The teams met Wednesday to present and discuss articles, including salaries. The BOT presented their latest offer on Article 23 (Salaries), and the UFF team countered:
|Performance (also called across-the-board)||2.25%||6.50%|
|Market Equity||0||$1.5 Million|
|Administrative Discretionary Increases (ADI)||1.25%||0.25%|
The BOT team once again only increased their offer by 0.25% (added to Department Merit), and they made it clear that their priority is Dean’s Merit, which, as we noted in previous updates, is allocated at the discretion of the Dean rather than through departmental procedures voted on by faculty and outlined in department bylaws. The UFF team countered that the dramatic increase in Dean’s Merit is a radical departure from previous years; what the BOT team is proposing is nearly 4 to 8 times larger than Dean’s Merit in previous years (since 2015, Dean’s Merit has been no more than 0.15-0.35%, not 1.25%). The ability for Deans to dispense increases already exists in the Administrative Discretionary Increases category, and we see little need to increase that amount when there is so much need in the Performance and Market Equity categories.
If a goal of the University is faculty retention, as noted by the Board of Trustees in the last Trustee meeting and by President McCullough in various contexts, the focus should be on Performance raises and Market Equity, not a discretionary fund for Deans to reward some faculty and not others. We explained once again that faculty spent the last two plus years working through a deadly pandemic, spending countless hours pivoting their classes to multiple platforms to keep the University functioning, without a raise. And with a 14% plus increase in inflation since our last raise, Performance raises are the foremost priority for faculty. Further, without raises for several years, compression and inversion have continued to increase, which is why Market Equity–based on the formula outlined in the contract–is also a much bigger priority than discretionary increases. As a faculty member attending the bargaining session via Zoom noted in the chat during the discussion of raises, “Every other faculty member I know is incensed. And polishing their resumes. Short-sighted.” Another member noted that the 0.25% increase in each week’s offer from the BOT is “almost hostile.” Other terms we’ve heard from faculty regarding the BOT salary offer include “insulting” and “offensive.” We are awaiting the BOT’s next offer and hope that we see greater progress than we have seen so far to show that they value the hard work and dedication of the faculty.
Faculty participation in-person and on Zoom really does matter, so please see the information below regarding how to participate.
As we noted in the last update, because both teams do agree on the continuation of Promotion Increases and of Sustained Performance Increases, the UFF team was proactive and proposed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to ensure that these increases become effective for those faculty in August. The BOT’s proposal unfortunately added a “poison pill”—a provision that would also reinstate the BOT’s now-expired authority to grant discretionary raises to individuals. This would undermine what little bargaining power faculty have under Florida law. It appears as though the BOT team is more interested in holding faculty raises hostage to gain an advantage at the bargaining table than to award faculty the promotion raises that they have rightfully earned.
The UFF team also presented a counter to Article 19 (Conflict of Interest/Outside Activity). We explained why safeguards are needed to protect faculty from investigations and potential discipline due to unintentional violations and unfounded claims of consensual sexual activity with students. We also clarified that we want to be sure that the BOT’s language regarding ‘verbal discussions of a sexual nature’ does not violate academic freedom or pedagogical choices. The BOT team heard our concerns, and we were very pleased to see that they countered with a proposal that includes protections. We are carefully reviewing their proposal, but we are optimistic that we are very close to an agreement.
The next bargaining session is scheduled for Wed., July 20 from 2:00-5:00. Our union’s efforts at the bargaining table are most effective when faculty attendance is high, so if you care about Salaries, please come!
Bargaining sessions are open to faculty, and we appreciate having you! Meetings are face-to-face at the FSU Training Center (493 Stadium Drive). If you would like to attend remotely, we welcome that as well! Please contact Chandler Blount <firstname.lastname@example.org> to receive the Zoom link. (Alternatively, if you retained a previous bargaining Zoom link, it will still work.)
Regular bargaining updates can be found at our webpage: http://uff-fsu.org/
The key to a strong Collective Bargaining Agreement is a strong membership base, so if you are not a member, please join! There has never been a more important time for us to stand together. http://uff-fsu.org/wp/join/
All the best,
Scott Hannahs and Jennifer Proffitt, Co-Chief Negotiators, UFF-FSU