Tag: wmu-AAUP

by Andrew Hennlich, President of the WMU-AAUP, and Cathryn Bailey, Vice President of the WMU-AAUP

As leaders of Western Michigan University’s chapter of the WMU-AAUP, as professors, and as engaged citizens, we read your campus wide email message of February 6 with concern. In it, you state that Western’s leadership has decided to adopt a position of institutional neutrality, explaining that your goal is to “provide assurance to our entire community that we take seriously the trust conferred to us as leaders to care for the voice, mission and reputation of this University.” With the democratic checks and balances of our nation under daily attack by a presidential administration that has openly declared universities to be the enemy, we are far from reassured by the suggestion that WMU now aims to avoid controversy by remaining on the sidelines.

Far from regarding this neutrality policy as “thoughtful stewardship” of Western’s voice, as you described it, we share the position of the National AAUP: “urg[ing] universities not to hide behind the pretense of remaining neutral in times of conflict or crisis. As the second Trump administration continues its assaults on academic freedom—and on critical research that saves lives, advances science and innovation, and benefits communities in the United States and around the world—neutrality is neither possible nor viable.”

We will not summarize the AAUP’s full statement—you can find it here—but instead will highlight a few especially salient points. The first is that the impact of institutional neutrality “on academic freedom and shared governance can vary based not only on what institutional neutrality is taken to mean but also on the circumstances in which it is adopted or imposed.” We note that, at a time of historic uncertainty and instability for universities and for academic freedom, WMU’s highest leadership did not choose to issue a public statement affirming their ongoing commitment to such substantive core values, including: diversity, equity, and inclusion; and global engagement. Instead, it chose to publicly announce a new policy, that Western’s default position will now be one of “neutrality.” At a time when many other colleges and universities are stepping forward to affirm their longstanding commitments to the basic humanistic values that underlie democratic, inclusive universities, WMU appears to be receding from its value commitments.

While it may be technically correct to claim as your FAQ does, that this “neutrality policy” is not necessarily inconsistent with academic freedom—a point also acknowledged by the AAUP statement—this provides little comfort for those anxious about its real world application. As the AAUP emphasizes in its statement, “Universities inescapably act in a myriad of ways that express their values and commitments without stifling academic freedom.” Students, staff, and faculty are not operating in a vacuum. Many are already negotiating a tense campus environment that includes fears of gun violence, immigration-related harassment, epidemic diseases, economic insecurity, sexual assault, and more. We now ask you to consider whether your “neutrality statement”—together with WMU’s unhelpful recent statement about interfacing with ICE—has reassured these members of our campus community or made them feel even more vulnerable? 

With all this in mind, we urge you to closely consider the AAUP’s full statement about institutional neutrality, noting its nuanced and historical handling of the subject, as well as its cautions and advice. If our university’s leadership chooses to hide behind “neutrality” as a chilling pall falls over our classrooms and our most vulnerable campus members are targeted for harm, WMU will carry a stain of moral and intellectual failure into its future. As so many have pointed out, to remain “neutral” while oppressive forces attack is effectively to ally oneself with injustice.

In addition, we ask that you clarify and enhance Western’s substantive commitment to align its practices with its core humanistic values—among them, again, academic freedom and shared governance; diversity, equity and inclusion; and global engagement. As the AAUP statement notes: “A commitment to neutrality….is not some magic wand that conjures freedom. Calls for neutrality instead provide an opportunity to consider how various practices of an institution—not only its speech or silence but also its actions and policies— might promote a more robust freedom of teaching, research, and intramural and extramural speech.”

In closing, we believe that your recent affirmation of “institutional neutrality,” raises concerns rather than addressing them. Further, we share the position implied by the AAUP statement that, having endorsed the morally and practically problematic position of “neutrality,” Western’s leaders now carry a great responsibility to clarify and invest in their commitment to substantive core values. As the AAUP statement points out, there are times when action is required to defend “the very mission of the university and its values of free inquiry.” Now is such a time.

a message from WMU-AAUP President Cathryn Bailey and Vice President Christopher Nagle

As the WMU-AAUP’s “negotiations” with the WMU Administration drag on well past the Aug 30 deadline, it’s important to reiterate the context in which the WMU-AAUP initially proposed 11.25/11.25 (first and second years) across-the-board raises for faculty. In part, this was a reflection of wage value lost over the years to cost of living increases. As WMU-AAUP Chief Negotiator Andrew Hennlich has noted, even with such double-digit increases—a proposal the President’s negotiation team thought was a joke—the value of our salaries would only reach 2016 levels. But as the WMU-AAUP has also been insisting, there is a much larger story here, one that includes the Administration’s years-long disinvestment in its core academic mission, together with its increased eagerness to spend exorbitantly on all sorts of other things. Since these weird administrative spending priorities help explain why so many Western employees are now pushing back with such determination, we offer here a new negotiation proposal, one that we believe many in the Western community could support. In a nutshell, we are both willing to encourage our faculty colleagues to accept the President’s utterly unimpressive 3/3 compensation increase offer if the Administration agrees to radically alter its current spending priorities as described below. 

Specifically, we propose that the following areas be marked for meaningful and ongoing scrutiny and action by campus and community constituents, a process we are confident will lead to such expenses being eliminated or radically scaled down: anti-union private attorneys and corporate consultants, Division I sports, fancy new buildings, hoarded “reserve” money, and elite administrative salaries and “perks.” Although our proposal here is merely informal and tentative, we are happy to go ahead and suggest a few details: 

⁃the entire campus community would be consulted and heard before any additional commitments would be made to anti-union private attorneys or corporate consultants. As part of the process, the Administration would openly share all past expenses—rather than requiring us to FOIA them and then dragging its feet—and campus constituents, including faculty and developing student experts—would have a meaningful opportunity to weigh in on whether any additional such expenses were appropriate and ethical.

⁃an employee and student-driven body, including faculty financial experts—yes, we have those, President Montgomery!—to make a binding recommendation about Western’s current Division I football commitment. This body would review the financial viability and overall value of Western’s current athletic situation, including that the subsidies the university provides have been jawdropping and ever-growing (even by peer university standards). The student/employee body could also determine whether WMU as a whole might be better served by dropping down a division or some other scenario. In any case, Division I football would no longer be a sacred cow at WMU to which all other interests—including the university’s academic mission—would be expected to be happily subservient.

⁃the university would make no further commitment to construct new buildings unless and until Western’s key employee groups were meaningfully consulted. For example, the university could not build a new dining hall unless it first ensured that the frontline employee group tasked with running and maintaining the facility already had the baseline resources and working conditions these employees needed to thrive. The university could not commission any additional new residence halls or classroom buildings without first getting assurance from relevant employees that they too were properly resourced and prepared to serve the students these buildings are meant to attract and retain. This would include, for example, advisors, instructors, professors, teaching assistants, administrative assistants and more. The general principle here: a university is not primarily its buildings but its people, and it is foolish to invest in the former while alienating, disrespecting and starving the latter.

⁃the university would bring its addiction to hoarding profits under control, what it misleadingly refers to as “reserves.” According to the Administration’s wildly conservative claims, it needs nine months of reserves to be financially responsible. However, our independent financial analyst cites three months as the responsible amount, and the Administration’s own professional organization cites only six. In any case, our initial compensation proposal would barely impact even their most conservative number. To put this in perspective, in essence, the proposed WMU-AAUP compensation package would only come to about half of what athletics gets as a matter of course. In short, the Administration must agree to begin investing irresponsibly hoarded reserves back into its core mission, i.e., its students and frontline employees. 

⁃the president, provost, and handful of other elite WMU administrators would immediately agree to slash their shockingly high salaries. For example, the president’s $600,000+ compensation package could be modestly reduced by 1/3 and he could volunteer to start paying for his own housing, phone, and country club membership. He would also agree to donate all of his past WMU bonuses—including the one he was awarded the day before the faculty voted No Confidence in him (!)—to pay for free student parking. While we’re at it, the provost, too, could take a salary cut of 1/3–still putting him at the top end of WMU employee salaries—and  receive travel funds equal to what WMU is agreeing it is obligated to provide to professors through its Faculty Research Travel Fund: no more than one trip of $700 per year. In addition, in honor of the Administration’s increasing shifting of expenses onto employees and students, if any of these elite administrators needs a new laptop, travel to other WMU-campuses, or other work tools, they will pay for this out of pocket and also be subjected to lectures about how greedy they are and how poor the university is. 

In addition to the financial elements of our proposal, there is one other point on which we would insist: that the Administration agree to kill and bury its constant rationalization that it should gauge its spending priorities based on what “everyone else is doing.” How often do we all hear the same explanation from Western Michigan University leaders that, for example, we need a millionaire president because “other schools are doing it” or that WMU doesn’t have to pay its employees better because “there are other universities with salaries that are even lower.” Not only are such Administrative claims of “normalcy” frequently false or misleading—Western actually is falling short in a number of respects—it’s also just embarrassing to hear our own leaders boast about how our once-great university’s goal is to be mediocre. 

A negotiation update from WMU-AAUP president, Dr. Cathryn Bailey

Later this morning, the WMU-AAUP negotiation team will present our proposal regarding faculty compensation to the WMU Administration. As our team presents our collective demand for a fair compensation package—including meaningful raises that will actually make a difference to you and your family—I want to make sure you are clear about some of its key aims, especially since you will need to participate to achieve them. As you consider the numbers below, you’ll see that this proposal takes seriously the devastation to employee purchasing power resulting from sharp cost of living increases. Indeed, and as is consistent with input from members, we believe it is our responsibility to advocate for robust raises. This point is underscored by the objective fact of WMU’s consistently vigorous financial health—despite its ongoing cries of poverty—and the years of financial sacrifices employees have been expected to absorb. At the same time, the Administration has spent money with abandon on corporate consultants, Division I football, union-busting attorneys, and, of course, its own jawdropping salaries and bonuses.

The proposal’s key elements:

• Raises of 11.25% across-the-board in both 2024 and 2025, reflecting the decline in salary relative to the Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers (CPI-U) since 2015, and a further projected CPI-U increase of 2.4% per year. While these numbers are visibly larger than those of our past collective bargaining agreements with Western—and you can be confident the Administration will accuse the faculty of being greedy—this 22.5% raise would still only return our purchasing power in 2026 to its 2015 levels.

• “Research supplements” of 3% in 2024 and 2025, to be based on the median salary within each rank. These additional increases reflect some acknowledgements of faculty contributions to Western’s core mission.

• An increase of $9000 to salary minima at each rank, thereby significantly raising the bar for the lowest paid faculty members.

• An increase of $75 per credit hour to overload rates.

• A promotion/step increase of $1000 for Full Professor and Master Faculty Specialist, and $850 for Associate and Assistant Professors. 

• A $1000 increase to each of the faculty recognition awards (teaching, research, and service)

The WMU Administration’s ongoing demands for “belt-tightening,” rationing, and other expressions of manufactured austerity, are especially hollow given their own exorbitant compensation and their apparently endless willingness to subsidize Division I football. (Note that this Administration actually expresses at the negotiation table its implicit expectation that WMU employees agree to the ongoing prioritization of football over academics.) We are, then, especially proud to propose compensation increases for faculty that represent a meaningful increase after years of being starved of resources and compensation.

Indeed, it is disappointing that, at a diverse public university, one built on the backs of working-class students and their families, the Administration would remain unwilling to properly compensate the workers who actually make the institution function. And this has been despite our continued reminders that “our working conditions are student learning conditions.” When the Administration lowballs and starves the faculty, when it treats us like a liability to be whittled away rather than a resource to be nourished, it is Western Michigan University students who ultimately suffer most. We faculty should keep in mind too that the salary increases we negotiate for ourselves have historically been used to benchmark those provided to other key employee groups. When the Administration successfully lowballs the WMU-AAUP, they tend to use this as an additional rationalization to undercut other employees as well.

As negotiations proceed, then, expect this Administration—some of whom have become millionaires for serving as figureheads, managers, and bureaucrats—to shame frontline workers who are advocating for better pay for themselves and their families. The degree to which this WMU leadership has grown out of touch can, I think, be tracked in part, by its now compulsive inclination to hack away at our university’s core academic mission and functions, as if teaching and learning were somehow incidental to why our students and their families choose Western. And that President Montgomery and Provost Vasquez Heilig have, yet again, empowered a notoriously aggressive, union-busting law firm to speak for them at the negotiation table speaks volumes. This is, by the way, the same corporate law firm now aggressively arguing the Administration’s case that it has no obligation to fund your professional research travel, further eroding your income and ability to succeed in your career and serve students.

Again, keep in mind that Western has the funds to properly compensate employees. Indeed, WMU currently has triple the amount of financial reserves that academic financial analyst Howard Bunsis regards as ‘solid.’ Further, since 2019, WMU has posted impressive positive cash flows of between 8.8 and 11.7%. To be clear, this includes some of the worst years of the pandemic, the very same time the Administration fired many employees. The Administration then demanded that remaining employees take on additional work (and even donate part of our salaries), a situation that has never been rectified. Again, WMU’s cash flows represent profit for the institution, money that Western could, instead, easily choose to reinvest in the people that fulfill the core mission.

Although the WMU-AAUP negotiation team will fight for our proposal at the table, it is only through your participation in strategic collective actions that we will win them. In short, if you are expecting a meaningful compensation increase—and to maintain your healthcare as is—then, you need to do your part by standing ready for targeted, escalated action. If you’re reluctant to step up now, please consider the stakes: How much longer can Western afford to be bled dry by the weird priorities of career administrators who always find some new reason for starving the core academic mission? Not only is this Administration compromising faculty and students, it is stealing from WMU’s future.

As most of us know all too well, dizzyingly high administrative salaries and VIP perks aren’t only a feature of elite universities, but have become a fact of life at relatively affordable regional universities like Western Michigan University. With the WMU-AAUP in the thick of negotiations over faculty salary and benefits, and after years of sacrifices by WMU employees, this is surely a good time to look at what WMU thinks is a reasonable compensation to offer administrators. Will these well-heeled administrators continue to accuse employees demanding meaningful raises of being greedy or out of touch?

According to documents the WMU-AAUP obtained from WMU by FOIA:

• the President, Edward Montgomery, in addition to receiving over $500,000 base annual salary, also has housing (and house maintenance and housekeeping) and car paid for, as well as club memberships, e.g., The Park Club and the Kalamazoo Country club. He is provided an additional $50,000 per fiscal year as an “executive retirement benefit,” and up to $10,000 per year reimbursement “to purchase life insurance to cover the costs of health insurance coverage for his spouse in the event of the President’s death.” Despite an overwhelming Vote of No-Confidence in him by the faculty, his salary and bonuses have only increased.
• the Vice President of Marketing, Tony Proudfoot, with a $252,000 salary, was offered a $12,000 “bonus” simply for signing his contract and also received a “performance bonus” of $13,000 authorized by President Montgomery. In addition, he receives a $625 monthly automobile allowance, club memberships, and was offered up to $10,000 for moving expenses.
• the Vice President for Research and Innovation, Remzi Seker, receives a salary of $278,000, club memberships and up to $10,000 for moving expenses.
• the Provost, Julian Vasquez Heilig, who earns $350,000 annually, receives a $625 monthly automobile allowance, club memberships, and received a $25,000 “bonus” simply for signing his contract. In addition, he was offered the value of up to one month of his salary for moving expenses.

In decades past, university administrators were usually individuals with long service as faculty members who often remained rooted in, and primarily motivated by, academic values and concerns. These days, presidents, provosts, deans, and the like often have relatively little experience with students or research, or with the critical dynamics of shared governance. Instead, such individuals are often hired for their willingness and potential to “manage” people, as well as campus and public opinion. Whatever their backgrounds and motivations, many are extravagantly compensated even as they routinely lecture the rest of us about the need to “tighten your belts” and “do more with less.”

Many faculty members, staff employees, and students are queasy about the rock-star salaries of elite administrators, especially at institutions like Western that owe much of their success to first-generation, working class students. That our university continues to enrich elite administrators while simultaneously telling WMU employees that WE’RE too expensive — frequently suggesting we’re lazy or greedy— is basic gaslighting. Western Michigan University has made the value it places on administrators crystal clear. Just so, the employee compensation it agrees to at the negotiation table will be the clearest expression of what WMU thinks the rest of us are worth too, that is, the value of the employees who actually carry out the university’s core mission.

To show your support for fair pay, and the dignity and worth of the WMU employees who make WMU possible, pick up and display your WMU-AAUP signs, wear your WMU-AAUP t-shirt, and stand ready for action. Let’s fight for our university, our students, our negotiation process, and one another!

a negotiation message from Dr. Cathryn Bailey, President of the WMU-AAUP Chapter, the labor union for Western Michigan University’s Board-appointed faculty

It is my unfortunate duty as President of the WMU-AAUP to share with you today that the news both from the 2024 negotiation table and from our member-activists in the field is concerning. First of all, Western’s management—a handful of university administrators (led, once again, by an exorbitantly paid attorney from a union-busting Detroit firm) is refusing to provide data necessary for us to advocate effectively for our members. Indeed, week after week, the WMU-AAUP team, guided for the first time ever by a labor-centered external healthcare consultant, has faced stonewalling as the WMU Administration throws up its hands, claiming that it is unable to provide information about how much it spends on healthcare each year. In addition, WMU-AAUP members and allies are reporting that union-pride and other negotiation-related posters are being torn down by the University almost as quickly as they are posted. In general, the message that our employer is sending to campus employees—and keep in mind that the salary portion of negotiations has yet to begin—is one of obstruction and obfuscation.

More specifically with respect to healthcare, the WMU-AAUP negotiation team has repeatedly requested data regarding rate development and the reconciliation reports of employee health care costs. This is critical to achieve even a modicum of transparency about how the annual rates for health care are being projected, and also to assess the balance between employee insurance claims and contributions made by the university. As our team has pressed for this data week after week, the Administration has resisted. Shockingly, the Administration is now claiming that they, themselves, do not access such reports from external consultants and vendors, data that we are confident is available to them. Whether the Administration’s response here is straightforward stonewalling or based on a stunningly irresponsible lack of curiosity on their part, it obviously puts WMU employees at a huge disadvantage. Without such data on the table for all to see, WMU can—as it has apparently done in at least some past negotiations—make assertions about its healthcare costs that are wildly exaggerated. And the fact that these Administrators are not embarrassed to openly assert to us that they do not themselves even bother to request such basic, vital information is noteworthy given the constant administrative rhetoric about scarce resources and fiduciary responsibility.

To provide a bit more context for all of this, please note again that, as I write this, negotiations regarding salary increases—usually the most contentious part of labor negotiations—have not even begun. But please keep in mind that the WMU Administration has historically insisted on tying compensation to healthcare benefits during negotiations, effectively claiming that any salary raises will have to be balanced by employee concessions on healthcare. It’s similar to a common tactic used at car dealerships when the trade-in value, new car cost, and financing charges get rolled together in a way meant to confuse the buyer and grossly advantage the dealership. You can be sure, then, that the WMU Administration has gotten in the habit of mashing together these two distinct matters—compensation and healthcare—precisely because it has been beneficial for them to do so. This also helps shed light on why the Administration has been so adamant that employees be kept in the dark about the actual costs of healthcare. What would employees accept as fair compensation and healthcare if we knew how much our benefits are actually costing the university? Given how reluctant the Administration is to provide this information, one is left to imagine they must be raking in huge profits in this area and perhaps have been for decades.

In closing, I’ll return to the concern about negotiation-related, union-pride posters being torn down by the Administration, an act that I construe as part of the Administration’s overall campaign to demoralize and intimidate employees. This Administration, while claiming to be employee-centered and union friendly, evidently does not welcome the visible signs of employee solidarity or robust critique that are a normal part of nearly all negotiation cycles. Although it is disappointing that Western Michigan University has become increasingly inured to, and intolerant of, employee input and dissent (and increasingly dismissive of its negotiated labor contracts), the good news for employees is that this Administration is nervous about the power of worker solidarity. To be sure, employers who are genuinely committed to treating employees fairly and respectfully do not rely on intimidation tactics, gaslighting, or stonewalling. Indeed, one reason some universities become known as “a great place to work” is precisely by how their management handles negotiations —and other dealings—with their labor unions.

What can you do? In addition to all the instructions you’ve already received from the WMU-AAUP about supporting negotiations:

⁃ share this message widely, with both your faculty colleagues and allies

⁃ contact the WMU-AAUP to arrange to pick up posters and other materials or to have them delivered to you; the fact that the Administration is tearing down posters proves that they are meaningful, so it should surprise no one that we intend to increase our efforts in this area

⁃ to whatever degree you feel able, connect with union-friendly WMU colleagues, including administrators, making sure they understand how the WMU negotiation team—a handful of temporarily-empowered individuals—is treating employees at the table

With determination and in solidarity, Cathryn