|
Letter from Janet Powell,
Chapter President (9/18/06)
Dear Colleagues,
I share President Hayne'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 CPEC salary gap. According to the latest
CPEC report, 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. CFA and the CSU administration also have different
opinions about other "unresolved issues." The paragraphs below will
allow you to see the CFA's interpretation of various components of the
CSU positions in a side-by-side fashion.
Salary:
CSU Claim: 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.
CFA Response: Had the
actual salary offer been nearly 25% over four years for all faculty,
CFA would have been confident that faculty would support and ratify
the contract. But clear away the Enron-style accounting and here is
the reality of what most faculty could count on in the
administration salary offer:
2006-2007 3 % GSI
2007-2008 3.53% GSI
2008-2009 3.84% GSI
2009-2010 4.5% GSI
14.87% total over 4 years
The Chancellor's offer required
that we "purchase" an SSI (Service Step Increase) for some of our
faculty with the GSI's of all. CFA has long argued that like every
other state agency SSI's are self-funding (as senior faculty retire
new faculty are hired at lower cost--savings from the retired
faculty are distributed to fund the steps for the remaining faculty,
keeping the average salary constant). 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" SSIs reduces the amount most faculty will receive by
4%.
The Chancellor's offer also
included 3% in "virtual" dollars. While CFA's "Save the CSU"
campaign strived over the past three years to restore much needed
funding to the CSU, the Chancellor and the Trustees sat on their
hands rather than ask the Legislature for increased funding. instead
insuring the leaders in Sacramento that the system is "managing"
with fewer dollars. Notwithstanding this record of inaction,the
Chancellor asks us all to trust that he will somehow persuade the
governor and legislature to provide an augmentation for our salaries
in the future. 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 further increase
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." Recall that in the fall of 2005 the
"pool" for the 23 Campus Presidents rose from $5.0 million to over
$5.7 million for an average raise of 13.8%. On top of their salaries
each receives a $12,000 annual car allowance and a $50-$60,000 house
allowance (for those not living in a University-owned house). Click
here for
more info.
Incentive and equity pay program:
CSU Claim: 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. Do not be
comforted by the lack of new procedures or assume that RTP-type
procedures will kick in--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.
Continuation of FERP:
CSU Claim: 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 and Reed has shown no
interest in considering alternatives like a buy-out for faculty who
might wish to move to a FERP of fewer than five years.
Health and dental benefits:
CSU Claim: 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.
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.
No changes to retirement benefits:
CSU Claim: 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.
Maternity and paternity leave:
CSU Claim: 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.
Equal parking fees for all:
CSU Claim: 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: The
bargaining team was told that the issue of parking fees was of
particular importance to Chancellor Reed; we only wished that
faculty salaries ranked as high. 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--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!
Lecturer Rights:
CSU Claim: 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 workforce stability provided by our
contract.
In addition to the issues covered
here, there are also many fine details, as you can imagine. One area not
covered above is a CFA proposal to address the "inversion" or
"experience penalty" now pinching faculty who joined the university 3-4
years ago as assistant professors. The CFA's proposal included a special
fund to help that group "catch up."
The processes of fact-finding and
mediation will take some time. We will keep you informed of developments
as they occur. Please watch your email and this website for
opportunities to show your support for the bargaining team and to demand
a fair contract.
Solidarity,
Janet Powell
CFA San Marcos Chapter President
|
