E-mail Notice
The notice below was originally shared with the university community via e-mail.
September 19, 2006
CFA Bargaining Response
To: All Faculty
At the request of CFA, the President's Office is forwarding this message to you.
Dear Colleagues,
I share President Richmond's disappointment that contract negotiations
have come to a halt. Those who were here during our last contract
struggle will recall that fact-finding and mediation do, indeed, take
months.
However, I am relieved that CFA negotiators see the current salary offer
as neither attractive nor adequate toward reducing the salary gap. The
2006 gap is projected to be 18% overall--5.0% for lecturers, 12.5% for
Assistants, 12.6% for Associates, and 26.7% for Full Professors (see
http://www.cpec.ca.gov/completereports/2006reports/06-01.pdf.) We also
have a difference of opinion about the "unresolved issues." The
paragraphs below, will allow you to see the CFA's interpretation of
various components contrasted with those of the CSU.
I will keep you apprised of developments regarding this process as I
receive them. For an opportunity to learn about our contract and
negotiation status, please attend one of the two CFA Bargaining Updates
on Monday, September 25, 2006 in Founders Hall. 12:10-12:50pm Founders
Hall 125 and 1:10-1:50pm in Founders 232. David Bradfield, CFA
Associate Vice President and Chris Haynes, member of the CFA Bargaining
Team will provide information and be available to answer questions.
Sincerely,
Robin Meiggs, President
CFA Humboldt Chapter
CFA Bargaining Report
Chris Haynes, HSU and CFA Bargaining Team Member
By now, you have probably seen the bulk emails sent to all faculty in the CSU from CSU Director of Labor Relations Sam Strafaci and our own Humboldt State President Rollin Richmond. Both letters are similar and President Richmond’s very closely resembles the letters that other campus presidents are sending to their individual faculty. As a member of the CFA Bargaining Team, I am compelled to respond to inaccuracies and misrepresentations that the Chancellor’s Office is perpetuating in our long, 18 month bargaining struggle. I was at the bargaining session last Friday (Sept. 15) and the entire team worked to craft an acceptable counter to the last CSU proposal. We did, and as in San Francisco last July, negotiations were stopped by the CSU on the issue of salary, even though we exhibited considerable flexibility in trying to settle this contentious issue.
President Richmond/Sam Strafaci on Salary:
* A 24.87 percent salary increase over four years, beginning in 2006/07, contingent upon getting the funding contemplated in the compact with the Governor and an additional 1 percent augmentation for compensation. The increase would bring faculty salaries close to those of faculty at institutions used for comparison by the California Postsecondary Education Commission. Salaries of CSU faculty currently lag behind those at comparable institutions by approximately 14 percent. After increases for cost-of-living, the current salary offer would provide an additional 12.5 percent toward closing this lag. Although this is a four-year agreement, all increases will be effective within 36 months.
* A 4.0% GSI total compensation settlement in FY 2006/07
* A 6.53% total compensation settlement in FY 07/08 including 1.0% for incentive pay
* A 6.84% total compensation settlement in FY 08/09 including 1.0% for incentive pay
* A 7.50% total compensation settlement in FY 09/10 including 1.0% for incentive pay
CFA Response:
YOU WERE NOT GOING TO GET A 24.87% PAY INCREASE! This is an excellent example of the Chancellor’s double -speak on salaries. Had the actual salary offer been nearly 25% over four years for all faculty we would likely have a signed contract today. But that CSU contract language only legally bound them to the following salary raises
2006-2007 3% GSI
2007-2008 3.53% GSI
2008-2009 3.84% GSI
2009-2010 4.5% GSI
14.87% OVER FOUR YEARS
The Chancellor’s offer required that we “purchase/deduct” Service Step Increases (SSI) for eligible faculty from the General Salary Increase of all Faculty. CFA has long argued that like every other state agency, SSI’s are self-funding. The CSU rejected our offer to share the cost of an independent financial investigation to determine if we are correct or not. Over the life of the contract, “purchasing/deducting” Service Salary Increases reduces the amount of the General Salary Increase most faculty will receive by 4%.
The Chancellor’s offer also included 3% in “virtual” dollars. While CFA has expended considerable time and money over the past three years attempting to restore much needed funding to the CSU, the Chancellor and the Trustees have opted to sit on their hands. Year after year while faculty salaries stagnate and workload becomes staggering, they have assured the leaders in Sacramento that the system is “managing” with fewer dollars. Notwithstanding their inaction on behalf of the system, the Chancellor asks us all to trust that he will somehow persuade the governor and legislature to provide an augmentation for our salaries. Adding insult to injury, Reed demands that in exchange, CFA silence any criticism that we may have of the CSU’s overall budget -- even if it includes funding to increase already bloated executive salaries or more increases in student fees. None of us can pay our bills with “virtual” dollars. As the fine print on the Chancellors offer says: “If no augmentation is achieved, the GSIs will be reduced by 1% for fiscal years 2007/08, 2008/09 and 2009/10.”
Remember, in 2005 most Campus Presidents received a 14% salary increase in a single year. When combined with perks like car and housing allowance the total increase was over 19%. This single increase is greater than the entire yearly salary for many faculty. CSU has demonstrated a continued commitment to rewarding administration in the CSU system but fails to contractually bind itself to equity in faculty salaries.
Richmond/Strafaci on incentive and equity pay program:
* The CSU is proposing to set aside 3 percent of the total salary increase offer of 24.86 percent for incentive pay. The CSU proposal does not require the creation of new procedures to award incentive pay.
CFA Response:
The Chancellor did, indeed, include 3 percent for “discretionary” pay. In their earlier offer there was to be a 1.5% pool of money distributed over 2 years of the contract. In this offer the same 3% was stretched out over 3 years, hardly an improvement. Moreover, the most recent program on the table would have given the administration full discretion over the distribution of these dollars and leave faculty members to appeal only to the president if dissatisfied with their awards.
Richmond/Strafaci on Continuation of FERP:
* Continuation of the FERP program, reducing the maximum number of years to four and bringing it into line with actual utilization. The average faculty member is enrolled in this program for only three years.
CFA Response:
In his ongoing effort to kill a program that actually saves the university money, Chancellor Reed sought to reduce FERP to four years by the last year of the contract. The California Faculty Association has no interest in eroding this successful program. This is not an issue that is holding up the contract!! Issues on Salary are holding up the contract!!
Richmond/Strafaci on health and dental benefits:
* CSU Health and dental benefits are above the standard for California and other universities nationwide. The cost to the CSU contributions for health and dental benefits for faculty unit employees is currently $120 million per year, and the cost of CSU contributions for retirement benefits for faculty unit employees is currently an additional $196 million per year.
No changes to retirement benefits:
* The current proposal makes no change to faculty eligibility for PERS retirement, which includes lifetime medical and dental benefits.
CFA Response:
These issues were not on the table in the first place and it seems odd that they are included in this summary of bargaining progress. THEY WERE NEVER DISCUSSED!!
Richmond/Strafaci on maternity and paternity leave:
* The CSU is proposing to form a committee to evaluate current policies for maternity/paternity leave. Currently, faculty members are eligible for 30 days of leave, which must be taken within 60 days of the birth or adoption of a child. Current CSU policy on this issue is among the best offered by any university.
CFA Response:
We found the Chancellor’s team absolutely intransigent on the issue of maternity/paternity leave. Indeed, they challenged us to find programs that were better than that provided by the CSU. CFA’s research uncovered quite a few programs in higher education and private industry that provided considerably more flexibility to new and prospective parents. Here again, CFA’s team tried to argue for some creative solutions to this issue but the Chancellor’s response was to bury this family friendly issue in the committee mentioned above. The CSU IS NOT THE LEADER THEY CLAIM TO BE on “family friendly” issues, one of the most important programs for retention of junior faculty!
Richmond/Strafaci on equal parking fees for all:
* The CSU is proposing that by the end of the four-year contract, faculty pay the same parking fees as students. The CSU faces increasing costs for the operation and maintenance of campus parking facilities and believes that these costs should not be disproportionately borne by our students.
CFA Response:
As indicated above, at the end of the four year contract faculty and students would pay the same rate. The problem is that while at some campuses the increases are minor, amounting to a few dollars a month, at others they have risen one hundred dollars or more. Considering the size of the CSU’s salary offer, some faculty could actually see their raises returned to the university in parking fees! Where does this money go? CFA has asked repeatedly, and CSU refuses to provide any data.
Richmond/Strafaci on Lecturer Rights:
* The CSU has proposed to maintain current lecturer employment rights.
CFA Response:
CFA is quite pleased that the CSU finally backed away from its effort to thoroughly undermine the work force stability provided by our contract, BUT THEY ONLY DID SO AFTER A LONG HARD YEAR OF CFA BARGAINING AND IT SIMPLY PRESERVES THE EXISTING CONTRACT!
The issue of salary was the first and foremost issue that faculty identified in the bargaining surveys CFA administered before negotiations began. Many of you have made sure we were reminded of that over the last 18 months! The most prominent issues in salary are as follows:
1. The CPEC Gap: Faculty salaries in the CSU lag far behind the CPEC average which compares us with comparable institutions. The chancellor has publicly stated he believes this gap must be eliminated; yet the CSU proposal will DO NOTHING to decrease the CPEC gap. It appears on the surface that 14% over four years would do that, but what the CSU purposely leaves out is that the CPEC average changes with the pay increases that comparable institutions also get over the next four years – AND THEY WILL GET PAY RAISES! More is needed to just keep up with CPEC and narrow the difference.
2. Compression in senior faculty ranks: Because of the SSI maxima in each range, many long-time faculty members have not had an SSI in many years – decades in some cases! This is where the CPEC gap is highest, at the full professor rank, and is close to 26%! Our proposal for two SSI’s FOR ALL FACULTY is intended to start closing that huge gap AND THE CSU CAN AFFORD TO DO IT! They simply don't want to!
3. Inversion in junior faculty ranks: The lack of SSI’s over the last several years has allowed new hires to exceed the salaries of many junior faculty hired over the last five years. As they try and keep up with inflation with a single GSI in the past four years, many junior faculty are feeling an economic crunch that has resulted in some moving to other states with lower costs of living and higher salary offers. This compounds the problem of faculty workload and tenure-track positions in the CSU. Our proposal has a modest equity component that is specifically intended to bring those salaries up to the level of new hires AND REIMPLEMENT THE SSI’s ANNUALY to allow them to keep up with the cost of living.
These issues must be addressed in this contract! CFA is not proposing to solve all salary problems in a single contract, but we must start to correct the structural problems in the salary schedule and begin the process IN THIS CONTRACT. The CSU proposal fails to address these issues and puts off the recommendations of their own salary structure committee for FOUR MORE YEARS!
It was certainly discouraging to go to Long Beach last Friday and not reach a settlement. The CFA bargaining team was optimistic as we started the day, but much like the previous meeting, it ended early, -- with the CSU telling us they were not going to respond to our counter offer.