FSU Works Because We Do!

Collective Bargaining History

2003-2005

Summary

For a table summarizing the status of bargaining on each article, see the file cbstatus-post.pdf.

The UFF and BOT teams met more than 50 times betgween December, 2003 and July 29, 2005. We made very good progress in most areas, including tentative agreements on 31 articles. We expect the final agreement to consist of 32 articles. Many matters that are very important to the faculty have been resolved, including academic freedom, tenure, shared governance, and nondiscrimination.

In mid-October, 2004, the BOT and UFF teams agreed to a strategy for accelerating negotiations, a "Minimal Changes Formula." Unresolved articles were divided into two groups. The first group was then bargained in detail. We will postpone detailed negotiation on the other articles until another year, in the meantime agreeing to continue with the essentially the same language (minimal changes) for those articles as appeared in the status quo agreement (the last statewide agreement between UFF and the now defunct Board of Regents). The articles in the first ("hot") group were:

1.	Recognition	(now TA’d)
3.	UFF Rights	(now TA’d)
8.	Appointments	(now TA’d)
14.	Promotion	(now TA'd)
15.	Tenure	(now TA'd)
22.	Sabbaticals & Professional Development	(now TA'd)
23.	Salaries

All articles except salary (Art. 23) have been resolved ("TA'd").

Salary Negotiations

Salary negotiations are currently underway. During the negotiations, the University has distributed some salary increases based on a series of memoranda of understanding with the UFF:

On 19 July, 2004, we signed a memorandum of understanding concerning promotion raises for 2004. The full text of the MOU may be viewed at http://www.uff-fsu.org/cbac/190704MOU1.pdf.
On 1 November, 2004, we signed a second memorandum of understanding on salaries, concerning the $1000 one-time bonus payments directed by the Legislature. These funds are non-recurring, and so could be separated from the negotiations on increases to base salaries. The full text of the MOU may be viewed at http://www.uff-fsu.org/cbac/110104MOU.pdf.
On 13 July, 2005, we signed a third memorandum of understanding on salaries, concerning promotion raises for 2005 and distribution of the 3.6% across-the-board increase for all State employees that was directd by the Legislature. The full text of the MOU may be viewed at http://www.uff-fsu.org/cbac/130705MOU.pdf.

Progress on negotiations regarding other raises has been very slow. The following is a chronological summary of negotiations up to our most recent session.

The UFF submitted a summary proposal (http://www.uff-fsu.org/cbac/FSUArticle23UFF1SalaryOverview.060204.pdf) on 2 June and a detailed salary proposal (http://www.uff-fsu.org/cbac/FSUArticle23UFF1.061304.pdf) on 13 June, 2004. The latter is rather lengthy. For an executive summary in spreadsheet form, look at http://www.uff-fsu.org/cbac/summary.pdf. This proposal represents the UFF’s attempt to address several perceived historical problems with faculty compensation at FSU. For example:

There is a large gap (approximately 7.5%) between FSU average salaries and those of our peers in the same disciplines and ranks at other Research I institutions. We would like to see FSU start taking steps to address this problem systematically, in a way that is not limited to new hires and counter-offers, and which takes into account individual differences in merit.

Merit pay increases have not been awarded equitably. One problem has been the limitation (in at least some units) to a one-year merit window, coupled with inconsistency in the availability of merit increase funds. For example, individuals who published books in “dry” years missed merit increases. Another problem has been the policy (in at least some units) of awarding merit pay increases to only the top few faculty in a unit. The effect is that all the other faculty (perhaps only marginally less meritorious) are treated exactly the same as the lowest achievers in the unit. Repeated year after year, this has been demoralizing. We would like to establish a reward system for meritorious performance that includes long-term as well as short-term merit, is as consistent as a promotion, and is not limited to a fixed percentage of a department’s salary base.

For several years we saw average salary increases, including merit increases, below the rate of inflation. We would like to see that the salaries of all faculty members who are performing satisfactorily keep up with the cost of living.

In July 2004, the BOT negotiator indicated that the Board did not expect to respond to our proposal soon, but would like to go ahead with promotion raises, as well as counter-offers and twelve special raises for undisclosed reasons. At some other SUS universities, the UFF chapter has insisted that no raises be given until the contract is negotiated, as a means of putting pressure on the administration to move negotiations ahead. The FSU chapter chose not to do this. For the full text of the July 2004 memorandum of understanding covering raises during negotiations see http://www.uff-fsu.org/cbac/190704MOU1.pdf. The UFF agreed to this as a temporary measure, for the good of the faculty members who were promoted, even though it includes some provisions we would not like to see in a final contract. In particular, we proposed that the promotion increase be raised from 9% to 12%. The Board was willing to go to 12% for full professors only, citing the greater cost of implementing a 12% raise for all promotions. The UFF believes that all promotion raises should be increased to 12%, which we calculated would cost only $120K more than 9% raises in 2004.

The first specific salary proposal from the BOT came on 11 October 2004. It included a 2% departmental merit pay increase. This proposal was delivered to the UFF by e-mail, because the lawyer serving as chief negotiator for the FSU BOT cancelled the bargaining session that was scheduled for 11 October. The proposal may be viewed at http://www.uff-fsu.org/cbac/FSUArticle23BOT101104.pdf. A prior position statement by the BOT team may be viewed at http://www.uff-fsu.org/cbac/FSUArticle23BOT081604.pdf. At subsequent meetings, the UFF indicated that this proposal was unacceptably low, and emphasized the need to address market inequities as well as merit.

On 1 November, 2004, the BOT requested a second memorandum of understanding on salaries, to permit payment of the $1000 one-time bonus payments directed by the Legislature. The UFF agreed to this, since funds are non-recurring, were mandated by the Legislature, and so could be separated from the negotiations on increases to base salaries. The full text of this second MOU on salaries may be viewed at http://www.uff-fsu.org/cbac/110104MOU.pdf.

At every opportunity, the UFF continued to argue the case for a larger faculty raise package, that addresses market equity problems and is comparable in size to the raises offered to faculty at other SUS institutions. Some of the data and arguments presented to the BOT team are described below under the heading "UFF Salary Study and Proposal". More recent data and arguments are described on the web page on salary inequities, the 2004-2005 SUS raise summary, and the preliminary 2004-2006 SUS raise summary.

In May of 2005, the UFF declared impasse in negotiations, as it had become clear that no further progress was being made. In June, the BOT team submitted a "last a best offer" that can be viewed at http://www.uff-fsu.org/cbac/offer20050602.pdf. In essence, this is the same as their October 2004 offer, with the addition of the legislatively mandated 2005-2006 across-the-board raise for all State employees, of 3.6%.

On 13 July, 2005, we signed a third memorandum of understanding on salaries, concerning promotion raises for 2005 and distribution of the 3.6% across-the-board increase for all State employees that was directd by the Legislature. The full text of the MOU may be viewed at http://www.uff-fsu.org/cbac/130705MOU.pdf.

2004 UFF Salary Study and Proposal

Our original 2004 salary proposal was inspired by competitive Research I universities, and premised on the administration’s aspiration to AAU membership. The intent was to bring FSU salaries up to a point that they are competitive with those at Research I and AAU institutions Key elements of the proposal include: (1) merit-based market equity adjustments, based on Research I averages by rank and discipline, to bring us closer to our competitors; (2) sustained merit increases, to motivate and recognize the excellent long-term performance by the majority of faculty; (3) competitive merit increases, to motivate and reward outstanding short-term accomplishments; (4) annual cost-of-living adjustments, to keep salaries from being eroded by inflation.

As part of the preparation for the UFF 2004 salary proposal, the UFF Bargaining Team performed a study of FSU salaries, as they compared to those at our peer institutions. Detailed information is available as follows:

Summary of the UFF 2004 salary proposal Note that we have split out the increases already implemented and the additional increases we are proposing. One piece of information, which we do not have, also is relevant. That is the net increase (reduction) in E&G faculty payroll between academic years due to turnover in personnel. Our estimate, based on incomplete data, amounts to a decrease of over $3,500,000 after the salary increases already implemented. That is, there should be about $3.5M (or about 4.3% of salary base), of money available for faculty salary based on attrition between academic years. In addition to such funds, it was reported that FSU received a legislative budget increase of approximately 10.75% this year, plus a tuition increase of 7.5%. We believe that the University should be able to allocate a proportional share of these funds to faculty salary.
All the salary data, in Excel spreadsheet format (over 1.5Mbytes)
Faculty base salaries, after promotions, compared to average salaries at Research I institutions according to the 2003 Oklahoma State University (OSU) salary survey. The last column, showing the gap, is blank if the FSU salary is equal to or higher than the OSU average for that rank and discipline. Rose-shaded entries correspond to promotions. Gold-shaded entries indicate faculty with part-time appointments in Fall, where actual salary rate was difficult to determine. Green shaded entries indicate cases where there was a discrepancy between Spring and Fall that caused us to doubt the accuracy of the data. This is based on the best data we have, but we suspect some faculty members are missing from the list. If you can help fill in gaps or correct errors in this or any of the following tables, please contact Ted Baker.
Apparent raises, inferred from changes between spring and fall. The administration has not responded to our formal request for a list of raises granted this year. This table shows what raises seem to have been granted, based on differences between Spring 2004 and Fall 2004 salaries. Color coding conventions are similar to the table of faculty base salaries after promotions. This data may be unreliable in cases where the FTE changed between Spring 2004 and Fall 2004.
Marketplace gaps by rank and discipline.The last column is the amount in each rank and discipline by which FSU 2004 salaries are below (or above, if negative) the OSU 2003 averages for that rank and discipline. Where the difference is positive, we are asking that the administration provide the department enough funds to close the gap.
Spring 2004 FSU salaries, before promotions.
Fall 2004 FSU salaries.
Combined spring and fall salaries. This shows how the apparent Fall 2004 raises were computed. It also shows the apparently turnover in faculty between the two academic years. Yellow-shaded rows correspond to people who apparently left FSU employment at the end of Spring 2004, and light green shaded rows correspond to people who apparently started new employment with FSU in Fall 2004. Colored shading is used to indicate cases where we noted a change in job classification, FTE, length of appointment, or compensation. Rose shading generally indicates promotions and other changes in rank or job classification. Light green shading indicates cases where we infer the raise is due to a named chair, or a change in compensation of 50%, which we infer is due to going on or coming off a sabbatical. Bright green shading indicates a raise that does not any of the preceding patterns. Blue shading indicates apparent reductions in salary, which we hope are anomalies in the data, or perhaps cases where an overload appointment was reduced back to 100% FTE..
2003 OSU salary survey data.

2005 UFF Salary Study

In summer 2005 the UFF reviewed a new set of OSU and FSU salary data. The market inequity problems had worsened. The gaps between FSU and OSU average salaries for comparable disciplines and ranks are summarized in the separate web page on faculty salary market inequities, which includes summary charts based on one year more recent (2004) OSU salary averages than the above study.

Collective Bargaining Advisory Council (CBAC) 2004

The Collective Bargaining Advisory Council is a volunteer committee, open to the entire faculty, that the UFF consults for advice on collective bargaining issues and priorities. The CBAC met several times in 2003-2004. Having completed its task of gathering faculty input to the Collective Bargaining Team, the CBAC temporarily suspended activities, while bargaining is under way. During bargaining, we still appreciate individual faculty input, directly to the bargaining team members.

Past CBAC meetings:

28 Jan 2004, 12:30-1:30 PM, Olglesby Union.: CBAC luncheon on salary issues.
Click here to read the informal minutes of the meeting.
15 Jan 2004, 11:00 AM, 208A Love Bldg.: The Survey Review and Issue Development interest groups met jointly to review recent prior surveys of FSU faculty views, priorities, etc., and how we use this information to inform bargaining goals and priorities.
15 Jan 2004, 1:30pm, 151 Love Bldg.: The Research and Analysis interest group met to begin developing a thorough faculty bargaining survey to be conducted this spring to provide up-to-date information in support of current and future negotiations.
CBAC meetings were held at the Williams Building in March 2004 and at Oglesby Union in April 2004 and June 2004 to discuss negotiation priorities, strategies, and progress
CBAC first solicitation: Council Seeks Input
CBAC second soliciation: Ways You Can Help

For more information on the history of the CBAC and the collective bargaining organization at FSU, see the Collective Bargaining Organization page