Author: Scott Hannahs

UFF-FSU and Board of Trustees Bargaining Update April 8, 2018

The UFF-FSU faculty team and the BOT exchanged proposals with few questions and little discussion of issues.  The UFF has rejected most of the changes to appointments proposed by the BOT.  The BOT proposals for changing definitions of a “break in service” and “continuous service” continue to be refined to have precise meaning.

The UFF presented a proposal on extending paid leave for Family Medical Leave issues to those few faculty not covered by the federal Family Medical Leave Act.  We presented a few cases where this would be helpful for faculty having a difficult period in their career.

In terms of salary the following offers were exchanged.

The BOT updated with an increase overall by about 0.25%, the administration salary offer was in the following amounts:

Departmental Merit:                                                    0.4%   Increase from 0.25%
Deans’ Merit:                                                                0.2%   Increase from 0.1%
Market Equity:                                                              0
Performance (cost of living):                                       0
Administrative Discretionary Increases (ADI):       Up to 1%

The BOT suggested that Deans’ merit should be half that of the departmental merit, a larger percentage than the original offer.  Other categories (Promotion, Sustained Performance and ADI) remained the same as in previous years.

The UFF team was dismayed to see no real commitment to Performance and Market Equity categories.  The annual UFF survey indicated the importance of these categories to the faculty.  This is particularly galling in view of the rise in rankings for FSU primarily due to faculty efforts and performance.  The UFF questioned BOT statements about how tight money is in view of the upbeat reports from the administration.

The UFF faculty team countered with an overall reduction of about 2 percentage points in its offer relative to its previous offer:

Departmental Merit:                 1.5%                        Decrease from 2%
Deans’ Merit:                             0%                           No change
Market Equity:                           $1.5 million            Decrease from $2 million
In lieu of ME                              0.25%                      Increase from 0% (some SF only)
Performance:                            2.2%                         Decrease from 2.5%
ADI:                                           Up to 0.5%               No change

We agreed to the status quo proposed amounts for Promotions and Sustained Performance.

The next bargaining session will be Wednesday 4/11 at 2PM at the FSU Training Center.  All faculty members are welcome to attend and observe.

Your UFF-FSU Bargaining Team

Co-Chief Negotiators

Scott Hannahs <[email protected]>, Irene Padavic <[email protected]>

The BOT and the UFF-FSU teams met the last two Wednesdays to begin bargaining over the Salaries article and to continue discussing the other four open articles.

Regarding salaries, the BOT team proposed the following amounts:

Departmental Merit:                 0.25%

Deans’ Merit:                              0.10%

Market Equity:                            0

Performance (cost of living)     0

Their proposal for Administrative Discretion Raises (for increased duties, extraordinary accomplishments, counteroffers, and certain other reasons, at the discretion of the Administration) would be limited to no more than 1% of the faculty salary base.

They proposed no change from previous years in two other categories: Promotion raises of 12% (when promoted into the second rank) and 15% (into the third rank) and 3% directed to Sustained Performance Increases (which go to faculty in the top rank after each seven year period of satisfactory performance in that rank).

The UFF faculty team was surprised by the complete lack of funding for Performance and Market Equity increases and by the pitiful amount proposed for Departmental Merit.  We were also gobsmacked that the BOT team is seeking to allocate almost 30% of merit funds to deans to distribute rather than allocating all merit money to departments to distribute.

The BOT team’s response to our claim that this salary proposal was laughable was that the budget is extraordinarily tight this year.

The UFF countered with this proposal:

Departmental Merit:     2.0%

Deans’ Merit:                  0

Market Equity:               $2 million

Performance:                  2.5%

ADI:                                   0.5%

We have no objection to their proposed amounts for Promotions and Sustained Performance.

The logic behind the UFF counter-proposal stems from several considerations.  Faculty responses to the Spring, 2018, poll showed that when asked to pick their top priority, 47% chose “keeping up with the cost of living,” 27% chose “correcting existing salary inequities” and 24% chose “recent meritorious job performance.”  Thus, our Performance amount takes into account the rate of inflation of about 2.2%, and we propose reasonable amounts in the Market Equity and Departmental Merit categories.  Increasing inequality was a major concern for us.  We pointed out that the BOT plan to fund neither cost of living nor market equity insured that compression and inversion are guaranteed to worsen for current faculty. The many new faculty being hired at market rate will be under-market in short order and likely to consider their other options (as will current faculty).  We went on to explain that their proposal for Departmental Merit is flat-out demoralizing.  To be rewarded for our hard work and success in teaching, research, and service with a mere one-quarter-of-one-percent (just one-fifth the amount allocated last year) makes a mockery of the concept of reward for meritorious performance.  As for our zeroing out Deans’ Merit, we explained that since Deans are in a better position than most to appreciate the University’s constrained resources, they should be happy to forego this money and to allocate it to departments’ judgments.  Indeed, we said, they should respond to the claimed need for belt-tightening by refusing raises themselves.

The BOT team prefaced their salary offer by noting that they only have about a third as much “new money” as last year. We reminded them that the University has other available resources to fund faculty pay.

As for the other open articles, we made some progress on Article 32 (Definitions), discussing possible wording for “Base Salary” and for “Leaves of Absence.”

Bargaining resumes this week on Wednesday, April 4, from 2:00-5:00 at the FSU Training Center.  Faculty members are welcome.

The key to a strong Collective Bargaining Agreement is a strong membership base, so if you are not a member, please join!  https://uff-fsu.org/wp/join/

All best,

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

The BOT and the UFF teams met last Wednesday for the first bargaining session of the year. After agreeing to ground rules, the teams laid out their proposals.  Each team is allowed to reopen two in addition to Article 23 Salaries.

The UFF-FSU reopened Article 17 Leaves and Article 24 Benefits.  We proposed that instead of one paid leave of up to six months to cover the birth or adoption of a child, Article 17 should be expanded to allow faculty two six-month leaves in order to care for family members (not necessarily children).  We proposed that Article 24 provide an increase in paid life insurance, a floor under insurance and retirement benefits, tuition reimbursement for dependents, and a transportation allowance.

The BOT reopened Article 8 Appointment and Article 32 Definitions.  They put forward two proposals regarding Article 8:  that departments be allowed to place a cap on summer teaching pay and that the length of Specialized Faculty contracts for top-rank SF be shortened by a year, thereby allowing one year’s less notice for non-reappointment.  In regard to Article 32, they proposed narrowing the definition of “continuous service,” a definition that had been crucial in an arbitration case the UFF-FSU recently won for a UFF member.

Bargaining resumes this week on Wednesday, March 7, at 2:00 in the FSU Training Center.  Faculty members are welcome.

The key to a strong Collective Bargaining Agreement is a strong membership base, so if you are not a member, please join!  https://uff-fsu.org/wp/join/

All best,

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