Author: Kathleen Krach

The bargaining teams met Wednesday and made great progress on one article, discussed an appendix that still needs a bit of work, heard the first Salaries proposal, and tentatively agreed to another article.   

In what the UFF team considers great news, the teams are close to agreement regarding Article 18 (Inventions and Works).  The BOT’s proposal changes the term “Appreciable University Support” to “Appreciable University Resources,” which has the crucial effect of removing the possibility that salary could fall in the category.  It also drops the notion that independent efforts need to fall outside a faculty member’s institutional expertise in order for the University to not claim a financial interest, which is a major gain over existing language.   

Despite having resolved differences on this article, the BOT wants to postpone a tentative agreement until after the teams have carefully reviewed the latest BOT proposal and considered related provisions such as Article 19 (Conflict of Interest/Outside Activity).  We look forward to seeing their next Article 19 proposal and continuing the conversation. 

There is still a bit of disagreement about Appendix K, particularly the notion that faculty must disclose as a Reportable Activity the financial interest of a relative who has at least a $5,000 interest in a publicly-traded company related to the faculty member’s institutional expertise.  If you’re a chemist, do you know if your nieces and nephews have stock in Pfizer?  You’d better!  We plan on presenting a counter-proposal at our next session.

The UFF presented a proposal for Article 23 (Salaries) that specifies the following:  

• Performance Increases of 8.3% to all faculty employed since fall 2021 who achieved at least “meets FSU’s high expectations” in their recent evaluation 
• Departmental merit (with the same eligibility as above) of 2.5% of the faculty salary base 
• Zero “Deans’ merit” 
• Market Equity increases of 2% of the faculty salary base (with a cap of $5,000 for tenured or tenure-track faculty and $2,500 for specialized faculty) 
• Administrative Discretionary Increase pool amount of 0.5% of the faculty salary base 
• Promotion increases continued at the current rates of 12% for promotion to the second rank and 15% to the highest rank 
• Sustained Performance Increases of 3% at the seventh year in the top rank and every seven years thereafter (as long as they consistently have “met FSU’s high expectations”) 

The session concluded with signing a tentative agreement on Article 29 (Amendment and Duration), which specifies that negotiations for the next 3-year contract begin in the spring of 2025 and that negotiations for the two intermediate contracts begin on April 1 of each year.   

The next bargaining session is scheduled for Wed., June 1, 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 

The bargaining teams met Wednesday and tentatively agreed to four articles or appendices about tenure and promotion and another about Performance Evaluations (Article 10), and we presented the UFF’s team’s latest offer on Article 19 (Conflict of Interest/Outside Activity).

The BOT came to the table with two articles and two appendices that modestly change procedures for promotion and tenure, and after a bit of word-smithing, the teams signed tentative agreements on Article 14 (Promotion), Article 15 (Tenure), Appendix I (the retitled Criteria and Procedures for Promotion and Tenure for Tenured and Tenure-Earning Faculty), and Appendix J (Criteria and Procedures for Promotion of Specialized Faculty).  

In general, these changes incorporate current practices into the CBA.  Hence, departments may now convene different promotion committees for tenured/tenure-earning and specialized faculty, and all departmental promotion committees must now be elected. The teams added new honorific titles for specialized faculty:  Assistant Clinical Professor, Associate Clinical Professor, and Clinical Professor.  Regarding tenured faculty, the teams removed both the stipulation that time in rank as an Associate is “normally five years” and the “early promotion” designation. Regarding faculty not yet tenured, new language expands the list of reasons (which had centered on family) for extending the tenure clock to include the following: “lack of access to necessary facilities, equipment or other resources for an extended period of time due to natural disasters, health epidemics/pandemics, environmental issues, or other factors.”  

We also signed a tentative agreement on Article 10 (Performance Evaluations). The changes clean up outdated language and clarify that the documents included in promotion folders are “summary forms, narratives, optional responses, and letters of progress towards promotion.”  

Both teams were pleased with these changes and with the collaborative spirit we embodied as we tinkered with word-choice.   

The UFF then presented its latest proposal on Article 19 (Conflict of Interest/Outside Activity). We had already presented the first part of the article on May 4 and left that portion largely unchanged.  For the section on consensual sexual relationships with students, we agreed to the BOT’s introductory language highlighting how such relationships can lead to accusations of sexual misconduct, but we again struck their language forbidding “romantic relationships” as being ill-conceived and undefined, and we continue to allow consensual relationships as long as the student and faculty member are in different departments and as long as the faculty member has no supervisory or evaluative role. While we do not countenance sexual misconduct and strongly support the CBA provisions that prohibit it and that sanction faculty who engage in it, the relationships described in Article 19 are consensual and are between people in different departments who have no supervisory or evaluative connection.  The BOT’s proposed language would mean that in the event that an undergraduate student and a faculty member met at a community meeting and began a relationship—either a romantic one (at least according to one party!) or a sexual one—the faculty member would be subject to discipline, even though the FSU connection was peripheral. Such a situation is not far-fetched in an institution comprising more than 32,000 undergraduates and about 2,000 faculty.  That’s the size of a small city and means the odds are high that some faculty will face discipline for relationships that are mutual and non-exploitative.  

At the end of the meeting, the BOT team posed some questions about the UFF’s proposal of last week regarding Article 22 (Sabbaticals and Professional Development leave), which led us to clarify our intent. 

The next bargaining session is scheduled for Wed., May 25, 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 

The bargaining teams met last Wednesday to entertain two counter-proposals from the BOT and one proposal and one counter-proposal from the UFF. 

The big news is that we reached a Tentative Agreement on Article 21 (Other Faculty Rights). This is a big win for faculty, as it puts in place procedures to establish baselines for building safety.  The language guarantees regular inspections, regular filter replacement, radon inspections (and remediation, if needed), and mold inspections (and remediation, if needed).  We also agreed to language on another faculty right:  faculty who receive a letter of counsel may now attach a response. We have every hope that our tentative agreements will become part of our next CBA, but wanted to point out that they are, in fact, tentative. 

The UFF responded to the BOT proposal on Article 10 (Performance Evaluations), where we generally agreed with the BOT’s suggested changes, which were mostly about clearing up outdated language.  We also proposed language that clarifies which evaluation documents are to be included in promotion folders, such that instead of “history of annual evaluation” we spell out “summary forms, narratives, optional responses, and letters of progress towards promotion.”   

The two teams have significant disagreements about the BOT’s counter-proposal for Article 18 (Inventions and Works).  The first problem is defining “appreciable University support.” In a prior proposal, the BOT had added “salary for research assignment” as constituting such support, which we found unacceptable because it means that an invention worked on during weekends and evenings with no University support would be owned by the University. It was also completely new language, and a big grab.  Thus, our prior counterproposal had explicitly named “salaries” as an example of what is not appreciable University support.  Advance to Wednesday’s session, and we see the University struck our “salaries” exclusion, which means that salaries could or could not be considered appreciable support.  When questioned, the BOT team was clear that since some faculty are paid a salary to conduct research, the University would have an interest in that research, an interest it could choose to pursue or not, at its discretion.  We countered with a sentence that explicitly precludes this possibility: “Salary, unless paid specifically to support the development of a work or invention, shall not be considered appreciable University support for purposes of this Article.”   

The other point of contention in the BOT proposal is the BOT’s continued insistence on including language specifying that inventions falling within the faculty member’s “institutional expertise” are a University-supported effort, and thus any proceeds from them must be shared with the University.  Yet again, our counter strikes the “institutional expertise” stipulation as being unduly restrictive and hard to define. 

The day’s final article was the UFF’s proposal on Article 22 (Sabbatical and Professional Development Leave), where we proposed a non-competitive sabbatical-accrual system similar to the one the California University system has used for years, in which faculty’s qualifying service earns them a certain amount of pay for a semester or year, to be used at their discretion (see table in the linked article).  We also added a provision for Professional Development Leave that allows non-instructional faculty to take the leave in smaller increments over the course of two years, since many librarians and research faculty find it difficult to take a full semester away from their duties and thus don’t apply.   

At the conclusion of the session, the BOT team informed us that they would not consider our proposal of last week on Article 19 (Conflict of Interest) regarding reportable and non-reportable activity until it was part of a complete proposal that also addresses their language forbidding consensual romantic and sexual relationships between faculty and undergraduate students.   

The next bargaining session is scheduled for Wed., May18, 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 

Dear Colleagues,  

The bargaining teams met last Wednesday to entertain two counter-proposals from the BOT and to hear the UFF response to last week’s verbal offer, along with the presentation of another new proposal.   

We first turned to the BOT’s counter-proposal on Article 18 (Inventions and Works). The BOT accepted several of the changes from our last proposal (including removing salary from the definition of “appreciable University support) but retained language specifying that inventions falling within the faculty member’s “field of expertise” are a University-supported effort and thus any proceeds from them must be shared with the University. We had earlier proposed striking the “field of expertise” stipulation as being unduly restrictive and hard to define. The BOT proposal also rejected the UFF-proposed 50/50 division of proceeds in favor of retaining the existing 60/40 split (60% for the University and 40% for the inventor).  

The second BOT counter proposal we discussed was for Article 19 (Conflict of Interest), and the teams were joined by Robyn Blank, FSU’s Chief Compliance Officer.  The proposal sought to define “field of expertise” (which also figures prominently in Article 18) by identifying it as the basis of the faculty member’s employment, which “generally means as a grouping of courses or research areas that share common or vocational preparation which are typically defined by a degree or degrees.” This isn’t terribly clear to us, but we’ll work it out as negotiations continue. We are a bit worried about existing contract language that we removed and the BOT re-inserted that defines it as a conflict of interest when the private interests of the faculty member conflict with the public interests of the University, as it is unclear what is meant by the University’s public interest.  The BOT team said that Article 5 (Academic Freedom) offers protection for free speech, which is the UFF worry, and our counter-proposal may include references to that protection.  We also spent quite a bit of time discussing Appendix K, which itemizes reportable and non-reportable activity.  There are points of disagreement remaining, and we look forward to working through them. 

Article 19 is also where language appears about consensual sexual relationships with students, and the BOT’s new language allows such relationships with graduate students, as long as they are in a different department and no supervisory or evaluative relationship exists, but blanketly prohibits them with undergraduates, even when they are in a different department and there is no supervisory or evaluative component. It seems that our arguments about how impossible it is to define a “romantic relationship” fell on deaf ears:  their language continues to include romantic relationships. They accepted our language that creates a carve-out for pre-existing relationships and allows the Provost to create exemptions on a case-by-case basis.   

It was the UFF’s turn next, and we began by saying that while we were very pleased that the BOT was willing to drop the idea of reducing the 4-year contracts for some Specialized Faculty (Article 8), we were not yet ready to trade it for the article they would like us to drop (Article 12).  It’s too soon to strike a deal, as we still need to hear back on the many proposals we have outstanding. 

The UFF presented an initial proposal on Article 22 Sabbatical and Professional Development Leave.  Although the basic thrust of the proposal was clear—to move toward a University of California-style plan where faculty earn credits toward non-competitive leaves over time—discussion revealed some inconsistencies that the UFF team needs to resolve. 

The session concluded with UFF presenting a proposal on Article 24 (Benefits) that ensconces the Scholarship Program for Dependents and Spouses into the CBA.  It has been agreed to as a pilot program in an MOU for four years now, and it seems high time to make it permanent.  Our proposal does that and also removes the cap on funds allocated to the program.   

The next bargaining session is scheduled for Wed., May 4, from 1:00-4:00.  Please note the earlier-than-usual start time (to accommodate a UFF request).  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