Dear colleagues,
Today we will be bargaining from 2-5pm at the Training Center across from the stadium. If you are a member, please join us in person if you can. If you can’t join in person, you may want to attend on Zoom via this link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88528923845?pwd=YnRNajhhb01HMVBlQTJDRmRqQlVqdz09#success
| Join our Cloud HD Video MeetingZoom is the leader in modern enterprise video communications, with an easy, reliable cloud platform for video and audio conferencing, chat, and webinars across mobile, desktop, and room systems. Zoom Rooms is the original software-based conference room solution used around the world in board, conference, huddle, and training rooms, as well as executive offices and classrooms. Founded in 2011, Zoom helps businesses and organizations bring their teams together in a frictionless environment to get more done. Zoom is a publicly traded company headquartered in San Jose, CA.us02web.zoom.us |
Our ninth bargaining session of this bargaining season was held on Wednesday, June 12. Here’s an update on where we are in the process.
Summary:
- We exchanged salary proposals four times. See table below.
- We received new proposals from the BOT on Article 20 (Grievance Procedure and Arbitration) and Article 22 (Sabbatical and Professional Development Leave).
- We presented a new proposal on Article 10 (Performance Evaluations), which includes Post-Tenure Review (PTR).
I’ll expand on these articles below, but I encourage you to have a look at the draft contract language on these Articles and to let us know if you have any questions or comments. As always, joining the union is one of the best ways you can help us advocate for faculty rights and for better pay and benefits. And we encourage you to join us at the next bargaining session: this coming Friday, June 21 at 2:00 in the Training Center across from the stadium. As always, we will also stream it via Zoom.
On to the summaries:
Article 23 (Salaries):
The UFF-FSU team started the ball rolling with our fifth proposal. The highlights of the back and forth are:
- The UFF insists on keeping the performance increase 3.2% to adjust for inflation. The BOT team marginally increased their latest offer to 2.0%.
- We maintain our position that there should be no difference between “Meets” and “Exceeds” Expectations in the PTR salary increase.
- On departmental merit, we came down from 2.0% to 1.5%. UFF values merit, in line with what faculty have told us in the faculty poll. We believe that departmental merit has clear criteria set out in each department/unit’s bylaws.
- We offered 0.2% for dean’s merit. However, we insist that the dean’s merit must be in specific categories: extraordinary accomplishments, correcting inequity, or contributions not sufficiently recognized by the department. Additionally, we proposed that the faculty member and the UFF should be informed about the specific category of the raise accompanied with a short description.
- We continue to advocate for market equity raises to help reduce salary compression and inversion. The BOT team continues to zero out this category.
I’ve boldfaced places where each team changed their previous offer.
| Bargaining Salary History 2024 | UFF 5 | BOT 5 | UFF 6 | BOT 6 |
| Promotions | 12/15% | 12/15% | 12/15% | 12/15% |
| Sustained Performance Increase (SPI) for Specialized Faculty at the top rank (now every 5 years) | 3.00% | 3.00% | 3.00% | 3.00% |
| PTR (Associate Professors who are assigned Meets Expectations) | Pending PTR negotiations | $3,000 bonus | Pending PTR negotiations | $3,000 bonus |
| PTR (Associate Professors who are assigned Exceeds Expectations) | Pending PTR negotiations | $5,000 bonus | Pending PTR negotiations | $5,000 bonus |
| PTR (Professors who are assigned Meets Expectations) | Pending PTR negotiations | 3.00% | Pending PTR negotiations | 3.00% |
| PTR (Professors who are assigned Exceeds Expectations) | Pending PTR negotiations | 5.00% | Pending PTR negotiations | 5.00% |
| Performance Increase (for all faculty who received higher than Official Concern on most recent annual evaluation) | 3.20% | 1.85% | 3.20% | 2.00% |
| Departmental Merit (based on criteria developed by faculty) | 2.0% | 0.75% | 1.50% | 0.75% |
| Deans’ Merit | 0.15% | 0.2% | 0.20% | 0.20% |
| Market Equity | $1,000,000 | $0.00 | $1,000,000 | $0.00 |
| Administrative Discretionary Increases | 0.80% | 0.80% | 0.80% | 0.80% |
Article 22 (Sabbatical and Professional Development Leave)
The BOT agreed to keep the Professional Development Leave (PDL) eligibility at every 3 years and accepted the application steps we laid out in our last proposal, including PDL for non-instructional faculty in smaller increments. Moreover, they accepted that a PDL application shall go directly to the administration with a letter from the chair and a chair cannot unilaterally reject it. However, they didn’t accept the roll-over clause for denied applications. The roll-over clause grants a PDL the following year, if it is denied this year for staffing considerations or other reasons. A similar clause exists for sabbaticals.
Article 20 (Grievance Procedure and Arbitration)
Our offer from last week introduced a peer review panel that takes to replace the arbitration process which is currently prohibited by Florida Statues. Our proposed peer panel is similar to the peer review panel in the Article 16 (Disciplinary Action and Job Abandonment) but channels it through the Faculty Senate Grievance committee, which is available to the out-of-unit faculty. Even though the recommendation of the peer panel is not binding in our proposal, the BOT rejected the panel, raising concern about duplication of the peer panel when the grievance is about a temporary or permanent suspension of a faculty member. We pointed out that the grievance may not be always about discipline and can be about infringement of faculty rights.
Article 10 (Performance Evaluations):
In the last bargaining session, the BOT elected to withdraw their previous Article 10 proposal and substitute it with a new one. The new one has a long list of evidence that can distinguish between different ratings, i.e., Meet Expectations and Exceeds Expectations. While the BOT team specifies that the long list of evidence is composed of examples (not an exhaustive list), we found a lot of it vague and arbitrary, as – for example — when it poses that faculty should be in the top 20% of their discipline and their unit to receive a ranking of “Exceeds Expectations.” Does anybody out there know of a list that ranks all faculty in a discipline one by one? None of us knew of such a list. We did not accept their proposal and our new proposal refers to the criteria and evidence that is laid out in department bylaws as suggested in Article 10 for annual evaluations. We understand that different disciplines have completely different criteria, and this can well be addressed in the department bylaws and be reflected in the chair’s letter to the dean, with faculty input.
That’s all folks! Please join us at bargaining this coming Friday and make your voice heard by joining your faculty union.
In solidarity,
Arash Fahim, Associate Professor of Mathematics, FSU College of Arts & Sciences
On behalf of your UFF-FSU Collective Bargaining Team