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?

The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees represents over 1,600 staff employees at USF. AFSCME was one of the primary targets of Governor Bush's reorganization of the State University System in 2003, and AFSCME had to fight to get recognition as the collective bargaining agent for staff at USF in 2005. It took three more years before AFSCME and the BOT ratified a three-year contract in 2008.
Like the contract between UFF and the BOT, certain articles of the contract between AFSCME and the BOT are "reopened" every year. In particular, salary. In 2008, despite President Genshaft's statement that "Monetarily recognizing our employees is one of our core principles and top priorities," the only raise in 2008 was a one-time bonus. "I’m unhappy that we still didn’t get a comprehensive paid plan," said AFSCME-USF President Bill McLelland, who told the Oracle in 2008 that the main focus of the agreement had been salaries.
Salary is a problem for staff at USF, for base rate raises – as opposed to one-time bonuses – are quite rare while the Cost of Living has increased about 29 % in the last ten years. In its presentation to the special magistrate, AFSCME contended that USF pay scales for comparable positions were below that of local employers, that some staff employees were unable to afford health insurance, and that in a recent survey, 95 % of staff responding said that they worked overtime to pay bills that would otherwise go unpaid. There is little doubt that many staff are trapped in a financial sandwich.
In 2009, articles of the contract were reopened, and after bargaining got stuck, AFSCME declared impasse. AFSCME's proposal was for one-time bonuses ranging from $ 1,000 to $ 2,000, while the BOT's proposal was for one-time bonuses ranging from $ 500 to $ 1,000.
Also on the table was the method of distributing bonuses. For years, the BOT has been pushing using performance to determine raises, and for years AFSCME has been resisting. A major part of the reason for AFSCME's skepticism is the way performance is currently measured.
Although the BOT called their proposal "a merit based bonus system", it more closely resembles the discretionary pay systems (plural!) that faculty experience during the Administration's random seizures of generosity. Staff performance is evaluated by supervisors who need no training in evaluating performance, and who are not required to turn in performance evaluations anyway, and if they do feel both conscientious and rushed they can turn in a "short" form that tends to give the employee last year's evaluation. Adding to the dissatisfaction is evidence that staff evaluations are peculiarly low in comparison to evaluations of their superiors: AFSCME got hold of some information on the Physical Plant and Parking Services, and found that only 12 % of that staff were "exemplary", while 55 % of the supervisors were and 79 % of the administrators were. No custodial workers, groundskeepers, cashiers, mail clerks, or maintenance & repair workers were exemplary, although USF is the proud employer of an exemplary bus driver.
All unions are very careful about performance evaluations. For example, UFF has long preferred the formal and transparent merit pay system, with its safeguards and checks and balances, over the variety show of discretionary fads that parade by with no discernible schedule. AFSCME was wise to be skeptical of a proposal reeking of so powerful a discretionary odor.
When impasse is declared, a special magistrate is called in to hear both sides and then compose a recommendation. This recommendation is not just a proposed compromise: a rejected recommendation leads to unpleasant legalities, and the recommendation is also partly a prediction of what will ultimately happen if the two sides fight it out. Thus a recommendation carries not only moral authority but also hardheaded realism.
The special magistrate agreed with the BOT that USF could not afford $ 3.2 million in bonuses this year, but the special magistrate was a bit nervous about USF's current performance evaluation system, and so proposed using AFSCME's distribution system, but with $ 1.2 million in bonuses.
For the short term, since the recommendation is part prophecy, it may be the best compromise available now. For the long term, this round of bargaining has not only reminded us of the dismal pay our staff receive – it has also exposed a dysfunctional performance evaluation system. The time has come for USF to clean up its act.