PSCFA Response to "Misinformation Claims"

Below is the text of the email responding to Dr. Spicer's misinformation allegations:

To the best of my knowledge, I have spread no "misinformation" concerning the tentative agreement; however, you appear to be interpreting the provisions of that agreement differently than the faculty do:

1) I'm not sure what you are referring to in regards to the Corsair. The administration's initial proposal regarding Collegiate High faculty was 36 points, which would have had them in the classroom for 25 hours per week. The initial proposal for nursing clinical instructors was for 30 points per hour, which would have required 30 hours of clinical classes per week. 

However, based on the class structure of Collegiate High, it is physically impossible for a faculty member to teach only 22.5 hours. Some might be able to teach 25, but the majority would have to teach 30 hours (3, 10-hour classes) to get to the required 22.5 hours.  Therefore, while the load points would only require 22.5 hours in the classroom, the faculty will have to be in the classroom 30 hours, which was repeatedly brought up at the bargaining table. 

2) The news release correctly stated that the agreement would "reduce pay for several categories of classes." If a class currently is worth 50 points but will be moving to 40 points, it will require the faculty to teach more hours to earn base pay. If you would like me to demonstrate how the change to Collegiate High's load points would in fact cause a faculty member to make $6,000 less under the proposal than he currently would to teach the same classes, I will be happy to do so. Please remember that the Collegiate High proposals also cut their summer hours AND moved their overloads into a lower category. The cumulative effect of these changes is $6,000 less pay for the same work. 

At no point did I say that the base pay was being reduced. However, faculty quickly determined that even with a 2% increase to base pay, they would actually bring home less money under the proposed language. 

3) Nothing that you've quoted about the promotion pay is inaccurate. We proposed the 5% increase per level partially to alleviate the problems with compression and to have faculty promotions line up with promotion increases for other PSC employees, who get an automatic 5% increase when moving from one position to a higher position. We did not propose the substantial increase in years between promotions or the inability of those without master's degrees to become full professors. The survey we are currently conducting is supporting exactly what you've quoted: that the faculty wanted the 5% per promotion level but do not agree with the additional year requirement. I am unsure how this is a misrepresentation of anything.

4) You are correct that there was no language specifically cutting overloads. However, by reducing load points for classes, you are eliminating overloads. For example, if under the current load points, Collegiate High faculty must teach 18 hours, but under the proposed load points, they must teach 22.5 hours per week, that means that 4.5 hours which were previously overload are now required for base pay. That IS a cut in overload. In fact, Dr. Meadows' statement to the Pensacola News Journal  that "'While some of the faculty don’t want to teach overloads, most do because it’s more money. . . . But overloads have never been guaranteed to ­faculty' ” clearly indicates that the proposal will cut overloads. 

I am unclear why you are questioning these statements now as both you and Dr. Meadows were contacted by the Corsair, the Pensacola News Journal, and Inside Higher Ed for your response to the press release. If you did not agree with faculty's interpretation of the proposals, at that time, you could have responded to these them, but did not. These issues were repeatedly addressed at the bargaining table and are coming up in the Post-Ratification Survey as well.

I would be happy to discuss any or all of these concerns with you this week. Thanks for your time,

Dr. Spicer claims errors in press releases

After having opportunities to respond to the PSCFA press releases given to the Corsair, Pensacola News Journal, and Inside Higher Ed, the administration did not do so in the press. Instead, Dr. Spicer sent the following e-mail to Paige Anderson, PSCFA president, claiming that the press has been misinformed.

 

It has become apparent that misinformation has been spread concerning the tentative agreement reached between the Administration and the faculty association.  I am giving you the opportunity to correct this information with the faculty.  If you choose not to correct the information prior to the end of the day on Tuesday, June 24, 2014, I will do so.   Below are some of the most flagrant pieces of misinformation or misrepresentations that have been in print. 

 

1)      The information given to the Corsair reporter is inaccurate and shows a lack of understanding of current faculty loads and what was included in the tentative agreement.  Currently, Collegiate High School faculty teach 18 hours to make their standard load, not 20 hours; the agreement reached would have changed the normal teaching load for Collegiate High School faculty to 22.5 hours, not 30 hours.

 

2)      In the news release sent to the Pensacola News Journal, you asserted that the agreement would “reduce pay for several categories of classes, including vocational training, clinical classes for health care fields, and Collegiate High School classes.  The proposed language required faculty members teaching those classes to both work more hours and earn less for doing so, as much as $6000 less per year in some cases.”

 

To clarify, there was no language in any proposal to reduce base pay.  In fact, the agreement reached included a 2% increase to the base pay that was retroactive to August. 

 

Furthermore, all instructional faculty members have a 35-hour standard work week.  The tentative agreement to reduce point values for some courses would have included more hours of teaching within that 35-hour work week for some faculty.  There was no requirement in the agreement to work more hours or to earn less for doing so. 

 

Perhaps you are confusing the standard load within the standard work week and overload assignments.  Under the language in the tentative agreement, overload assignments would have continued to be available to faculty. 

 

3)      In the news release, you wrote “Another hot topic was the college’s desire to increase the time required to receive a promotion. Initial administration proposals would have barred any faculty without a master’s degree from ever becoming a full professor as well as mandating a minimum of 17 years to reach full professor for others. To offset this increased time period, PSC agreed to increase the promotion raise to 5 percent of base pay for each step, but that bump did not convince a majority of faculty to vote for the whole package.”

 

To clarify, for the last several years, the faculty association bargaining team has requested that the promotion increase be changed to 5% and has referenced other CBAs, including the one at Hillsborough.  The Hillsborough CBA includes much more stringent requirements for promotion than our CBA contains.  The College agreed to change the promotion increase but, to agree to that change, requested a change in the promotion requirements.  The promotion requirements agreed to by the College were not as stringent as those found in the Hillsborough CBA. 

 

4)      In the Insider Higher Ed article, you stated that the contract “called for the elimination of overload” for vocational, clinical health occupations and collegiate high school faculty. 

 

That statement is just false.  There was no language that would eliminate overloads. 

 

It is not helpful to spread misinformation or to misrepresent the agreement reached at the table.  I am hopeful that you will do what you can to correct items of misinformation that have been shared with faculty.

PSC Ratification Vote makes national news

After reading the short article in the Pensacola News Journal, Inside Higher Ed contacted Paige Anderson for more information on the overload/course load aspect of the ratification vote. The article on the issue appeared today.

Pensacola State Faculty Rejects Contract 

Over Course Loads

June 18, 2014

The Faculty Association at Pensacola State College in Florida has rejected a contract deal in part because course load and overage concerns, the Pensacola News-Journal reported. Paige Anderson, an English instructor who is president of the American Federation of Teachers- and National Education Association-affiliated faculty union, said the proposed contract would have been punitive to the college's vocational, clinical health occupations and collegiate high school faculty. Anderson said the contract called for the elimination of overload for those faculty and a renegotiation of course load "points," so that those instructors would have had to teach 4.5 additional hours per week, to 22.5 hours. The rest of the faculty would have been unaffected, with a 15-credit course load per semester. But Anderson said the move was a show of solidarity for the minority group of affected faculty members and concern over the college's ability to retain and attract health professions faculty, including nurses, under those terms. Anderson said state funding for the affected fields was lower than for other disciplines, and the college was attempting to compensate on the backs of the faculty.

A university spokeswoman said via email that a change in load points would not added hours to the faculty work week, but rather would have shifted hours between teaching, office and "other professional activity hours."

“The college will return to the bargaining table and continue to negotiate in good faith,” President Edward Meadows said in a statement, “and the college will remain focused on fulfilling our mission of providing access to high-quality education.” 

Read more: http://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2014/06/18/pensacola-state-faculty-rejects-contract-over-course-loads#ixzz3503FV1TH
Inside Higher Ed 

Pensacola State College faculty reject contract proposal

PENSACOLA – The faculty of Pensacola State College have voted to reject a tentative contract agreement forged during 16 months of negotiation. More than 50 percent of fulltime faculty cast a ballot June 11, despite the fact that many faculty do not work during the summer. The ratification failed by a margin of 55 percent to 45 percent.

Following a long series of negotiating sessions that began in February 2013, the Pensacola State College Faculty Association (PSCFA) and the Board of Trustees of Pensacola State College tentatively agreed to proposals for the 2013-2014 collective bargaining agreement (CBA). PSCFA is conducting a survey of all faculty members to determine why the language, which included a 2 percent raise retroactive to August 2013 as well as $120,000 to address compression pay issues, was denied by a majority of faculty. However, several central issues that angered faculty during negotiations are likely to blame.

Among those contested issues were administrative proposals to reduce pay for several categories of classes, including vocational training, clinical classes for health care fields, and Collegiate High School classes. The proposed language required faculty members teaching these classes to both work more hours and earn less for doing so, as much as $6,000 less per year in some cases. With PSC salaries already in the bottom third in the state, such a cut was hard to stomach.

 

Another hot topic was the college’s desire to increase the time required to receive a promotion. Initial administration proposals would have barred any faculty without a master’s degree from ever becoming a full professor as well as mandating a minimum of 17 years to reach full professor for others. To offset this increased time period, PSC agreed to increase the promotion raise to 5 percent of base pay for each step, but that bump did not convince a majority of faculty to vote for the whole package.

 

“Generally, proposed changes to the CBA pass with more than 95 percent support from the faculty,” said PSCFA President Paige Anderson. “That such a large proportion of faculty voted ‘no’ despite a pay increase on the table speaks to the overall dissatisfaction with this negotiating cycle. We hope that when both parties return to the bargaining table, the Board of Trustees’ representatives will be more willing to give on some of the provisions that are causing most harm to hard-working faculty’s ability to support their families.”