Category: Bargaining News

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 

Dear Colleagues,  

The bargaining teams met last Wednesday to entertain two counter-proposals and one new proposal from the UFF team and a verbal proposal for a trade-off on two articles from the BOT team.  

The UFF began with a counter-proposal for Article 18 (Inventions and Works). This version removes salary as an element of the definition of “appreciable University support,” which is something the BOT team is seeking to insert. Salaries represent payment for work performed and shouldn’t be a consideration in determining whether the University owns a work or invention.  If it were, then what’s the incentive for bothering to apply for a patent or copyright?  This version made a concession by giving the University more time to inform the faculty member that it is seeking an interest in the work or to assert its interest in an invention. It also strikes language that defines an “independent effort” (in the case of inventions) as needing to be outside the faculty member’s field of expertise.  Finally, it changes the division of proceeds for  inventions owned by the University, such that the faculty member splits the proceeds 50/50 with the University, up from 40/60 in favor of the University. 

Then the UFF turned to its counter-proposal on Article 19 (Conflict of Interest).  The proposal added “reportable outside activity” as a defined category and made changes to the related Appendix the BOT had presented the previous week that itemizes reportable and non-reportable activity.  Our proposal also added the word “reportable” before most usages of “outside activity” to increase clarity. The topic turned to consensual sexual relationships with students, and the UFF offered a counter-proposal that categorizes as a conflict of interest sexual relationships that occur when the faculty member and student are in the same department or when a faculty member has supervisory or evaluative authority over a student in a different department.  It also allows the Provost to create an exemption and creates a carve-out for pre-existing relationships.  The teams engaged in a vigorous back-and-forth about why the UFF is adamant about not forbidding “romantic relationships.” The arguments were not new:  the UFF pointed out that defining romance is a fools’ errand and that the BOT’s attempts have fallen short, and moreover, what one party considers indicative of romance—and hence worthy of discipline—the other party may not.  The BOT pointed out that it wants to get ahead of any situation before it becomes a problem, and thus declaring romance off limits will reduce the chances of a relationship becoming harassment. The UFF team said that it, too, wants to reduce or eliminate harassment but that the BOT team is conflating consensual relationships—the ones covered in this Article—with ones that are not—and which are already covered in Article 6.   

The UFF next presented a proposal for Article 21 (Other Faculty Rights) that calls for the regular inspection of campus buildings, the installation and replacement as needed of high-efficiency filters, radon inspections and remediation, and mold/biological hazard inspections and remediation.  It also includes a sentence that permits a faculty member who is given a letter of counsel an opportunity to attach a response. 

The BOT team then offered a verbal proposal that the UFF team drop its proposal on Article 12 (Non-reappointment), where the UFF was seeking clearer language and a modified version of just-cause for non-renewal, in exchange for the BOT dropping its proposal on Article 8 (Appointments), where it was seeking to reduce the 4-year contracts for Specialized Faculty in the top rank. The UFF team will consider the deal.  

The next bargaining session is scheduled for this Wed., April 20, 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.  

Regular 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 

Bargaining last Wednesday was a flurry of activity, with six proposals passed back and forth.  If you open the links below, be aware that the BOT team puts their counter-proposal changes in yellow.  

 The teams reached their first tentative agreement, on Article 5 (Academic Freedom), which now specifies that academic freedom pertains not only to matters outside faculty members’ area of scholarly interest but to those within it, as well.  It also adds “protected free speech” as one of the freedoms faculty members enjoy.  

The BOT presented a revised proposal of Article 19 (Conflict of Interest) which was the same as their previous one except that it includes an appendix itemizing reportable and non-reportable activity.  The UFF likes the specificity of an appendix and its counter-proposal will include one.  

The BOT also presented a counter-proposal on Article 18 (Inventions and Works) that accepts some of the UFF’s proposals but made changes that strike the UFF as unworkable in their present form, such as seeming to define “appreciable University support” to include salary, past and present.  

The UFF presented a counter-proposal on Article 8 (Appointments) that rejected the BOT’s proposal to reducethe 4-year contracts for Specialized Faculty in the top rank to 3 years and to provide for annual contract renewal.  Contract length is a bright-line issue for us.  When we originally negotiated the provisions covering specialized faculty appointments, the teams had made a deal:  the UFF would agree to a much more rigorous promotion process in exchange for lengthier contracts.  The rigorous promotion process ensures that faculty who reach the top have earned it, and thus it stands to reason that they should have more secure contracts.  It’s unclear why this state of affairs should change.   

The UFF also presented its Article 17 (Leaves) proposal, which turns the existing “paid parental leave” into “paid family leave” and specifies that a faculty member can use it twice in a career instead of just once.  The UFF believes that family-friendliness spans the life course; while some faculty will use paid family leave for birth or adoption, as they do now, others will find it useful for caring for a different relative, perhaps a parent.  And we believe that having the option twice over the course of a career is reasonable. 

The UFF also opened Article 12 (Non-reappointment) to improve clarity and to propose a modified version of just-cause for non-renewal. What that means is that for faculty without tenure, instead of the current practice of offering a vague reason, such as “the best interests of the University” or “the University is moving in a different direction,” the University would have to “provide enough specificity to allow a neutral reader to determine whether the faculty member was non-reappointed for good and sufficient reason.” Our goal in including such language is that it will reduce non-reappointments for arbitrary reasons.  

The next bargaining session is scheduled for this Wed., April 13, from 12:45-2:45.  Please note the earlier-than-usual time.  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.  

Regular 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,  

Bargaining season is upon us, and the BOT and UFF teams met on Wednesday to begin exchanging proposals. The teams presented two articles each. 

The first one on the table was UFF-FSU’s expansion of language in Article 5 (Academic Freedom), where we tightened up language that clarifies that academic freedom principles apply to faculty in matters inside their area of scholarly expertise, not just outside it.   

The BOT team proposed changes to Article 8 (Appointments), in particular, reducing the 4-year contracts for Specialized Faculty in the top rank to 3 years and providing for annual contract renewal. We note that this group—faculty in the top SF rank—typically have been at FSU for at least 10 years and have been promoted twice.  Perhaps this record of solid performance for many years deserves the courtesy of 4-year contracts and a 2-year renewal period!  It has worked well for many years. The BOT also proposed some other small changes to this article. 

The UFF team was up next and presented a proposal on Article 18 (Inventions and Works).  Most of our changes seem non-controversial, in that they simply improve the article’s organizational structure (for example, by putting the definition of “University Support” at the beginning rather than embedded in a subsection).  A substantive change involves removing the distinction between the treatment of “works” and “inventions” owned by the University.  Thus, whereas in the current contract a faculty member who creates a work receives 50% of the royalties and a faculty member who creates an invention receives 40% (after the first $10,000), under this proposal both would receive 60%. We pointed out that the current distribution system leaves many faculty feeling disincentivized.  

The final article was the BOT’s proposal for Article 19 (Conflict of Interest), which covers two substantive areas.  The first is reporting outside activities and the meaning of “conflict of interest.” It may be a bit early to report on their proposal, as the words they proposed turned out to not be what they meant.  For example, when we balked at the requirement for faculty to reveal their “financial interests,” which “includes anything of value other than that provided directly by the University,” saying that our retirement-account dividends weren’t the University’s business, it turns out that they didn’t mean that at all. Nor does the requirement to report “a description of the item of value and the name of the entity or the individual providing the item of value” really mean that a faculty member who also acts as a counselor must reveal the names of clients. More to come once we gain clarity.  

More worrisome at this point is their proposed language defining conflict of interest:  “any situation in which regard for a private interest of the faculty member tends to lead to disregard of a public duty or the public interests of the University.”  To the BOT’s credit, they removed current language that includes “the State of Florida” in that list, but we are troubled by the blurriness of “tends to,” which seems to bear no relation to any actual action a faculty member engages in.  

The second substantive area of the Conflict of Interest article involves consensual sexual relationships with students.  The BOT proposes striking most of the language governing these relationships (e.g., the requirement to end any situation involving supervision/evaluation and the requirement to disclose the relationship to a supervisor) and replacing it with a blanket prohibition against “sexual or romantic advances” and “sexual or romantic relationships.”  

What is the definition of a romantic relationship?  The BOT proposes this: “Intimate associations primarily characterized by the expectation of affectional involvement and/or demonstrates the desire to engage in sexualized relations whether emotional or physical.” Even if you force the sentence to parse by changing “demonstrates” to “the demonstration of,” the problems with the sentence loom large.  Most disturbing is the fact that a relationship is made up of two people, but this language is about a relationship, not a person.  What if one party (say a student) believes the other is engaged in “affectional involvement” but the other party (say a faculty member) feels nothing of the sort and is not even aware that a possible emotional engagement in the air?  Presumably the party who is not exquisitely attuned to the other party’s fantasy life will be disciplined, up to and including termination.  

We explained that we are not minimizing the damage caused by sexual harassment; indeed, we find the practice abhorrent and strongly support the provisions in Article 6 (nondiscrimination) that prohibit it and sanction faculty who engage in it.  But the relationships described in Article 19 are consensual and could be between people in different departments who have no supervisory or evaluative relationship within FSU.   

Despite disagreements, the meeting was cordial.  Indeed, an impartial observer might even characterize it as having elements of affectional involvement.  

The next bargaining session is scheduled for Wed., March 30, 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), and we were pleased that faculty showed up at the session. About a dozen faculty attended via Zoom instead and said it worked well.  If you would like to attend remotely please respond to this message and we’ll send you the Zoom link.  

Regular 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 next step is to ratify the Collective Bargaining Agreement. You will soon receive and email with voting instructions. A copy of the entire contract with changes is here for viewing.