No way! I don't want our semester to end the week of Christmas!
What happened to SB5?
Although SB5 was passed into law, because it is going to vote in November, the law essentially "exists" but is not enforced until the voters speak their mind.
This is a silly poll as YSU's faculty have asked for a 0% increase in salary and have added some givebacks as well that will reduce take home pay. This offered REDUCTION was not good enough for the admin.
Your poll makes no sense. The faculty HAVE ALREADY agreed to an effective 10-15% CUT in their compensation (while the YSU administration is taking raises). The younger faculty are most significantly affected by these cuts. Unfortunately, even these severe concessions were not enough for the administration (with whom the Vindicator clearly sides).
if they do they deserve layoff's
Wrong question, Vindy. The right one is" Should faculty strike if President Anderson's administration does explain to faculty two things: (i) why the Board of Trustees rejected the concessionary terms of the fact finder's report and (ii) what contract terms the Board will accept? Faculty already accepted a pay cut. So that is not at issue. Vindy keeps trying to pull YSU down. Why do you do that?
This poll has the wrong question. Faculty wage increasaes are not the issue. The faculty have already voted to take a large CUT in take home pay. The question should be: If the univeristy has such a large deficit, what sacrifices are the administration willing to make?
Great Letter By a Faculty Member at YSU.
When the Board of Trustees voted to reject the fact finder report, I wondered why. The only reason that made sense to me was that the number one priority of the Board was winning this particular negotiation. After the meeting on the 16th, I am even more convinced of this. The day before the contract was to expire, they came to the negotiating table without a counter offer. Why? The faculty voted to accept the fact finder report by a very narrow margin. If I were sitting on the other side of the table, I would consider this a win. Apparently, a win is not good enough for this administration. They want to win big.
I am not only troubled by the current situation, I am also concerned about the long term. At the last union meeting, Annette Burden mentioned that her father was a union member. So was mine. Over the years, I watched as his union became weaker and weaker. Every negotiation became a win for management. A weak union is a sinking boat. My father’s union was not broken overnight. It was gradually and steadily beaten into submission.
The club that management used to beat down my father’s union was fear. Fear of layoffs. Fear of moving the shop. Fear of closing the shop (which they eventually did anyway). The club that YSU administrators will use is made of concern. Concern for our students and concern for our image. We teach our students, direct their projects, advise them, and mentor them. In other words, we care for our students. Does the Board? When was the last time you saw students flock to a Board member after a graduation ceremony for pictures, handshakes, and hugs? How often is a Board member asked to write a letter of recommendation for a YSU student? The club of concern is only as effective as we allow it to be. Manipulation only works on those willing to be manipulated.
Finally, we must educate the administration that intelligence and civility are not weaknesses. We should act intelligently and with civility but also with strength. The administration needs to be shown a line in the sand beyond which they cannot cross. In my opinion, that line should be the fact finder report. It would be unfortunate to look back on 2011 (from the deck of a sinking boat) as the point in time where the administration began beating the union into submission.
It is not the faculty but the administration that has rejected the contract. It's the administration that needs to make the sacrifice. Next question please.
Leave it to the Vindy to post a completely inaccurate, misleading poll question. There are no raises at the end of the day, and the 1 and 2 percent in the last two years of the contract are way, way below typical cost of living adjustments. When you count in the money the faculty are being asked to give up in terms of health care (average will pay about $3000 a year), parking ($500 a year), losses in summer pay (on average about $250 per extra class taught), and more... many faculty will be making less at the end of the 3 year contract than they made last year.
So raises? What raises?
All this while they raise tuition 3.5%? What exactly are the students paying for? I thought they were paying for faculty to teach... can't raise tuition AND run your faculty into the ground. So much for building an elite Urban Research University.
Hmmm. a 0% raise is not a raise and a 1% and 2% raise is not a raise when you have to pay almost triple for health care in this new contract. This is what the faculty accepted and the administration rejected. So this poll makes no sense. It should ask whether or not the faculty should strike if the administration doesn't accept similar concessions in their own contracts. They do pull in the largest salaries on campus. Well beyond the six figure mark. But hey the administration (President, Provost, Deans, etc. most of which were faculty at one time) would rather cut current faculty and staff salaries (the faculty/staff make the university) and raise student tuition and fees (the students are why YSU even exists) and then pad their own pockets. It makes no sense. The whole institution should be facing economic issues together.
Right on "print" - the YSU faculty will never win this public battle in the Vindy. No matter how this unscientific poll comes out, the "Spin"dy will find a way to frame it to make the union and all other unions look bad. The Vindy owners want to see SB5 stick in November.
This question does not make sense since YSU faculty have already accepted the Fact Finder Report, which in effect will cost each faculty member between $7000 to $12000 per year, while those holding high positions in the adminstration will receive cost of living adjustment and high salary raises. The question asked by Vindicator suggests that the newspaper is more interested in helping the adminstration than prividing the correct information to the public which a newspaper is supposed to do.
The University doesn't wish to break the union? The University today announced no financial aid to students. Definitely playing the hardcore trump card.Really? The administration doesn't want a strike. Never in the past have they refused financial aid during a negotiation.
The present Board of Trustee represent a fine cross section of the middle class people of the USA. A lot of them have stated their views on unions in the various business they lead or own.
Example: Steel, the insurance, financial sector, and the medical people all trustees representing groups that helped with our present recession curve.
How about it Vindy stop showing your true colors. The prolong strike the Vindicator family forced on it's employees without reasonable negotiations exemplifies were the local rag stands in connection to the middle class of our community and the unions representing those sectors.Reporter who have certain parts of their body stuck so far up that all we see are their feet helps continue the destruction of the USA middle class.
The issue, had the Vindicator actually done some research and was interested in accuracy, is not the issue of raises. The faculty approved the fact-finder report which included no raise in the first year, and 1 and 2% raises in the second and third years. Wow, generous, huh? What is not factored into the equation is the major increase in health care costs (also approved by the faculty) through increased contribution to what the administration erroneously labels a "premium," much higher copays on service and drugs, and reduced coverage. The effect of the approved-by- faculty health care provision would negate the meager raises and cut into existing wages.
The question, in my opinion, is to slant public opinion against the union. The union already essentially approved salary reductions; however, the Board of Trustees wanted more concessions. The real question should be "Should the Board of Trustees allow the YSU administration to get generous raises at the same time they demand even more concessions from faculty, who already agreed to concessions?"
The Vindy has turned into the Enquirer. No news here just smear tactics. Youngstown needs a 'real newspaper'.
Why not ask if Anderson's administration should honor the fact finder’s report. YSU faculty do not want to strike, but will be forced to do so if the administration will not offer a reasonable deal.
Seriously? And the Vindy calls itself a real newspaper...ridiculous. The Vindicator clearly has NO understanding of the issues at hand regarding the contract negotiations and a possible strike. It has NOTHING to do with pay raises. In fact, as others have said, YSU faculty agreed to not only 0 and negligible pay raises over the next few years, but to a large (approximately 3-5%) pay cut. And I believe that anyone out there would find it unfair if at their jobs, the bosses said, "Hey, not only are we not going to give you raises for doing an awesome job and working 60+hours/week, we're going to cut your salary by 3-5%". No one would be okay with that.
Something is wrong here. The fact-finder's report that the faculty did not reject is a major give back of $$. It is the trustees who rejected the giveback by faculty. What do the trustees actually want?
This poll question is poorly stated.
FACT: The average private-sector worker in Ohio pays 23% of their health care. And folks, there are people on here complaining about paying 15% of their health care.
Further this was posted on the YSU Students AGAINST A YSU Faculty strike page...
"the fact finder notes that under the parties’ current collective bargaining agreement, bargaining unit members received annual salary increases of 6.1% in 2009, 3.5% in 2010, and 3.8% in 2011"."The fact finder notes that a professor’s minimum salary in the 2008-2009 nine-month school year was $71,330; for the 2009-2010 nine-month school year the minimum moved to $73,470; and for the 2010-2011 NINE-MONTH school year the minimum moved to $75,674.These salaries are coming from a community where the median income is $26,000 (for 12 months not NINE) and a high unemployment rate. It is unfair to keep putting the burden on the students/parents. Over the last 3 years faculty received over 13% in raises in the middle of a RECESSION when the rest of use were taking cuts and making sacrifices!"
Join the FB group against the faculty's potential strike: http://www.facebook.com/pages/YSU-Stu...
I have just experienced what people are saying on here in the private sector. We finally got a 2.5% raise after 4 yrs (since all employees are using the economy as an excuse even if they are still making a good profit) and we just found out this week that we are having an increase in our portion of health care to 20%. So it wipes out the raise we were finally given. This is a problem for YSU. If the fact finders report is approved by the staff, I just don't understand what the problem is for the Board. To me this is more than meeting in the middle by the faculty. Some have said that if they strike it will push SB5 to pass, but I think any normal person seeing the way this is going down will be more inclined to repeal this law. And btw, I was pretty much convinced we needed this law until I see how much a stike is needed for the faculty in this situation.
Right on...the law totally hamstrings any public employees
Nice job everyone on calling the Vindy out on a deliberately misleading question. Too bad the editors haven't fixed it.
valleyred, your statistics are for full professors, not for assistants or associate professors, of which there are many more than full professors. and they don't make ANYWHERE near those stats.
Grow up, young man, and discover that the facts you present are just as skewed or biased as Vindy coverage. Hey! Maybe you can work there someday! You're perfect!
Education, at all levels, sadly, is not a priority across our country, and especially this region. Isn't it obvious what industry and manufacturing has brought to this state, and especially region? Soaring unemployment and no clear direction. Yet people who wish to make a difference and give back to humanity at large are branded over indulgent fat cats. One would think that investing in education, at all levels in order to find a new path forward, would be a high priority.
Equally unfortunate is the propaganda spewed by this paper, similar to this poll. Unfortunately, dying news forms such as print media (e.g. the Vindy) must present skewed information to conform to its narrative and agenda, rather than present facts and be a source of legitimate information.
How what a stupid question. It is bad enough that half the student body is against the professors because they don't understand what is going on, but Vindy too?
Rumor is that faculty only accepted the report by a few votes. Those who voted to reject probably rejected for different reasons than board I'm guessing. Faculty should not strike, they should just join the real world. No one likes taht we everyone has to pay for healthcare etc and most people don't have pensions anymore and just 401ks. Its too bad this is the way the world is now, but that's the way it is. A few years from now the YSU faculty may be looking back at this time as the good old days...costs for healthcare etc will only go up. Make a deal and get students to school on time. Rumor is that the staff who makes about half of what the faculty make are already willing to make deeper concessions. students have sacrificied, staff has sacrificied, university has made cuts...faculty do your part.
This is ACT II from the 2008 negotiations debacle. It’s not about the STUDENTS, it should be, but yet it isn’t. In 2008 it was about YSU’s Centennial. Negotiations had to be completed on time at any/all cost. Remember that huge amounts of money were flowing in from Alumni and the Valley’s affluent. Fast forward to 2011 and now you have payback for the 2008 negotiations at any/all cost especially to the STUDENTS. The Sweet Administration deceived the BOT with the help of Dr. Cyndy Anderson, Dr. Ikram Khawajwa and Mr. Eugene Grilli, just review the email from July 2008 that’s been floating around campus the last three years which evidenced their involvement in the cover-up. Board Chairman Scott Schulick felt personally embarrassed as well as the entire BOT. Now it’s Dr. Anderson, Dr. Khawaja, Mr. Grilli and the BOT’s time to get revenge. Yes, yes, conveniently Mr. Schulick steps down as the Chairman, what timing!
In Executive Session, the Fact Finder’s Report was rejected on the advice of Mr. Martin Bramlett and Mr. Kevin Reynolds from Human Resources and Attorney George Crisci. Interesting that these three individuals are affiliated with Union busting law firms. Once again the BOT and especially the PUBLIC is being fed bad information concerning the financial health of the University. I wonder why the University administration won’t release the enrollment numbers. With the 3.5% increase in tuition (students must pay more monetarily) combined with another record increase in student enrollment which increases Ohio state subsidies, the University administration will once again bestow themselves with equity based pay increases to offset any increase in healthcare cost. They will then declare they have sacrificed too. What BULL! Let’s not forget the YSU Foundation with its 150 million dollars that support the University. Why wouldn’t the YSU Foundation absorb the 3.5% tuition increase for a year and give the STUDENTS a break. Really Reid, you can’t swing this offer to students one time?
When the dust finally settles, I see Bramlett and Reynolds being sacrificed just as Habat and Chatman were for the 2005 strike. Can anyone remember the Labor Panel and its Report to the Board of Trustees? Attorney Crisci will go quietly away counting his stack of money as did Attorney Wilkins in 2005…continuing to practice their craft with their next victim.
Who suffers most…the STUDENTS, ALUMNI, the MAHONING VALLEY and its CITIZENS. Will YSU ever have a competent leader on its BOT like Dr. Perry, and a University President like Dr. Neil Humphey?.
I may be retired from YSU, but I totally support the faculty on this one. The administration has shown no leadership...give me my money for my retirement for the second or third time around and forget about the people who are on the front line with the students. They could wipe out the administration at YSU and no student would even know it because they sit in their ivory tower. What do they do? Why has the administration grown by such a huge percentage over the last 10-15 years? Cut some administrators to free up the money for the people reaching students on a daily basis. Stop the double and triple dipping administrators who accomplish nothing.
Nice tidbit of information in relation to the pending strike at Youngstown State University:“Ohio’s Governor Kasich would decrease funding of higher education by 11 percent, a cut of $510 per student.”http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3389
From opinion a governing body should test at an early age to decide where one may benefit most within the industry section to generate employ, as well as more tax revenue.
Additionally, college education should be under direct scrutiny of a government office responsible to oversee that any financial charge for education, as well as medical is under tight control of regulation in order to avoid over compensation of payment for such basic service. However, in reality, perhaps a governing body should provide each citizen a minimal college education until the equivalent of an American associate degree when in opposition of any cost to regulate such a process as a more cost effective management tool.
On another note, is it not odd that by 2014 everyone will need to have mandatory medical coverage less the Internal Revenue Service will decline reimbursement of an income tax return and a fine that consist of 2% of that individual / employer annual income without first ensuring regulation of any charge relative to the medical profession?
In other countries where medical is made mandatory by the government an employer must pay half of the monthly medical premium to include an estimate of two years covering any term following dismissal with regard to unemployment that include all members of a family. It would be a safe assumption that each member that did sign this bill into law would have built their retirement portfolio around medical insurance and without a sign of regulation or requirement it would be clear where such a list of persons practice such ethic.
This is perhaps not the place, but more than likely it is a good place for a union to begin.
Forgotten your password?