Does a tenured faculty member have any protections against changes in annual contract obligations -- e.g. increase in load, increase in number of months required to work etc.? Or could the institution effectively tell a tenured faculty they are going to work twice as long for half as much? The issue seems confusing to me because some tenured faculty appear never to sign a contract again after receiving tenure, while others get issued with them every year.
At my university, the standard load is to teach 4 classes, research and do service.
Im not aware that they university could lower my pay from one contract to another short of some emergency or issue.
However, my college coworkers generally teach only 3 classes because the college has a higher research standard. IF you are an outstanding researcher, there are short term reductions in research.
If one is regularly teaching 3 courses per term, but not being productive enough to justify the standard research release, then that could be revoked. (however, it is short sighted because IF they do not get that release to do the research, and are then teaching 4 courses, then how and why would they resume research? (chicken and egg issue)).
Could the university decide to require higher teaching of some or cut the pay of some? Short of a lot of documentation of failure to meet requirements and sufficient notice to rehabilitate, then not without subjecting them to legal problems.
They key is whether or not they are following the rules set forth in your Handbook, assuming you have one.
We are supposed to get annual contracts. Duties rarely change, but sometimes pay does. if duties are not in line with the Handbook, then the exception must be explained somehow. if your school's rules are that tenure faculty are to assume that conditions of contract are the same unless told otherwise, then I guess its OK.
So the proposals are to change the contract from 9 to 12 months (with extra obligations but no extra compensation) and to increase load (from 4-4 to 5-5 or higher depending on class size). There is a handbook. The contract duration is not mentioned in the handbook. The current load is. But I presume that they will just update the handbook at the time they issue the new contracts.
If the faculty have no say in changing load or in changing the handbook in general, then there isnt much recourse here.
I'm not disputing you, it just seems a strange thing no-one mentions it: i.e. if you get tenure at a place that doesn't ask you to sign a contract each year, you are much better than getting tenure at a place that offers annual contracts. Someone with tenure at an annual contract place could end up seeing huge declines in salary and increases in workload. I suppose tenure simply says you won't be terminated but it doesn't promise you that you'll get paid? lol
"Tenure" means what? Here it is a Contract without renewal. So it would not be necessary to sign a new one every year, I suppose - technically. What it really means is that it is much harder to remove you. It has to be for cause, whatever that is trumped up to be, but it for sure requires a lot of paperwork!
The reality is that IF they want to screw with you, the one thing that they have the most power over is your schedule. If they want, They can give you MWF 8 am classes, and Tuesday and Thursday night classes from 7 to 930.
Is this a state employer? Are they listed in the thread related to schools going broke (name escapes me)?
IF someone told me that I was NOW expected to be on the clock for 12 instead of 9 months for the same pay - essentially taking away summer pay, I suppose that they could. and those of us that could leave or retire would just Walk Away.
If I got a call asking me why I wasnt attending my summer classes I would say, "I dont remember agreeing to teaching any!"
Im pretty well paid in comparison to a lot of jobs, but not so well paid that working 12 months for my 9 month wage wouldnt make many other jobs I COULD be doing become attractive.
and I would not SIGN such a contract anyway!
(Here is the closest thing I can tell you... I worked at a small, state university. I was not tenured. The administration changed my contract to make the the 'coordinator' of my area. This title had no definition. It was a change, that no one discussed with me ahead of time. I lined it out, signed the contract and returned it. A few months later, the dean said, I changed my contract, and that I dont have a contract. They claimed that the coordinator language needed to be in the catalog. I said, "put anything you want in the catalog, this is in my contract. I didnt change my contract, the administration did. I FIXED it, by returning it to what it had been. " The conversation then turned that I dont have a contract. I said something, like, NO, I have a contract. If You want to make it a terminal contract, that is up to you, but you are required to give me 12 months notice."
I didnt get a terminal contract. I didnt sign the new one, I think that we both declared victory, and then I found another, better paying, better fit job where I have been for 20 years! In the end, I think that we were both happy that I found a better fit!
and speaking of that place and the schedule.... My office was next to a best selling text book author that actually brought a bit of prestige to the place. However, he made a boatload of money and lived in a Big House more than an hour's drive away. he was used to, over the years, working 2 days a week, late in the day. Well the dean (not the same one above) decided that the Old Guard werent saluting him promptly and with sufficient robustness, so he made a show. AND for this textbook author he gave him a schedule that started at 8 am, and then ran until late in the day. The author thought that he had the support of upper admin, but the provost and prez backed the dean, and he retired, reluctantly. ... so How is THAT for Tenure? 30 years or so on the job, best selling author bringing a name to the university, and out you go!
Tenure is short for "appointment with indefinite tenure." It literally means your contract does not need to be renewed.
The terms of the contract can change, though. How favorable those changes are to the faculty depends on the power of the faculty.
If the contract does not need to be renewed, how does the institution bind the faculty to the new terms and conditions of the contract, if they have signed an existing contract with the old terms and conditions?
Presumably what is happening when "faculty are given contracts" is therefore actually two different things. To tenured faculty, the contract represents a change of conditions of the contract. To non-tenured faculty it is actually a new contract. Would that be correct?
One of my PhD committee members was chair, but when I defended he had become interim dean. His advice to PhD students was the Tenure is irrelevant. What matters is the market and your ability to be competitive in it. IF a place does something related to what the OP is asking, then go back to the market and get a better job.
The usual change in a contract is salary, so tenured faculty are not averse to signing the new one.
Lowering a salary is usually done only if there is a financial problem with the employer.
Changing time periods is rare, and moving from 9 months to 12 would be very rare, especially if the university did not try to prorate pay somehow.
One more thing.... often the treatment of university faculty is very similar to the way that public school teachers are treated. Often the two groups are covered by the same retirement plan umbrella and sometimes even the budgets are covered in the same broad legislation
There was a big to-do about this at my uni a few years ago. They wanted to stop issuing yearly contracts for tenured profs, and we had many of the same concerns you do. Basically, the admins argued that our 'contract' was the handbook. So, we don't get a 'contract,' but we do get a 'salary statement.'
In your case, admins can't usually change the handbook without a vote from faculty senate. I'd advise that you read the handbook and the senate bylaws carefully and see what they say. Anytime they come for the handbook here we have to cause a ruckus because they always want to make it easier to dismiss people or up teaching loads. They never want to pay us a salary commensurate with that in the region or provide additional support for teaching or research innovation.
A friend of mine teaches at a state university where everyone, tenured or not, receives an annual contract that stipulates salary, teaching load, etc. That sounds well and good in theory, but if the contract is not signed by a certain date and time and returned to the appropriate office, that faculty member is no longer employed, even if they are tenured. It caused quite a kerfuffle one year when a tenured full prof was off somewhere on a sabbatical or research trip or something, anyway they were not in the country at the time the contract was to be signed and returned and missed the deadline. They were then notified that they were no longer employed by the university. Even after that, if I remember correctly, lawyers got involved, the institution still has the same contract deadline rule.
Where I am now, once tenure track faculty are hired, all we receive is an annual letter stating if our salary is changing. If we negotiate leave, or a change in teaching load, etc. that would be in the annual letter. Teaching faculty who are on 1, 3, or 5-year contracts receive their contracts when it's time for a new one, and the same 'here's your salary' letter every year when their contract is not up for renewal.
its very common to assume not returning a contract is tantamount to resignation.
However, at my school, the Dean's EA calls/emails, etc. about 42 times before anything terrible is assumed. I don't think anyone was ever assumed to have resigned on this alone at my school, though it would have been legally fine. Keep in mind, than in that case, its the action of the faculty member, not the school, that took away tenure.
Quote from: EdnaMode on February 06, 2023, 10:44:15 AM
A friend of mine teaches at a state university where everyone, tenured or not, receives an annual contract that stipulates salary, teaching load, etc. That sounds well and good in theory, but if the contract is not signed by a certain date and time and returned to the appropriate office, that faculty member is no longer employed, even if they are tenured. It caused quite a kerfuffle one year when a tenured full prof was off somewhere on a sabbatical or research trip or something, anyway they were not in the country at the time the contract was to be signed and returned and missed the deadline. They were then notified that they were no longer employed by the university. Even after that, if I remember correctly, lawyers got involved, the institution still has the same contract deadline rule.
Where I am now, once tenure track faculty are hired, all we receive is an annual letter stating if our salary is changing. If we negotiate leave, or a change in teaching load, etc. that would be in the annual letter. Teaching faculty who are on 1, 3, or 5-year contracts receive their contracts when it's time for a new one, and the same 'here's your salary' letter every year when their contract is not up for renewal.
My institution is like this. Tenure track and tenured faculty can negotiate their load of teaching, research, and service during the annual evaluation review from the previous year. I am tenured and still receive an annual contract which typically has the same language but shows a different salary if there was a cost of living increase since the previous year. We do have a requirement to sign and return by a deadline, but these are sent and signed electronically around the same time each year, so it is unlikely someone on sabbatical who is familiar with the procedures would miss it.
Every FT professor (assistants, associates, and full) have the same formula for workload. University policy has to be changed, which has to be approved by the governing board, to require additional work. We can't be forced to teach overloads.
Mercudenton, maybe you work for the school that my wife still works for and that I was laid off from.
The standard teaching load for TT faculty is 4/4. My wife's letter expressed this in credit hours per year. There is some "release time" money available for short terms.
We have a tool for a provost, and I suspect that's the provenance for the email which explained that the actual teaching load for TT faculty was somehow magically a 5/5 but that they had all been given "release time" to do research (which very few do at our "R2"). The admin warned that faculty might be required to account for their research time.
Fortunately, they have a union which looked into the matter. Apparently, the teaching load is set by the Board of Reagents. This could be good or bad, depending, since the Reagents are largely chest-thumping alumni who are successful local business people; they are very invested in the future of the school. The problem is that they often seem clueless if genuine.
The union also paid an outside consultant, a professor of accounting from out of state, to do a review of finances. Hu found that the school is currently on stable financial footing but that if enrollment decreases continue at the current rate the school will be in financial difficulty within 5 years. Hu also found that, even after scholarships are dispersed, athletics are still a seven million dollar "expenditure" each year. We assume that that takes into account tuition and FTE for athletes.
The upshot is that the reigning tool-of-a-provost is scrambling to find ways to save money before it is too late. Rumors of additional layoffs are always circulating.
I hope that the Board of Reagents at least has good chemistry together.
Quote from: apl68 on February 23, 2023, 12:03:29 PM
I hope that the Board of Reagents at least has good chemistry together.
As far as I can tell, they are good people. Never having been in administration, or even on the tenure track, I really don't know very much, however.