President's statement on issues of State-UUP stalemate

The most recent collective bargaining agreement between the State of New York and the United University Professions (UUP) expired on July 1, 1995. In the bargaining which preceded that date, and in all subsequent bargaining, the Governor's Office of Employee Relations (GOER) and UUP have been unable to conclude a new agreement. The results of this stalemate are several:

1. There has been no general salary adjustment for UUP members since March 1, 1995, when the last of the adjustments negotiated in the preceding agreement took effect.
2. The convenience with which members may access health care benefits has been impaired, in spite of a judicial determination that the membership is entitled to these benefits under the terms of the last contract.
3. All other provisions of the last contract-e.g. grievance procedures, protection of benefits, conditions of employment, etc.-remain in full effect.

While I am enjoined, as a campus president, to remain scrupulously neutral with respect to the collective bargaining process, it seems to me appropriate to take a careful look at both sides of the current stalemate. In the past few weeks, I have discussed these issues with the Faculty Senate; the leadership of our chapters of UUP; colleagues at SUNY's central office; and others in Albany. I had hoped these conversations would at least provide me with a basis for advising the campus community regarding the issues outstanding in the ongoing collective bargaining. That hope has been realized only in part.

Those who bargain for UUP and those who bargain for the State (GOER, on behalf of SUNY) will not disclose the details of the bargaining. That stance is appropriate; neither side wishes to negotiate in the press. As a result, none of us, other than those at the table, has a complete picture. Based on my conversations, however, I will hazard the following observations, in hope that they will shed some additional light on these matters.

The economic elements-salary and fringe benefits-may have been significant early in the collective bargaining process; however, all the other state bargaining units have settled and signed, and their economic package probably sets the general parameters for a new UUP contract. In a setting where the workforce is represented by several different units, such congruence of agreements is an inevitable result of the statewide politics of collective bargaining.

In the UUP bargaining, another issue stands-so most observers believe-between the parties. As best as can be determined, the state is insisting that each agreement with each bargaining unit include a provision or provisions to allow "contracting out" of "state" work. This situation, not surprisingly, is problematic for the collective bargaining agents. In the first instance, unions will and must work to protect the jobs, salary, and benefits of their current members. Beyond that, unions seek to protect their own sources of strength by preserving not only the actual jobs of current members, but also the "state work" which provides the employment base for both current and future employees. Preserving this "state work" supports both the political and economic power of the union, i.e., its membership rolls and dues. Contracting out is feared as a trend which may erode this base.

Regarding this issue, three of the four bargaining agents which represent SUNY staff have composed their differences with the state and have agreed to provisions regarding contracting out. These are the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA), the Public Employees Federation (PEF), and Council 82. Statewide, CSEA represents about 76,000 employees, roughly 12,500 of them in SUNY; PEF represents 50,000 employees statewide, with some 2,500 in SUNY; and Council 82 approximately 23,000 employees, over 600 in SUNY. UUP represents about 22,000 faculty and staff, all in SUNY.

The smallest unit at UB, Council 82, represents our public safety officers. Council 82 settled on a very brief provision, to wit:

The Employer shall not contract out for goods and services performed by employees which will result in any employee being reduced or laid off without prior consultation with the Union concerning any possible effect on the terms and conditions of employment of employees covered by this Agreement.

(1995-99 Council 82 Agreement)

CSEA and PEF have agreed to contracts which have more extensive and near identical provisions regarding contracting out. Those contracts state:

§22.1 (a) There shall be no loss of present employment by permanent employees as a result of the State's exercise of its right to contract out for goods and services.

(b) Notwithstanding the provision of Article 22.1(a), permanent employees affected by the State's exercise of its right to contract out for goods and services will receive 60 days written notice of intended separation and will be offered a redeployment option...[as described elsewhere in the contract], but where such redeployment option is not able to be offered and where no displacement rights as provided for in Civil Service Law Sections 80 and 80-a are available, the affected permanent employee shall be offered the opportunity to elect one of the...transition benefits...

(1995-99 CSEA Agreement)

Guaranteed transition benefits include a financial stipend for an identified retraining/educational opportunity; severance pay, per negotiated terms; or preferential employment with the contractor, at the employee's option and if such employment is available. The transition benefits are available to all affected employees whether or not they hold continuing appointment.

What light may all of this shed on the State-UUP stalemate? My reading is that the state will insist that UUP agree to a provision guaranteeing to the state the opportunity to contract out work, given the benchmark set by CSEA, PEF, and Council 82. On the other hand, it would appear that the state is willing to provide some protections regarding those holding continuing appointments, and to provide some special transition benefits for all affected employees. In UUP's case that could mean a guarantee of protection for tenure (for faculty) or permanent appointment (for staff), and a guarantee of transition benefits for those who do not hold tenure or permanent appointment.

If this were the sole issue at stake, I would expect that this framework could support the makings of a contract between the state and UUP, albeit tailored to the special interests of UUP regarding faculty tenure. However, an evolving plan to provide the three hospitals in SUNY (Syracuse, Brooklyn, and Stony Brook) with more operating flexibility may raise some compounding problems.

Among the management options which have been floated in the recent past is the possibility of creating separate and legally independent corporations to subsume the responsibilities of the three SUNY hospitals. Such an approach also has been suggested for the Roswell Park Cancer Institute. Moreover, there is some precedent in SUNY for such arrangements, for at least some SUNY-based activities. The SUNY Research Foundation, for example, is a legally independent corporation, as are the several campus-based auxiliary services corporations, such as our Faculty Student Association, Sub Board I, and so on. There are, however, some 7,700 UUP members on staff and in state employment at the three hospitals. Accordingly, the prospect of contracting out the hospital operations to SUNY-controlled but legally independent corporations cannot be treated lightly by UUP.

All the observers with whom I talked believe that it is this hospitals issue which is the ultimate sticking point between UUP and the state. Regrettably, they have little wisdom to offer on what can be done to break the stalemate. Neither do I, though my own opinion is that some compromise on both sides will be inevitable. It will take flexibility and creativity on both sides in order to reach a mutually acceptable and beneficial agreement.

As to the claim that the state is mounting an assault on faculty tenure by insisting on a contracting-out provision, I remain skeptical, but open to persuasion otherwise. If I believed that this were, in fact, the state's purpose, I would recommend against it, forcefully and in the strongest possible terms. I am sure that all other SUNY presidents and officers would join in that effort.

To be sure, contracting out, unless regulated and limited by contract protections, could be a threat to tenure and permanent appointment. But there is no evidence of which I am aware that the SUNY Trustees, Chancellor, or SUNY Presidents have any interest in contracting out as a device to assault faculty tenure. Indeed, neither the Trustees or SUNY officers have much stake in the issue beyond maintaining some reasonable flexibility regarding the use of outside contractors for limited purposes. The State and GOER, however, have much more at stake given that the largest bargaining units in the state-CSEA and PEF-have already negotiated contracts including provisions on this point. As noted, however, the State has also agreed, in those contracts, to limitations on the exercise of contracting out.

In my view, it will serve little purpose for any of us to make the Chancellor and SUNY Trustees the sole, or even primary, focus of our advocacy. It is the GOER and the UUP negotiators who are the essential parties, with CSEA, PEF, and SUNY looking on as very interested observers; it is the GOER and the UUP negotiators who must find the wisdom to resolve this difficult but solvable set of issues. All of us in SUNY should urge both the State, through GOER, and the UUP negotiators to work in a spirit of compromise to conclude this matter soon. I will use my best efforts in this regard, and I hope my colleagues and friends in our UUP chapters will make like efforts.

Sincerely,
William R. Greiner
President