UFF posts update on AFSCME impasse

AFSCME IMPASSE UPDATE

In Monday morning's student newspaper, the USF Oracle, there was an article about the university's rejection of the neutral special magistrate's recommendation in the current impasse in bargaining between the university Board of Trustees and the staff union, local 3342 of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, or AFSCME.

There are several issues at stake in the impasse. One is the basis for lump-sum bonuses – AFSCME proposed large bonuses to lower-salaried staff, and management proposed bonuses based on an evaluation process that was not bargained with AFSCME. The special magistrate recommended a total bonus pool equal to what management's proposal would cost but structured according to what AFSCME proposed (larger bonuses to those with lower salaries). The second issue concerns a number of terms and conditions of employment about overtime and leaves tied to regulations rather than contractual language. The old statewide AFSCME contract with the defunct Board of Regents identified BOR regulations as contractual terms and conditions of employment, and USF management wanted to eliminate those references. The special magistrate recommendation favored the AFSCME position where the magistrate was convinced that the USF language was not just "cleaning up" anomalous language but a substantive change in terms and conditions of employment. The third issue comes from the way that USF management randomly picked Physical Plant staff to change shifts a number of months ago. AFSCME members were upset at the capricious shift changes and proposed a seniority system of shift-change preferences. The special magistrate recommended the adoption of AFSCME's proposal plus language that would allow USF managers to decide which staff were qualified for positions in different shifts.

What the Special Magistrate Actually Said

The University has made the claim that the Magistrate's recommendation removes bereavement leave, floating holidays, and maximum holiday pay. Quite an alarming charge to be leveled at a man brought into help resolve the impasse between the administration and the Union!

Let’s look at what he actually said. First of all, there is no mention of bereavement leave, floating holidays, and maximum holiday pay in his recommendation.

Response to University's Impasse Decision

I wrote the paragraphs below on February 7th in preparation for the University's response to the Special Master's Recommendation. I held off posting it in hopes that I was wrong. Sadly, I was not.

Be prepared, folks! The University's hired gun attorney and the BOT team that he leads are angry about the Union's recent win before the Special Master, and it looks like they are gearing up to punish the workers and blame the Union. It appears that they are soon going to try to tell you that the Union has made it impossible for them to continue some of the popular benefits that were written into the "new" University Regulations. They're going to tell you that the Union's successful challenge to particular Regulations means that management, despite their reluctance, will be forced to throw out the good changes along with the bad. The fact is that nothing in the Special Master's Recommendation supports this action. The University is hauling out its favorite blame and punishment game, pure and simple. We've seen them play it before and are watching them gear up to do it again. We need to be ready this time.

UFF Supports AFSCME

The faculty union at USF wrote a fantastic article in this week's UFF Newsletter regarding our union.


United Faculty of Florida -- USF Chapter Newsletter Article:


February 4, 2010 AFSCME IN IMPASSE: THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE RECOMMENDS...
A special magistrate recommended a resolution of the current impasse in bargaining (on salary and other issues) between the staff union AFSCME and the USF Board of Trustees (BOT). For salary, the recommendation is for a compromise to distribute approximately the amount that the BOT proposed, using approximately the distribution that AFSCME proposed. This is only a recommendation, and now comes the tricky part: is the recommendation an acceptable compromise?