Category: Bargaining News

The teams met Wednesday to present and discuss articles, but the most contentious issue was salaries. The BOT team presented their latest offer on Article 23 (Salaries), and the UFF team countered:

While we were pleased to see the BOT team finally included some nominal funding for market equity raises, overall, the BOT team only increased their offer by 0.14% of the faculty salary base (they moved 0.25% from Dean’s Merit and added it to Performance; the 0.14% represents the addition of Market Equity).

After the UFF team presented a counteroffer, the BOT team scolded us, declaring that they started with “a robust number” (please see the BOT’s first offer here) and that the two teams were not going to meet in the middle of the UFF team’s original proposal and the BOT team’s original counteroffer. The BOT team also stated that their offer is the most “generous” offer that they have made in recent years. Well, yes, it is better than the zero offered for Performance and other raises for the last two years, which is why faculty expect and deserve a higher salary proposal. The BOT team once again made it clear that their priority is Dean’s Merit, and we made it clear that Performance and Market Equity raises are the faculty’s priorities (as expressed in the spring 2022 UFF-FSU faculty poll). As one of the 30-plus faculty members on the Zoom call stated regarding the BOT’s focus on Dean’s Merit, “The idea is to reward the ‘superstars’ and leave the rest of us scrambling for crumbs.” Another faculty member noted, “EVERYONE experiences increases in cost of living. Picking and choosing is not appropriate.”

As noted in the last bargaining update, President McCullough and the Board of Trustees have stated publicly that retention is important. The focus on Dean’s Merit suggests that only certain faculty members are worth retaining. Some faculty members will benefit from the discretionary nature of Dean’s Merit while others will not as the administration picks winners and (mostly) losers. In the most recent two years in which Department Merit and Dean’s Merit were offered (2017 and 2018), roughly 80% of faculty received Department Merit while only about 26% received Dean’s Merit. Without criteria, we don’t know how your dean determined that one faculty member is more deserving than another. We have warned the administration that we are about to witness the Great Resignation firsthand, as faculty across campus are updating their resumes and CVs to search for other positions. Without meaningful Performance raises, retention becomes much more challenging, and compression and inversion become more difficult to overcome.

The BOT team said that they are nearing their salary limit, so now is the time for faculty to show that they want a more meaningful salary offer by attending the next bargaining session scheduled for Wednesday, July 27, from 2-5 (information regarding location can be found below). If it is at all possible, please attend in person and encourage your colleagues to attend in person as well. Having faculty in the room is an effective and visible way to support the UFF team’s position. Having faculty members attend via Zoom also helps because we do let them know how many faculty attend virtually, but your physical presence sends a powerful message that we are all in this together.

A big thank you to the faculty who have attended in person and virtually these last few weeks. Please continue to do so!

Another way to show the BOT team that a more meaningful salary offer is needed is by signing the petition that will be sent out Monday in a separate email. Please consider signing it and encouraging your colleagues to sign it as well. We are asking the administration to propose meaningful Performance raises that demonstrate that they value all faculty members who meet or exceed “FSU’s High Expectations” (CBA Article 10.3).

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 proposed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to ensure that these increases become effective for those faculty in August. The BOT added a “poison pill”—a provision that would also reinstate the BOT’s now-expired authority to grant discretionary raises to individuals. The ability to withhold this authority from the BOT—and your visible support–are the most significant leverage the UFF faculty team holds in these negotiations.  We offered the MOA once again without the “poison pill” and hope that the BOT team will reconsider so that faculty will receive these raises that they have earned and deserve on time.

The BOT team presented a counteroffer for Article 12 (Non-Reappointment). We appear to be close to an agreement, but the sticking point is the amount of notice a faculty member on “soft money” who is not on a multi-year contract should receive if they are not being reappointed. We presented a counter proposing longer notice, and we eagerly await the BOT’s response.

The UFF team’s counter to Article 19 (Conflict of Interest/Outside Activity) included time limits for reporting and notification and a provision requiring clear and convincing evidence if discipline is beyond a letter of reprimand. The BOT countered without a specific time frame for notifying a faculty member that there will be an investigation and without the clear and convincing evidence provision. The BOT team noted that the just cause provision in Article 16 (Disciplinary Action and Job Abandonment) already provides a procedure for disciplinary action, but that they would consider a time frame for notification that is longer than the one week that we had proposed.

As noted, the next bargaining session is scheduled for Wed., July 27 from 2:00-5:00. Our union’s efforts at the bargaining table are most effective when faculty support is evident, so if you care about salaries, please come! 

Bargaining sessions are open to all faculty. Meetings are face-to-face at the FSU Training Center (493 Stadium Drive).  If you would like to attend remotely, please contact Arash Fahim <[email protected]> to receive the Zoom link. (Alternatively, if you retained a previous bargaining Zoom link, it will still work.)

Regular 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! There has never been a more important time for us to stand together.  https://uff-fsu.org/wp/join/

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/

Dear Colleagues,

The teams met Wednesday for a busy session that brought in almost 70 faculty attendees via
Zoom, along with a handful in the room. It was a great turnout, which we made a point of
announcing to the BOT team.

We began with the UFF’s counter-offer on Article 23, Salaries, where we proposed 7% in
Performance Raises, 2.5% in Department Merit, $2 million in Market Equity, 0% Deans Merit,
and 0.5% ADI. The BOT countered:

(Both teams 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.)

The UFF team pointed out that this offer is destructive to faculty morale and that it means faculty
are taking a pay cut: Since our last raise, in 2019, inflation has increased 14%. The BOT’s
response? “Are you saying that inflation is the University’s fault?” Talk about disingenuous.

We had quite a to-do about how the BOT proposes allocating three times more money to Dean’s
merit than to Departmental merit, with the UFF arguing that faculty have created departmental
merit criteria, while deans are held to no criteria. They can award it to whomever they believe
deserves it. They can consider the department’s merit evaluation—or not. They can consider
chairs’ recommendations—or not. They can consult their own internal biases—or not. No! No!,
the BOT team demurred, suggesting deans always make reasonable determinations that best
serve the College by using their own criteria. We suggested that if deans are held to actual
criteria in awarding merit the way departments are, it would behoove them to publicize that fact
to reassure faculty about the possibility of capriciousness. In any event, said the BOT team, this
is money going into faculty members’ pockets. We asked for the number of faculty given these
awards the last time it was awarded and will keep you posted.

They didn’t even bother to create a row for Market Equity increases, the raises designed to slow
compression and inversion. The year 2017-18 is the last time we saw funding in this category,
which is a problem because it needs continual infusions to be effective.

But a different plan for pleasing faculty is afoot. The BOT Team noted that the President was
behind a Memorandum of Agreement that grants 12-month faculty an extra vacation day
during the next calendar year. We signed: An extra day for some faculty is a gain.

We now turn to other articles. The UFF presented Article 17 (Leaves), where we modified our
proposal from two paid family leaves to one. The BOT was uninterested, but they didn’t blow us
off when we asked if it was worth our while to instead propose two paid parental leaves. Stay
tuned.

The teams tentatively agreed to a new Article 20 (Grievances) that made small changes to the
language about selecting an arbitration panel.

The UFF presented Article 8 (Appointment), where we struck the sections seeking to reduce the
length of employment contracts of Specialized Faculty from four years to three and made other
small changes. The BOT countered with just a small word change. Since then, we also see the
need for another small word change that we’ll fix next time. It seems that the teams are close to
agreement.

Next up was UFF’s counter on Article 12 (Non-Reappointment), where we continued to try to
change the length of notice for faculty on “soft money” and where we also continued to push for
language saying that a non-renewal must be for “good and sufficient reason.” No dice. The
BOT’s counter indicated that they wanted to continue the present system (which can be called
modified employment-at-will).

The day’s final article was the UFF’s proposal on Article 19 (Conflict of Interest/Outside
Activity), where we struck the notion of faculty being subject to discipline for “pursuing” a
consensual sexual relationship with an undergraduate. The “pursuing” language makes this
worryingly vague. We also reinserted language that allows consensual sexual relationships
between consenting graduate students and faculty in the same department as long as no
supervisory or evaluative relationship exists. We also seek language protecting faculty by
limiting reports of violations to six months after the most recent sexual encounter and by
requiring that evidence meet the “clear and convincing” burden of proof.

The next bargaining session is scheduled for Wed., June 29 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 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 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