

0

   320

6.4

5.3

4.6

4.0

1.6