Do I run to the union?

[Kron3007]

Where I am, our time is divided into teaching, research, and service, each assigned a % effort.  I think this is pretty much standard, but if it is not, that is how it is done here which is pertinent for this post.  Each year, we meet with the chair to discuss teaching assignments.  Since I started here about 10 years ago, the expectations of the standard 40% teaching has been the same.  Now, our chair is saying that moving forward, 40% teaching is going to have to mean more than it used to based on increased teaching needs (we recently launched a new program) and declining faculty numbers (mostly not replacing retiring faculty).

In general, I like our chair and it is a functional and collegial department.  However, it dosn't sit right with me that they would just change the expected teaching load based on how it is determined (a percentage of my effort).  Essentially, this just means they expect us to do more work.

If the department/college want to launch a new program that will require more teaching, that new teaching support should be part of the planning.  If they expect me to teach more courses to meet 40% of my effort, it should come with extra TA support or another mechanism to offset the work load.

Any way, I am now on the fence about if I should report this to my union.  On one hand, I am generally a team player and the increase they are asking for would be possible for me.  I do want the new program and our department in general to succeed.  On the other hand, it means more work without any real benefit, and that is why we are unionized.

Thoughts?   

[Parasaurolophus]

If your teaching load is actually increased, then yes, definitely go to the union.

But your expected load should be in your contract, and can't be changed without renegotiating it. I think your chair is operating under some sort of misunderstanding of their powers.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Your chair is asking you to do more work without additional compensation and, in doing so, probably violating your contract. Seems to me that this is what unions are for. That said, you should consult your contract to see what it actually says. I've heard of places with 2-3 loads (for example), where faculty teach a 2-2 in practice because they get three credits off for research activity.

[Puget]

I've never heard of a department chair unilaterally changing teaching load!

Here, that is set for the department for each department based on complex historical negotiations (we're currently trying to negotiate ours downward to be in line with other departments in our division, but don't have a ton of hope that the dean will agree).

[Kron3007]

If your teaching load is actually increased, then yes, definitely go to the union.

But your expected load should be in your contract, and can't be changed without renegotiating it. I think your chair is operating under some sort of misunderstanding of their powers.

Our union contract uses vague language that gives each department latitude to interpret what 40% means.  This makes some sense as some classes have labs, some don't, but they are all worth the same number of credits.  A simple 2/2 approach doesn't really work when. Lasses can vary so much in work load.

I think credit hour systems that account for lab time make more sense, but we don't use that.

So, there is no black and white statement about how much we are supposed to teach.  However, the chair is changing it on us regardless.

Sounds like my gut was right and I should bring it to the union so they are at least aware of what is going on.

[Scout]

A simple 2/2 approach doesn't really work when. Lasses can vary so much in work load.

That's an unfortunate typo 🤣

[Parasaurolophus]

If your teaching load is actually increased, then yes, definitely go to the union.

But your expected load should be in your contract, and can't be changed without renegotiating it. I think your chair is operating under some sort of misunderstanding of their powers.

Our union contract uses vague language that gives each department latitude to interpret what 40% means.  This makes some sense as some classes have labs, some don't, but they are all worth the same number of credits.  A simple 2/2 approach doesn't really work when. Lasses can vary so much in work load.

I think credit hour systems that account for lab time make more sense, but we don't use that.

So, there is no black and white statement about how much we are supposed to teach.  However, the chair is changing it on us regardless.

Sounds like my gut was right and I should bring it to the union so they are at least aware of what is going on.

In that case, yes, this should definitely be flagged to the union. Even if it's permissible, they should be in the loop, otherwise they can't provide oversight and ensure that the working conditions are fair.

[jerseyjay]

Yes, go to the union. In my opinion, it is rarely wrong to go to the union, although sometimes it is not productive. At the least, the union can explain whether what is happening is congruent with the contract.

That being said, I am still confused. My school also uses some kind of similar formula, but it really has no concrete meaning. It is useful for tenure and promotion, but once somebody is tenured there is no real way to make somebody do a certain amount of research or service.

All full-time faculty members at my school have a certain contractual teaching load (which is 12 credits per semester here). The number of hours in the classroom, and even the number of office hours, is qualitative and easily measurable. What percentage of my overall time teaching four classes takes is impossible to quantify--how many students are there? how many preps? are the courses new or old? what types of assignments do I give? This is besides the fact that the total size of the pie is not really set. Many professors have a work week much longer than 40 hours. I suspect quite a few have a work work much shorter.

A chair or administrator could, within limits, increase the difficulty of teaching if they wanted by increasing course capacities, requiring more paperwork, assigning more and new preps, and also giving a more difficult schedule. Over the years, I have had new preps assigned to me at the last minute, had both an early morning and late evening course on the same day, had more students added to my courses, etc. For seven years, I did not go a single semester without having a new prep to teach. (None of this was punitive, but it made the semester more difficult.) What the chair cannot do is make me teach an extra section without paying me an agreed-upon overload amount (which is usually more expensive than hiring an adjunct).  Four sections is not always the same work as four different sections.

[Kron3007]

A simple 2/2 approach doesn't really work when. Lasses can vary so much in work load.

That's an unfortunate typo 🤣

Indeed!

[Kron3007]

Yes, go to the union. In my opinion, it is rarely wrong to go to the union, although sometimes it is not productive. At the least, the union can explain whether what is happening is congruent with the contract.

That being said, I am still confused. My school also uses some kind of similar formula, but it really has no concrete meaning. It is useful for tenure and promotion, but once somebody is tenured there is no real way to make somebody do a certain amount of research or service.

All full-time faculty members at my school have a certain contractual teaching load (which is 12 credits per semester here). The number of hours in the classroom, and even the number of office hours, is qualitative and easily measurable. What percentage of my overall time teaching four classes takes is impossible to quantify--how many students are there? how many preps? are the courses new or old? what types of assignments do I give? This is besides the fact that the total size of the pie is not really set. Many professors have a work week much longer than 40 hours. I suspect quite a few have a work work much shorter.

A chair or administrator could, within limits, increase the difficulty of teaching if they wanted by increasing course capacities, requiring more paperwork, assigning more and new preps, and also giving a more difficult schedule. Over the years, I have had new preps assigned to me at the last minute, had both an early morning and late evening course on the same day, had more students added to my courses, etc. For seven years, I did not go a single semester without having a new prep to teach. (None of this was punitive, but it made the semester more difficult.) What the chair cannot do is make me teach an extra section without paying me an agreed-upon overload amount (which is usually more expensive than hiring an adjunct).  Four sections is not always the same work as four different sections.

Everyone here had me doubting myself so I went back and read my agreement.  It doesn't specify the number of courses, just that each department should have an equitable process, and the dean is ultimately responsible etc.  There is no specific number of courses stayed anywhere that I can find.

Basically, the 40% effort includes all teaching activities including delivering classes, supervising grad students, new class preps, etc.  In theory it makes sense, but in practice it lacks clarity.

For example, I have a lot of grad students, so theoretically my teaching load should be less than someone without any.  Maybe this is the case, but it's hard to say.

I will go to the union though, as they should know the ins and outs.  Maybe I somehow missed something.

[Kron3007]

Yes, go to the union. In my opinion, it is rarely wrong to go to the union, although sometimes it is not productive. At the least, the union can explain whether what is happening is congruent with the contract.

That being said, I am still confused. My school also uses some kind of similar formula, but it really has no concrete meaning. It is useful for tenure and promotion, but once somebody is tenured there is no real way to make somebody do a certain amount of research or service.

All full-time faculty members at my school have a certain contractual teaching load (which is 12 credits per semester here). The number of hours in the classroom, and even the number of office hours, is qualitative and easily measurable. What percentage of my overall time teaching four classes takes is impossible to quantify--how many students are there? how many preps? are the courses new or old? what types of assignments do I give? This is besides the fact that the total size of the pie is not really set. Many professors have a work week much longer than 40 hours. I suspect quite a few have a work work much shorter.

A chair or administrator could, within limits, increase the difficulty of teaching if they wanted by increasing course capacities, requiring more paperwork, assigning more and new preps, and also giving a more difficult schedule. Over the years, I have had new preps assigned to me at the last minute, had both an early morning and late evening course on the same day, had more students added to my courses, etc. For seven years, I did not go a single semester without having a new prep to teach. (None of this was punitive, but it made the semester more difficult.) What the chair cannot do is make me teach an extra section without paying me an agreed-upon overload amount (which is usually more expensive than hiring an adjunct).  Four sections is not always the same work as four different sections.

Everyone here had me doubting myself so I went back and read my agreement.  It doesn't specify the number of courses, just that each department should have an equitable process, and the dean is ultimately responsible etc.  There is no specific number of courses stated anywhere that I can find.

Basically, the 40% effort includes all teaching activities including delivering classes, supervising grad students, new class preps, etc.  In theory it makes sense, but in practice it lacks clarity.

For example, I have a lot of grad students, so theoretically my teaching load should be less than someone without any.  Maybe this is the case, but it's hard to say.

I will go to the union though, as they should know the ins and outs.  Maybe I somehow missed something.

[Hegemony]

My understanding of this kind of percentage is that it determines how you're assessed. For instance, say your load is supposed to be teaching 40%, research 40%, and service 20%. So if you're assessed, according to whatever method your department uses, and you get "excellent" for teaching, "excellent" for research, and "terrible" for service, you still probably get some kind of merit raise. On the other hand, an instructor who is at 50% teaching and 50% service, and got an "excellent" for teaching and a "terrible" for service would get a lower merit raise.

However, if two courses per semester is supposed to equal 40%, and suddenly you're asked to teach three courses per semester, it's logical that that's going to take more than 40% of your theoretical time, unless you have many fewer students per class and cut back significantly on grading and prep.

I wonder if your department head has been instructed to increase the teaching load by someone from on high (who ought to know it's going to cause justifiable pushback), or if your department head is operating out of clueless stupidity and doesn't know this won't fly and will get him into trouble. Are your colleagues also being asked to increase their loads? If so, you should push back as a group. If not, then first of all, it's extra unfair, which you should point out to everyone and especially to the union; and you should also gather your colleagues' support because it's very likely that they're next.

[jerseyjay]

I do not doubt that you have described the situation at your school accurately since, well, it's your school. In my more than 20 years applying for academic jobs, however, I do not recall ever seeing anything like that and I wonder if what you describe is common.

As somebody else said, I always thought that the description of duties was based on how you were assessed for tenure and promotion. That is, if you are supposed to do 60 per cent research, then your publications would be the lion's share of what you are judged on for tenure; if you are supposed to do 60 per cent teaching, then your classroom performance will be what you are largely judged on. (God help you if you are supposed to do 60 per cent service.) 

But everybody I have seen--especially in a unionized place--has a specific definition of full load, i.e., the amount of courses a normal full-time professor teaches. You can get course releases for service, for research, etc., but it is based on a full load. At my school, if a full-time professor is not going to meet load, then it is the chair's (and above that, the dean's) job to try to find them enough courses to make load--which can mean taking away an adjunct's courses, having them teach a course in another department, or getting them some other duty that comes with a course release. I have heard of rare cases where somebody who does not make load gets their pay reduced accordingly.

But I have never heard of a case where the administration gets to decide, on its on, that full-time professors should just teach more sections. This would seem to require collective bargaining, if there is a union.

Is this being done across the board, or just to you or your department? I have heard cases where, after post-tenure review, it has been determined that somebody has not done enough research and therefore is assigned more classes. But this is usually spelt out in some formal policy, and not just sprung on somebody. I have heard of cases where the administration tries to change the ratio between teaching and research--at my school, 15 years ago, they decided to emphasize research more, and then a few years ago decided to emphasize teaching more--but this does not change the number of credit hours somebody is supposed to teach.

So I guess my bottom line would be, yes, go to the union and ask (a) if what is happening to you is a violation of the contract and (b) if it is not, if they could explain why, and what is keeping the administration from adding another section each semester (like the boiling frog).

[Sun_Worshiper]

My understanding of this kind of percentage is that it determines how you're assessed. For instance, say your load is supposed to be teaching 40%, research 40%, and service 20%. So if you're assessed, according to whatever method your department uses, and you get "excellent" for teaching, "excellent" for research, and "terrible" for service, you still probably get some kind of merit raise. On the other hand, an instructor who is at 50% teaching and 50% service, and got an "excellent" for teaching and a "terrible" for service would get a lower merit raise.

This is how it works at my place. The percentages are for annual review purposes and the contract states a number of credit hours per year (I said 2/2 above, but I should have said 12 hours).

[Kron3007]

All of what you guys are saying makes sense, but isn't exactly how things are here.  This is the only university I have worked at as faculty, so this is my normal.

Our distribution of effort is indeed used to assess our performance (although we do not have merit based raises), but it is also used to decide how much teaching we are assigned.  The normal is 40/40/20 (teaching/research/service), which has historically been interpreted in our department to mean a specific course load.  If you have a research chair, or some sort of service role, the teaching component may be reduced, and this would be reflected in the number of courses you teach.  Likewise, some professors are not very active in research and may have more than 40% teaching, which results in teaching more courses.  Recently, I had taken an administrative role and they agreed to shift some of my effort from teaching to service, which essentially led to one less course that cycle. 

The proposed increase is not just for me, it has been mentioned previously in passing at a faculty meeting.  This is the first time is has been mentioned in actual discussion on teaching load.  I dont know if this is occurring in other departments, but there is a general push for new programs across the university and no major new hiring, so there are likely teaching pressures in other departments.  I feel some departments would have less issues based on their existing course offerings though, so the pressure may be more real for us.

My impression is this is a move from our chair (not higher up) to meet the teaching needs of the department.  The new program was pushed from higher up, but I dont think they are directly involved in this (just oleft it to us to figure out).  As mentioned, I like our chair and feel they are just trying to make things work with the resources they have available to them, but that dosnt mean I want to blindly accepts it.