UFF-USF

Chapter Secretary Greg McColm has created a bargaining-update page for the chapter, collecting proposals laid on the table starting with the first collective bargaining session of 2010.

UFF finished its ratification vote this week, and the overwhelming majority of ballots cast were in favor of ratification. The Board of Trustees meets Thursday, January 21, for its ratification vote.

See the ratification page for information on both the Memorandum of Understanding and all sorts of ways to ask questions. Below are the questions submitted to the anonymous question-asking site for the chapter. Last update: 6:45 pm, January 2. There are currently two questions in the anonymous queue we are waiting for administration answers on.

Are those currently in phased retirement eligible for the retirement incentive plan?

The administration has told us that those currently in phased retirement are not eligible for the retirement incentive.

Can I sign up for the retirement incentive program and also use phased retirement?

We haven’t asked the administration this specific question, but given the certainty of a separation date and the “no guarantee of future employment” item, the answer is almost certainly no: you’d have to choose between the retirement incentive program and phased retirement.

What if a large number of colleagues in my department take up the offer? Will I be left covering an enormous load?

The draft program guidelines gives the university the right to defer retirement/separation in the program for up to a year, and the university would probably stagger retirements in such a situation to enable a smoother transition.

Why isn’t USF Polytechnic listed as a participant in the retirement incentive program?

The Memorandum of Understanding gives discretion to the university over this type of detail, and the central USF administration decided that each unit with a separate line in the state budget would make its own choices about participating at all and setting aside money.

Can the administration pick and choose who it accepts for the retirement incentive program?

The draft policy makes clear that on each participating campus, it will be the timestamp of application submission that divides those accepting the package from those who are not accepted.

So, more or less, the university is offering a 12-month equivalent salary plus $5K. What it doesn’t say is what retirement dates are allowable—are all of you contemplating the end of this year or can this be agreed up now for a future date?

What the administration has talked about are the end of spring, summer, or fall 2010. It’s the specific dates that aren’t yet set by the admin, but it’ll be in May, early August, or late December. The individual faculty member or professional employee in the faculty salary plan would choose among those options.

Where and when will applications be available?

Eligible employees will be receiving all the official information very shortly after ratification is completed, if the Memorandum of Understanding is ratified. If you receive the packet, with an application, you’ll have it for a few weeks before a very short time window in which to submit it (a few business days). We have heard that submissions will be accepted either in person or electronically.

Does this calculation include the $5000, or is it this amount and an additional $5000?

The $5000 sum is on top of the annualized salary.

If 9 month faculty receive 1.22 of their salary plus $5000, what do 12 month faculty get? It would be grossly unfair to 12-month faculty if they got 1.0 of their salary plus $5000.

Salary would be annualized — converted to a 12-month equivalent. 9 month faculty would receive 133% of salary plus $5000. 12-month faculty would receive 109% (81.8% times 133%–the first converts the 12-month back to the 9-month by the contract conversion formula) plus $5000. This is a formula (and a decision) within the administration’s discretion. The program is voluntary; faculty who think that the program does not benefit them do not have to sign up for it.

At the May 29, 2009, collective bargaining session between UFF and USF, the union put five proposals on the table:

•  A proposed Memorandum of Understanding that would phase in eligibility for the instructor promotion track. This came from consultation discussions earlier in the spring when the administration asked about a phase-in. Essentially, the university is reluctant to open promotion to 150 instructors in a single year. The UFF’s position is that if the university was going to deny promotion opportunities on the basis of seniority, that was a change in the terms and conditions of employment, and we wanted to make sure that a reasonable number of instructors were eligible in the first year. The proposed Memorandum of Understanding would finish the phase in after 3 years (after which instructors with at least 5 years of service in a specific rank would be eligible to apply for promotion).
• Expanded sabbatical opportunities at partial pay. Based on bargaining-survey results and other input from the unit, the UFF proposed several short-term (4- or 8-week) professional-development leaves for non-tenure-track employees in the bargaining unit, one-semester partial-pay sabbaticals for tenured faculty, and one-semester partial-pay sabbaticals for tenure-track faculty after mid-tenure reviews. The intent would be to create sabbatical and professional-development opportunities that would not cost the university a cent.
• Workplace safety. Based on bargaining-survey results and other input from the unit, the UFF proposed specific procedures to allow faculty and other in-unit employees to request moving upon documented impacts on health from environmental office conditions.
• Shared governance. Based on bargaining-survey results and other input from the unit, the UFF proposed an additional section in the academic-freedom article that would put in place several procedural guarantees for shared governance.
• Contract waivers. Based on staff and legal information from Tallahassee, the UFF proposed some technical language affecting the timing and expiration of contract waivers.

There was no discussion of other articles in the CBA and no agreement on any article or Memorandum of Understanding. As of today, the next collective-bargaining session is not yet scheduled.

The chapter’s bargaining team has established a bargaining survey to collect information about the negotiating priorities of in-unit faculty and professional employees. If you have not seen a link to it, please e-mail Sherman Dorn. [The survey is now closed.]

Yesterday, the United Faculty of Florida finished its ratification. The Board of Trustees have just ratified the 2008-09 Collective Bargaining Agreement in its regular board meeting.

Q. What are the downsides of doing away with the one year individual contacts?

A. UFF representatives heard the BOT representatives state in bargaining that they consider the one-time letter to have the same legal meaning as a contract, and the chapter will hold the university to that shared understanding.

Q. I can’t vote at the times or locations you suggest. Is there a way I could vote by absentee ballot or proxy?

A. The chapter is balancing the need to hold a ratification vote promptly against the need to give in-unit faculty and professional employees a broad opportunity to vote on the tentative agreement. For this ratification, we do not have the option for absentee ballots or proxies.

Q. I am applying for tenure/promotion this year. Do the tenure/promotion provisions of this contract apply to next year?

A. This contract applies to THIS YEAR ONLY, 2008-09. Bargaining for a contract starting August 7, 2009, will begin early in 2009. Having said that, the promotion raises have been stable for a number of years, and it is in no one’s interest to have a dry (raiseless) promotion.

Q. What does the inclusion of librarians in promotion language mean for promotions to associate/full professor?

A. The language is inclusive: promotion raises are applied in the same manner for those promoted to associate professors and associate librarians, or for those promoted to full professor and librarian.

Q. In a general way can you describe how the 1.0% monies will likely be used and who might ultimately receive them?

A. Discretionary mean at the discretion of the administration—at their SOLE discretion. The university has already distributed approximately $400,000 since July 1—if ratified, this tentative agreement would make active disputes about those distributed funds thus far this fiscal year moot. With the rest of the discretionary authority, the university administration can do whatever they want—not distribute it at all, distribute some or all evenly to all in-unit employees, distribute some as raises and some as bonuses, even give the rest of the authorized money to a single in-unit faculty member. Discretionary truly means discretionary, and as long as the university does not violate other provisions of the contract or the law (e.g., discriminate on the basis of sex, race, or other suspect categories), it has the freedom to do what it wants with the authority.

Q. The summer cap is $12,000 per course. Does that still mean that each class is still compensated at 12.5% of the 9-month salary as long as that value is below $12,000. Also I take it to mean that the cap is $12,000 per course, not $12,000 overall if someone teaches two courses.

A. Summer teaching is 12.5% per 3-hour course, up to $12,000 per course (not for the summer). If someone’s 9-month salary is $80,000, and that person teaches two three-hour summer classes, then he/she would earn $10,000 per class for a total of $20,000.

Q. When do the raises start, and are they retroactive to the beginning of the year?

A. The raises will be effective shortly after ratification. The 2% raises are easy to calculate, but the merit raises will require some attention to detail. At bargaining on Wednesday, the Trustees’ representatives anticipated that HR would finish the calculations and have the raises entered in early January. The raises will be going forward, not retroactive.

Q. Is everyone in the bargaining unit eligible for raises this year?

A. There are a few groups who are not eligible: those who were hired after May 1, 2008; those who have already submitted resignation letters or received letters of nonreappointment; those who did not receive an overall satisfactory evaluation on the last annual review (2007 or 2007/08, depending on your review cycle); those in visiting positions; and those on soft-money positions where the grant budgets don’t allow for raises (but USF should be watching to make sure those budgets do allow raises).

A summary of changes to and the full text of the tentative agreement are now available on the CBA ratification page. Voting-station days and times will be available by the end of the day.