As the MCCEA prepares to begin bargaining for the 2017 contract, all members in good standing were sent a link on March 22 to a survey on bargaining issues. One item not included in the survey, which many of you will see as a glaring omission, is wage increases.
The shortest explanation for that missing item is complex as well as frustrating.
2011 was the last year we received a contractually-scheduled wage increase, and income adjustments since that time have come in the form of one-time "lump sum" payments that haven’t increased base salaries.
2011 was also the year that the faculty union, recognizing that the college was being hit with a dramatic downturn from the huge enrollment spikes of 2008-2009, agreed to tie its wage schedule to the college’s Exempt group, to which administrators and their support staff belong. If that group saw a raise across the board, so would the faculty bargaining unit.
This agreement seemed reasonable, as it allowed for both groups to receive wage increases when the enrollment downturn stabilized.
But the emphasis there is “both groups” - as in, just two. In subsequent contract negotiations with our five sister units at Mott (Admin Support, Maintenance & Operations, ProTech, Public Safety, and Supervisory & Managerial), the college tied all of those groups to the Exempts as well.
The result was that a very small group of employees would almost certainly never see a wage increase because it meant everyone else would require raises of equal value. The MCCEA considers this decision to corral everyone into one frozen-wage herd to be extremely ill-advised.
Then enrollment began to fall even more. Meanwhile, in Lansing, the governor reduced funding for higher education, allowing some single-digit increases at some schools and nothing at all for others. (Mott recently received a gift shaped like a zero.)
And then came the water. Property values - i.e. the tax base - in the surrounding communities had just begun to stabilize and even rise in some areas, but the global headlines about Flint’s poisoned water quickly took care of that.
We work for an employer whose operating budget is based on declining tuition, reduced and frozen state funding, and plummeting local taxes, and who has put nearly all employees into a single bargained wage pool.
This is why the issue of wages didn’t appear on the member survey of bargaining items. Our bargaining team members already know, with painful clarity, that they'll have to look under every possible rock, in every dusty corner, to find pennies and nickels that might add up as “alternative pay increases,” i.e. benefits with financial value.
The college also recognizes the effects of going years without significantly addressing stagnant wages. Unfilled positions, a steady resignation/retirement rate for top talent, and low morale are evident.
And everyone is aware of the many expensive legal and business consultants who continue to pass through the college's doors. The college sees them as necessary. The EA sees them as being paid with money that should be distributed to faculty and college employees.
These are the economic realities that will hang over both sides as we negotiate a new contract. If any of our members have solid, feasible ideas for breaking through the wall of tuition/funding/taxes looming against us, the bargaining team and I will sincerely welcome them.
Please contact me, Robb Dudock, or Kim Owens if you have questions about any of this information.