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,
1 comment:
Does this sound like anyone we know?
10 WAYS TO LOSE YOUR BEST EMPLOYEES
WANT TO HOLD TIGHT TO YOUR TALENT? DON'T DO THESE THINGS!
BY ANDREW BENETT
50 COMMENTS
EMAIL
inShare
In the course of writing The Talent Mandate, I spoke with a prominent business school professor who told me that no corporate function lags behind today so dramatically as talent. He sees improvements and innovations in every area except in the vital matter of managing people. That’s astonishing--and it’s also lunacy at a time when people costs tend to be upward of 50 percent of a company's expenses. What could be more vital than talent to the bottom line? And yet the people in our employ continue to be neglected, taking a backseat to the various other matters that occupy our workdays.
Want to unload your most dynamic, highest-potential employees? Keep doing these things:
1. Hire for the past, not the future.
Choose talent based on what worked before, not on where the category is heading. Emphasize candidates’ narrow former experience over a more generalized, nimble agility to adapt to a fast-changing world.
2. Downplay values and mission.
Send the signal that anything goes in pursuit of profit, making employees guess about what choices are truly acceptable. Fail to spend time articulating to your workers why they come to work every day and how the greater community benefits.
3. Bungle the teams.
Avoid mixing generations and skill sets, instead grouping like with like and producing stale and predictable solutions that excite nobody—but might be safer.
4. Place jerks in management.
Reward the old-fashioned, autocratic style that stifles unorthodox, creative thinking and feels threatened by youth and dynamism.
5. Measure hours, not results.
Keep an expensive cadre of stern enforcers busy with policing everybody. Don’t trust your talent to use their time wisely. Crack down on social media. Forbid personal activities during nine to five, even as you expect work to be conducted over the weekend.
6. Promote people straight up the ladder.
Fail to give them exposure to different parts of the business through lateral moves. Thereby give them the sensation of being narrowed over time, not broadened.
7. Leave talent to HR.
Expect the staff who must deal with the minutiae of personnel issues also to be visionaries in hiring. Detach the C-suite from talent recruitment and retention; it’s not their department.
8. Hoard information.
Keep decision-making securely ensconced in the airless bunker of the executive wing. Avoid empowering mid-tier employees lest they suddenly become entrepreneurial and unpredictable.
9. Don’t bother with training.
It’s costly, and employees will probably jump ship with their new skills. Instead, have your workers do the same tasks over and over in the same way.
10. Hire outsiders.
After you have failed to train and develop your best people, follow it all up by stifling their ambitions for increased responsibility. When they come to you and say, “I’m leaving,” express astonishment and outrage.
If this sounds at all familiar, you’d better hope your competitors are following the same game plan.
--Andrew Benett is global president of Havas Worldwide and global chief strategy
Post a Comment