From UFF: Staff Overwhelmingly Vote Against BOT'S Contract

Our allies at the United Faculty of Florida posted the following to their April 22, 2010 newsletter:

Last Friday, USF staff voted against ratifying contract language containing terms and conditions dictated by the Labor Committee of the Board of Trustees.  82% of the votes were against ratification of the language that is now the choice of the Board of Trustees but not the staff.  As a result, the terms and conditions dictated by the Labor Committee at the end of the impasse process are now imposed for the remainder of this fiscal year (ending June 30), but the staff's rejection of the imposed resolution means that the language dies on July 1, and the terms and conditions of employment will then return to the status quo ante--the conditions before impasse was declared.  The end of the impasse process was a victory for the staff union, with an overwhelming majority voting for the union's position.  Nonetheless, the whole process entails moral, morale, and political consequences that could bedevil USF for years to come.



This predicament arose last fall, when the staff union, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, declared impasse in its negotiations with the Board of Trustees.  What this meant was that on certain issues, AFSCME believed bargaining was stalled, and that it would be best if a neutral outsider, a Special Master, heard both sides and proposed a compromise.

A Special Master heard representatives of AFSCME and the Board of Trustees present their positions and supporting arguments.  Then the Special Master presented a compromise (see http://www.uff.ourusf.org/biweekly/Spring10.html#020410impasse).  The compromise was non-binding, and while AFSCME accepted it (after conducting a poll of staff), the Board did not (see http://www.uff.ourusf.org/biweekly/Spring10.html#021810impasse).

If either side rejects the recommendations of the Special Master, then the "Legislative Body" (under current law, the Board of Trustees) imposes a resolution on the disputed items and the resulting language is presented to both sides for ratification.  What happened with the AFSCME-management impasse is that the Labor Committee of the Board of Trustees agreed completely with management's proposal at the hearing (see http://www.uff.ourusf.org/biweekly/Spring10.html#040810afscme).

It is the resulting contractual language containing the Labor Committee's resolutions that has just been rejected.  But the Labor Committee's decision are still in force for staff for the rest of the fiscal year.

One complicating factor was that some of the disputed items have to do with performance evaluations and rewards, and part of AFSCME's argument was that these were not being handled competently.  The value of performance evaluations is being questioned by business experts; for example, Samuel Culbert, UCLA Professor of Human Resources & Business Behavior, wrote in the Wall Street Journal that "the overriding message is that the boss's assessment is really about whether the boss 'likes' you, whether he or she feels 'comfortable' with you. None of this is good for the company..."

Bring that together with AFSCME's complaints that supervisors had no training conducting evaluations and that there were no requirements that evaluations even be conducted, and one result is an impression that AFSCME was raising serious managerial issues that the Board was not addressing. It would seem that the issues AFSCME raised affect USF's capacity to function, and therefore deserve greater attention and consideration from the Board.