Board of Higher Education, August 4, 2004
U Mass Boston
Comments to the Board of Higher Education by Brad Art, Chair, MSCA Bargaining Committee

Comments to the Board of Higher Education, August 4, 2004

I am Brad Art, chair of the MSCA Bargaining Committee.

This is a very appropriate meeting to talk to you given your discussion today (about compensation for college and community college presidents).

Mr. Tocco, under your leadership, the last round of bargaining concluded several contentious years with decent gains in wages for state college faculty and librarians. Thank you.

That agreement concluded on June 30, 2003.

Today educators at the state colleges rank last in compensation among the eleven industrial states – and yet your solution is to offer a 4-year package of 0% - 1% - 1% - 1%

The 0% is really less than 0% because of increases in health insurance premiums, the rising cost of living, and the rising cost of housing – as you have been discussing today. We’ve actually lost money. Yesterday I talked to a retired faculty member who taught for 43 years in the college system. She was a professor who even served as acting president of the college. The 0%’s she was forced to accept have followed her into retirement. It is not right. Your proposals are more of the same.

0% - 1% - 1% - 1%

How can this offer make the state colleges competitive?

I agree with (BHE Vice Chair) Mr. Spenser’s statement. I agree there is a correlation between quality and compensation.

Gov. Romney suggested binding arbitration for the Boston police union. We asked for binding arbitration – Why was our offer rejected?

You agreed to begin bargaining in January 2003 for a 3-year contract– In May 2003 you insisted on bargaining only a one year extension?

Currently we are negotiating two contracts, a one-year contract that has gone through mediation and is in fact-finding. The language is agreed in this contract. All we have to resolve is the 0%.

And we are negotiating a three-year contract- the 1% - 1% - 1%.

Secretary Kriss’ October 29, 2003 letter misjudges the “Commonwealth’s economic situation for the foreseeable future.” For FY 05 he projected as much as a $2 billion deficit. This year there is some $700 million surplus. (I teach ethics and sometimes metaphysics. Even in metaphysics we don’t have a margin of error of 3 billion!) Offering MSCA a 0% across the board salary increase has been justified by this wildly faulty forecast. If the premises are false, the conclusion must be rejected. Mr. Kriss’ forecasting was grossly incompetent.

What have you done to get money on the table for FY 04?

On July 20 (in fact-finding on the FY 04 contract) you asserted there should be an economic package >0% for FY 2004.

Why have you not made a reasonable offer?

What do you believe is a correct salary offer?

The SJC decision that you submitted in fact-finding is being used to justify a 0% for last year. The decision makes clear that an autonomous agency can make economic offers beyond the governor’s parameters. In the SJC case, the sheriff and the union reached acceptable terms beyond the governor’s economic parameters – and the sheriff forwarded the agreement to the governor.

What have you done about the one-year, FY 04, offer?

Why is Sec. Kriss dictating the terms of negotiation to you?

Is Eric Kriss running the BHE?

Or is the BHE an autonomous agency?

Pre-approval from governors is pointless- we all know examples of governors reneging on pre-approved offers.

When will you assert what you believe should be our across the board salary increases?

For the 3-year contract negotiation – the 1% - 1% - 1% On June 7, 2004 MSCA offered 24 dates for bargaining June through August – you accepted 3.

On July 28, 2004 MSCA offered 26 dates for bargaining Sept. through Dec. – you accepted 1.

How can we conclude a contract when you will not meet with us?

We were offered 1% starting on July 1, 2004 or when we reach settlement, yet your complete proposal was not offered to us until July 28, 2004!

Were we supposed to agree by July 1 and hope the proposal would be acceptable?

How is that reasonable? How is that intended to reach settlement?

How can your unreasonable demands to be taken seriously?

Let me give two examples:

1. Your proposed merit raises can not be serious. You offer each educator one chance every seventh year to receive a merit increase through a post-tenure review. *Have you thought about the injustice of some people who were just reviewed having to wait seven years?

2. Your proposal removes the basic fairness that every unit member be required to pay a fair share of the bill for legally mandated union representation.

How does undermining healthy union-management relations help to get us to settlement?

The MSCA proposal contains a wide range of creative ways for faculty and librarians to receive fair compensation, to correct our salaries. We do not expect you to agree to all of these ways. We want you to talk to us about it – it’s bargaining! Then when we reach agreement, we should go hand-in-hand to the governor and the legislature, and work together to get funding.

Say what you will about the union, but the current agreement preserves the academic integrity of the colleges. We refuse to return to the days when the colleges were the dumping grounds of political patronage. The citizens of the Commonwealth deserve better.