Author: Kathleen Krach

FSU Colleagues,

On Wednesday afternoon the UFF-FSU and BOT bargaining teams met for 3 hours.  The session came very close to a final agreement but ended up on a somewhat tense and acrimonious note.

To make a good-faith move to meet the BOT, the UFF-FSU started out proposing a Performance Increase that is somewhat less than the rate of inflation.  In partial compensation for this, we proposed a floor or a minimum amount to help offset the impact of inflation on our lowest paid faculty.  This minimum was ignored and deleted through several rounds of bargaining as we lowered it, trying to come to agreement.  This minimum has an easily calculable effect, and the extra cost is negligible in a year where FSU did so well in the legislature and “got everything we asked for”.  One of the things that the president is required to request each year is adequate funding for hiring and retention of faculty.

Again, we attempted to hold the Deans’ Discretionary Merit category to a small amount or zero it out; however, it became obvious that funding this category was a high priority to the BOT team.  We feel that this is a “waiver,” or a surrender of a mandatory subject of bargaining to total administrative discretion without any faculty input. The UFF-FSU team felt that if the BOT was requesting a significant amount and a significant concession, then it should have some guardrails on its implementation.  The proposed amount of the Deans’ Discretionary Merit increase is reduced from last year’s 0.5% of the faculty salary base to 0.3% this year. The UFF-FSU team proposed that the trigger where a dean would need to write a justification for a Deans’ Discretionary Merit raise be reduced from required for anyone receiving a deans merit raise of 5% or more to required for anyone receiving a 3%-or-more increase.   In addition, our objection to the Deans’ Discretionary Merit category is that it does not accomplish the objective of rewarding merit.  If there is no definition of what merit is, then faculty are left clueless as to what they should do to earn merit.  This is similar to a game of blindperson’s bluff where one is trying to reach a goal but has no idea what or where that goal is.  Thus, the deans responsible for allocating a substantial amount of funds for raises, should at least communicate to the faculty the criteria used for that allocation.  In the past only 15% to 20% of the funds in deans’ discretionary merit have gone to Specialized Faculty and this bias also needs to be justified.

The BOT team did offer an increase to $1 million in the Market Equity category.  Since this category also addresses the impact of inflation on faculty, we gratefully accept this as a partial offset to having Performance Increases be less than inflation.

We presented an offer accepting the BOT’s numbers with the guard ails discussed above.  The BOT team focused on the raw numbers and not the issues.  In their next counteroffer, the BOT team accepted the numbers with all conditions eliminated, suggesting that this was as far as they were willing to bargain.  We countered by reducing the floor such that it met them halfway in cost and reduced the reporting required of deans.  At this, the BOT team berated us for proposing language changes at the last minute and for proposing salary increases that they are unable to calculate.  We do not agree that the calculations are complicated or onerous. As preparation for bargaining, the UFF-FSU team had constructed a simple spreadsheet to calculate costs in real time during negotiations.

We reject both argument that the language is last minute and that the change is difficult to calculate.  Language setting floors on increases has been discussed in the past, as a way to reach agreement and was present for the entire day’s bargaining session.   We believe that the changes in the amounts mandate changes in the language governing how the money is to be distributed in order to ensure transparency and accountability as well as fairness. The BOT team left the meeting with the statement that they were unsure what to do and if they should continue negotiations.

A Summary Table of the final offer and counteroffer for 5/10/2023 is provided below.  As you can see, we have come very close to an agreement, with only about $175,000 difference in total cost (roughly 0.09% of the bargaining unit faculty salary base.

We do not fully understand the objections expressed by the BOT team and trust that they will move forward and consider our counter proposal.  We look forward to continuing our discussion on Monday.

All the best,

Scott Hannahs, Specialized Faculty, Magnet Lab, and Jennifer Proffitt, Professor, Communication

Co-Chief Negotiators, UFF-FSU

Dear FSU Colleagues,

The bargaining teams met for the second time on Monday to discuss the Salaries article.  The BOT team began with a counteroffer to the UFF-FSU offer from last Wednesday.  This is where we left off last week and picked up on Monday:

There were many things on which the two teams still agreed.  We both agree on 3% Sustained Performance Increases (SPI) every 7 years. (Originally, we felt this should be a 5-year cycle to be in line with the upcoming 5-year cycle of post-tenure review, but we have agreed to wait until the regulations and policies regarding that are finalized.)  Both teams also agree on the continuation of Promotion Increases of 12% for the second rank and 15% for the top rank.

The BOT team, however, continued to focus on Deans’ Merit, even raising it to 0.75% from their own last offer of 0.50% from last Wednesday.  They told us that they had done some research and found that about 99% of faculty get Performance raises, so they didn’t see that as an award for merit.  They stated that about 80% of faculty get Departmental Merit, so they liked that more than Performance, but Deans’ Merit only goes to about 45% of the faculty, so there must be “more scrutiny in Deans’ Merit,” because, they reasoned, fewer people get it.    

We pointed out that 99% of the faculty meeting or exceeding FSU’s High Expectations, and some of them substantially exceeding those expectations, is a good thing and should be rewarded, especially as we are concerned that retaining quality faculty will be an increasing problem in coming months.  We continue to ask for the cost of inflation from March 2022 to March 2023, which is 4.98%, because all faculty are affected by the cost of living and shouldn’t continue to lose ground in real dollars due to inflation.

We also do believe that faculty should be rewarded with merit increases, but we disagree that deans are best positioned to distribute those increases both knowledgeably and transparently.  In the latest annual faculty poll, you told us that you prefer that merit increases be based mainly on peer recommendations (i.e., Departmental Merit) over deans’ discretion by a ratio of 4 to 1.  When deans are scrutinizing which faculty should receive Deans’ Discretionary Merit increases, what criteria do they use?  Any guesses?  Give up?  Well, there aren’t any criteria.  With Departmental Merit, there are standards as required by the Collective Bargaining Agreement and outlined in departmental bylaws.  Also, it appears that Deans’ Merit is 4 to 5 times more likely to go to general faculty rather than specialized faculty even though specialized faculty make up about 45% of the bargaining unit.  We find that alarming.

By the way, if you’d like to conduct your own research on how merit money is awarded in your department, remember that according to our Collective Bargaining Agreement, a printed report detailing the amount received in each salary increase category by faculty members in a department is available on request to any faculty member of that department.  See Article 23.12 for more information about what must be contained in the report.

We presented a couple of proposals, as did they, and we ended the session with the following positions:

We are getting closer!  We will present our next counteroffer when we bargain on Wednesday, May 10, from 2-5pm.  Please note that the Wednesday session will be held in Westcott 211A and 214D instead of our usual venue.

Remember that our union’s efforts at the bargaining table are most effective when faculty participate and attendance is high, especially face-to-face in the room.  If you care about Salaries, please make every effort to attend!  If you need to attend remotely, please contact Brian Arsenault <mailto:[email protected]> for the Zoom link. (Alternatively, if you retained the previous bargaining Zoom link, it will still work.) 

Regular bargaining updates can be found at our webpage: https://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! It is more important than ever for us to stand together. https://uff-fsu.org/wp/join/ 

All the best,

Brian Arsenault, Assistant University Librarian

UFF-FSU Bargaining Team Membe

Dear FSU Colleagues,

The bargaining teams met Wednesday to discuss Article 23-Salaries (and we also agreed to ground rules for our bargaining sessions). The UFF team sent our first proposal on May 1. That proposal and the BOT’s first counteroffer included the following:

Both teams agree on the continuation of Promotion Increases of 12% for the second rank and 15% for the top rank.

We would like to acknowledge that the BOT’s first counteroffer was the highest we have seen in some time (as a reminder, last year the first offer the BOT made was 1% Performance, 0.25% for Departmental Merit, 1.50% Deans’ Merit, no Market Equity, and 1.25% Administrative Discretionary Increases, or ADI), which is certainly appreciated. However, as shown above, each team’s priorities remain quite different.

As we noted during the bargaining session, the UFF offer takes into consideration the need to retain faculty; as we are hearing and seeing, faculty members are leaving or planning to leave Florida for several reasons, including pay and attacks on higher education and DEI.

We explained that faculty have been losing ground in real dollars due to inflation, which amounts to a pay cut. We are asking for the cost of inflation from March 2022-March 2023, which is 4.98%. In our annual poll, more than half of the faculty who responded stated that they would not ratify if the offer didn’t at least offset the cost of inflation. We hear you, and we will try our best to advocate for your priorities.

We also explained once again that faculty tell us that when it comes to merit: Departmental Merit is essential because it is based on criteria agreed upon by the faculty as well as the Deans and Provost, while Deans’ Merit is completely discretionary without any stated criteria. That is, faculty never know what they need to do to receive Deans’ Merit because the process is not transparent. We also pointed out that Deans and the Provost approve Departmental Merit plans, so they do in fact have a say in Departmental Merit decisions, precluding any need for Deans’ Merit. Furthermore, Deans have Administrative Discretionary Increases available to them to reward especially productive faculty and/or those who have offers from other schools, as outlined in Article 23.

We also reminded the BOT team that Market Equity is critical for faculty retention. University data show that Market Equity is an $18 million problem. So that we don’t keep falling behind, Performance and Market Equity adjustments are necessary.

After both sides made two counteroffers, we ended the session with:

We look forward to receiving the BOT’s next counter when we bargain again on Monday, May 8, from 2-5pm.

Our union’s efforts at the bargaining table are most effective when faculty attendance is high: 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, please contact Brian Arsenault <mailto:[email protected]> for the Zoom link. (Alternatively, if you retained the previous bargaining Zoom link, it will still work.) 

Regular bargaining updates can be found at our webpage: https://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! It is more important than ever for us to stand together. https://uff-fsu.org/wp/join/ 

All the best,

Scott Hannahs, Specialized Faculty, Magnet Lab, and Jennifer Proffitt, Professor, Communication

Co-Chief Negotiators, UFF-FSU

Wednesday’s bargaining session was a flurry of activity as the two sides tentatively agreed to three articles and an appendix, and we are hopeful that we can soon agree to three more. But the main event was salaries, which was discussed right after President McCullough’s email promised investment in faculty and staff through increased salaries. The BOT team presented their latest offer on Article 23 (Salaries), and the UFF team countered:

We were pleased to see the BOT team increase their Performance and Market Equity proposals and reduce the amount they allocated to Dean’s Merit, although Dean’s Merit still remains unprecedentedly high. The BOT team said they heard our concerns. Their movement on salaries is in the right direction, but we are still not quite “there,” as expressed by the faculty in the bargaining room and the 43 faculty members on Zoom who stated that they were hopeful after seeing the president’s email but disappointed with the BOT’s proposal.

We’d also like to thank the more than 560 faculty members who already signed the UFF-FSU petition asking the BOT to provide fair salaries for faculty members who worked incredibly hard in dangerous circumstances to ensure that intellectual and educational life at the University continued uninterrupted. Your voices made a difference! And there is still time to sign the petition if you haven’t already.

With no raises for most faculty in two of the last three years, faculty members have fallen further and further behind. And while the BOT and President McCullough argue that the current salary offer is the most generous in at least a decade, they fail to acknowledge the two years with no raises and the 14% plus rate of inflation since the last raise that is eating up our paychecks. As we have noted, FSU bragged about how “All of FSU’s priorities were funded.” But the offer they call generous does not demonstrate that faculty are a priority. In addition, this year, FSU received an increase of $66 million or almost 11% in unrestricted state funding in lottery, tuition/fees, and state General Revenue. As a faculty member noted in the Zoom chat, “The fact that [the BOT’s offer is] the largest in 10 years does not actually help their cause; that data shows how poorly we’ve been compensated.” And another faculty member asked after hearing the BOT’s salary offer, “That is supposed to make up for other years?”

The BOT team once again said that they are very close to their salary limit, so now really is the time for faculty to show that they want a more meaningful salary offer by attending the next bargaining session scheduled for Wednesday, August 3, from 2-5 (information regarding location can be found below). If it is at all possible, please attend in person and encourage your colleagues to attend in person as well. Having faculty in the room is an effective and visible way to support the UFF team’s position. Having faculty members attend via Zoom also helps because we do let them know how many faculty attend virtually, but your physical presence sends a powerful message that we are all in this together.

A big thank you to the faculty who have attended in person and virtually these last few weeks. Please continue to do so!

The two teams did Tentatively Agree (TA) to Article 19 (Conflict of Interest/Outside Activity), with most of the protections for faculty we asked for, and Appendix K and agreed to status quo language (no changes) in Article 8 (Appointment) and Article 12 (Non-Reappointment). The BOT proposed that the teams agree to the changes the UFF team proposed in Article 18 (Inventions & Works), Article 24 (Benefits), which would codify the tuition scholarships for faculty member’s dependent children and spouses, and Article 17 (Leaves), which would remain status quo—that is, only one paid parental leave (UFF’s last proposal was two paid parental leaves). The UFF team proposed a counteroffer to Article 17 changing paid parental leave to paid family leave, which would allow faculty to use the leave for the birth or adoption of a child or to take care of sick family members, including spouses, biological or adoptive parents, biological or adoptive children, step-children, and biological or adoptive siblings. We noted that this change would recognize the lives of faculty members as sometimes-caregivers and would offer a more family-friendly and age-friendly campus.

We are still waiting for a response to UFF’s proposed Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to ensure that Promotion and Sustained Performance raises become effective for those faculty in August and to Article 22 (Sabbatical & Professional Development Leave).

As noted, the next bargaining session is scheduled for Wed., August 3, from 2:00-5:00. Our union’s efforts at the bargaining table are most effective when faculty support is evident, so if you care about salaries, please come! It really does make a difference. 

Bargaining sessions are open to all faculty. Meetings are face-to-face at the FSU Training Center (493 Stadium Drive).  If you would like to attend remotely, please contact Chandler Blount [email protected] to receive the Zoom link. (Alternatively, if you retained a previous bargaining Zoom link, it will still work.)

Regular bargaining updates and the entire CBA can be found under “UFF At Work” at our webpage:  https://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.  https://uff-fsu.org/wp/join/

All the best,

Scott Hannahs and Jennifer Proffitt, Co-Chief Negotiators, UFF-FSU