Author: Kathleen Krach

Dear Colleagues,

At Wednesday’s bargaining session, the BOT team proposed what was presented as a final package deal that included all remaining articles, including salary. The BOT’s offer included the $750,000 in Market Equity that the UFF proposed last week, but it did not increase Performance Funding. The UFF team countered, and then the BOT presented a ‘best and final’ offer that was only good until the end of the bargaining session. UFF countered that offer, and the BOT team agreed, thus ending negotiations that saw a couple dozen salary proposals passed back and forth and compromises on both sides. The two teams Tentatively Agreed (TA) to the salary proposal found here that includes implementation dates.  

Both the UFF and the administration believe that merit is an important part of any compensation package. Thus, the Performance and Merit components of the UFF-BOT agreement, plus Market Equity increases, should be considered as part of the total salary package. While the initial BOT offer was 2.75% + Promotions + Sustained Performance Increases, the accepted offer is 5.7% + Promotions + Sustained Performance Increases, for an overall faculty compensation package of about 6.7%, not counting ADI. While the UFF believes that faculty merit is best determined by departments and their bylaws, as per President McCullough’s direction, the BOT demanded that a significant amount of faculty raises be determined by the deans. We do hope that our concerns regarding merit allocated based on the whims of deans have been heard and that deans will allocate the money based on fair and transparent criteria.

We’d like to once again thank the nearly 700 faculty members who signed the UFF-FSU petition asking the BOT to provide fair salaries and the dozens of faculty members who attended bargaining in person and via Zoom. Your voices definitely made a difference!

On another note, we were pleased to see President McCullough’s 8/4/22 email announcing staff raises of 5% because our hardworking staff have gone many years without across-the-board raises and are generally lower paid than faculty, as evidenced by the announced increase of annual base pay for full-time, salaried staff employees to $31,320. We hope that the administration will continue to work on providing fair compensation for FSU staff as well.

The two teams also Tentatively Agreed to the other articles in the package deal, including Article 18 (Inventions & Works), Article 22 (Sabbatical and Professional Development Leave), which increases the number of paid one-semester sabbaticals from 1 out of every 30 eligible tenured faculty members to 1 out of every 20 eligible tenured faculty members, a 50% increase, Article 24 (Benefits), which codifies the tuition scholarships for faculty members’ dependent children and spouses, and Article 17 (Leaves), which remains status quo (that is, one paid parental leave). We hope to address the need for paid family leave in future years’ negotiations as such a change would offer a more family-friendly and age-friendly campus.

The next step in the process is ratification of the contract, so please be on the lookout for ratification voting dates, times, and locations. In all, the UFF is proud of the gains we made for faculty during this bargaining session, which you’ll be hearing more about as we near ratification. For example, we significantly increased our sabbatical program, held tight to the four-year contracts for the third rank of Specialized Faculty that the BOT wanted to curtail, mandated safety inspections of FSU buildings at regular intervals, and tightened protections for faculty members to engage in political speech outside of FSU. Even as we made a lot of progress in improving the working lives of faculty, we would still like to hear our members’ ideas about how we might improve things further in future negotiations!

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! As the negotiations have demonstrated, we can accomplish more when we all stand together.  https://uff-fsu.org/wp/join/

All the best,

Scott Hannahs, Research Faculty III, and

Jennifer Proffitt, Professor,

Co-Chief Negotiators, UFF-FSU

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:

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 <[email protected]> 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:  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

The teams met Friday to discuss and present articles.  The UFF was grateful to the BOT team for accommodating our scheduling conflict by shifting the meeting date.  We were also happy to have faculty attend in person and online.  Remember these sessions are open to faculty; your presence matters, and it’s nice to meet you when you’re there!

The UFF team opened by voicing our concerns over last week’s BOT counter on Article 19 (Conflict of Interest/Outside Activity), wherein they proposed some new language and struck our proposed language protecting faculty. We have heard from faculty, and we share their concerns that the language to prohibit consensual “verbal, non-verbal, or physical contact” (what does that NOT cover?) with any student over whom the faculty member exercises “academic authority” (what is that?) is so broad and vague that a faculty member could be accused, investigated, and disciplined for consensual, legal, and ethical behavior with someone they didn’t even know was a student.  Additionally, an outside party could weaponize an anonymous complaint against a faculty member, and the BOT’s proposed language may not even require a sexual encounter to bring on career-damaging accusations.  We believe (and we stated) that the BOT’s language poses a particular danger for LGBTQ faculty and that there needs to be a serious discussion about safeguards for faculty.

The BOT team listened and stated that they are open to continuing the discussion.  They said they share the concern that everyone involved needs to be protected, and they look forward to our language changes that address protections for faculty.  The BOT did stress that they see this matter as an ethical obligation and not as something “to be bought” from the UFF, for example, with higher performance increases.  (This seems counter to their calling these several articles “a package” when they presented them before.)

The session continued with Article 12 (Non-Reappointment).  Last session, we proposed to treat C&G-funded and E&G-funded faculty the same: faculty with 2 or fewer years’ service would get 19.5 weeks’ notice, and those with more than 2 years’ service would receive a year’s notice.  The BOT’s counter lowered the notice periods for C&G-funded faculty back down to 30 and 90 days.  They also again struck the UFF language that would safeguard the length of continuous service for a successful grievant, arguing that it pre-fashions a remedy that is usually up to an arbitrator to determine.

We think that the notice for those faculty on “soft-money” is too short to find other employment.  After all, PIs should know well in advance that funding is ending.  Our team countered with notice as soon as practicable but no less than 90 or 180 days.  We also clarified the language regarding the service time of a successful grievant.  We await their reply.

Lastly, the BOT presented their latest low offer on Article 23 (Salaries) and our team countered again:

The BOT proposed language requiring a written explanation for a Dean’s Merit increase but only if it is “more than 10% of the faculty member’s base salary.” We noted that the threshold for any explanation was so high as to be useless, and they replied that 10% is consistent with other processes requiring review, but they were open to negotiating it.

The UFF team believes that the movement up or down of 0.25% here and there is still disappointingly slow progress toward an agreement that addresses all the salary problems we detailed last week.  We still object to their over-reliance on Dean’s Merit over Departmental Merit and their lack of attention to Market Equity.  It’s progress, though, and we will continue to press the faculty’s case for bigger increases.

Both teams do still agree on the continuation of Promotion Increases of 12% for the second rank and 15% for the top rank and on the continuation of Sustained Performance Increases of 3% for eligible full professors, eminent scholars, and the top rank of Specialized Faculty every seven years after their promotion to the top rank.  Accordingly, the UFF team proposed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to ensure that these increases become effective for those faculty in August.  We await the BOT response to this and our counteroffer on salaries.

The next bargaining session is scheduled for Wed., July 13 from 2:00 – 5:00. 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, we welcome that, as well!  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 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! There has never been a more important time for us to stand together.  https://uff-fsu.org/wp/join/

The bargaining teams met Wednesday, and we discussed two articles and an Appendix.

The UFF presented its counter-proposal to Article 20 (Grievance Procedure and Arbitration), and the BOT responded. The teams are on the same page about some technical issues regarding arbitration procedures, but we are still discussing implementation matters.

We continue to make good progress on Appendix K based on the BOT’s latest proposal and UFF’s response, including narrowing the disclosure of financial interests from various relatives to immediate family members.

Although not a formal proposal, we then presented our thoughts regarding Article 19 (Conflict of Interest/Outside Activity) in which we would concede to the BOT’s ban on consensual sexual relationships with undergraduates but with backstops to protect faculty from accusations that are unfounded. Key for us is due process and safeguarding faculty from surveillance and unwarranted discipline. We also continue to question the BOT’s use of the terms “romantic” and “amorous” without definitions and remain concerned about the conflation of consensual relationships and harassment. Now, as always, we stand firmly behind the prohibition of harassment, found in Article 6 (Nondiscrimination).

We are eagerly awaiting the BOT’s responses to UFF’s earlier proposals regarding Salaries, Sabbatical and Professional Development Leave, Benefits, and Leaves.

The next bargaining session is scheduled for Wed., June 15, from 2:00-5:00.  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 respond to this message, and we’ll send you 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:  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 best,

Jennifer Proffitt, Vice President and Bargaining Team member, UFF-FSU

Dear Colleagues,  

The bargaining teams continue to move full-steam ahead, having met for our sixth straight meeting on Wednesday.  Even though nothing was formally signed, we nevertheless made progress.   

The UFF presented its final article, Article 20 (Grievance Procedure and Arbitration), where we are seeking to streamline two procedures.  Our first proposal was that, instead of meeting with one arbitrator to determine whether the issue is subject to arbitration and then with a different arbitrator to address the substantive issue, those meetings be combined and only one arbitrator used.  The second was about the need to align language with current practice in the selection of an arbitrator.  The BOT’s response was supportive of the second proposal, with modifications, but not the first.   

The discussion of Appendix K continued, based on UFF’s latest proposal, which seeks to remove the notion that in order to avoid a possible conflict of interest faculty must disclose the financial interests of non-immediate family members.  This is a particular problem when it comes to their relatively small investments–$5,000–in large publicly-traded entities related to the faculty member’s institutional expertise.  

The final topic was the BOT’s counter-proposal on Article 19 (Conflict of Interest/Outside Activity). They proposed new language about conflicts of commitment, which are outside activities “interfering with the full performance of the faculty member’s professional or institutional responsibilities or obligations.” Are you wasting time walking the dog that you could be spending at work?  They insisted that curtailing such activities was not their intention, and they didn’t balk at UFF’s informally proposed alternative wording, which we’ll formalize for the next session. Regarding consensual sexual relationships with undergraduates, they reiterated their strong opposition to such relationships and again proposed banning them, this time including not just “sexual and romantic relationships,” as in their previous proposal, but “amorous” ones as well.   

No response yet to the UFF’s Salaries proposal of the previous week.  

The next bargaining session is scheduled for Wed., June 8, from 2:00-5:00.  Bargaining sessions are open to faculty, and we appreciate having you!  Meetings are face-to-face at the FSU Training Center (493 Stadium Drive). We are pleased that faculty are showing up in person and via Zoom.  If you would like to attend remotely, please respond to this message and we’ll send you 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:  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 best, 

Irene Padavic and Scott Hannahs, Co-Chief Negotiators, UFF-FSU