The UFF Senate, which oversees UFF, meets twice a year
(usually), usually in late Spring and early Fall. The
Senators are faculty and professional employees
elected by UFF members each Spring. Over the
September 20, 21 weekend, the Senate met in Orlando,
and had a lot to talk about.
The UFF is a local of the Florida Education
Association (FEA), a joint affiliate of the American
Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the National Education
Association (NEA). Representatives from both unions
were there to tell us about the growing political
pressures on academia nationwide. Among the
announcements:
In his address to the Senate, UFF President Tom
Auxter connected the movement to impose standardized
testing at the college level to a movement, led by
Lynne Cheney's American Council of Trustees and Alumni
(who political junkies will recall provided the initial
training for Florida's new trustees) to require colleges
and universities to teach a certain "core" curriculum,
where adherence to this core curriculum would be
enforced by requiring students to pass exit exams
composed by politically well-connected private testing
companies. Auxter then described a recent attempt by
the Board of Trustees at the State University of New
York (can you believe they'd do this to SUNY?) to
impose such a core curriculum, complete with
standardized testing. The United University
Professions (UUP) --- SUNY's faculty union --- and the
SUNY faculty senates opposed the changes, and SUNY
Stony Brook simply balked. The result has been a major
catfight involving the governor's office.
Auxter described his visit to UUP and notes that
it is no longer true that university faculty face
different problems than K-12 teachers. The political
situation has reached the point that SUNY is being
treated like an recalcitrant elementary school.
Following the AFT's observation that higher education
people are insufficiently organized, Auxter proposed
that UFF follow UUP's example and work more closely
with the (rest of the) Florida Education Association
against what is becoming a common enemy.
Meanwhile, with assistance from the FEA, UFF is
continuing to gain new members. All experience shows
that membership translates to bargaining strength, as
well as ability to resist loony intrusions. A few
university chapters (including USF) are in pre-bargaining
(what's the agenda? where and when do we meet? etc.).
The chapters will be doing the bargaining, but in
consultation with the Tallahassee office, and with the
assistance of some bargaining experts.
And one of our most familiar faces is leaving. For
many years, Llona Geiger was the executive assistant for
UFF, and ran the Tallahassee office (which meant legal
problems, legislative contacts, coordination and
communiction, etc). She is retiring in order to go hiking
in Colorado, although she promises to kibbitz when the
need arises.
You may have heard that both Blue Cross/Blue Shield, the
state PPO provider, and AvMed, the HMO alternative, are
raising their premiums and co-payments. The flurry of
increases includes (for Blue Cross/Blue Shield) a 67 %
increase in the annual deductible for families and a 33 %
increase in co-payments for generic pharmaceuticals and
(for Avmed) a 33 % increase in physician office visit
co-payment and a 67 % increase in hospital admission fee.
This has been in the works for some time, as well as
this year's 2 % salary increase (with a $ 1400 cap) to
cover the insurance increase.
The union is watching this very carefully, and at
the Senate, the USF Chapter moved to support in principle
a number of items:
We also heard updates on the growing amount of litigation
the attempt to bust the union has generated. There are
eight petitions before the Public Employees Relations
Commission (PERC), the 3-member commission that overlooks
labor issues for public employees like us. Currently,
all three commissioners are Bush appointees.
First of all, there are four Unfair Labor Practice
(ULP) petitions, contending that university
administrations seriously violated the rights of the
chapters.
The primary ULP is against the FSU Board of
Trustees. The FSU administration is the most rabidly
anti-union, and the complaint cites problems like the
refusal to let UFF members pay dues via dues deductions.
This is the one that the other ULPs are following.
As reported in the previous Biweekly, as part of the
preliminary process, a hearing officer (who screens cases
before they go to the commission) reported that UFF's
account of the case was factually correct, that the usual
interpretation of the law supports UFF's position, but
then she claimed one loophole for not requiring that
the FSU administration abide by the terms and conditions
of the contract, and another (which she claims says makes
those Collective Bargaining Authorization cards we signed
irrelevant) saying that the FSU administration is not
bound to maintain terms and conditions of employment
while both sides prepare for a "certification election"
on whether UFF will (continue to) represent UFF faculty.
UFF's lawyers regard the preliminary decision as
very strange (the hearing officer claimed that the
precedents provided loopholes for public employers,
and at the UFF Senate, there was a discussion of the
political pressures on PERC.
The other three ULPs are against the FAMU, UF, and
USF administrations. These may be strongly influenced
by how the FSU petition is ultimately resolved.
Secondly, several administrations are playing games,
trying to change the definition of the "bargaining unit,"
i.e., the employees represented by UFF. This has led to
three petitions: the hearing officers for the FAU and
FIU came to contradictory rulings (on whether
departmental chairs are in the bargaining unit) while
UF is trying to make major changes in which departments
are represented.
FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
From the beginning, the administrations of FSU and UF
have been most adamantly opposed to UFF. UF's
Administration has managed to maintain a plausible
simulation of civility: UF President Young has been
broadcasting weekly missives to all faculty reminding
them that unions are tacky, lower-class organizations
and that real research universities --- unlike Stony
Brook --- put their trust in administrators and boards
of corporate CEOs.
FSU's board has been ... less calm. They even
banned UFF meetings from campus. FSU's board forced
a certification election on whether UFF is the faculty
union, scheduled for Oct. 8. The FEA sent some
organizers to FSU, and the FSU administration is
trying to dictate what buildings they can visit.
This will be the second certification election.
At the University of West Florida, in which 66 % of
all faculty signed Collective Bargaining Authorization
cards, UFF won with 91 % of the vote. At FSU, 65 % of
the faculty signed cards, and UFF hopes that on Oct. 9,
the FSU Board will have the sense to announce (perhaps
through gritted teeth) that they are prepared to deal
with UFF with a plausible simulation of civility.
Your Retirement Dollars at Work
Retirement funds are such big, complicated things that
it is difficult to follow them, even when their yours.
But that may be dangerous.
Several years ago, Governor Bush reduced payments
to the Florida Retirement System (FRS), which helped
the Florida budget get a little less out of balance.
Since then, FRS lost $ 335,000,000 to Enron, which
was run by more of Mr. Bush's friends.
Now Mr. Bush wants $ 104,000,000 to bail out
another friend.
The friend is
Edison Schools.
It is a school
management company: if a school district has low test
scores, a noisy union, or uppity parents, it can hire
Edison to ... to ... well, Edison's track record of
doing anything is a bit mixed, but it makes people feel
better. For a little while.
Unsurprisingly, it is not a good investment. In 11
years, it has made a profit in only one quarter, and
over the last two years its stock price has sunk from
$ 36 to $ 2. But it has the right political connections,
so the FRS it being asked to, um, invest in it.
The unions representing the employees whose pensions
are in this fund are not pleased. On September 30, the
FEA and Florida affiliates of other unions began a
campaign against the investment.
For more information, here are some links:
a Sept. 25 St. Pete Times story ,
a Sept. 26 St. Pete Times story,
a Sept. 26 Miami Herald story,
a Sept. 26 Associated Press story,
a Sept. 26 Pete Times editorial,
a
a Sept. 25 TV news report.
We have also posted:
a
press release,
a
letter from the NEA to Bush,
and a
joint letter from labor leaders to Bush.
And if you have any feelings about this issue, you
may want to express them to the three people overseeing
FRS: Governor Bush, phone 850.488.4441, e-mail
; Charlie Crist, phone 850.414.3990,
e-mail ; Tom Gallagher, phone
850.413.3100, e-mail .
Yesterday, UWF; Today, FSU; Tomorrow, UF
Last week, the faculty of Florida State University
voted overwhelmingly to have the United Faculty of
Florida represent them in collective bargaining ---
and enforcing the contract. This was the single most
bitter battle in the entire confrontation between the
United Faculty of Florida and the new Boards of
Trustees, and our victory will profoundly affect the
entire university system.
So let's take a moment to review how we got
here.
It all began with the reorganization of the
State University System. The issue for UFF has been
whether the state would use the reorganization to
reorganize UFF out of existence. This would make it
possible for the new Boards of Trustees to write
whatever contracts that they felt like writing (if
any: some shady operations lack contracts
altogether), and it would make it difficult for
faculty to enforce the contracts that remained.
Of course, a union cannot be eliminated so
easily. Under labor law, a going concern cannot
get rid of a union by a reorganization that changes
only management and stationary, so the state
universities could not lawfully refuse to deal with
UFF. But the law is enforced by having the union
file a complaint with the Public Employees Relations
Commission (PERC, which not only is run by Bush
appointees, but also may be somewhat chastened by
Bush's 2001 attempt to reform it into toothless-
ness). So UFF filed many complaints, which are
still winding through PERC's legal process.
Meanwhile, UFF also proceeded along other, more
political fronts.
Perhaps to the surprise of the boards, UFF did
not simply evaporate. In fact, the Florida Education
Association supported UFF with over $ 1 million
and a professional organizer. As UFF's mission is
bargaining and enforcing the contract, UFF fought
for its role and the contract it defended. Eight
of the eleven boards have split the difference,
recognizing (or expressing a willingness to
recognize) UFF while claiming that the contract is
gone: that battle continues on eight fronts. The
boards for FSU, UF, and UWF chose to deny UFF
altogether.
Last Fall, UFF collected "Collective Bargaining
Authorization" cards. In theory, the cards say that
the signer wants to be represented in bargaining by
UFF; in practice, it means that if at least 30 %
of the faculty sign, then the board must either
voluntarily recognize UFF, or have a "certification"
election, in which faculty vote on whether or not
they want to be represented by UFF (majority wins).
These elections are messy things, and most boards
probably figured that since UFF collected cards from
over 60 % of the faculty, there was no point in
fighting the issue (USF faculty signed over 1,000
cards out of about 1,600).
But three boards chose to fight, which means
certification elections. The UWF election was first,
and 91 % of the votes were in favor of UFF. Last
week, it was FSU's turn, where 96 % of the votes were
in favor of UFF. Gainesville remains. The UF
Administration is playing a more subtle game, trying
to change the "bargaining unit," i.e., which faculty
are represented and which are not. (For example,
here at USF, medical faculty are not in the
bargaining unit.) Whether the UF Administration
hopes that such fiddling could win them an election,
or whether they are just stalling, is not clear: so
far there is no date for the UF election.
So where are we now?
- The union is still here, and new contracts are
being bargained or soon to be bargained
(bargaining is underway at USF, currently working
on the grievance process).
- The old contract is still in contention, with the
universities insisting that it is gone, along with
twenty-five years worth of precedents based on the
contract. UFF insists that the old contract is
not gone, and the complex battle is being fought
before PERC, whose behavior is growing increasingly
erratic. It is possible we might all wind up in
court.
- Thanks to 2002 Initiative # 11, a new Board of
Governors now oversees the system from a more
entrenched position than the old Board of Regents.
This new Board is beginning to show signs of life
--- alas, defending Governor Bush's interests
against those of the universities --- but after a
few years, the Legislature should be facing a new
Board stronger than the old.
In other words, much of the damage done to Florida's
universities is being repaired. It has cost a lot
in many ways, but stopping an avalanche is quite an
accomplishment.
But this is not a time to rest on our laurels.
There is a ways to go. We need more faculty to
support the union, not only by signing cards, but in
joining, for it is ultimately in membership that a
union gains strength. In academia as elsewhere, the
price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and vigilance
is part of what a union is for.
October 28, 2003
USF ABOLISHES PHASED RETIREMENT:
A report to the bargaining unit by UFF President Roy
Weatherford
The union has learned that the administration is immediately
and without consultation abolishing the phased retirement
program that has served faculty well for fifteen years or so.
The phased retirement benefit permits faculty to ease into
retirement by guaranteeing re-employment at half-time and
half-salary during the first five years one draws retirement
pay. (The DROP program, which was instituted later by the
Florida Retirement System and which Governor Bush has
indicated he might try to cut back, provides the same
alternative at full-time and full-salary for five years but
retirement pay is escrowed rather than available.)
A professor who is in the “window of opportunity” recently
applied for phased retirement, as he has been planning for
more than a decade. He was told “The phased program is no
longer in existence. It may come back when the Collective
Bargaining is complete, but no one is sure about this.”
Phased retirement is one of the many faculty rights and
privileges that exist only in the union contract because
they were negotiated by the union instead of being created
by the legislature. When the administration decided to
stop enforcing the contract, such rights went into limbo.
They didn’t completely disappear because the union maintains
the university’s action was illegal and we are fighting it
through the Public Employees Relations Commission and the
courts. Meanwhile, the university is refusing to
reinstitute the contract until the legal battle is over,
presumably because they still hope to have the legal right
to abolish our contract – not because they hope to be able
to do us any favors.
No one knows what will happen to individuals whose
opportunity passes while the administration is dragging its
feet. The question is whether or not anyone cares.
President Genshaft has repeatedly said that she does not wish
to harm the interests of the faculty or the union. But for
more than a year now, the university has been harming those
interests: first by refusing to negotiate before the
expiration date of the contract, then by refusing to accept
continued recognition of the union when management reorganized,
then by reluctantly accepting the union after a difficult and
expensive card drive, and now by continuing to refuse to
recognize the union contract.
You may have noticed that the union has been relatively quiet
for a while. That is because we believe the best way to
advance faculty interests is through collective bargaining
and the best bargaining is done at the table rather than in
the press. We therefore instituted a tacit ceasefire when
bargaining actually began (and passed up some really good
opportunities to criticize dumb administration actions in
public.)
I am no longer convinced that strategy is viable.
It may be that the only way to force this administration to
talk to its faculty is by more confrontation rather than less.
I must reluctantly admit that the bargaining process is not
working either quickly or well. The administration is not
even pretending that their objective is to reinstitute our
rights and privileges as quickly and completely as possible.
Of course, the cynical ones among us never did believe that
was their intention – else why would they not just reinstitute
the old contract? Now it is clear that they intend to drag
the process out as long as they can and to try to extract as
much advantage as they can.
In January they unilaterally suspended the contract.
In May, after a difficult and expensive card drive, they
agreed to bargain with the union.
In August they actually started to get serious.
In September formal negotiations began.
As November approaches, they have not agreed to reinstate a
single faculty benefit or union prerogative.
Furthermore, in negotiating the one Section currently on
the table, Grievance Procedures, they are not merely trying
to adapt our old grievance process to the new management
structure – they are trying to limit our right to grieve
certain issues and to restrict binding arbitration only to
“major” issues. This is not a good faith effort to restore
the contract as quickly and painlessly as possible. A
reduction in our ability to enforce our rights is a de
facto reduction in the rights themselves.
Our bargaining team has been soldiering on without release
time for their efforts (even though the union negotiated
release time for bargaining more than twenty years ago.)
Despite this handicap, our team is moving faster than the
high paid professionals on the other side, for whom
bargaining IS their professional assignment and for which
they are highly paid. They also get full comp time for
the same weekends and evenings our people have to
contribute voluntarily. Now we are getting close to the
time when it will be difficult to arrange release time
for our team for next semester without seriously
disrupting the lives of their colleagues and students. It
seems the administration wants to maintain its bargaining
advantage for another semester no matter what the human
cost, which again implies that they do not intend to give
back our rights without a fight. Or perhaps they hope
that those of us who are doing the work will finally be
exhausted and will quit and the union can be broken.
We hope to win retroactive action on all the pending
grievances when we are vindicated in the courts – but how
can you retroactively get a year of retirement?
We have been waiting patiently for the administration to
do what’s right. Should we continue to do so? Should we
again become more confrontational? Would you support us
if we do? Whose side are you on?
Please send us an e-mail at
uff@cyber.acomp.usf.edu
and let us know what you think we should do in defense of
your rights and what you are willing to do to help us.
The contract covers everyone, member and non-member alike,
but our ability to negotiate it and enforce it depends
upon the support of our members.
In solidarity,
Roy Weatherford
President,
USF Chapter,
United Faculty of Florida
What Do Bargainers Do All Day?
Ideally, bargaining is the process of both sides
developing or discovering a contract that both sides
can live with. It is not a zero-sum game: there are
win-win sitauations to look for --- and lose-lose
situations to avoid. But there are two parties with
different interests.
Since the precise language of the contract is
what (usually) determines the meaning of the contract,
both sides have to be careful about what their
proposals say, and what language to agree to. After
a contract is signed, if there is a disagreement over
what it means, an impartial arbitrator (who was not
in the bargaining room and therefore can only rely
on the text of the contract itself) is supposed to
read the contract and determine what it says. That
is a good reason for great care.
The USF Board, which (as President Genshaft told
the USF Faculty Senate) is overseeing bargaining, has
a bargaining team, consisting largely of lawyers who
have been assigned bargaining as part of their job
assignment. They are employees and want to please
their employers.
What do their employers want? Not being psychic,
we can only look at what their predecessors under the
Board of Regents sought. They tried to maintain the
discretionary powers of administrators in dispensing
discipline, in making assignments, in determining
raises, in distributing resources (travel funding,
sabbaticals, etc), and so on. As for raises
themselves, they were always happy to distribute (as
they saw fit) any raises that the Legislature chose
to fund.
At present, we have gotten many signs that the
Board of Trustees has indicated similar goals to
their team.
Meanwhile, the USF Chapter of UFF, which
consists of those faculty who have chosen to put
their money where their interests are by becoming
dues-paying union members, are represented by a
bargaining team consisting of faculty who are working
on their free time as volunteers. This is odd,
because the union had long ago won the right to
assign course releases to bargaining team members,
but as the Board of Trustees is (unlawfully) ignoring
the terms and conditions of the old contract, our
team members are working on their own time.
(The union is litigating the course release
issue, but no one expects a ruling before Spring.)
The union's agenda has always been: due process.
We want explicit procedures and criteria for making
decisions. We want fiddle-proof mechanisms for how
assignments are made, how evaluations are interpreted
and how salary decisions are made, how resources are
distributed, etc. We don't want a Dean simply looking
into a crystal ball and deciding who gets tenure and
who does not; we want a formal process, with
intelligible criteria for collegial decision-making.
In a well-managed institution, the points of
contention would be: what are the specifics of the
procedure and criteria. The union would push for
specifics that would benefit faculty, while the
institution would push for specifics that would allow
them greater control over faculty. But strangely, in
Florida, the Board teams have traditionally opposed
procedures and criteria altogether. This is strange
because failures of procedure are common and
embarrassing, but perhaps process usually is not a
priority to the boards.
And usually both sides prefer that bargaining be
a relatively low-temperature affair. That is why the
USF Chapter has maintained a relative "cease-fire,"
avoiding some of the high-profile tactics that some
of our colleagues are trying across the country (see
recent issues of the Chronicle of Higher Education).
We hope that in this will encourage the Board and
the Administration to see the value of a sound
relationship with the union --- and the value of
sound procedures. But we are watching our colleagues
elsewhere, and taking notes.
BARGAINING: What's Been Happening
As mentioned in the Nov. 13 Biweekly (see
),
bargaining over the last few months opened on one
part of the contract that both sides agreed had to
be changed because of the reorganization: the
grievance process.
The union team, led by UFF Chief Negotiator and
Professor of Accounting Bob Welker, proposed only
one set of modifications: the team proposed
eliminating the second "step" of the process.
- Under the contract, a grievance -- a charge
that the Administration has violated the
contract -- is first heard in a "Step 1" hearing
in the Provost's office, and, if necessary,
appealed to a "Step 2" hearing in Tallahassee
before lawyers representing the Board of Regents,
and then, if necessary, appealed before a
disinterested third party, an "impartial
arbitrator."
- Because the Board of Governors refuses to do
things like hear grievances, the union team
proposed this modification: first mediation if
practicable, then Step 1, then arbitration, with
no Step 2.
The Administration proposed to eliminate arbitration
on many issues not immediately affecting job status:
arbitration would be permitted for issues involving
tenure, promotion, salary, etc.
In other words, the Administration itself would
be the highest level of appeal in the grievance
process in issues involving academic freedom;
access to documents; appointments; discrimination
based on creed, race, religion, sex, etc.; benefits;
employee rights and work conditions; job assignments;
leaves; off-the-job activity; performance evaluations;
non-reappointment; promotion; rights to royalties and
control of inventions and creative works; sabbaticals;
sexual harassment; and the grievance procedure itself.
Over half the grievances now filed fall into these
categories. In addition, the union would not be able
to get arbitration for any grievances the union chapter
files. Thus the union would not be able to get
arbitration for grievances on access to communications
(mail, listservs, etc.); the right to consult with the
president (who has refused to meet with the union for
two years); the use of facilities; and release time for
bargaining team members and other union officers, as
well as announced policies that the union believes
are unlawful and violate faculty rights or impair
union operations.
Since it is arbitration that keeps the system
honest, the union would not agree to the proposal,
and bargaining was stalemated.
FREEDOM FROM FEAR: An Old Issue Resurfaces
Then something more primeval came up. Fear.
The phenomenon is an old one. A faculty member
will not speak to a union organizer on-campus, or even
off-campus in the same town. A faculty member would
like to join the union, but is afraid that if union
mailings are noticed in her/his box, others in the
department will see.
It seems to be worse at branch campuses, although
it is present at some areas of the Tampa campus. It
is real, if not constant. Is the fear justified?
After all, retaliation against any employee for union
activity is a violation of federal law. And only an
incompetent and petty chair would pressure faculty
one way or the other on whether to be in the union,
or even to be active. But there has been a little
retaliation, against union officers and even against
relatively quiet union members --- largely at the
departmental level (yes, there are incompetent and
petty chairs out there). In many cases, the fears
are overstated --- people have all kinds of fears
--- but the union is very concerned about leadership
styles that create fear.
Well, now it's not just the union that is
concerned.
First, some background. The Legislature has
recently decided that the satellite campuses of USF
should be sort of independent. The Administration
composed an Inter Campus Operating Procedures
proposal, replacing the previous document of 1992
(both documents are on-line via
the page of materials for the October meeting);
the new proposal was made without faculty input.
The Faculty Senate was concerned about such a
proposal being made without faculty input, and
appointed an Ad Hoc Committee on Inter-Campus
Operating Procedures, whose report was presented
to the Senate on Nov. 12 (and is on-line
a large .pdf document).
The report enumerates many reservations about the
proposal, especially the amount of power it proposes
concentrating in the hands of the branch campus
Chief Executive Officers.
Committee Chairman Steve Permuth, in his verbal
presentation, directed attention to pages 15, 16,
and 18. The Committee went to the satellite campuses,
and reported that:
-
"Of great and profound concern to this committee
is the sense of real and perceived attempts to
discourage and dissuade faculty from exercising
their rights to ask questions, to file legitimate
grievances, to maintain an academic alliance to
the Tampa campus, or meet one to one with members
of this committee without fear of recrimination
or regret ... When faculty feel the need to meet
a member of this Committee off campus, so no one
knows about the meeting and are willing to talk
on the phone only if assured they will not be
identified, this is a sure sign of trouble."
The report recommends that the Senate convene a panel
of faculty, chairs and administrators to investigate
"what we believe is egregious and disturbing conduct
in attempts to 'quiet' faculty ... ."
The Senate was deeply disturbed, as was President
Genshaft, who announced that she would direct the
Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity Affairs to
conduct a formal investigation. She also said that no
complaints had ever reached her, even though she was
in the Senate room when, in 2002, Chapter President
Roy Weatherford had said that he was sorry to report a
growing sense of fear and intimidation at USF.
So now that the issue is in the open, the union
has three comments.
- Some officials do cultivate a fearsome reputation
to keep subordinates quiet. Their powers are
usually more limited than it may seem, and their
powers are very limited in daylight or in a crowd.
Now that a window is opening and a crowd is
gathering, it may be safer to talk.
- But who to talk to? Since the Senate and the
Union represent the faculty (in different ways),
the prestige of the Senate and the legal power
of the union make them logical people to turn
to. There will more information on this in the
weeks and months ahead. And the Office of DEOA
will be conducting a formal investigation.
- What to talk about? There are a lot of vague
fears floating around, and some specific
concerns based on actual events and policies:
actual events and policies are the only things
the Senate, the Union, or the Office of the DEOA
can deal with. Accuracy and detail is important:
as in grievance cases, documentation can be
critical (if you get in trouble, start a journal,
recording everything that happens, with dates,
and copies of documents).
Hopefully we have finally brought the monster out
to bay. Dealing with it will be a protracted process,
but this is a situation where fear itself is the
greatest enemy.
AFTERWARDS: Excelsior
The holiday season is upon us, and in some ways,
things have simmered down a bit since then. Union
Chief Negotiator Bob Welker reports: "UFF has
made proposals on the following eight subject
matter areas which correspond to Articles 1-7 and
20 of the expired contract, namely: Recognition,
Consultation, UFF Privileges, Reserved Rights,
Academic Freedom and Responsibility,
Nondiscrimination, Minutes, Rules and Budgets,
Grievance Procedure and Arbitration. The USF
Administration has made counter proposals to
five of our subject matter area proposals and we
expect them to make counter proposals to at least
two more of our subject matter area proposals on
December 5, 2003. The UFF Bargaining Team looks
forward to representing the interests of the
employees in the bargaining unit as the bargaining
process continues."
On the longer term, as we compose a new
contract with a new Board as USF is reorganized,
we are in one of those windows of opportunity when
effort and courage stands a good chance of being
rewarded. The whole of the university is being
reorganized, SACS is coming, enrollment is rising,
the research mission is expanding (imposing growing
demands on both infrastructure and red tape) and
all while the Board of Governors and the Legislature
have their hands on their ears while humming loudly.
USF now stands at the crossroads. Led by a proactive
faculty, USF could become a major academic bridge
between north and south, a leader in confronting the
challenges of the 21st Century. But this future is
not guaranteed. In the lives of universities as of
people, timing is everything. And the time is now.