Bargaining Under Brogan's Board

Bargaining Under Brogan’s Board THESE ARE THE FACTS: Faculty salaries at FAU have declined relative to our peer institutions since 2001, when the FAU Board of Trustees took over. FAU BOT provided no increase in faculty salaries in 2007-08. FAU BOT has offered a take-it-or-leave-it salary increase of 1% basesalary and a one-time, $1,000 bonus. FIU and USF faculty already have salaries as much as 10% higher than faculty at FAU, with lower living costs. UFF chapters at FAU peers Florida International University and University of South Florida have secured 2% and 2.4% raises (respectively) for members this year through collective bargaining. FAU BOT is threatening to enact effective salary cutbacks by challenging the priorities for faculty to teach courses during the summer. FAU President Frank Brogan has received a 10% raise. Eight assistants to the University President are receiving annual salary increases that average over $8,600 each, or 14.75%. Some Background to Recent Developments On November 24, Associate Provost Diane Alperin sent a “Notice to the Faculty” concerning the declaration of Impasse on bargaining issues now being considered by the University and its Union, the United Faculty of Florida. Unfortunately, the “Notice” contains misrepresentations of recent events in the bargaining process. In this memo we will provide some background and history about the events that have led to the current predicament, and provide information about the bargaining process and procedures associated with the current Impasse.

Under the Faculty Union’s agreement with the University administration, each year that we are operating under a settled and approved multi-year contract, three articles (Article 23 on salaries and up to two other articles selected by the University administration or the Union) are subject to negotiation. The current contract covers 2006-2009. Last year, the two issues re-opened were “Benefits,” and the “Notice of nonreappointment.” The Benefits article was partially settled with a change in Phased Retirement (extended the age of eligibility up to the employee’s seventieth birthday), but we retained the right to reopen other aspects of it for 2008-09 (e.g., domestic partner benefits). On salaries, the Union was cognizant of the serious financial problems affecting the State, but reasoned that the University could still afford at least a token gesture as a measure of good faith as partners with the faculty. Ultimately, the Union offered to agree to no negotiated raise, provided administrators would agree to give up their ability to award discretionary raises. They did not accept this. The second issue opened last year was the “notice of non-reappointment.” Most universities in the United States follow the American Association of University Professors’ (AAUP) policy which provides that tenure-track faculty in their first year must be notified in February or March if they are not going to be reappointed; those in their second year are to be notified by December of non-reappointment, and those with two or more years of service are to be notified before the end of their current academic year that the next year will be their final contract. It was this national academic gold standard that the Union proposed be included in the contract, and which the Administration’s negotiators promised to continue to discuss during the bargaining meeting of November 24, 2008. The Administration’s agreement or counter-proposal never arrived, however, and it now appears that they had no intention of resolving the matter at that meeting. Instead, they had chosen to prepare for and to declare Impasse.

Salaries are the only agreed issue for Discussion in 2008-2009 For the 2008-2009 contract negotiations the only article that was agreed to be opened was faculty salaries. Although Associate Provost Alperin’s memo mentions summer employment issues, this matter is in fact not an agreed item for negotiation this year. The administration was to notify us by February 1, 2008 if they wanted to open an

article other than salaries. They did not meet this deadline. The November 24th memo misrepresents the faculty union’s position on summer employment. In addition, the administration is seeking to resolve what we contend was a violation of the contract in summer 2008 through the impasse process rather than through arbitration. The outcome of impasse resolution is not binding on the University while the arbitration judgment is binding and can result in financial penalties for the University. It is therefore important to recognize this as a move that violates the existing contract. The faculty at FAU remains the lowest paid among its peers in the State University system, and has been so since 2002. It was in the 18th percentile nationally in 2002, an obviously uncompetitive position for hiring or keeping faculty at the University, particularly given our area’s skyrocketing cost of living. It has varied somewhat since, but has stayed close to that figure. During this year’s bargaining sessions, the UFF proposed a 10% increase, which covered a 5% across the board raise, 2% in merit increases and 3% for market equity. The proposal matches the President's salary increase. Our demands were based on income projections from both higher tuition rates for next year and the money brought to the University by the Clearwire band-width agreement that were reported to be earmarked specifically for faculty enhancement as well as the cost of living increases for the 2007-2009 period which averages 10%. The administration announced a 1% increase and a $1000 bonus for all employees in October 2008 and then made this their offer to faculty without, we contend, any serious intention to bargain. The Union’s bargaining committee understood its 10% counter-proposal to the administration’s 1%-plus-bonus offer as a first stage in negotiations, and was prepared to bargain, as it has always done. The UFF bargaining team had come to the November 24th meeting ready to receive a new counter-proposal from the Board, which did not materialize. Getting money into faculty pockets was certainly not at the top of the Administration’s list, and the faculty was left with what is an unacceptable and negative offer. It is important to repeat that during this process the Administration was busy creating new administrative offices and handing out eye-popping raises (eight members of the President’s office and communication staff received on average well over 14%), as

well as hiring new staff for the office of Communications and Marketing and the office of the University Attorney.

Moving Rapidly Toward Decline – The Problem of Priorities The issue of faculty salaries was addressed by the Board of Trustees in 2002 when Board of Trustees members were made aware that faculty salaries were in the 18th percentile nationally, while administrators' salaries were in the 40th percentile. At that time the Board promised to address this issue within two years. The University’s Strategic Plan also promises to bring up faculty salaries, recognizing the negative effect current salaries have had on almost every aspect of University functioning. President Brogan could change this state of affairs by recommending that the Board make competitive faculty salaries its number one priority, and by realistically and constructively using the Clearwire monies and the projected tuition increases. The administration certainly could make a salary offer that UFF could accept with dignity and that would make the faculty believers in FAU. By refusing to partner with faculty to make academic research and teaching a priority for the University, the administration is guaranteeing that the current demoralization and decline of the University’s local, state and national positions will continue at an increasing rate. We will continue to keep the University community abreast of the on-going issues that have been raised by the University administration’s declaration of Impasse. At the present time, the administration has asked that the State provide a Special Magistrate to consider their and the faculty’s positions. The Magistrate’s decision, however, is not binding. We need to make it more difficult for the administration and the Board to ignore faculty and student concerns, and that means we all need to be involved. It is only through community action that we can hope for a positive outcome and a reversal of current trends. , United Faculty of Florida President For Membership, Please Contact:

Robert McCarthy Department of Anthropology [email protected]