AAUP Response to Arbitrator's Decision Regarding Faculty Lay Offs
March 1, 2026
First, let us say how sorry we are that the administration has chosen to lay off 30 members of the AAUP bargaining unit. We are also particularly angry at the Board of Trustees that allowed the previous President and his administration to mismanage the University so badly that we are now faced with the potential loss of accreditation and the closing of the University. Unfortunately, the present Board is made up of many of the same Trustees who allowed that mismanagement and who authorized the present administration to try to unilaterally impose drastic changes to the existing Agreement via the March to Sustainability (MtS) plan.
The AAUP was faced with two imperatives during the forced and unilateral implementation of MtS: (1) Defend our rights as a union and enforce the active Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) to the extent possible, but (2) make the concessions that are necessary to keep Rider in existence. As you know, we made multiple offers to the administration for settlements that would allow the institution to continue to pay its bills, including delaying the layoffs as well as a 25% cut to administration’s salaries. All of our proposals were rejected despite conceding to most of their demands. The administration was operating under the theory that the financial crisis gave them the right to unilaterally alter the contract, so they saw no reason to negotiate with us in good faith. It was this reality that led us to file an expedited test case with an arbitrator.
As we reported to you, the primary question facing the arbitrator in this case was that the administration was claiming that because of the extreme financial condition of the University that the CBA no longer applied and could not be enforced, and that they could modify or eliminate any element of it that they felt they needed to. This would have meant that they could continue to make other changes to the CBA without negotiating with the AAUP. To this question, the arbitrator found “that the instant grievance is arbitrable. The Arbitrator further finds that the Employer's reliance on NLRA law to "suspend the Agreement due to financial exigency is rejected.” It was this ruling that we were referring to in our initial email as a major win.
This win does not prevent the extreme measures the administration has taken nor change the underlying reality that drastic action is necessary in order to save Rider from closing. We have now entered into discussions with the administration over what changes will be necessary and for how long. Time, of course, is of the essence, and we hope to have a proposal in place shortly that we can share with you.
Beyond the issue of the continuing enforceability of the CBA, the arbitrator ruled that, for the most part, the language of Article XV (Reduction in Force) was in place and should govern the layoff process. Thus, inverse seniority was the guiding factor, with departments or disciplines where layoffs would occur and the number of layoffs in each selected department or discipline at the sole discretion of the provost. While Provost Bidle argued in her 12/12 email to faculty that utilizing the contractual procedure would lead to a 50% increase (i.e., 53-60 layoffs) from the original plan of 35-40 layoffs, as we stated at the time, this clearly proved to be a lie; in the end, the number of layoffs was 30, not the 53-60 that had been one of the many erroneous claims made by the administration. Given the emergency nature of the problem, we did not demand that the arbitrator require the 10 months of notice or the layoff of all adjuncts in an affected department or discipline as called for in the CBA, as this could have led the Board of Trustees to close the institution as they have repeatedly threatened to do. We did ask that arbitrator require layoffs be conducted more humanely than the administration proposed, with at the very least two weeks’ notice and/or pay, but in deference to the administration’s threat that “additional faculty would have to be laid off to account for the delayed savings,” she declined to do so because she was “loathe to cause the layoff of additional employees.”
The administration also argued that Rider was in danger of losing its AACSB accreditation because its standards require that at least 90% of the business faculty be “qualified” and because the AACSB had put the University on notice that it was out of compliance with that standard. Unfortunately, the loss of that accreditation would have a catastrophic impact on enrollment and worsen the already dire financial situation. The administration further argued that it had to lay off six members of the NBCB who had zero peer reviewed journal publications and the fewest “points” toward being “qualified” in order to avoid loss of accreditation. They proposed layoff by inverse seniority within the group of faculty who were found to be in that situation, instead of within departments/disciplines identified for layoff as per our contractual process. Unfortunately, the arbitrator decided to allow those layoffs to stand against our vigorous objections.
“The Arbitrator is constrained to find that by not laying off the most junior employees in the College of Business (in whichever discipline the Employer selected), the University was violating Article XV of the Agreement. However, on the dire financial facts presented in this case, the Arbitrator finds this to be a technical violation of the Agreement because the Employer ultimately did lay off employees in inverse seniority order from the group of "unqualified" employees. The Arbitrator finds that the Employer was not arbitrary or capricious in deciding to first lay off employees who were deemed "unqualified" by the AACSB standards so as to avoid exacerbating the percentage by which the College of Business failed to meet the accreditation standard.”
Further, the Arbitrator observed that “the Employer could have accomplished the separations from employment of the "unqualified" College of Business faculty by terminating their employment, and perhaps it should have. However, the Arbitrator considered that a performance-based termination is a harsher burden for an employee seeking other employment than a layoff due to economic exigencies. Most significantly, as indicated above, once the Employer chose to look first to employees in the College of Business who could not in all likelihood become certified, it then laid off employees from that group in inverse seniority order.”
Since the arbitrator’s decision is final and binding, we have no recourse but to accept her decision. We are terribly sorry that the arbitrator chose to allow this exception from the Agreement, and we certainly do not agree that this was just a “technical” violation. We told the arbitrator that the layoff article should not be used in lieu of dismissal for cause (which we could have immediately challenged), even if she believed that dismissal for cause was justified. But she did not agree.
You can read the full decision here: rider.rif.pdf
The Rider AAUP Executive Committee
March 1, 2026
First, let us say how sorry we are that the administration has chosen to lay off 30 members of the AAUP bargaining unit. We are also particularly angry at the Board of Trustees that allowed the previous President and his administration to mismanage the University so badly that we are now faced with the potential loss of accreditation and the closing of the University. Unfortunately, the present Board is made up of many of the same Trustees who allowed that mismanagement and who authorized the present administration to try to unilaterally impose drastic changes to the existing Agreement via the March to Sustainability (MtS) plan.
The AAUP was faced with two imperatives during the forced and unilateral implementation of MtS: (1) Defend our rights as a union and enforce the active Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) to the extent possible, but (2) make the concessions that are necessary to keep Rider in existence. As you know, we made multiple offers to the administration for settlements that would allow the institution to continue to pay its bills, including delaying the layoffs as well as a 25% cut to administration’s salaries. All of our proposals were rejected despite conceding to most of their demands. The administration was operating under the theory that the financial crisis gave them the right to unilaterally alter the contract, so they saw no reason to negotiate with us in good faith. It was this reality that led us to file an expedited test case with an arbitrator.
As we reported to you, the primary question facing the arbitrator in this case was that the administration was claiming that because of the extreme financial condition of the University that the CBA no longer applied and could not be enforced, and that they could modify or eliminate any element of it that they felt they needed to. This would have meant that they could continue to make other changes to the CBA without negotiating with the AAUP. To this question, the arbitrator found “that the instant grievance is arbitrable. The Arbitrator further finds that the Employer's reliance on NLRA law to "suspend the Agreement due to financial exigency is rejected.” It was this ruling that we were referring to in our initial email as a major win.
This win does not prevent the extreme measures the administration has taken nor change the underlying reality that drastic action is necessary in order to save Rider from closing. We have now entered into discussions with the administration over what changes will be necessary and for how long. Time, of course, is of the essence, and we hope to have a proposal in place shortly that we can share with you.
Beyond the issue of the continuing enforceability of the CBA, the arbitrator ruled that, for the most part, the language of Article XV (Reduction in Force) was in place and should govern the layoff process. Thus, inverse seniority was the guiding factor, with departments or disciplines where layoffs would occur and the number of layoffs in each selected department or discipline at the sole discretion of the provost. While Provost Bidle argued in her 12/12 email to faculty that utilizing the contractual procedure would lead to a 50% increase (i.e., 53-60 layoffs) from the original plan of 35-40 layoffs, as we stated at the time, this clearly proved to be a lie; in the end, the number of layoffs was 30, not the 53-60 that had been one of the many erroneous claims made by the administration. Given the emergency nature of the problem, we did not demand that the arbitrator require the 10 months of notice or the layoff of all adjuncts in an affected department or discipline as called for in the CBA, as this could have led the Board of Trustees to close the institution as they have repeatedly threatened to do. We did ask that arbitrator require layoffs be conducted more humanely than the administration proposed, with at the very least two weeks’ notice and/or pay, but in deference to the administration’s threat that “additional faculty would have to be laid off to account for the delayed savings,” she declined to do so because she was “loathe to cause the layoff of additional employees.”
The administration also argued that Rider was in danger of losing its AACSB accreditation because its standards require that at least 90% of the business faculty be “qualified” and because the AACSB had put the University on notice that it was out of compliance with that standard. Unfortunately, the loss of that accreditation would have a catastrophic impact on enrollment and worsen the already dire financial situation. The administration further argued that it had to lay off six members of the NBCB who had zero peer reviewed journal publications and the fewest “points” toward being “qualified” in order to avoid loss of accreditation. They proposed layoff by inverse seniority within the group of faculty who were found to be in that situation, instead of within departments/disciplines identified for layoff as per our contractual process. Unfortunately, the arbitrator decided to allow those layoffs to stand against our vigorous objections.
“The Arbitrator is constrained to find that by not laying off the most junior employees in the College of Business (in whichever discipline the Employer selected), the University was violating Article XV of the Agreement. However, on the dire financial facts presented in this case, the Arbitrator finds this to be a technical violation of the Agreement because the Employer ultimately did lay off employees in inverse seniority order from the group of "unqualified" employees. The Arbitrator finds that the Employer was not arbitrary or capricious in deciding to first lay off employees who were deemed "unqualified" by the AACSB standards so as to avoid exacerbating the percentage by which the College of Business failed to meet the accreditation standard.”
Further, the Arbitrator observed that “the Employer could have accomplished the separations from employment of the "unqualified" College of Business faculty by terminating their employment, and perhaps it should have. However, the Arbitrator considered that a performance-based termination is a harsher burden for an employee seeking other employment than a layoff due to economic exigencies. Most significantly, as indicated above, once the Employer chose to look first to employees in the College of Business who could not in all likelihood become certified, it then laid off employees from that group in inverse seniority order.”
Since the arbitrator’s decision is final and binding, we have no recourse but to accept her decision. We are terribly sorry that the arbitrator chose to allow this exception from the Agreement, and we certainly do not agree that this was just a “technical” violation. We told the arbitrator that the layoff article should not be used in lieu of dismissal for cause (which we could have immediately challenged), even if she believed that dismissal for cause was justified. But she did not agree.
You can read the full decision here: rider.rif.pdf
The Rider AAUP Executive Committee
AAUP Response to University's Decision to Terminate an Adjunct Faculty Member
September 17, 2025
Dear Colleagues,
As you know, the University fired an adjunct faculty member today. Their crime? In President Loyack's words, their "behavior did not reflect our expectations for respectful and civil engagement" and "several individuals at Rider received a threat directed at our campus as a result of this individual’s actions."
What did this faculty member do? They posted on their personal Facebook page expressing their viewpoint on a matter of public concern. That posting led an individual (or some individuals) to make threats against them and against Rider. And what did Rider do? Did it protect the faculty member’s right to participate in a public forum? Did it stand up for the faculty member’s Academic Freedom? NO! Instead, it blamed the faculty member for becoming a target of violent threats and fired them.
This is clearly in violation of the University's obligation under our Agreement. Under Article IV Academic Freedom, the University agreed that it would "not threaten, coerce, or discipline members of the bargaining unit because of what they say or what they do as private citizens." There is no requirement that one's speech as a private citizen meet someone else's notion of "respectful and civil engagement" or that one's speech not lead to violent threats from irresponsible third parties.
We should all be outraged by the University's actions in this case. If they can fire an adjunct for what they say as a private citizen, they can fire any of us for what we say.
The AAUP will take all actions within its power to right this wrong.
The Rider AAUP Executive Committee
September 17, 2025
Dear Colleagues,
As you know, the University fired an adjunct faculty member today. Their crime? In President Loyack's words, their "behavior did not reflect our expectations for respectful and civil engagement" and "several individuals at Rider received a threat directed at our campus as a result of this individual’s actions."
What did this faculty member do? They posted on their personal Facebook page expressing their viewpoint on a matter of public concern. That posting led an individual (or some individuals) to make threats against them and against Rider. And what did Rider do? Did it protect the faculty member’s right to participate in a public forum? Did it stand up for the faculty member’s Academic Freedom? NO! Instead, it blamed the faculty member for becoming a target of violent threats and fired them.
This is clearly in violation of the University's obligation under our Agreement. Under Article IV Academic Freedom, the University agreed that it would "not threaten, coerce, or discipline members of the bargaining unit because of what they say or what they do as private citizens." There is no requirement that one's speech as a private citizen meet someone else's notion of "respectful and civil engagement" or that one's speech not lead to violent threats from irresponsible third parties.
We should all be outraged by the University's actions in this case. If they can fire an adjunct for what they say as a private citizen, they can fire any of us for what we say.
The AAUP will take all actions within its power to right this wrong.
The Rider AAUP Executive Committee
The AFT's Lawsuit to Halt the Stop of DEI Initiatives
February 27, 2025
The American Federation of Teachers and others have filed suit to stop the Trump's administration's efforts to remove DEI initiatives with its "Dear Colleagues" announcement. Here are the various court documents so far.
The AFTs Lawsuit
National Association of Diversity Officers v Trump: Memorandum Opinion
National Association of Diversity Officers v Trump: Preliminary Injunction
February 27, 2025
The American Federation of Teachers and others have filed suit to stop the Trump's administration's efforts to remove DEI initiatives with its "Dear Colleagues" announcement. Here are the various court documents so far.
The AFTs Lawsuit
National Association of Diversity Officers v Trump: Memorandum Opinion
National Association of Diversity Officers v Trump: Preliminary Injunction
The University's Audited Financial Statements are Now Available
January 31, 2025
The University's audited financial statements are available. You can find them in the menu above. Click in "AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS" and a drop down menu will appear.
January 31, 2025
The University's audited financial statements are available. You can find them in the menu above. Click in "AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS" and a drop down menu will appear.
Settlement of Prescription Drug Grievance Arbitration
August 6, 2024
As you know, we filed a grievance back in February 2023 over changes in our prescription insurance plan introduced by the administration in violation of the contract. Those changes involved being forced to utilize a different drug than a brand drug your health care provider believed was appropriate.
This alternate could have been a generic version of the drug prescribed or a completely different drug. You would have noticed this when you went to fill the prescription and your pharmacist told you that the prescription was not covered and you would have to pay full price or switch to a different drug or a generic form of the prescribed drug. You might have been informed by Aetna that you could only get the prescribed drug covered by our insurance if you could prove it was a medical necessity or you tried the alternative/s and they failed.
After many delays we were finally scheduled for arbitration on Monday August 5th. On Thursday, August, 1st we were able to reach a settlement with the University on terms that guarantee that if your heath care provider believes that the brand drug is the appropriate drug, you will receive that drug.
If after January 1st 2023 you were denied coverage for a prescribed brand drug and you covered the cost of the brand drug let us know so we can arrange for you to be reimbursed for all of your out of pocket expenses.
If this happens to you in the future request your health care provider give you a note indicating that the prescription should be dispensed as written and provide that to Human Resources and the drug will be authorized for coverage.
You can read the agreement here.
August 6, 2024
As you know, we filed a grievance back in February 2023 over changes in our prescription insurance plan introduced by the administration in violation of the contract. Those changes involved being forced to utilize a different drug than a brand drug your health care provider believed was appropriate.
This alternate could have been a generic version of the drug prescribed or a completely different drug. You would have noticed this when you went to fill the prescription and your pharmacist told you that the prescription was not covered and you would have to pay full price or switch to a different drug or a generic form of the prescribed drug. You might have been informed by Aetna that you could only get the prescribed drug covered by our insurance if you could prove it was a medical necessity or you tried the alternative/s and they failed.
After many delays we were finally scheduled for arbitration on Monday August 5th. On Thursday, August, 1st we were able to reach a settlement with the University on terms that guarantee that if your heath care provider believes that the brand drug is the appropriate drug, you will receive that drug.
If after January 1st 2023 you were denied coverage for a prescribed brand drug and you covered the cost of the brand drug let us know so we can arrange for you to be reimbursed for all of your out of pocket expenses.
If this happens to you in the future request your health care provider give you a note indicating that the prescription should be dispensed as written and provide that to Human Resources and the drug will be authorized for coverage.
You can read the agreement here.
Ruling on Program Elimination Arbitration
July 29, 2024
While we had hoped to be able to share better news about the program elimination arbitration, the arbitrator has ruled against the union’s position, meaning that the programs eliminated or archived by the administration in June 2022 will remain eliminated or archived. You can read the full award decision here. As the executive committee has time to further analyze the decision, we will have more to say on this decision.
July 29, 2024
While we had hoped to be able to share better news about the program elimination arbitration, the arbitrator has ruled against the union’s position, meaning that the programs eliminated or archived by the administration in June 2022 will remain eliminated or archived. You can read the full award decision here. As the executive committee has time to further analyze the decision, we will have more to say on this decision.
The 24-25 Meeting Calendar is Posted
June 12, 2024
We have posted the APC and AAUP meeting dates here.
June 12, 2024
We have posted the APC and AAUP meeting dates here.
The New Contract is Available
February 19, 2024
We have posted the the summary and copy of the current contract.
February 19, 2024
We have posted the the summary and copy of the current contract.
New APC Training Documents Are Posted
September 11, 2023
You can view the APC training documents here.
September 11, 2023
You can view the APC training documents here.
Academic Freedom Webinar
November 19, 2022
To learn about the basics of academic freedom, the AAUP has created a video and PowerPoint on these issues.
November 19, 2022
To learn about the basics of academic freedom, the AAUP has created a video and PowerPoint on these issues.
STRIKE FAQ
Negotiation Updates
All our negotiation updates are can be found here. We will update members through email & Raftr on immediate developments.
All our negotiation updates are can be found here. We will update members through email & Raftr on immediate developments.
AAUP'S Response to Administration's Propoganda
June 24, 2022
The university's statement on a 'critical need for change' contains a number of statements which are simply not true. Click here for details.
June 24, 2022
The university's statement on a 'critical need for change' contains a number of statements which are simply not true. Click here for details.
AAUP & Administration Exchange Proposals
May 20, 2022
The Rider Chapter of the AAUP and Rider's Administration have formally exchanged proposals for the upcoming labor negotiations. You can see the proposals here.
May 20, 2022
The Rider Chapter of the AAUP and Rider's Administration have formally exchanged proposals for the upcoming labor negotiations. You can see the proposals here.
No Confidence Resolution
February 2, 2022
You can find a copy of the A Resolution of the AAUP represented faculty and staff of Rider University here.
February 2, 2022
You can find a copy of the A Resolution of the AAUP represented faculty and staff of Rider University here.
Dr. Sanjay G. Reddy Presentation
November 28, 2021
At the November 2021 chapter meeting, Dr. Reddy (from The New School for Social Research) presented, "Is there no Alternative to the Logic of the Corporate University?" If you were unable to attend or would like to see it again, you can watch it here.
November 28, 2021
At the November 2021 chapter meeting, Dr. Reddy (from The New School for Social Research) presented, "Is there no Alternative to the Logic of the Corporate University?" If you were unable to attend or would like to see it again, you can watch it here.
Executive Committee Recommendations Concerning Credo Consulting
October 1, 2021
The Rider Executive Committee has offered a number of recommendations about working with CREDO. You can read the entire document and recommendations here.
October 1, 2021
The Rider Executive Committee has offered a number of recommendations about working with CREDO. You can read the entire document and recommendations here.
A Bargaining Unit Member's Guide to Credo, Part 2
September 28, 2021
Please see the Bargaining Unit Member's Guide to Credo, Part 2. This is the second of a series of documents put together by the AAUP Executive Committee in order to provide you with a clear and comprehensive understanding of the workings of the consulting agency Part 2 will provide you with an institutional survey outlining the consulting agency's targets & goals, and outcomes.
September 28, 2021
Please see the Bargaining Unit Member's Guide to Credo, Part 2. This is the second of a series of documents put together by the AAUP Executive Committee in order to provide you with a clear and comprehensive understanding of the workings of the consulting agency Part 2 will provide you with an institutional survey outlining the consulting agency's targets & goals, and outcomes.
The Problems of Prioritization
September 23, 2021
President Dell'Omo has once again decided to hire consultants. This time it is CREDO who will be using a prioritization process to rank the programs at Rider into five categories. Programs ranked in the bottom two quintiles can be eliminated or reconfigured.
You can read about one professor's critique of the process here.
September 23, 2021
President Dell'Omo has once again decided to hire consultants. This time it is CREDO who will be using a prioritization process to rank the programs at Rider into five categories. Programs ranked in the bottom two quintiles can be eliminated or reconfigured.
You can read about one professor's critique of the process here.
A Bargaining Unit Member's Guide to Credo, Part 1
September 20, 2021
Please see the Bargaining Unit Member's Guide to Credo, Part 1. This is the first of a series of documents put together by the AAUP Executive Committee in order to provide you with a clear and comprehensive understanding of the workings of the consulting agency Credo. Part 1 covers Credo's team and ideology; Part 2 will provide you with an institutional survey outlining the consulting agency's targets & goals, and outcomes; part 3 will summarize the Executive Committee's recommendations regarding faculty members' responses to Credo.
September 20, 2021
Please see the Bargaining Unit Member's Guide to Credo, Part 1. This is the first of a series of documents put together by the AAUP Executive Committee in order to provide you with a clear and comprehensive understanding of the workings of the consulting agency Credo. Part 1 covers Credo's team and ideology; Part 2 will provide you with an institutional survey outlining the consulting agency's targets & goals, and outcomes; part 3 will summarize the Executive Committee's recommendations regarding faculty members' responses to Credo.
Rider AAUP Chapter Statement on Racial Injustice
6/12/2020
Together we have arrived at a moment.
It is a moment when the systemic racism and white privilege that have plagued our country from the start must end.
It is a moment that requires long-overdue actions....
Click here to read the rest of the statement.
6/12/2020
Together we have arrived at a moment.
It is a moment when the systemic racism and white privilege that have plagued our country from the start must end.
It is a moment that requires long-overdue actions....
Click here to read the rest of the statement.
Deja Vu Dell'Omo
2/8/19
In a meeting with members of the Rider AAUP executive committee, President Dell’Omo accused Rider’s faculty of ‘hiding in their classrooms’ while he does the hard work of 'saving the institution' from financial ruin.
He is wrong on both accounts... Click "Deja Vu Dell'Omo" to read more
2/8/19
In a meeting with members of the Rider AAUP executive committee, President Dell’Omo accused Rider’s faculty of ‘hiding in their classrooms’ while he does the hard work of 'saving the institution' from financial ruin.
He is wrong on both accounts... Click "Deja Vu Dell'Omo" to read more
