Faculty FAQ: Budget, workload, contracts, OSEs

Many faculty have reached out with questions and concerns about the current budget situation at WWU. Below, we’ve compiled a FAQ that addresses many of the most common inquiries. 

 

Q: Our department has been asked to increase class sizes because we no longer have funding for NTT sections/TAs. Is this allowed?

A: Section 9 of the CBA preserves “historic departmental levels of teaching or librarianship” for faculty. Both the administration and the UFWW have agreed that faculty should have “stable teaching loads” that maintain what it means to fulfill one FTE workload in each college (based on the teaching allocation at the start of the first CBA in 2008). Class size is a critical part of this “historic departmental level of teaching.”

The CBA describes changes to class sizes as a shared endeavor between the Dean and a Department. “A dean may suggest an examination of class size options” (9.2.2, emphasis added). Faculty may also suggest changes to class sizes. Such proposals should be “pedagogically sound, maintain quality, [and] meet the needs of students” (9.2.2). Even agreed upon changes to class sizes collaboratively developed between a Dean and Faculty cannot increase the historical 1.0 FTE workload. 

Any increase to class sizes which amount to an increased teaching workload must be bargained per Section 9. While a department can decide to raise the class size in any particular course, it must be accompanied by a clear reduction in teaching loads in other parts of your 1.0 FTE. Simply raising the course cap without changing any other aspects of your teaching load would increase the overall load and no longer maintain historic departmental levels of teaching. Such an increase would be in violation of the CBA.

Budget cuts to Academic Affairs necessarily mean that less teaching will be done. Increasing class sizes will not solve the problem of low funding in the long term. It will only undercut the value of faculty work in profound ways and undermine our CBA. Increased class sizes will force faculty to absorb the impact of budget cuts and absolve the legislature of their responsibility to sustainably run higher education. Last but not least, it increases workload for all faculty in a way that will likely never be rolled back, regardless of the state’s or university’s financial circumstances.

 In any cases where an increase to class size is being considered:

1. Departments and programs must maintain overall historic departmental level of teaching, not simply increase it. 
2. Faculty need to have the opportunity to discuss, debate, and disagree about any increases in class size and to explore how to adjust schedules so that folks are reducing their teaching workload in other ways, whether in class sizes in other courses or in changes to lab, studio, rehearsal, workshop, or other forms of teaching.
3. Any change in class size policy needs to be made clearly and transparently and apply to all members of the department equally. 

 

Q: If someone has signed a contract for next year (AY25/26), the administration must honor it. Is this correct?

A: Yes, the administration must honor that contract if it is signed unless the program/department is being eliminated (via program reduction) per section 21.2.3. Even in that case, 21.4.1.1 applies and “notification at least three (3) months prior to termination shall be provided to non-tenure track faculty (other than senior instructors) with a one (1) year contract.” The only time when immediate layoffs are possible is when the university declares “financial emergency.”  (21.1.4) 

   

Q: For faculty who have been scheduled for AY25/26 but who have not yet received contracts, there have been verbal assurances from administrators but nothing in writing about the schedule standing as it is currently written.

A: The Provost has verbally confirmed on several occasions (both before and after Olympia’s final budget was released) that the planned schedules for AY 25/26 are being honored. That said, the situation still could change and the UFWW will do our best to keep you updated as soon as we find out.

 

Q: Once registration begins for fall, can the schedule be changed? Could course offerings be changed for winter and spring and faculty be switched in individual sections for the fall schedule?

A: The schedule could be changed for folks on quarter-to-quarter contracts if program eliminations take place. For NTT instructors on year-long contracts, if there is a program elimination, they would still need to receive at least 3 months notice prior to termination. For Senior Instructors, they would need at least 6 months prior to termination per section 21.4.

 

Q: Senior instructors on continuing commitment appointments cannot be scheduled below a .5 FTE for AY 25/26 and will thus retain benefits and especially health insurance for the next academic year. 

A: Yes, this should remain true. Please reach out if you are told otherwise.

 

Q: The President’s recent message discussed forthcoming details about cuts in May. Does this also apply to cuts in Academic Affairs?  

A: Our information is that the President and his cabinet are making decisions about cuts to the University’s other divisions (outside of Academic Affairs), and some of those cuts may take effect as early as May. 

The situation in Academic Affairs is more complex and the timeline is of a longer duration: cuts in Academic Affairs will be discussed this spring and into summer. There likely will be no confirmed decisions until fall. This situation may change and the UFWW will do our best to keep the membership updated as soon as we find out.

 

Q: Has the voluntary retirement program been approved yet? When will it be available?

A: WWU has received legislative approval for Washington state’s VRIP (voluntary retirement incentive program) but now needs to get approval from the state’s OFM (Office of Financial Management). Currently the administration is putting together a budget and more detailed package of rules and requirements for approval and that may take several months to submit and authorize. It is expected, if approved by OFM, that the VRIP would apply for age- and time-in-service eligible faculty planning to retire sometime between late fall 2025 and June 2026. The VRIP is a state program and caps the amount of retirement incentive to be provided.

 

Q: Recently our dean has said that faculty can take reduced appointments if they want. Is this true?

A: Per the CBA Section 7.4, faculty have always been able to reduce their appointments. If you are interested in a reduced appointment, make sure that Section 7.4.3. is upheld: “Changes may be permanent or of specified duration. In the case of permanent changes, the faculty member relinquishes the right to return to the original contract without the agreement of the department chair, dean, and Provost. Changes of specified duration may be for a period of up to six (6) years and may be renewed by agreement of all parties.” Be aware as well that if your appointment is reduced, your salary will also be reduced in proportion.

 

Q: Our department has been discussing the option of not renewing NTT contracts and hiring additional GTAs to teach instead. Is this permissible?

A: The CBA ensures that faculty work is being done by faculty (section 1.1) and that the assignment of teaching cannot be based on cost (section 8.1.2.7). These are core and fundamental commitments. Courses which have historically been taught by faculty should continue to be taught by faculty. 

 

Q: I am a program director and have heard that the number of my course releases will be cut in the future. Can you clarify what protections I have?

A: Per Section 22.7, the CBA states that all program directors receive “the appropriate stiped and/or release time in accordance with the responsibilities of each person” through deliberations with the Provost or dean. A stipend of at least $1,642 per quarter is granted to each program director and “in no case will the compensation given to program directors for the current level of responsibilities decrease.” If you have a contract that outlines a certain number of course releases per year, that contract needs to be honored for its duration. Once that contract is completed, the dean can renegotiate the director position with fewer course releases. If the status of the program itself changes (because it is closed, merged, or put in moratorium), the director position and its course releases would be removed or changed as well. 

 

Q: I’ve heard that the OSEs (Occupational Student Employees) may be going on strike soon. I have also received messaging from the administration (an email from the VP of Business and Financial Affairs, Joyce Lopes, on 5/13/2025) that indicates that a strike is not imminent. I’m not sure what is going on. Do you have any details? 

A: To our knowledge, there is no legal precedent that prevents WWU from voluntarily recognizing the OSEs. Eastern Washington University voluntarily recognized a faculty union prior to the passage of RCW 41.76. There is nothing legally distinctive about a faculty union versus any other type of workers union, including student workers. Yet, Western keeps insisting, contrary to this established precedent, that it cannot recognize the OSE unit. American labor law more generally has always allowed voluntary recognition, both before and after the Wagner Act.  

Operational Student Employees have made it very clear that they want to form a union with WAWU/UAW and to negotiate a contract with WWU. Over the past 16 months, a majority of OSEs have demonstrated and voiced their need for a union three (3) times. The first two times through authorization cards and this third time through their recent yes strike authorization vote (60% of the overall membership voted 94% in favor of a strike). The OSEs decided on May 15th to strike no sooner than May 28th and they plan to hold a practice picket on the 21st.

Vice President Lopes noted in her email that, even without formal recognition, the administration has agreed to set up pay equity between the OSEs and their Educational Student Employee (ESE) peers. This means that OSEs anticipate little to no new costs if the terms of the ESE Collective Bargaining Agreement were to be applied to OSEs. What OSEs are thus fighting for are the contract protections that ESEs receive, including 30 day layoff protections, sick leave accrual, guaranteed paid training, and a legitimate grievance method through which they can hold the university accountable. OSEs are fighting for the same rights that any and all workers should have. 

 

Q: What is allowed for faculty if there is an OSE strike or picket?

A: The faculty CBA, per Section 26.3, states that “there shall be no strikes or lockouts during the term of this Agreement or during the negotiation for a successor agreement.” As with other public sector unions, we are also bound by RCW 41.56.120. 

https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=41.56.120: “Right to strike not granted. Nothing contained in this chapter shall permit or grant any public employee the right to strike or refuse to perform his or her official duties.” 

At the same time, faculty are not required to risk their safety by crossing picket lines. Faculty are also empowered by Section 2.2 to support any OSE/WAWU demonstrations or actions with their voices and their words, whether in letters of support, messages. 

Moreover, faculty can be involved in solidarity practices (i.e., providing support – food, supplies, materials – to OSEs, participating in non-strike activities).

The UFWW also wants to emphasize, as a matter of union discipline and solidarity, that faculty do not do OSE or ESE work during the practice picket and strike.