Bargaining Update: Oct 11, 2023

The UFF and BOT teams met Wednesday to discuss the BOT’s Post-Tenure Review (PTR) process proposal.  Progress was made on some issues, but significant differences remain on others.  Here is a brief summary of some key issues … progress and problems:

The BOT accepted some UFF language designed to link PTR ratings to prior annual evaluations and assignments of responsibilities (AORs).  Both sides agree that PTR ratings should not be surprises, but some differences remain on how well the latest BOT proposal (received late Wednesday) addresses this concernThe latest BOT proposal excludes department chairs and equivalent from PTR.  The UFF faculty team wants chairs, etc. to have a chance to earn the as yet unspecified monetary award associated with a PTR rating of meeting or exceeding expectations..  Chairs may seek postponements due to administrative roles, if desired.
The BOT proposal has shifted from saying a favorable rating may involve a monetary reward to saying it will involve a monetary reward.The BOT proposal leaves the aforementioned award unspecified, to be bargained later.  The UFF faculty team proposed a 12% increase in salary.
The BOT proposal now includes clearer language on how eligible faculty members are selected or volunteer to participate in the PTR, and agrees to disclose the process for random selection.The BOT proposal retains language stating that substantiated past disciplinary offenses, for which faculty members may have already been punished, can be considered in the PTR.  This amounts to double jeopardy for a single offense.
The BOT has accepted language recognizing the CBA’s definition of tenure and the right to appeal PTR outcomes via the CBA’s grievance procedure, including neutral arbitration if a recent law barring such arbitration is invalidated, a law that UFF is challenging in the courts, or via the Faculty Senate Grievance Committee.The BOT has rejected language expressly allowing neutral arbitrators to judge the fairness of PTR evaluations and reverse an unfair evaluation, if the recent law barring arbitration is invalidated.
The BOT has accepted the UFF faculty team’s proposed language barring discrimination for political or ideological views, including honoring the non-discrimination policy spelled out in the CBA’s Section 6.2.The BOT’s latest proposal retains BOG language calling for comparisons of FSU faculty with a mythical “average person” in one’s “discipline or unit.”
The BOT accepted a UFF faculty team’s wording change that requires department chairs/school directors to include input from a faculty committee rather than making it optional.The BOT proposal rejects the UFF faculty team’s proposed “reasonable person” test for performance ratings, as well as a UFF proposal to require written justification for final performance ratings.

Although the BOT team addressed some of our concerns in their latest proposed PTR Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), problems remain, as illustrated above.  We are waiting to confirm a date for our next bargaining session. 

In the meantime, we hope you’ll join our faculty union and help protect the very existence of our contract. If we don’t reach 60% membership density, we simply won’t have a contract to defend. Currently, we’re at about 55%, which puts 60% within our reach.  However, in only a week (on October 20) everyone who has not yet switched to e-dues will no longer be a UFF member and will lose their UFF protections. If you need any help at all making this switch, please email us at [email protected].   And, if you’re not a member — please join now. It only takes a minute. Here’s the link:  If we don’t reach 60% membership density, we simply won’t have a contract to defend. 

All the best,

Jack Fiorito, Professor, Management, and Bargaining Team Member, on behalf of

Scott Hannahs, Specialized Faculty, Magnet Lab, and

Jennifer Proffitt, Professor, Communication

Co-Chief Negotiators, UFF-FSU

Bargaining Update September 27, 2023

The UFF and BOT teams met Wednesday to discuss UFF’s proposed changes to the BOT team’s Post-Tenure Review (PTR) process. Our major concerns with the policy include:

·         The performance rating scale—we added language to link the PTR performance rating scale to the FSU annual evaluation ratings.

·         The possibility that a faculty member can receive positive evaluations for the Post-Tenure Review period but still be rated as “Does Not Meet Expectations” or “Unsatisfactory”—we added language to assure that Post-Tenure Reviews reflect annual evaluations.

·         In light of recent legislation, the very real fear that faculty could be evaluated based on their political views—we added language that would prohibit discrimination based on a faculty member’s political, expressive, or ideological viewpoint, or properly disclosed and approved outside activities.

·         The conflation of discipline with evaluations—we deleted language regarding discipline as a consideration in Post-Tenure Review because it is essentially double jeopardy as a faculty member is adjudicated twice for the same “offense.”

·         The firing of faculty members based on Post-Tenure Reviews—the ability to fire faculty based on the provost’s rating of faculty is essentially the end of tenure, so we added language that would allow faculty who receive “Unsatisfactory” to be placed on a Performance Improvement Plan.

·         Due process—we added language that would strengthen due process, allowing faculty members to challenge their Post-Tenure Review rating through the arbitration process.

·         Salary—we added a 12% salary increase for Post-Tenure Review rather than the amorphous “salary increase, one-time bonus, or both.” Faculty deserve to know how much they will receive for completing this unnecessary, work-intensive process that could potentially lead to termination as the policy is currently written, and they should be guaranteed an adequate reward for their accomplishments.

The BOT team addressed some of our concerns in their Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) document that can be found here. The language that they accepted from our proposal is highlighted in yellow in the document, including the language regarding discrimination and references to the Nondiscrimination Article 6.2 as well as the discipline process in Article 16, Disciplinary Action and Job Abandonment, which are welcome improvements to the process.

However, the BOT team did not accept the other changes listed above, stating that they could not change the BOT regulation that the BOT created and adopted (and as we have argued, should have been bargained because it deals with terms and conditions of employment).

We are waiting to confirm a date for our next bargaining session; we plan to propose a counter to the BOT team’s MOA.

In the meantime, we hope you’ll join your faculty union and help protect the very existence of our contract. If we don’t reach 60% membership density, we simply won’t have a contract to defend.

All the best,

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

Co-Chief Negotiators, UFF-FSU

Bargaining Update: September 20, 2023

Dear Colleagues,

Last Wednesday, we began negotiations with the FSU administration on enacting their draft Post-Tenure Review Policy. At that session, they handed us a revised document that made several positive changes from the first-draft version, affording greater due process rights to faculty. 

This coming Wednesday (tomorrow) from 2:00–5:00 at the FSU Training Center (across from the stadium, accessible from southbound Stadium Dr. and from Jackson Bluff), we will return to the table and the UFF will offer more comprehensive suggestions for both clarifying the policy and for protecting faculty rights. We expect to move from discussions of the policy to its impact on the terms and conditions of our employment that are enumerated in our Collective Bargaining Agreement. 

You’re invited to join us (in person or online) as we fight to defend faculty rights. Please contact Arash Fahim at [email protected] for the Zoom link.

And we hope you’ll join your faculty union and help protect the very existence of our contract. If we don’t reach 60% membership density, we simply won’t have a contract to defend.

In solidarity,

Michael Buchler         

Professor of Music Theory

Florida State University College of Music

President, Society for Music Theory

Member, UFF-FSU Bargaining Team

2023: Ratification and Implementation

Dear FSU Colleagues,

I am pleased to announce that faculty voted overwhelmingly, 230-4, for the proposed modifications to our Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).  Thank you to the many of you who were able to vote in the past few days. 

Implementation of the new salary terms is expected to follow this schedule:

We need you NOW!  Collective bargaining is the primary way that our faculty union gives voice to FSU faculty.  Laws passed and signed this spring threaten to curtail that voice.  The new laws include a requirement that at least 60% of faculty must be dues-paying members for our union to retain its representation rights, as well as a ban on payroll dues deduction.  Membership is now available by signing up for direct debit of dues at:

If you are not already a member, please join NOW.  If you are a member but have not yet signed up for direct debit, please contact our Membership Committee for assistance in making the switch (email us at [email protected])

Best regards,

Jack Fiorito, Vice President

UFF-FSU Chapter

Summary of Collective Bargaining Agreement Contract Changes 2023

The next step in the bargaining process is the ratification of the negotiated contract by the faculty. This will be a majority vote to accept the negotiated settlement or reject it and send the bargaining teams back to the table for more negotiations.  The ratification vote will take place June 13 and 14th with times and locations to be announced soon. The complete agreement with details on the various categories in markup format, showing changes, can be found on our web page here.

We are pleased to announce that the UFF and BOT teams settled Article 23, Salaries. While the teams could not agree to the transparency language for Deans’ Merit or a minimum on the Performance increases, we did agree to the largest salary increase we’ve had in recent memory. We would like to thank those who came to the bargaining sessions or participated via Zoom for doing so. It does make a difference!

Promotions12% (1st promotion) / 15% (2nd promotion)
SPI (Sustained Performance Increase)3.00%
Department Merit0.75%
Deans’ Merit0.30%
Market Equity$1,000,000, Divided $800,000 for tenured and tenure-track faculty, $200,000 for specialized faculty
Administrative Discretionary IncreaseUp to 1.00%
Note:  Amounts for Performance, Department Merit, Deans’ Merit, and Administrative Discretionary Increase are expressed as a percent of the salary base for in-unit faculty.  Other percentages refer to the increase in individuals’ salaries. 

Regular bargaining updates can be found at our webpage:

Note that not all categories are awarded to any given faculty member.

SPI raises are awarded to ranked faculty in good standing who have reached the top rank, 7 years after their promotion or last SPI raise.

Performance raises go to all faculty who met or exceeded “FSU’s high expectations” for their 2022 annual evaluation.

Department Merit raises are allocated according to department bylaws which specify criteria and procedures for distribution.  The total amount is the percentage of the total faculty salary rates for that department.

Deans’ Merit is allocated at the sole discretion of the dean.  The total amount is the percentage of the total faculty salary rates for that college/school/unit.

Market Equity raises are allocated to librarians, tenure track, teaching and research faculty who are below the national average salary for their discipline and rank at public universities; this is adjusted for time in rank, previous merit raises, and has a cap and floor amounts.

Administrative Discretionary Increases are awarded by the deans if funds are available and for various awards, counter-offers, increase duties, and extraordinary service to FSU.

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.

Your UFF-FSU Bargaining Team,

Scott Hannahs, Specialized Faculty, Magnet Lab, Co-Chief Negotiator
Jennifer Proffitt, Professor, Communication, Co-Chief Negotiator
Brian Arsenault, Specialized Faculty, University Libraries
Michael Buchler, Professor, College of Music
Arash Fahim, Associate Professor, Mathematics
Jack Fiorito, Professor, Management
Robin Goodman, Professor, English

Matthew Lata, Professor College of Music, President UFF-FSU