Loyola University Updates

Monday, June 16 –

Recap #12

Dear Colleagues,

ALL HANDS ON DECK! Our next bargaining session will be held on Monday, June 30, on Zoom here.

Please R.S.V.P. to our negotiations on 6/30 here:

FF LUC union negotiation meeting on 6/30 from 1 to 4 p.m. CST on Zoom: Attendance, note taking responsiblities, etc.

If we are serious about winning cost-of-living and workload adjustments, we must show up in numbers at the next three bargaining sessions. Numbers show support, so we need you to show up and make an impact now! Our next three bargaining meetings will be held on Zoom on:

• Monday, June 30th, 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. CST 
• Tuesday, July 15th, 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. CST
• Tuesday, July 29th, 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. CST

The bargaining committee will also soon be convening a general member meeting at which members will discuss the collective member action it will take to win a fair contract. More information on date, time, and agenda forthcoming.

Our most recent union contract negotiation session took place on June 16. During this meeting, the Faculty Forward LUC bargaining team reached Tentative Agreements (TAs) with Management on Visa Sponsorship, Termination of Appointment, Promotion, and Relationship to the Faculty Handbook. 

Before presenting our Workload proposal on the 16th, we shared our agenda and new guidelines for respectful and productive behavior during bargaining. After this proposal was read, member Elise Martel Cohen presented insights and findings culled from LUC, NCES, IPEDS & AAUP compensation datasets and surveys. Some highlights from the snapshots and trends presented include the following: 70% of non-medical (not CAS exclusive) instructional staff at Loyola are NTT, with our part-time faculty being the largest drivers of instruction. And this jaw-dropper: by 2024, full-time non-tenure track faculty comprised 47.6% of Loyola’s (non-medical) full-time faculty overall, yet received only 22% of the full-time salary outlay. Said another way, FTNTT faculty make up nearly half of Loyola’s full-time instructional workforce, yet receive less than a quarter of the salary paid to full-timers (the other 78% going to those who are tenured or on the tenure track). Compared to other universities (N=808), this 47.6% FTNTT figure puts Loyola in the 89th percentile in terms of the percentage of full-time faculty who are outside the tenure system. This means that 89% of institutions reported a lower percentage of FTNTT faculty as a share of their full-time faculty overall.  Loyola can and should acknowledge the work contingent faculty do and pay them what they have earned for doing it. However, Loyola has shown it won’t do this without non-tenure track faculty showing them we know what we’re worth, and demanding what we deserve. 

After our Workload proposal presentation, Management said they will offer a counterproposal on Workload only after seeing all of our economic proposals, including Benefits, Appointments and Reappointments, and Compensation. Our union has formed committees to work on all of these proposals so we can be sure that each represents all of the needs of all of our faculty members. What these proposals need most is your perspective, skill, time, and energy. For our union contract to best serve you, our union needs you to get involved! 

If you want to help conceptualize, research, write, revise, and/or negotiate the articles that will establish what benefits you are provided, how you are appointed to your position, and/or what you earn for your work at LUC, please reach out to us at facultyforwardluc@gmail.com. We can then help you find the best way for you to participate in our union, be that synchronously discussing our proposals in a Zoom meeting, asynchronously making suggestions on our proposals via Google Docs, etc. 

After we discussed Workload on June 16, Management presented us with their counter-proposals to Faculty Evaluations and Office Space. In their Faculty Evaluations counter proposal, they proposed that academic units decide individually what kinds of materials would be considered beyond student evaluations, and that faculty would not be penalized by a lack of observation.  Management acknowledged the university’s current lack of capacity to provide regular observation evaluations, even as they neglected to address the problem. They merely said it is up to the union to hold them accountable. Management also took this proposal as an opportunity to add punitive language into our contract; part-time members who decline or fail to participate in the evaluation process, through inaction or actions, will be ineligible for rehire. 

There was a heated discussion around the research and scholarship of non-tenure-track faculty at Loyola. In these negotiations, management has repeatedly insisted that full-time NTT faculty are not expected to engage in research, scholarship, or even professional development beyond pedagogical development. They insist that FT NTT ‘s evaluations are weighted at 80% instruction and 20% service. When a faculty member spoke up to say that research, scholarship, and professional development have been encouraged with merit raises and included in yearly evaluations through the F180 form, management insisted this was an error that they would correct. We argued that research is an important part of our careers and our teaching. 

When we discussed Management’s counterproposal on Office Space, we again raised our concerns about violations of students’ FERPA rights due to a lack of private space for faculty to discuss sensitive matters with them. Management responded that “…if a student needs a private conversation and there is no space available, then don’t have the conversation. Delay it until a suitable space can be found.” This opinion can only come from someone who has not had regular contact with our students since the pandemic. Those of us who are there for students every day understand that the most sensitive conversations are often the ones that occur spontaneously. We know that students in crisis can’t wait; they need us now. Faculty members without private office space need the ability to move into a private space when needed. Our union’s counterproposal on Office Space maintains that departments must develop a roster of possible available private spaces that faculty and students can turn to when they need them most. We know that LUC Chairs, Program Directors, and administrators are asked to do a lot, but we doubt any of them would say that providing a list of such spaces to faculty via email is asking too much. 

After this discussion, both the union and Management went into our separate breakout rooms to caucus. The union worked together to craft a counterproposal on Office Space during this caucus.  Our union added two sentences to our Office Space counter and asked management to agree to at least one of them. It is now in Management’s court to choose whether LUC administration will be required to notify faculty of available private spaces on an as-needed basis within each department, or that no faculty member shall be held responsible for FERPA or any other privacy law violations because of a lack of private space. 

Management has shared that one of the many benefits of our union is that it has provided the opportunity for CAS NTT faculty to come out of the shadows and bring their issues to light. We need your help to continue shedding light on these issues by coming out and participating in our next negotiation session. Please sign up to let us know you’ll be joining us in our negotiations on June 30, July 15, and or July 29- all held on Zoom from 1-4 p.m. here.

Please feel free to reach out to us with any questions at facultyforwardluc@gmail.com and take care.

In Solidarity, 

The Faculty Forward LUC Bargaining Committee

Thursday, May 12 –

Recap #11

Dear Colleagues,

Our next bargaining session will be Monday, June 16, from 1:00-5:00 on Zoom, using the embedded link. During this meeting, we will put forth our Workload Proposal. To address “burnout loads” and achieve the work-life balance we all deserve, we need members from all positions and departments to participate in this session. Your perspective — whether you share it in our union’s private caucuses or directly with management in a bargaining session — will help to illustrate the impact of LUC’s current workload policies and practices on both faculty and students. Management has shared that one of the many benefits of our union is that it has provided the opportunity for CAS NTT faculty to come out of the shadows and bring their issues to light. We need your help to shed light on the issues in our current workload by coming out and participating in our next negotiation session. Please sign up to let us know you’ll be joining us in our negotiations meeting on June 16th.

Our most recent union contract negotiation session took place on June 10. LUC Management presented its counterproposals on Immigration (in two parts) and Professional Development. Our union, Faculty Forward LUC, also presented counterproposals on Office Space and Course Cancellation Fees. 

Management’s Immigration counterproposal built upon our request to address this important issue in two separate sections of our contract. The first section (proposed as article 10) focuses on Visa Sponsorship, while the second (proposed as article 25.11) details Termination of Appointment for Failure to Comply with Immigration Laws. 

As of June 9, LUC Management’s Visa Sponsorship proposal has been posted as Loyola’s policy on visa sponsorship on the CAS website. Regardless of how this proposed article may ultimately be memorialized in our finalized third union contract, we are pleased to see that Loyola has made it publicly available online. The lack of transparency of Loyola’s visa sponsorship policy has been an issue in the past, and we are proud that we have been able to work with LUC to ensure that this policy is now clearly accessible to our entire LUC community. 

Loyola Management stated that their counterproposal of Termination of Appointment for Failure to Comply with Immigration Laws is intended to be informative rather than punitive. It outlines how faculty may remain compliant with current immigration laws. We appreciate Management’s consideration of our concerns while constructing this counterproposal, and we are optimistic about reaching a tentative agreement on these articles soon. 

In their next counterproposal, Loyola Management proposed a return to the traditional term of “Professional Development”, as opposed to the “Faculty Development” title our union previously proposed. Management maintained their offer of $40,000 for professional development funding but raised the amount individual faculty members can apply for to $1,000 per fiscal year.

Our union had proposed setting the professional development funding at $300,000, which would allow all of our members to apply for $2,000 of funds each. When asked to justify their proposed $40,000 funding level, Management explained that unionized faculty have not fully utilized the funding available under our current contract in the past, and therefore, an increase in funding is not warranted. However, our records indicate that we have used all professional development funds in the past through faculty members’ “double dipping”. In our previous contracts, faculty could apply for $600 in professional development funding until midway through the fiscal year. If more than half of the funds had not been utilized by that point, faculty who had already received $600 could apply for an additional $600. This method resulted in all $30,000 of professional development funding being consistently used up in the past.

Given inflation and the rising costs of conferences, travel, lodging, and other resources that warrant professional development funds, our members need the ability to request a greater sum from a larger substantial pool of funding to support their professional development. Allowing faculty to apply for an increased amount in one request will better serve their needs than splitting the request into smaller amounts.  Establishing a single opportunity for $2,000 in professional development funds for each unionized faculty member with a total funding pool of $300,000 is the best way for our contract to evolve to better serve our members. Management’s counterproposal to only make $1,000 of funding available to individuals from a $40,000 doesn’t add up, as it would only support 40 of our 360 faculty members. Our union is devoted to serving all of our members, and we will continue to advocate for the support of our faculty’s needs to develop our profession.

On June 10, our union presented its counterproposals to Management on Office Space and Course Cancellation Fee. We incorporated much of Management’s earlier feedback into our most recent Office Space counterproposal. To address concerns about adhering to FERPA laws due to the lack of available private offices, we proposed that if a potential violation occurs because of limited access to private space, faculty will not be penalized. Both the union and Management expressed mutual understanding of each other’s positions, and we are confident that we will reach a tentative agreement on this proposal soon. 

In our Course Cancellation Fee counterproposal, we modified the proposed cancellation windows. We propose that faculty should earn 35% of their contractual compensation rate if their course is cancelled 21 days prior to the start of Spring and Fall semesters, 14 days before the start of Summer semester, and 7 days before the start of the J term. When a part-time faculty member fully prepares a course and reserves time in their schedule in order to teach it, the University should compensate them for the work they have done, whether the course runs or not. Part-time contingent faculty face significant consequences from the loss of a course. They lose the time and energy they have dedicated to preparing that course. They lose the potential opportunities they had to take on work elsewhere during the time they had set aside for that course. They lose a substantial amount of their income, which is especially destabilizing given their preexisting financial precarity. The University shouldn’t burden its least supported faculty members with the bulk of the consequences from a cancelled course. Loyola should share in the losses from a cancelled course more equitably.

During the meeting, Management indicated that they will soon present a counterproposal regarding Faculty Evaluations and will also address pending faculty title changes and equity pay adjustments in due time. However, when asked to address our union’s outstanding proposals on Inclusive Excellence, Seniority, and Health and Safety, Loyola Management outright refused. They justified their flat rejection of these proposals by stating that they see no need for them. They feel our current Health and Safety article should suffice for our next contract, and that neither Seniority nor Inclusive Excellence should be included in our contract at all. 

Our union stands on its principles. We stand strong in our belief that our contract can and should serve not only our members, but the greater common good. We stand with Loyola’s social justice mission by actively practicing it. We stand in alignment with the Ignatian tenets of caring for the whole person, and accompanying one another as we all strive for personal and communal betterment. We stand in solidarity with and for one another and the whole of our co-learning community. We took a stand when we founded the first faculty union at Loyola, and we have taken a stand in every proposal we have put forth in every contract we have won ever since. We will  continue standing on our proposals in this contract and in every union contract to come.

Please feel free to reach out to us with any questions, and take care.

In Solidarity, 

The Faculty Forward LUC Bargaining Committee

Tuesday, May 27 –
Recap #10
Dear Colleagues, 

The tenth bargaining session for our third union contract took place on Tuesday, May 27th. The session began with LUC management refusing to counter our proposal on Retirement. Management feels that our collective bargaining agreement (CBA) is not the place for us to address a phased retirement process for NTTs, but that we should raise the issue in Faculty Council and University Senate instead. We would welcome the opportunity for our proposed retirement process to serve as a vanguard process not just for unionized faculty, but for NTT faculty throughout LUC. However, management insists that various shared government committees are a better venue for this matter, despite the fact that PT faculty cannot serve on many of the councils at LUC. 

Management presented two other counterproposals on Course Cancellation Fee and Office and Studio Space. Their Course Cancellation Fee counter retained the 21-day limit found in our current CBA, which entitles PT faculty to receive compensation if/when their course is cancelled within 21 days of its start date. They proposed increasing the fee paid in such cases to $500 per credit hour of the cancelled course. Additionally, management stated that Summer & J Term courses would remain exempt from the Course Cancellation Fee policy. 

Management also introduced the idea of a partial payment for low-enrollment classes in their Course Cancellation Fee counterproposal, offering a minimum of 50% of the standard pay rate to teach an under-enrolled course. This proposed piecemeal pay process would be negotiated on a case-by-case basis between Chairs and PT unionized faculty. By proposing that individual faculty should be negotiating their courses on a case-by-case, student-by-student, independent process, management seems to want to return to the era of backroom deals. Such deals, by their very nature, are open to abuse, and not everyone may be adept at negotiating them on their own. If management’s proposed practice is implemented, individual faculty members may feel pressured to make agreements under duress out of fear of retaliation. Our members deserve to make informed decisions about their contracts based on a transparent process they feel empowered to navigate with the support of our union. If LUC is committed to offering all of its faculty fair contracts, it should be proud to do so out in the open, not in a backroom.

In management’s proposal concerning Office and Studio Space, management suggested changing the stronger obligation of “shall” back to the weaker obligation of “will” in sections B and C. The union and management then discussed how we could best address the issue of limited office space at LUC. While we understand that space can be limited on campus, our union believes that our students’ privacy must be held sacrosanct. Thus, the University must fulfill its responsibility to provide us with adequate accommodations that align with FERPA policies and our mission of cura personalis. 

Our union suggested LUC make common spaces available for NTT faculty to reserve as needed instead of relying solely on office access. We asked that CAS department Chairs, Directors, etc., inform all NTT faculty as to the locations of these spaces and how NTTs can book them. While having to make reservations for shared spaces isn’t ideal, informing NTT faculty as to where and how we can find safe havens for our students when they need them most is the least LUC can do to support students and faculty alike.

Our union went on to strongly suggest that all faculty should be able to reserve studio space as needed. LUC management explicitly targeted the Department of Fine and Performing Arts PT faculty in their counterproposal on studio space access, though faculty from all disciplines require access to studio facilities in service of their scholarship and their students. While management proposed that studio space be used for “University business” only, faculty know that our university should not operate merely as a business. We reject what Paulo Freire calls the transactional “banking concept” within LUC, and instead strive to engage in collaborative praxis with our co-learning community. Open access to studio space not only breaks down barriers between different departments but also removes barriers between faculty and students, ultimately serving the common good. Our university should be in the business of keeping studio spaces accessible to all scholars.

During our discussion of studio space, management displayed petty and vengeful behavior. They made repeated allegations that they don’t want part-time faculty in the Department of Fine and Performing Arts to “misuse” their access to the University to conduct private business. When we asked for specific instances to support these claims and pressed for more information, management’s chief negotiator responded angrily and refused to provide any. Making such accusations without proof is spurious, irresponsible, and utterly disrespectful. Our non-tenure-track (NTT) faculty members in the DFPA go above and beyond for our students and should be trusted to utilize University space to best serve the LUC community.

After this exchange, our union put forth three counterproposals on Equal Opportunity and Non-Discrimination, Immigration, and Faculty Development. Management accepted our single correction in Equal Opportunity and Non-Discrimination, and we reached a Tentative Agreement (TA) on that article by the end of the meeting. Our Immigration counterproposal seeks to memorialize LUC’s own policy language as its own article in our contract. We appreciate LUC’s recent efforts to make its immigration policy accessible on its website and hope they will accept offering unionized faculty clear access to it in our third Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) as well.

Our Faculty Development counterproposal reasserted our desire to change Professional Development to Faculty Development to align with the language in LUC’s own Faculty Handbook. We proposed allocating $300,000 to the Faculty Development fund and authorizing unionized faculty to apply for $2,000 from this fund each fiscal year. We also established a timeline to expedite the Faculty Development funding approval process and added “scholarship” to the list of accepted uses of these funds. Management grew agitated as we discussed this counterproposal. They heatedly expressed their fundamental disagreement with the notion that unionized faculty should be able to apply for $2,000 in developmental funding or receive any funding for scholarship purposes.

Although management has shown some improvement in their conduct during our negotiation sessions, they continue to demonstrate a concerning lack of civility and empathy overall. In our last meeting, several members shared the challenges they face as part-timers. Management’s chief negotiator responded with self-centered, outdated anecdotes that did not acknowledge nor address the experiences our members were sharing, reflecting a deep ignorance of the realities faced by current part-time faculty.

As the meeting drew to a close, our union reiterated our past request for transcripts of the bargaining session. Though both management and our union have been taking notes in all of our negotiation sessions, moving our bargaining meetings to Zoom has presented the opportunity for both parties to have access to transcriptions of the meetings as well. When we asked if we could access the transcripts generated through closed captioning, management became irate. They accused our union of seeking the transcripts solely to misquote them out of context and threatened that if we asked for them again, they would retaliate by moving our bargaining sessions back to in-person meetings only. 

It took weeks of requests from our union to get our negotiations moved from in-person sessions to online meetings. Finally getting management to agree to hold our bargaining sessions online has made our meetings more accessible for our members in many ways, including providing closed captioning accommodations. LUC Management informed us that closed captioning has been disabled in our Zoom meetings with them due to concerns about what might happen if direct quotes from the meetings were released. They decided that captioning will only be reactivated upon request from a participant who has ADA documentation of their need for this accommodation. 

Our union believes that the responsibility for accessibility should not fall on individuals to disclose and justify their needs. Instead, we work towards standardizing accessibility as the norm. Nonetheless, in order to avoid additional punitive limitations on accessibility, our union will comply with management’s requirement that closed captioning access be provided only upon solicitation. If you are a member who wishes to participate in bargaining but cannot do so due to a documented need for closed captioning, please let us know. We will advocate for you to receive the accommodations you deserve. 

We invite you to join us at our next bargaining session on June 10 from 1 to 5 p.m. CST, which will be held on Zoom. We will send you the meeting link as soon as possible. Additionally, we will conduct a preparatory meeting in a breakout room of the same Zoom meeting from noon to 1 p.m. CST before negotiations begin. No matter when you arrive or need to leave, we welcome you to participate in negotiating our next contract online, together.

In Solidarity, 

Your Union Bargaining Team

---

Previous bargaining session notes:

Tuesday-May-20-Session.pdf

Monday-May-12-Session.pdf

Tuesday-April-28-Session.pdf

Tuesday-April-22-Session.pdf

Wednesday-April-16-Session.pdf

Thursday-March-27-Session.pdf

Monday-March-10-Session.pdf

Monday-March-4-Session.pdf

Friday-February-21-Session.pdf