The FSU Board of Trustees (BOT) team and the UFF-FSU team, along with 21 faculty visitors, met on Wednesday for a discussion of Layoff and Recall, Tapered Employment, and the Tuition Scholarship for Dependents/Spouses.  

Before the meeting, the BOT team let us know they were pulling their last Layoffs proposal to work on it more, so the UFF took that opportunity to submit a newer version of ours for them to respond to.  We are trying to hasten bargaining, as we know faculty are worried about layoffs and would like to see a resolution.  Our new Layoff proposal offers a definition of “Layoff unit” similar to the existing contract language, and the teams engaged in a thoughtful discussion of “areas” and “programs” and will work together to clarify this crucial language. 

The BOT put the kibosh on the UFF’s Tapered Employment proposal that had sought to enhance the financial position of faculty over 60 working less than full-time.  They stood by their counter proposal, which offers no advantages over what is already available.

We have good news to report!  The BOT countered a UFF Benefits proposal with a Memorandum of Understanding about the Tuition Scholarship for Dependents/Spouses.  This counter accepted our proposal to allow the scholarship to extend to spouses (before it had only been children) and to include graduate credit hours (before it had been only undergraduate). This is an important family-friendly benefit, and we are eager to sign (with small alterations).  We’re withholding flat-out enthusiasm, however, just in case the BOT seeks to link implementation to unpalatable changes in other articles on the table. 

The FSU Board of Trustees (BOT) team and the UFF-FSU team, along with 20 faculty visitors, met on Wednesday for a discussion that centered on the BOT’s response to our counterproposal on Layoff and Recall. Because of multiple markups from two teams, it is a bit hard to read, but the yellow highlights identify what the BOT team has newly added.

The BOT introduced their proposal by reiterating their stance that they did not open the Layoff article because they intended to act on it.  We want to believe.

The good news is that the BOT accepted some elements of the UFF’s counterproposal, namely restoring original language that stipulated two years as the recall period and as the period during which a faculty member is eligible for retraining and also restoring original language about notifying the UFF when a layoff involves an Affirmative Action Program.

The bad news is the rest of their proposal.

The teams met on Wednesday for a discussion we had hoped would include the BOT’s response to our counter-proposal on Layoff and Recall (UFF’s Counter-proposal on Article 13).  Alas, that response was not forthcoming, which disappointed us as well as the 15 faculty visitors.  

Instead, we mostly discussed the BOT’s Counter-proposal on Tapered Employment. The UFF team had proposed the program as a new section in the Benefits article that would allow a faculty member heading towards retirement to reduce work hours (with a corresponding pay cut) without losing the employer contribution to health-insurance. The BOT’s counter-proposal included no wording on health-care benefits, added the requirement of a dean’s annual approval, and specified a maximum of three years. In short, it offers no incentive for faculty uptake.  Indeed, its provisions are hardly different from what is currently in place, as described in Article 8.5(a)4  and in the Department of Management Services guidelines (kindly provided by the BOT team and stipulating that someone working 75% or higher is eligible for the full state contribution).

The FSU Board of Trustees (BOT) team and the UFF-FSU team met on Wednesday for a discussion that centered on the UFF’s Counterproposal on Article 13 (Layoff and Recall). This Zoom public meeting drew about 25 faculty observers. 

The UFF-FSU Counterproposal begins by stating that layoffs should be a last resort and proceeds to enumerate a finite list of reasons for pursuing them.  We reintroduced the term “layoff unit” and defined it by authority structure rather than by type of unit (e.g, an “area” or “program,” or the like).  We believe it is important to have clearly established units so administrators cannot designate individuals for layoff. Hence, a “layoff unit” must be an established and functionally separate entity that has a separate budget and a director with the authority to evaluate faculty and assign their AORs.  And membership in this unit must be on the faculty member’s employment contract. The teams discussed what such a designation might mean in various organizational units.

We eliminated the BOT-added phrase that allowed a tenured faculty member in a layoff unit to be laid off while non-tenured faculty members remain, as we consider that to be a step towards eliminating tenure.  We also reinserted language requiring the BOT to notify the union in various instances.