FA’s proposal
There should have been no shock last week when CMU administrators dismissed the Faculty Association’s contract proposal.
The FA wasn’t shocked. Phil Squattrito, membership officer of the association, said he wasn’t surprised that university officials rejected it.
The problem with the proposal was evident from the onset. The FA proposed to defer the faculty’s salary increase of 4 percent if the administration agreed to give nothing less than 6 percent in the following two years. It doesn’t take an economics professor who makes more than $100,000 a year to realize this plan won’t really save the university money.
So why did the FA move ahead with the proposal anyway?
The association sees the budget problems of the state and university as being short-term. “Everyone hopes the state economy will turn around and the funding from state will increase rather than decrease,” Squattrito said.
But no economists are saying the state’s fiscal problems will end soon. The road to economic recovery has been slow. As the often-quoted saying goes, when the national economy catches a cold, Michigan catches pneumonia.
The association can hope all it wants for an economic turnaround in Michigan, but even if state funding to CMU increases, the university still has big-money issues to deal with in the future. Foremost among them is an $18.5 million project to build the Satellite Energy Facility, which is needed before the university can construct any new buildings on campus. And the university could wind up spending at least $1.8 million on new turf in Kelly/Shorts Stadium for football and a new facility for field hockey.
What does the failed proposal say about FA leaders and membership? For one thing, it’s not going to help the association’s cause when bargaining for a new contract begins.
The FA blew an opportunity to appear as if it really was interested in helping to solve the university’s budget shortfall of more than $7 million by offering up a substantial sacrifice. Instead, the association came across as selfish and money-hungry. Right now, the FA should be talking about saving faculty positions — not salary increases.
Perhaps the association was playing hardball with administrators, asking for more money that it knows faculty members will receive in an attempt to gain the upper hand during bargaining. But it won’t work. Administrators already see through this tactic.
After the FA took political heat earlier this semester for its call for increasing tuition by 30 percent and removing fees, one would think the association’s leadership would become more cautious in its fiscal decision-making.
Do these two budget proposals really reflect the priorities of the majority of the FA’s membership?
