 |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
Editorial
Discussion can not take place when no one will talk
Responses to the stalled status of full-faculty negotiations have been intense. Threats about raising tuition by the administration are made in a letter to students published on the college website. A letter in response to the board from the faculty association is published on page 3 of this issue of The Advocate. Students last week rallied hoping to convince both parties to sit down again. Much has been said, charges have been leveled and many issues remain to be debated.
First of all, The Advocate has noticed through its coverage of the negotiations since last spring that the administration has not been very willing to come to the table and actually negotiate. Any final agreement will no doubt be unsatisfactory for both the administration and the full-time faculty but at least it will be resolved and there will be a new contract that will allow business to continue as normal. The full-time faculty (as photographed and printed in the last issue of The Advocate) marched to the district board meeting chanting messages like "Let's talk!" and carrying signs that silently reverberated their goal to sit down and work it out. They have asked for a return to face-to-face negotiations since the 150-day negotiation period ended. The students rally, was not to take sides but simply to ask that the administration sit down again and resume talking.
Isn't the point of having negotiations to actually negotiate? Where is the haggling typically involved in contract discussions? Where is the discussion? Why is there no talking?
Second, in its website letter to MHCC students and in an advertisement today on page 7, the administration states it has declared impasse because it wants to "protect students from faculty actions — such as a strike." Well, who is going to "protect" us from the administration's lack of interest in looking elsewhere to find the funds to fill in the $5.5 million black hole they call a budget shortfall? Their contract proposal has suggested the majority of the lost state funds should come from the full-time faculty because, they say, our teachers make more than any other community college in Oregon, Washington and Idaho. Furthermore, in its advertisement in this issue of The Advocate, the administration states, "The gap between the college and the full-time faculty is $3.75 million. If the college provides all the salary and benefits faculty are demanding, it would be operating with money it does not have. To balance the budget, the college would be forced to raise tuition $15-$16 per credit hour." Just as the faculty should not bear the whole brunt of the deficit, why would anyone assume the students should be responsible for all of the budget shortfall? Why wouldn't money be taken out of a variety of areas so that no one area is hit too hard?
It's not a question of whether the faculty is willing to take a hit. You could ask full-time faculty members and we believe most would say they fully expect a freeze or decrease in salary and expect to make concessions in health care benefits and retirement contributions. In fact, in one of their proposals they gave up $900,000. What was not expected was for the administration to put their offer on the table and not want to bargain here and there to make the final agreement a little more acceptable to those who have to live with the cuts.
Lastly, why can't the administration talk without a mediator? Randy Stedman, the labor relations consultant hired by the board to bargain the contract for the administration, said in front of about 300 people at last weeks rally demonstration, that he did not know the rules about whether the two parties could meet face-to-face without the mediator. Why would the administration hire someone who doesn't know the rules? The Advocate is happy to inform him that after a brief call to the Oregon Employment Relations Board we have been able to confirm they can meet face-to-face without waiting for a mediator. So since there are only about 35 days left before the full-time faculty can strike, why don't the two parties order some Chinese and lock themselves in the board room and get this thing done?
The fact or the matter is the two sides need to talk, and find a compromise somewhere between the positions the two sides have carved out. The compromise will be found eventually so why waste time with an impasse? The "protection" the administration uses so loosely in its letter should have been their acceptance to meet with the faculty again and not leave the room until a reasonable agreement has been reached. Perhaps it would take a month anyway, but at least some progress could happen. Nothing can be accomplished when communication is shut off.
The Advocate reserves the right to not publish comments based on their appropriateness.