Negotiations Summary Report #6 – Oct 15, 2015

Throughout negotiations, summary reports will be added to the Negotiations page of this website for future reference.

Meeting #6

Attending:

FA: Loveland, Lynch, McGuinness, Shepard, Walz
Admin: Allen, Behan, Fedorchak, Losinger

We caucused for 5 minutes at the beginning of the session.

Formal negotiations began at 4:05.

  1. Regina stated, “Well, it’s been a while.”
  2. Mike stated, “We have some health insurance information.
    • Our position: We have explored your plans and claims.
    • The “skyrocketing healthcare costs” are ONLY on the part of our members.
    • Your costs have been excellent. You had no increase.
    • However, when you look at the combination of what we have settled since 2010, having agreed to the cost shifting, there has been a 70% increase on our part.
    • So we had a chance to think on it—to discuss with our regular members and the NRC (Negotiations Resource Committee), which is a broader group that supports this group at the table.
    • What we have taken away is that there is NO settlement pathway that contains an increase in either the prescription or premium components.
    • There may be other things we can do. We may want to close the loop on things your own people are telling you—what we view as good news.
    • You haven’t made your case.
    • Today there is an opportunity for a breakthrough— “to withdraw the Health Insurance piece.”
  3. Regina stated, “I’m here to withdraw the Health Insurance piece.”
    • We have some differences.
    • If we can keep costs even, great, probably.
    • The national information is that the cost of health care has slowed down.
    • I have talked to the Board.
    • It is not our intention to shift costs.
    • So we withdraw that piece and are replacing it with something different.
      (She handed out a revised proposal: October Admin Compensation & Health Offer.)
  4. We looked at the new document.
  5. Mike said, “I see and appreciate the movement. I don’t know why we would take on the risk. I don’t think you have the money to buy the risk.
  6. Regina stated, “Philosophically we are in a similar place, so it is something to talk about.”
  7. Mike stated, “Creating a second tier is a rabidly divisive position. There is a fundamental belief in how the FA approaches anything: There will be NO DIVISIONS. I recognize that many schools do it. It is nothing but a headache.”
  8. Nate stated, “We gave a lot between 2010 and 2015.” Mike added, “We agreed to it, but it provides a context for our current position. We understand the need for a tradeoff, but we need a number we are comfortable with.”
  9. We asked to caucus at 3:40 to discuss in more detail.
  10. Reconvened at 3:45.
  11. Mike stated, “We will give you a counterproposal with revised salary table. But we want you to know there is little room to move. Because of the research we have done, members have a heightened sense of the costs we have born. We can come to a number that is fair and equitable, but it has raised expectations on our side.”
  12. Interchange between Regina and Mike:
    • R: We need Individual and Group snapshots of where we were.
    • M: We have it.
    • R: Larry will fill in from the College’s side. I’m almost certain the college is not cost shifting.
    • M: We used the information you gave to us. So sort it the way you want to. It’s a matter of semantics.

Adjourned at 4:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Suzanne V. Shepard, Ph.D.
Member, Faculty Association Negotiating Team