FAQ on Summer 2020 Negotiations
Budget - FAQ
June 17, 2020
Q: Will there be a cap on salary reductions? Will the administration take higher cuts than the faculty?
A: Some of the most highly-paid administrators at USF have already agreed to a salary reduction of 15 percent for fiscal year 2021. The Negotiation Team (NT) has taken the position that the more highly-paid administrators should take the most significant cuts. We have not agreed to any salary cuts for full-time faculty or librarians at this time. USFFA members have agreed to pay/step freezes through October 2020. Other options that the NT is considering are extending pay/step freezes through fiscal year 2021, progressive pay cuts (a higher percentage reduction for those who earn more), and flat pay cuts. We are also considering alternatives to salary reductions such as a suspension of retirement contributions, a suspension of commuter benefits, and/or reductions in FDF/LDF funding. We have sought your input on those options, and will negotiate with the results of those discussions and surveys in mind.
Q: Can we have a “cafeteria” style reduction, with some of us taking cuts to retirement and others taking pay cuts?
A: The NT has looked into this. Retirement benefits cannot be reduced or eliminated for only some employees due to restrictions imposed by the university’s agreement with TIAA. So it is not possible for some USFFA members to choose pay cuts and others to choose reductions in their retirement benefits.
Q: Why can’t the university use more of the endowment, sell property, or borrow money (which can be done at very low rates today)? What about cutting from athletics?
A: The USFFA cannot require the administration to take those steps, or others like them—any decision to use the endowment, sell property, and borrow money rests with the Board of Trustees. But these possibilities are very much part of our negotiations. We are pushing back on all options, and are arguing that this may be a short-term crisis and should not be solved by making deep cuts to compensation for faculty and librarians, who are integral to the academic mission of the institution.
Q: Didn’t we just get $5 million from the Koret Foundation? Does that go to help the deficit?
A: Although the announcement came out recently, USF received the grant in January. A majority of the award was designated for specific items and not available for general expenses; a portion was earmarked for faculty research but this was redirected to financially support students during Spring 2020.
Q: What if the shortfall is less than $15 million? Will we still have to take pay cuts, or will the administration absorb all of that?
A: Again, this is part of the negotiations we’re engaged in right now. One possibility is that the university pays members retroactively if the shortfall is not as large as expected, since with a salary/step freeze and sabbatical deferral, the USFFA has already contributed our share of a $15 million shortfall.
May 29, 2020
Q: Where does the 48 percent come from and how would that work?
A: This is a complex question. The simplest answer is that in the $40 million shortfall scenario, assuming progressive pay cuts and salary/step freezes applied across all employee groups (including those that are unionized and those that are not), USFFA’s contribution could include: no FDF/LDF for FY21 + freeze on steps/salaries + sabbatical deferral + salary cuts using the progressive cut formula proposed by the university. Together these items add up to approximately 48% of the shortfall.
If the net revenue shortfall is lower than $40 million, the percentage contributed by USFFA members would likely be lower because the Administration has already implemented a number of cuts. These include reductions in Administration salaries and merit raises, furloughs, and infrastructure project deferrals or cancellations, among others.
If there is a shortfall greater than $40 million, the USFFA contribution in higher shortfall scenarios would likely need to include discussions on retirement contributions, workload changes, overload changes, and/or more aggressive salary reductions in addition to those above. These specifics encompass the scenario planning we will need to work out in June.
Q: Is the university willing to use reserves and how will that impact the 48 percent?
A: We have been assured in writing that our contribution will be calculated after applying up to 50% of available operating reserves to the budget shortfall. We have also been informed that the Administration will be presenting the possibility of an increased draw from the endowment for this year to the Board of Trustees.
Q: What about other University assets? Will they be part of the calculation?
A: The priorities and trajectory of the overall University budget is a critical issue and many faculty have raised questions concerning the role that this issue will play in negotiations and how it will factor into discussions about the current crisis. This ordinarily is not a subject of collective bargaining in normal times. But we are not in normal times, as the Administration has recently reminded us. Given that we are being asked to undertake real sacrifices to help the university survive the current crisis, it is reasonable for us to ask pertinent questions about overall budgetary spending priorities in other areas such as facilities, athletics, development, information technology services, etc. In these unique times, it is important that there are no areas or “pet projects” that are off limits when it comes to saving USF as an institution. We can and will raise these questions to ensure that our collective budgetary choices are made in the best interests of the common good. This would be an important step toward the kind of more cooperative and collaborative relationship that will be necessary for us to weather this storm.
Q: Could there be flexibility in cutting compensation? Could we decide on whether to take pay cuts or retirement cuts?
A: Changing retirement is more challenging than changing pay, but this is on the table as one way to trim spending. Changes to retirement contributions need to be made simultaneously across all employee groups at the same time, because of the way the University’s agreement with TIAA works, and these changes are then only in effect after 45 days. The same is true for any reversal of potential retirement contribution reductions. As there are numerous unions on campus, this negotiation process is more difficult and not under the control of USFFA members. We will be exploring every possible way to meet the budget shortfall to minimize the economic damage to all of our members. Regarding salary cut schemes, this is one of the items that could be negotiated in June, but the Administration has indicated that they would like to apply a set of progressive cuts across all employee groups, so that all are affected similarly.
Workload FAQ
June 17, 2020
Q: Can you explain the question of “overload,” which was on the survey last weekend? What is the university asking of us and what is the union advocating for?
A: Overload is the extra money that some faculty members are paid above their normal salaries for teaching additional courses beyond their contractual load, or for taking on additional non-teaching duties (directing a program, chairing a department, etc.). Overload during the academic year is compensated at the PHP rate (see CBA 30.3). For example, if a term faculty member, who usually teaches 12 units per semester (48 units over two years), also teaches a 1-unit seminar course for a total of 13 units in a particular semester, the additional unit of work from the extra class would normally result in additional compensation to that faculty member during that semester. The Union would prefer this practice to remain in place. The administration has indicated that they may not be willing to do this for overload teaching assignments incurred due to COVID-19 circumstances (i.e. social distancing rules), but that they would be willing to consider honoring existing overload agreements not related to COVID-19 contingencies. None of these details have yet been finalized or agreed to.
Q: What about protections for librarians?
A: As part of our negotiations we are asking the administration to agree not to terminate any librarians before June 2021. That would bolster their current job security significantly, and it’s an important component of our demands.
Leaves of Absence FAQ
June 17, 2020
Q: What about other options—such as voluntary leave of absence, either full or partial?
A: Those are options that we can negotiate with the administration. That’s why we have posted this document and are having these discussions—so you can give us your ideas! The survey over the weekend of June 13–14, gathered your input on these issues and more. We would like to know how many of our members might be thinking about a voluntary furlough.
Q: What is the difference between a furlough and a leave of absence? How is that different from a layoff?
A: Leave of Absence suggests that an individual employee agrees to take some unpaid time off. A furlough is when a group of workers has their pay and workload reduced temporarily. The university has already furloughed a number of staff (both partial and full furloughs) for the months of June and July; those staff members still have health benefits. A layoff is when an individual loses their position permanently. Being laid off (in contrast to being fired) generally implies that the job loss is due to financial circumstances and not due to an individual’s performance.
Sabbaticals FAQ
June 17, 2020
Q: The sabbatical issue is still confusing. Why was this on the table? Who is and isn’t eligible for sabbaticals? What about the fourth-year sabbatical?
A: In addition to the main package of agreements, our membership also overwhelmingly voted yes to support a one-year delay in most sabbaticals. We had assurances from the administration that the roughly $3.5 million that this will save would count towards our contribution (up to 48 percent) of the university’s potential revenue shortfall. This vote and this action showed clearly that our faculty are willing and able to find ways to help at this difficult time. The sabbatical delay of one year applies to all tenure-track (i.e., tenured and pre-tenure) faculty. Those faculty members who were scheduled for sabbatical in the 20/21 academic year should contact their Deans to confirm their return to campus or their eligibility for one of the two exceptions:
(1) Faculty members who have already obtained external funding sufficient to cover 25 percent or more of their salary and benefits during their previously agreed-upon 2020-2021 sabbatical leave will be allowed to continue taking their sabbaticals as planned.
(2) A faculty member who already has seven or more years of credit towards their next sabbatical (when only seven are now required to apply for, and then take, a sabbatical in the eighth year) may continue to take a sabbatical leave in academic year 2020-2021, if previously approved by their Dean. This generally applies to individuals who have already deferred their sabbaticals prior to this year.
Q: I am a probationary faculty. If I decide to push back my tenure clock, can I still apply for a pre-tenure sabbatical?
A: Yes. Probationary faculty still qualify for a pre-tenure sabbatical even if they decide to push back their tenure clock. Instead of applying for a sabbatical in their fourth year, probationary faculty who delay their tenure clock may apply for their pre-tenure sabbatical in their fifth year. The deadline for probationary faculty to notify the deans that they have decided to extend their tenure clock has been set to July 15, 2020.
May 29, 2020
Q: How would the sabbatical change work in practice?
A: The core idea is that all tenured and tenure-eligible faculty would have a year added to their sabbatical clocks for this cycle, with some exceptions. Those that have already deferred a year would thus still be eligible because they have the additional year of credit. Shifting all sabbaticals forward a year avoids the issue of two cohorts of faculty taking sabbaticals in the same year, which would make allocating teaching responsibilities difficult in future years. After taking a sabbatical, the sabbatical clock would reset to zero and would also return to the normal interval of seven years.
Negotiation Process Questions - FAQ
Q: Can we ask for a mediator to help with the negotiations?
A: Typically a mediator is brought in during contract negotiations to offer a third-party perspective, and to assist with joint problem-solving if the two sides are close to an impasse. We are continuing to negotiate in good faith with the administrationand are open to mediation as an option if discussions were to stall.
Q: Why am I getting more than one survey?
A: We want to be sure that the membership has input on a series of crucial decisions we’re making. So we are sending out regular surveys as we continue with negotiations. Different committees are looking for input on different issues (health concerns, financial concerns, negotiating strategies etc.). We want to have as much information as possible about what members think. So we really appreciate you filling out these surveys. If there is a technical problem (i.e., you received the same survey twice, or if you did not receive a survey), please let us know right away so we can make the necessary corrections in our list.
Additional Questions on the Vote on the May 29th, 2020 Proposal
* NOTE: This particular vote is now passed, we include the FAQ here as an archive.
Q: What am I voting for?
A: You will be voting on the very latest proposal that has been negotiated between the USF Administration and the USFFA. This proposal includes step and salary freezes through October 26, 2020, greater job security for our most vulnerable members, and an agreement to engage in further conversations that will determine USFFA member contributions to net revenue shortfall.
Read the full ballot text here.
Q: Why are we having this vote now?
A: We are having this vote now because there is a June 1 deadline for non-renewal notices to be sent to faculty on probationary contracts (tenure-track faculty who have not yet received tenure) in years 3-6 of their appointments at USF. After discussions with the probationary faculty, it became very clear that a significant number of them did not want the threat of termination hanging over them until July or November. It was also apparent that there would be serious consequences for our international faculty. The union thus tried to negotiate with the USF Administration in order to make an agreement that would preserve their jobs. In addition, we also received and rejected an Administration request to reopen our contract under Article 45 (sections 45.1 on changes in student enrollment and 45.3 on net tuition decreases) since the data presented did not meet the contractual threshold to trigger the opening of the contract at that time.
However, given the scale of the crisis confronting the University, the union strongly felt that it was critically important to talk to the University Administration about what the faculty could do to help the institution. The University is very eager to have some financial scenarios, with sunset clauses, in place early in the new financial year (2020-2021) in order to meet contingencies that may arise after the Fall census. This is how we arrived at this point.
It is clear that the Administration believed that the termination notices to our faculty would give them leverage to force us into immediate talks and a cascading series of concessions. The writing campaign launched by the faculty had a real influence on them agreeing to take the non-renewal letters to probationary faculty and term faculty off the table.
This has not however completely removed the issue of leverage from the negotiations. The Administration is not confident that it would be able to convince USFFA members to contribute significantly to offsetting projected shortfalls in fiscal year 2020-2021 revenue without continuing to hold some leverage while negotiations are in progress. Their earlier leverage was over the jobs of the probationary faculty, librarians, and term faculty. Instead, if the USFFA agrees to the 5th item, and negotiations in June, we accept that the entire membership is subject to leverage rather than just our most vulnerable members. If we are unable to reach an agreement, the Administration will make a final determination reflecting the conversations between the two parties during the month of June.
Q: How is the Proposal amended from what was circulated and discussed yesterday, May 28, 2020?
A: Based on feedback we received from the membership, we returned to the Administration for some small but significant amendments to the proposal. These include:
Increased protection for Probationary Librarians (see below).
We have obtained written confirmation that savings from salary and step freezes will be counted towards USFFA’s contribution to the shortfall.
We have obtained written assurance that the Administration will meet with us in June and use a mediator if negotiations are stalled.
Q: What will be on the ballot exactly?
A: The ballot will have two parts. First, we are voting for or against a salary and step freeze until October 26, 2020 with the proviso that if net revenues do not fall short of budget by 2%, the University would retroactively pay the previously agreed salary and step increases. In addition, the USFFA agrees that a share of any fiscal year 2021 net revenue shortfall not to exceed 48% will be offset by decreases to our members’ compensation. The current shortfall is anticipated to be in the region of $40 million, though it is important to bear in mind that this figure may change up or down based upon changes in enrollments and tuition revenue.
During the month of June, the parties will meet and agree to a road map outlining different scenarios that link net revenue shortfalls to cuts in compensation. In other words, what we will agree to give up to contribute to expense reduction is up to but does not exceed 48% of net revenue shortfall, across a range of possible scenarios. The primary areas of discussion will be salary freezes, salary reductions, retirement contribution reductions, increases in workload, overload compensation agreements for fiscal year 2021, FDF/LDF reductions, etc.
It is important to note that none of these things have been definitively agreed to at this stage although different options have been discussed.
In return, this agreement provides increased job security for three different groups within our bargaining unit. While the contractual non-renewal deadline for probationary faculty will remain June 1, 2020 (as per the CBA), the University has agreed that if this proposal is accepted, non-renewal letters pertaining to that clause will not be sent out this year. Second, term faculty contracts that contain a clause granting the university the ability to end those member’s appointments with 30-day notice (those renewed during Spring 2020 and Summer 2020) would be changed to a new notification deadline of May 31, 2021.
Third, the University has agreed, effective June 1, 2020, that termination by the University of a librarian with a probationary appointment (that is, librarians in their first or second year) will require at least sixty (60) days notice through May 31, 2021. This is a new provision agreed to on the evening of May 28, 2020 (after the general meeting), and exceeds the protections for these members in the CBA.
Finally, the second part of the ballot is a vote on whether or not to accept the proposal for a sabbatical delay of one year for many of our members. There are exceptions which are spelled out in the sabbatical proposal. The savings from this proposal, if accepted and implemented, are about $3.5 million dollars, and would apply towards our contribution to the shortfall.
It is very important to note that this vote is not on a salary reduction at this time—it is a vote on a salary and step freeze up to October 26, 2020.
Q: How will the ballot work? Can we vote yes and still express our concerns about some of the items?
A: The ballot will have two closed-ended questions: the first question will ask for a yes or no on the Amended proposal and the second will ask if you support the sabbatical postponement proposal. An additional open-ended question will give you the opportunity to provide more context for your vote, including concerns and suggestions.
Q: Does the vote require a 50 percent majority?
A: A simple majority of votes cast is required for the proposal to pass. In this case, a simple majority is obtained by 50% plus one vote.
Q: When will the ballot be available?
A: The vote will open at 8:00 p.m. on Friday, May 29, 2020, and will close at 11:59 p.m. on Saturday, May 30, 2020. Please be in touch with your colleagues and alert them to the voting period!
Q: What if I still have questions?
A: Tomorrow, Saturday, May 30, the Contingency Planning/Negotiation team will offer Zoom office hours from 10-11am.
Q: What if I still have comments?
A: The Ballot will link to a survey where we welcome “any information that will help the negotiating team understand your preferences and priorities better.”
Q: What are the major advantages of this proposal ?
A: The proposal would avoid the prospect of tenure-track faculty in their third through sixth years losing their jobs and potentially derailing their careers during the academic year 2020/2021. The potential layoff and change of job title/duties would cause immediate and irreversible immigration problems for international faculty that go beyond the university’s control. It would prevent 40 term faculty who were just renewed this Spring and Summer from facing the loss of their jobs with only 30 days notice. It also gains some additional protection for probationary librarians, beyond what is in the CBA.
We have taken the position that our primary goal is to preserve jobs. Aspects of how this proposal is implemented can be negotiated in June and are likely to be temporary. Once faculty members lose their jobs, their lives and careers will be devastated and many academic departments may never recover. We see maintaining the faculty as essential to the mission of USF and we have come together as a union to make that happen.
Q: How would freezes and potential salary reductions work?
A: All negotiated changes to compensation will have a sunset clause, meaning that they are reversible. The formulas for salary cuts will be negotiated in June, although the Administration has indicated that they would like to implement a system of progressive cuts across all employees of the university. We will be giving routine updates and will ask for member feedback in regards to the different proposals and formulas.
Q: Why are Administration, athletics, and the Law School not taking bigger cuts?
A: The Administration has communicated some of the cuts that they have taken and many staff have been furloughed already. We have been assured that the Law School will shoulder its own deficit this coming year. Unfortunately, our position does not allow us to dictate where cuts happen across the university. We continue to consistently advocate for protection of instructional units and ask detailed questions about cuts in other units at the University.
Q: What’s the change to the 30-day notice clause in term contracts?
A: The proposal would “amend the 30-day notice from spring 2020 and summer 2020 term faculty contract renewals to a new notification deadline of May 31, 2021.” Term contracts that do not have the 30-day clause will not be impacted by this decision. Finally, the union is committed to strongly fighting against the inclusion of this clause in any term contracts and will fight for this over the coming year.
Q: What about the librarians?
A: In the USFFA Collective Bargaining Agreement 2016/2024, Article 24.1 creates two kinds of librarian appointments: probationary (first two years starting with hire date) and permanent. Article 24.3.1 states that termination of a probationary librarian is not subject to grievance or arbitration. But the language around when they need to receive notice is problematic. It states that those in their second year “shall normally be given thirty (30) days notice.” No language exists for those in their first year, something that the Administration has acknowledged as an area that needs correction in future contractual negotiations.
Librarians with a permanent appointment can be terminated or disciplined only for just cause and “shall normally be given six (6) months’ notice.”
On May 28, 2020, we verbally proposed a full year of job security for all librarians. The Administration agreed to move—from no notice for librarians in their first year of probation and thirty days for librarians in their second year of probation—to a new provision for “sixty (60) days notice through May 31, 2021” for probationary librarians. Although this agreement does not provide the same duration of job security that the proposal gives other USFFA members, we will revisit this issue in the June negotiations.
Q: How will the negotiations over the next month work? It’s such a short period of time.
A: It is a very short period of time. However, the reality of the pandemic is such that implementing plans quickly is essential to offset potential losses. If discussions and therefore reductions in expenses were not to happen until after the Fall census, then cuts would need to be much deeper or would have to be retroactively applied (because a portion of the fiscal year would already have passed), both of which would have difficult consequences. Additionally, it would be challenging to be deep in bargaining during the Fall semester, when many of us will be teaching and responding to a very uncertain environment. The goal is to get agreed-upon plans in place now to be prepared to face a range of possible scenarios come the Fall.
Q: Could the Administration inflate the shortfall? How do we know their numbers are honest?
A: We have hired a forensic accountant to help us understand this and make sure they are honest with the numbers, and we will share that data with all of you. The Administration’s written response on this point is as follows:
“We agree to answer any and all questions with the best level of transparency possible, and balancing other considerations (e.g., the non-public nature of most of our exempt employees’ salaries, legal agreements with confidentiality provisions, etc.).”
Q: Can our CBA still be opened?
A: Yes, if the triggers listed in the CBA are met (Article 45), the CBA could be reopened. The Administration has indicated that if we have agreed-upon scenario-based plans in place to address possible declines in revenue by the end of June, it may not be necessary to reopen the CBA formally. We would prefer that the CBA not be reopened.
Q: Is this the best deal we can get? Have we used all of our leverage?
A: It may be. This is a massive global health and economic crisis, and our goal here is to avoid devastating layoffs and re-opening the CBA, which could put us in an even worse position. We have worked to protect members’ jobs as best we can, and to have a say going forward in how we will contribute to budgetary considerations.
Q: What happens if the Contingency Planning/Negotiation Team is NOT authorized to move forward with this deal?
A: We don’t really know. Any answers to this question will obviously be speculative and hypothetical. A ‘no’ vote would not alter the USFFA’s responsibilities and obligations to represent our members as best we can under the Collective Bargaining Agreement.