Bargaining Update: September 11, 2008
PJCFA members made a strong show of support at the September 11 meeting, with eight faculty members observing the negotiations between Keith Samuels, Board Chief Negotiator, and the PJCFA Bargaining Team. PJCFA was also happy to welcome Tom Wazlavek, UFF Unit Service Director for the Northwest Florida Region, at the table.
As bargaining has been ongoing since February with little agreement, PJCFA’s goal for this session was to achieve consensus with the Board on key proposals, including OPA and intellectual property rights. In addition, the union’s proposal on Article 15 (Salaries), which would have provided for an average 8% raise, as well as laid out a plan for moving average salaries into the top 20% in the state within the next six years, had been on the table for two months with no response whatsoever from the Board.
In an effort to move negotiations along, the PJCFA Bargaining Team re-presented Articles 6 (Faculty Rights), 9 (Working Conditions, Workload, and OPA), 14 (Leaves), and 15 (Salaries). The team also proposed changes to Article 12 (Retrenchment), arguing that the current reeducation allowance of up to one year is insufficient for any faculty members currently holding an AA, AS, or AAS degree.
PJCFA Proposals:
Article 6: Intellectual Property Rights. PJCFA’s proposal asserts that all materials developed in the normal course of teaching a course are the property of the faculty member, not the College. The College would only own an interest in such intellectual property IF it had provided extra compensation, in the form of either release time or a special contract, for the production of such materials. PJCFA’s position is consistent with currently accepted legal precedent. Keith Samuels, the Board’s Chief Negotiator, had no response to PJCFA’s proposal on adding language delineating the faculty’s intellectual property rights.
Article 9: OPA. Dr. Samuels again asserted that the Board is uninterested in PJCFA’s proposal to eliminate the requirement to schedule OPA because the PJCFA has declined to further specify what activities are included in OPA. PJCFA holds that the current language in Article 9 already delineates faculty responsibilities as professionals; thus there is no necessity for adding or expanding upon that language. The Board’s response clearly indicated that it was unfamiliar with the current language and had not known that OPA duties already are outlined in the CBA. Once this was brought to the attention of the Board’s negotiator, he agreed to reevaluate PJCFA’s position.
Article 12: Retrenchment. To aid faculty whose programs may be eliminated, PJCFA proposed that the current one-year educational retrenchment allowance be expanded to two years. This extra year would allow faculty who hold an AA, AS, or AAS the time to successfully complete a BA or BS and acquire SACS credential necessary to teach in a new area. The proposal also includes a prorated repayment requirement if a faculty member fails to stay at the College for an agreed upon two years after College-funded reeducation. The Board is considering this proposal.
Article 14: Sabbatical Leave. The Board and PJCFA have agreed that, should the full-year sabbaticals remain unawarded, one of the two full-year sabbaticals can be converted into a half-year sabbatical.
Article 15: Salaries. The Board has flatly refused to provide any form of pay raise for this year or to discuss a multi-year plan to raise salaries into the top 20% of Florida community college faculty salaries. The PJCFA proposal included both an increase in base pay and provided for pay raises based on years of service to PJC. In addition, the Board refused to consider any increases to overload pay, educational incentive rewards, or promotion compensation. Given the Board’s refusal to discuss any salary proposals, PJCFA has declared that we are currently at impasse on this issue. However, we are ready to continue discussion should the Board bring an offer to the table.
In the last bargaining session, PJCFA and the Board had tentatively agreed to an alternative payroll schedule, in which faculty base salary would be paid over the course of the fiscal year, not just the standard two semester academic year. Dr. Samuels indicated that the Board might not be able to make this change after all.
Board of Trustees Proposals:
Requirement to Assign Midterm Grades: After Dr. Meadows’ announcement at Convocation that the faculty would now be required to assign midterm grades, PJCFA informed him that such a change must be negotiated at the bargaining table. Both faculty workload and the assignment of grades are issues covered in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Dr. Meadows’ announcement of this change to the faculty at large constituted direct dealing with bargaining unit members while bargaining is taking place. Such contact is prohibited by law. Therefore, PJCFA requested that he cease and desist from making such a requirement and that the Board bring language to the table proposing this workload change.
While philosophically PJCFA is not opposed to feedback to students on a regular basis, the requirement to assign midterm grades does increase faculty workload. In addition, in some types of classes (i.e. independent studies, internships, portfolio-based courses), only a small proportion of the student’s work has been completed at midterm; therefore, it would be nearly impossible to give an accurate assessment of a student’s progress at midterm.
On September 11, no such language came to the table. The Board refuses to bring any language to the table. As a result, PJCFA will be filing an Unfair Labor Practice suit against the Board.
Article 11: Administrative Evaluation of Faculty. The Board has proposed that all faculty members be required to develop and maintain a portfolio, which will replace the annual evaluation process. PJCFA opposes such a requirement as it is onerous and unnecessary. Faculty are required to produce a portfolio for promotional purposes, not to evaluate ourselves for the administration.
Article 17.01: Internal Applicants. While the Board has agreed, in theory, to PJCFA’s position that internal applicants should be interviewed as part of the final applicant pool, not in a separate, earlier interview, there is disagreement on the wording. The Board wishes to strike language which requires that failed internal applicants be informed at the same time as the selected candidate. PJCFA argues that collegiality and respect require that internal candidates be informed of the results of the selection process in advance of the grapevine.
Article 17.08: Failed Promotion Candidates. PJCFA’s position is that anyone denied promotion should receive a summary of the promotion committee’s scoring and comments on his or her application. Just as our students need feedback on their projects so that they can improve their performance, so, too, do our faculty require feedback so that they also can improve their performance and applications. The Board is considering this position, concerned mainly with maintaining the anonymity of the Promotion Committee’s members.
PJCFA encourages all interested faculty members to attend the bargaining sessions. The next bargaining meeting is scheduled for 1:30, Thursday, September 25, in Room 416.
Paige Anderson, Chief Negotiator
7 comments:
Thanks you Paige for the update and for all the work you and the bargaining team puts in. I know it can be trying.
Video Taping
At the Portfolio Workshop, the man who video tapes things for the college was filming. Why doesn't he film at the bargaining sessions? I am not saying make the film for faculty. Unfortunately, we mostly know what is going on, why no more than one administrator will enter the room. Dr. Meadows is new. He needs to see what is going on. If he believes things go as Dr. Samuels reports, we all have real estate to sell him. What could be going on? Wouldn't he like to see? Wouldn't the board like to see?
Dr. Atwell loved this community, and he loved faculty. He asked us what we thought about things. He knew about the college's finances; and he knew the right thing to do was pay us. He didn't waste his time doing weird, self serving point scoring things. He got his butt out the door and got money for the college.
All these others take ownership for the things they do by getting the hell out of Dodge ASAP.
Dr. Hartsell and Dr. Atwell had administrators including accounting personnel represented in bargaining sessions. It was Dr. Delaino that stopped bargaining. He’s a nice guy and he could be photographed, but those qualities alone don’t make for a good administrator. They should have hired someone from outside the college instead of him.
Faculty got poorer. The incompetent administrator parade started. Dr. Samuels started showing up by himself for bargaining. We’re left to deal with the remnants.
Thank you people for the things that you do. Holla at ya girls and boys. Happy Friday!
The college is collecting money to cover inflational increases in salaries. It is not ethical to pretend that inflation doesn't exist to use the money for other things. Plan to pay your employees first not last.
This year, Florida colleges have increased pay adding 3% to the base. Last year, they increased pay adding 4% to the base.
Q: I have stopped some hideous people from abusing you. Are you not appreciative of that?
A: Thank you very much. We appreciate that. We need to be paid. People don't allow us to short them.
Administration proposed that all faculty members including full professors be required to prepare portfolios, and these portfolios would be used in a performance pay plan.
A performance pay plan would have to be separate from the required salary increases for inflation. You couldn't have only 10 faculty members getting a salary increase with the remaining 200 not. It's not acceptable for any, be it 3 or 200, not to get annual salary increases.
A performance pay plan could be implemented without all faculty members preparing portfolios. Those wanting whatever salary reward it is that would be proposed could prepare a portfolio.
To provide notice, there should have been some preliminary committee to get faculty input. He must have some serious case of ear wax. Someone should send him to the doctor to have that checked out.
Merit based pay systems using portfolios sound good in theory. In a for profit business, you can pay people who generate more sales higher salaries for the work they have done. In a government workplace you theoretically must find non-faculty, virtuous people who have the brains to qualitatively, not quantitatively analyze information. If 200 portfolios were prepared, 200 portfolios would get submitted. This real world college doesn't and won't have a fair system of evaluating 200 portfolios.
Yes, we could implement a merit based pay system. We could pay the president 50% more than the faculty average salary or the highest faculty salary without paying him housing allowances and other special person bennies.
Post a Comment