The Notice of Ratification Vote and Meeting, including voting locations and times, is available here: Notice of Ratification Vote and Meeting May 2018.
The UFF and FSU Administration have tentatively agreed upon several changes to the CBA, to be ratified by vote of the faculty on May 29th and 30th. Locations and times will be announced in a separate post. The documents showing relevant changes are below, and a summary is available here.
The final draft of minutes from our February consultation can be found through the link below.
We do four of these a year with upper level Administration. Two of them include President Thrasher.
They are intended to provide a relaxed forum to discuss issues of interest to faculty. All are encouraged
to contact UFF if you have something you feel needs to be discussed.
UFF-FSU and Board of Trustees Bargaining Update April 8, 2018
The UFF-FSU faculty team and the BOT exchanged proposals with few questions and little discussion of issues. The UFF has rejected most of the changes to appointments proposed by the BOT. The BOT proposals for changing definitions of a “break in service” and “continuous service” continue to be refined to have precise meaning.
The UFF presented a proposal on extending paid leave for Family Medical Leave issues to those few faculty not covered by the federal Family Medical Leave Act. We presented a few cases where this would be helpful for faculty having a difficult period in their career.
In terms of salary the following offers were exchanged.
The BOT updated with an increase overall by about 0.25%, the administration salary offer was in the following amounts:
Departmental Merit: 0.4% Increase from 0.25%
Deans’ Merit: 0.2% Increase from 0.1%
Market Equity: 0
Performance (cost of living): 0
Administrative Discretionary Increases (ADI): Up to 1%
The BOT suggested that Deans’ merit should be half that of the departmental merit, a larger percentage than the original offer. Other categories (Promotion, Sustained Performance and ADI) remained the same as in previous years.
The UFF team was dismayed to see no real commitment to Performance and Market Equity categories. The annual UFF survey indicated the importance of these categories to the faculty. This is particularly galling in view of the rise in rankings for FSU primarily due to faculty efforts and performance. The UFF questioned BOT statements about how tight money is in view of the upbeat reports from the administration.
The UFF faculty team countered with an overall reduction of about 2 percentage points in its offer relative to its previous offer:
Departmental Merit: 1.5% Decrease from 2%
Deans’ Merit: 0% No change
Market Equity: $1.5 million Decrease from $2 million
In lieu of ME 0.25% Increase from 0% (some SF only)
Performance: 2.2% Decrease from 2.5%
ADI: Up to 0.5% No change
We agreed to the status quo proposed amounts for Promotions and Sustained Performance.
The next bargaining session will be Wednesday 4/11 at 2PM at the FSU Training Center. All faculty members are welcome to attend and observe.
Your UFF-FSU Bargaining Team
Scott Hannahs <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Irene Padavic <email@example.com>
The BOT and the UFF-FSU teams met the last two Wednesdays to begin bargaining over the Salaries article and to continue discussing the other four open articles.
Regarding salaries, the BOT team proposed the following amounts:
Departmental Merit: 0.25%
Deans’ Merit: 0.10%
Market Equity: 0
Performance (cost of living) 0
Their proposal for Administrative Discretion Raises (for increased duties, extraordinary accomplishments, counteroffers, and certain other reasons, at the discretion of the Administration) would be limited to no more than 1% of the faculty salary base.
They proposed no change from previous years in two other categories: Promotion raises of 12% (when promoted into the second rank) and 15% (into the third rank) and 3% directed to Sustained Performance Increases (which go to faculty in the top rank after each seven year period of satisfactory performance in that rank).
The UFF faculty team was surprised by the complete lack of funding for Performance and Market Equity increases and by the pitiful amount proposed for Departmental Merit. We were also gobsmacked that the BOT team is seeking to allocate almost 30% of merit funds to deans to distribute rather than allocating all merit money to departments to distribute.
The BOT team’s response to our claim that this salary proposal was laughable was that the budget is extraordinarily tight this year.
The UFF countered with this proposal:
Departmental Merit: 2.0%
Deans’ Merit: 0
Market Equity: $2 million
We have no objection to their proposed amounts for Promotions and Sustained Performance.
The logic behind the UFF counter-proposal stems from several considerations. Faculty responses to the Spring, 2018, poll showed that when asked to pick their top priority, 47% chose “keeping up with the cost of living,” 27% chose “correcting existing salary inequities” and 24% chose “recent meritorious job performance.” Thus, our Performance amount takes into account the rate of inflation of about 2.2%, and we propose reasonable amounts in the Market Equity and Departmental Merit categories. Increasing inequality was a major concern for us. We pointed out that the BOT plan to fund neither cost of living nor market equity insured that compression and inversion are guaranteed to worsen for current faculty. The many new faculty being hired at market rate will be under-market in short order and likely to consider their other options (as will current faculty). We went on to explain that their proposal for Departmental Merit is flat-out demoralizing. To be rewarded for our hard work and success in teaching, research, and service with a mere one-quarter-of-one-percent (just one-fifth the amount allocated last year) makes a mockery of the concept of reward for meritorious performance. As for our zeroing out Deans’ Merit, we explained that since Deans are in a better position than most to appreciate the University’s constrained resources, they should be happy to forego this money and to allocate it to departments’ judgments. Indeed, we said, they should respond to the claimed need for belt-tightening by refusing raises themselves.
The BOT team prefaced their salary offer by noting that they only have about a third as much “new money” as last year. We reminded them that the University has other available resources to fund faculty pay.
As for the other open articles, we made some progress on Article 32 (Definitions), discussing possible wording for “Base Salary” and for “Leaves of Absence.”
Bargaining resumes this week on Wednesday, April 4, from 2:00-5:00 at the FSU Training Center. Faculty members are welcome.
The key to a strong Collective Bargaining Agreement is a strong membership base, so if you are not a member, please join! http://uff-fsu.org/wp/join/
Irene Padavic and Scott Hannahs, Co-Chief Negotiators, UFF-FSU