In negotiations, neither side can “win”. To make this place work well everyone has to work together. The division between management and labor comes from an old industrial model. It does not work well in higher education.

Burlington Community College is an example of what happens when one side wins. Any faculty member from Burlington that I have talked to goes on at length at how bad the President of the College is. What I have heard is that the union there screwed the president twice, first by backing out of an agreement at the table making the President look bad before the Board and later passing a vote of no confidence in the President. The President has not forgotten those injuries and has been out to get the faculty ever since. For instance no one has gotten tenure there for many years and the number of tenured faculty is much reduced. Apparently it is not a pleasant place to work.

Another instance here at ACCC where the Board and administration tried to win was back about 1980 when the Board declared a Reduction In Force of tenured faculty based on “financial exigency”. No other College in New Jersey had tried to do that yet. The RIF resulted in very poor moral. The legal fees for both the NJEA and the Board were about $250,000. We could never have “won” that case without the help of NJEA and the excellent lawyer they hired. Because of some fortunate circumstances on our side, that decision was mostly overturned. The effects of the RIF are dissipating but may still be present. When Dr. Orth was hired as President shortly after that, his orders were to have no RIF and to reduce the number of managers.

Orth’s background was military, so he was new to labor negotiations. Bob Gowdy, Administration Vice President, had been doing the negotiations, but Orth decided to hire a lawyer who specialized in negotiations at colleges. The problem with lawyers is that the longer it takes, the more money they make. He was getting $90 per hour plus at the time, drove a Rolls Royce, and wore a huge diamond on his hand. He is probably getting $150 an hour these days. Another problem with lawyers is that they are trained to “win”. I had advised Dr. Orth to hire a mediator, not a lawyer. Labor negotiations is mediation where you try to reach a mutually acceptable agreement. Negotiations were getting nowhere at that time, so Orth brought back Bob Gowdy to negotiate with faculty and with ACCOSAP. Bob had a good time reaching settlement and showing Orth how it is done.

One problem we may have this year is that the Board’s chief negotiator is a big sports fan. In sports, teams win and lose. In negotiations, neither side can “win” because we work together and the other side can get you back at you. It’s like being in a family.

The next negotiations session is May 9 and Support Staff is up, so to speak.

Will Parsons, Coordinator of the Unity Negotiating Team

The Unity Negotiations Team met with Board representatives Wednesday, April 19, 2006 in J 202 at 12:00. This was the Board’s turn to respond to The Support Staff’s proposal. Representing the board were Joe Rossi, Karen Beckman, and Cindy DeFalco. At the table for the Unity Team were Penny Wells, Michelle Bevan, Mitch Mischlich, Rhonda Petruzzi, Ed Perkins, Renee DeAngelo, Dan Matt, Marsha Patrick, Claire Farnum, John Stratton, Will Parsons, and Dom Nigro. The mood at the table was polite but restrained.

Joe handed out a fourteen page document that contained the Board’s response to the Support Staff proposals – “denied”. It also contained new proposed changes in the contract. Those changes consisted of restrictions and limitations and can be summarized as “we want to take away…” Joe read the paper and gave rational for the proposed changes for about a half an hour without interruption. Some Support Staff members of the team sustained minor damage to their tongues during that time. Joe did not make eye contact during his presentation possibly to keep from laughing.

After Joe went over the proposed changes, the Board’s team left the room. The Unity Team then began a therapy session which included laughter and name calling. Following the therapy, the team went over the proposal discussing the implications and making sure everyone understood the proposal. The team was also looking for items they might be able to agree on to move toward settlement.

It is hard to believe at this stage that we should be trying to arrive at an agreement that both sides can live with. So far, there has been no evidence that the Board is rushing toward settlement. Unless something changes we are still months away from an agreement. And if I hear “cost containment” one more time, I may forcibly eject the contents of my stomach.

Will Parsons, Unity Team Coordinator

Late in the afternoon after a long caucus with lengthy discussions, Dom Nigro presented the Support Staff’s response to the Board’s proposal. The response was “No”,” No”, “Maybe, if we get these changes”, and “No”. Joe Rossi, followed closely by Cindy, and Karen, left the meeting before Dom finished. Joe said he had an appointment with the Board. On the way out he acted disappointed that there was “no movement”. Apparently he had hoped that Support Staff would give up a bunch of stuff they have in return for nothing. The good news is the process may be speeding up. At least this meeting had two rounds.

I forget the technical name for the kind of bargaining we are doing, but it is a primitive form of problem solving. One side comes to the table with demands and the other side comes in with their demands and then they slug it out. The reasoning part involves one side grabbing the gonads of the other side and squeezing, then telling the other side they will stop the pain if they get what they want.

An example of that occurred a few years ago when an administrator, who has control issues, decided the faculty needed more office hours in the contract. The faculty did not agree and that issue dragged on for months when at the last minute, in order to reach a settlement, management dropped their demand. A more reasonable form of negotiations is called mutual gains bargaining or win-win bargaining.

In mutual gains bargaining, one side brings to the table a problem. If the other side agrees there is a problem, then they discuss possible ways to solve the problem. For instance, management could have explained to faculty that studies have shown that students are more successful if the students have more interaction with their instructors. If the faculty agreed that there is a problem, then both sides could discuss ways to address the problem. They might have decided that the best way would be to encourage faculty to use email for interacting with students. Mutual gains bargaining is a less rigid way of solving problems then making demands. By the way, the position paper Joe Rossi wrote to get his doctorate was on mutual gains bargaining. The people at the table would probably be shocked to hear that.

Win-win sounds good but has not been very successful. It has been tried in a few places in New Jersey. I do not know of any faculty groups using it. It requires hiring a facilitator to train the people in the technique. It does not necessarily shorten the process, and does not necessarily result in better solutions. In addition, it does not work with money issues.

So, back to the table. The next session is Wednesday when the Board’s side responds to Support Staff’s proposed changes in their contract. Will Parsons, Coordinator for the Unity Negotiations Team

The Unity Negotiations Team met with Board representative Joe Rossi Friday, April 7 12:00 in J 245. At that meeting, Joe responded to the Faculty bargaining unit’s proposed changes. Members of the team at the table were John Stratton, Claire Farnum, Jim Taggart, Dennis Huey, Lenora Sheppard, Will Parsons, Michelle Bevan, Phil Cragg, and Dom Nigro. The Board’s responses were in writing and team members received copies. Joe verbally explained the responses and answered questions about intent that Dom Nigro and Team members asked. After the presentation, Joe left and the team spent an hour going over the responses item by item. The team decided what we can agree to, what needs to be put on hold, what needs to be rejected outright, and what counter proposals might move us along toward settlement.

The next negotiations meeting is April 19, where the Board will respond to the Support Staff proposed list of changes.

This week a member mentioned to me a new benefit we could ask for. We are still fairly early in the negotiations process, so theoretically a new benefit could be put on the table. To reach settlement, however, we must reach agreement on some issues and let other issues “drop off the table”. The team members make those decisions. Dom Nigro, our NJEA Representative provides advice, but the team members make the decisions and those decisions are reached by consensus. It is rare that a vote is taken. Will Parsons, Coordinator for the Unity Negotiations Team.