Bargaining update from 7/1

Dear FSU Colleagues,

Thank you to our many faculty colleagues who attended bargaining in person and online on July 1. Your presence in the bargaining room truly made a huge difference, and we hope that the show of support will continue at the next bargaining session, scheduled for July 15 from 2-5pm (location to be determined).

This update is a bit long, but there’s a lot to consider. The short version is the teams discussed Salaries, Leaves, Artificial Intelligence, and In-Unit Chair Reviews. Let’s start with salaries.

The BOT team presented their salary counter proposal, and this time offered a one-time Performance Bonus of 1%. This is unacceptable, especially in today’s economy with a 4.2% inflation rate and in today’s higher education environment in which faculty are expected to do more and more with fewer and fewer resources.

Before we presented our counter proposal, we read aloud numerous comments from faculty who responded to our survey about the BOT team’s first offer of ZERO raises for most faculty (promotion raises, post-tenure review raises, and sustained performance raises remain the same as previous years). Thank you to all who commented, and if you haven’t already, feel free to do so here. Your comments were thoughtful, compelling, and heartbreaking, letting the BOT team know that faculty cannot afford to teach at a university that doesn’t offer fair raises to cover basic everyday needs like food, childcare, gas, rent, and student loan payments. And that faculty do not want to work for an administration that disregards our professionalism and our expertise. The BOT team responded that their track record demonstrates that faculty are a priority when there is money, but they claim that there’s no available funds this year and that they must consider the long-term stability and strength of the institution. Their track record actually shows decreasing commitment to bolstering faculty salaries since 2022. We know that faculty are essential to the stability and strength of the institution; when faculty leave, that stability and strength is challenged. Our counter proposal can be found in the chart below.

For Article 17, Leaves, the BOT team proposed status quo on June 24. We countered on July 1 with most of the same changes we proposed weeks before, which would expand parental leave to family leave, increase the time from six months to eight months, increase paid bereavement leave from two (2) to five (5) days or to seven (7) days if faculty need to travel more than 500 miles, and eliminate supervisor approval of leaves based on family illness and deaths in the family. The BOT team did not agree with the expansion to family leave, but they did agree to eliminating supervisor approval for leaves due to family illness or death. The BOT stated there was no need to increase the number of bereavement days because one could use sick leave for bereavement, and the removal of supervisor approval means there’s no need for more paid bereavement time.

For Article 32, Artificial Intelligence, the BOT team deleted much of the language we proposed, as you can see here. So, we presented a more streamlined version of our original proposal that integrated much of the BOT team’s language, while also:

1.      balancing university interests with faculty needs, including protecting faculty rights to use or not use AI in their teaching and research;

2.      protecting faculty data, intellectual property, digital likeness; and

3.      increasing training, transparency, and faculty representation on the university level IT Governance Council.

The BOT team also presented another version of their Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) regarding what is now being called In-Unit Chair Review. We appreciate that the BOT team agreed to integrate feedback from the department’s faculty in the process at the college level. One sticking point, however, is what chairs will be evaluated on, and this is where we need your help. The BOT team wants to evaluate chairs based only on their administrative duties, not their Assignment of Responsibilities that often includes teaching, research, and other service, which is what we have been proposing. Another sticking point is when this review would happen. The BOT team proposed that it would occur after 5 years of serving as chair, while we are concerned that the time frame could disincentivize faculty from becoming chair because if they serve only one (usually three- or four-year) term, they would never be eligible for the review and its associated raise and could go many years without such a raise. As a reminder, chairs are not allowed to be considered for PTR as per the Board of Governors regulation. If you are a past or present chair, or if you are considering becoming chair, please use this short form to let us know what you think about the proposals and to offer other ideas.

Salary Chart

Thank you again for your support as we work to improve our working conditions and to foreground the role of faculty in FSU’s past, current, and future success. Please join us, if you aren’t already a member. We are always stronger together.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Proffitt, Professor and Co-Chief Negotiator

On behalf of the UFF-FSU bargaining team