tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11430304024247153182024-03-13T00:35:41.105-04:00AFSCME 3342 - USF's Staff UnionAFSCME3342http://www.blogger.com/profile/01109412357182400315noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1143030402424715318.post-29951718562350660602010-05-08T19:59:00.000-04:002010-05-08T19:59:36.386-04:00We Won! Retirees Spared in Budget<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">From AFSCME Council 79: </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">On Monday, April 19, the hundreds of calls we made to the capitol paid off when the House leadership announced they were backing down from their plan to eliminate the Retiree Health Insurance Subsidy in <b>HB 5701</b>. In battling this bad bill that would have taken up to $150 per month from Florida Retirement System beneficiaries, AFSCME partnered with the Florida Alliance of Retired Americans and set up a toll free number so workers and retirees could call Senate President Jeff Atwater.<a name='more'></a></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">The announcement was made by Rep. Sandy Adams, R-Oveido, who just weeks earlier had provided a crucial vote to the GOP leadership to resurrect the bill after Democrats and 14 Republicans had joined together to defeat HB 5701. Republicans voting against HB 5701 the second time were Reps. Janet Adkins, Kevin Ambler, Tom Anderson, Marti Coley, Brad Drake, Greg Evers, Ed Hooper, JC Planas, Julio Robaina, Baxter Troutman, and Juan Zapata. Four Republicans who changed their votes from no to yes on HB 5701 were Reps. Ed Homan, Paige Kreegel, Charles McBurney and Trudi Williams.</span>AFSCME3342http://www.blogger.com/profile/01109412357182400315noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1143030402424715318.post-10409377481405797982010-05-07T14:41:00.002-04:002010-05-07T14:50:33.375-04:00Hey... Do these guys work at USF?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQ7KyERIGb91xrtl-eKypPi2ahPv45zeIt3UPNae7SvNKOERT91f6P_4G2xiOXpO64DGx8tALG2INHbiWDA3mcxkI6ZecOrgJHfWhXvtbXX0n6wTwhWpSD0rVVKoXPAd8b7y2Y6kzyLS8/s1600/89037_strip.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="125" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQ7KyERIGb91xrtl-eKypPi2ahPv45zeIt3UPNae7SvNKOERT91f6P_4G2xiOXpO64DGx8tALG2INHbiWDA3mcxkI6ZecOrgJHfWhXvtbXX0n6wTwhWpSD0rVVKoXPAd8b7y2Y6kzyLS8/s400/89037_strip.gif" width="400" /></a></div>AFSCME3342http://www.blogger.com/profile/01109412357182400315noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1143030402424715318.post-84046702243367713512010-04-22T12:01:00.002-04:002010-04-22T12:02:18.927-04:00From UFF: Staff Overwhelmingly Vote Against BOT'S Contract<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Our allies at the United Faculty of Florida posted the following to their April 22, 2010 newsletter:</div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />
</div><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Last Friday, USF staff voted against</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> 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.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">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.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">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 <a href="http://www.uff.ourusf.org/biweekly/Spring10.html#020410impasse">http://www.uff.ourusf.org/biweekly/Spring10.html#020410impasse</a>). The compromise was non-binding, and while AFSCME accepted it (after conducting a poll of staff), the Board did not (see <a href="http://www.uff.ourusf.org/biweekly/Spring10.html#021810impasse">http://www.uff.ourusf.org/biweekly/Spring10.html#021810impasse</a>).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">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 <a href="http://www.uff.ourusf.org/biweekly/Spring10.html#040810afscme">http://www.uff.ourusf.org/biweekly/Spring10.html#040810afscme</a>).</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">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. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span> <br />
<div class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">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..."</span><o:p style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">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.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>AFSCME3342http://www.blogger.com/profile/01109412357182400315noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1143030402424715318.post-1555954169566104142010-03-30T07:16:00.023-04:002010-03-30T12:25:48.999-04:00What the UBOT Heard: Shift Change by Seniority<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This is the presentation I made to the UBOT, March 29, 2010:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It has been established as fact that the last time a shift change took place at the University of South Florida in early May 2009, the affected custodians were selected by a random process. Their manager wrote the names of the 45 day shift custodians on the backs of his business cards. He then placed the cards on a table top, shuffled them around, picked up 18 of them, and called out the names on those cards to his assistant. </span><br />
<br />
</div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Not a single one of the allegedly crucial qualifications listed in management’s argument was taken into consideration during this shift change. </span><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">However, the Union understands that qualifications do matter and so is compelled to address some of the specific considerations presented by management:</span><br />
<ol><li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">First, despite management’s argument that academic side custodians are not qualified to work the medical side, it is a fact that some of the randomly selected academic-side custodians were moved to the medical side with no additional training </span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Second, while it is true that night shift custodians need to be skilled on specialized equipment, none were chosen for this shift change because they possessed those qualifications. </span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Third, the concept that a permanent shift change may be critically “time sensitive” strains the imagination and demands clarification. </span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It must also be said that none of the skills designated as specialized by the University qualify their possessors for increased pay or a higher than “satisfactory” performance evaluation. </span></li>
</ol><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I repeat, the Union does think qualifications matter. Every staff member knows that workloads increase for those whose coworkers are inexperienced or unqualified. So while we object to some of the specifics of management’s argument, we strongly support their claim that qualifications are important. </span><br />
<br />
</div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">That said, we also believe that a worker’s years of service should be honored in the selection process. </span><br />
<br />
</div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The group of 18 custodians to lose their day shifts in 2009 includes workers who had been at USF for up to 20 years. Many of them had been initially hired on night shift and had earned their way to day shift through consideration for their years of service. </span><br />
<br />
</div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In fact, </span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><ol><li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">3 custodians having between 2 and 12 years of service to USF had irresolvable child-care, health and transportation issues that forced them to resign, leaving them jobless and without unemployment rights; </span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Another, with 10 years of service to USF, was forced to resign from a 2nd job that paid for his child’s daycare.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Another 10-year employee had to abandon education plans and now leaves his disabled wife and nephew without a night time caretaker.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Another, a 20-year veteran who worked nights for 5 years to earn a place on the day shift was left without an adequate nighttime caregiver for her disabled mother, herself a 29-year veteran of USF custodial services, who also earned her former day shift through seniority.</span></li>
</ol><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Please note also, that management can make the claim of having no memory of the use of seniority in assigning shifts because no one who made themselves available for the impact bargaining over this issue had worked at USF for as long as the custodians whose years of service had suddenly ceased to matter.</span><br />
<br />
</div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">After considering all the evidence presented, the Special Magistrate offered new contract language on shift change by seniority, saying:</span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><blockquote><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It is respectfully suggested that the parties do not appear to be in disagreement on this issue. It does not appear from testimony or argument that USF opposes the use of seniority in shift changes, so long as the employees from which it must choose are qualified to do the work on the changed shift. (original emphasis) </span></div></blockquote><br />
<div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">He goes on to say:</span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><blockquote><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Shift changes occur rarely. (T. 41). Nevertheless, it seems appropriate, given the unquestioned significance of the impact of a shift change on the lives of the AFSCME bargaining unit members, to attempt to resolve this issue with a recommendation that both provides some benefit to the more senior employees, while at the same time preserving USF’s right to transfer only qualified employees to work assignments in the shift change. Furthermore, although it may be implicit that USF determines who among its employees are qualified to perform the work to be assigned with the shift change, in order to avoid any misunderstanding, USF’s right in that regard should be explicit.</span></blockquote></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And yet, management has rejected this considere</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">d recommendation, stating that it still does not provide the flexibility it needs to conduct the complex business of shift change. Once management’s recent practice is revealed however, it becomes clear that this is an argument made for argument’s sake that will not preserve any established, functional or defensible process. </span><br />
<br />
</div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">If the Special Magistrate’s recommendation is adopted, it will represent a vast improvement over recent business practice, it will demonstrate a recognition by the University that the people doing the job of keeping the environment clean and sanitary for the entire university community are not dispensable, but are, rather, contributing and valued members of that community. It will demonstrate a recognition by the University that staff workers at every level and in every position gain in value to the University as they gain experience on their jobs. At a time when the University, like the rest of the country, is balancing its budget by cutting basic operations, forcing all staff members to do more work for what amounts to less pay, this change will cost the University no money, it will instill fairness into a difficult management process, and it will improve morale among all and particularly among the most vulnerable of the University’s dedicated workforce.</span></div>AFSCME3342http://www.blogger.com/profile/01109412357182400315noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1143030402424715318.post-20844417040846116142010-03-23T10:58:00.004-04:002010-03-24T00:53:48.172-04:00AFSCME Lobby Day 2010<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Please take the time to thank Regina Gainey, Indrea Pope and Pam Wilson next time you see them in the Registrar's Office. They are the courageous women from USF's Tampa campus who joined me for an action-packed, 23-hour trip to Tallahassee for<b> AFSCME Lobby Day</b> on Tuesday, March 16.</span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmNIw1C00vW9BDwuyxFamcqXc91zebwNFep294khQOvmi7tqUyHuR-q6VjNl5tEJOvd9NjTVad_GNjJNxF4yYiCWO_4HaVbwiqqa1uLkN1jOBSHB9uq0wGLSFHEBaPUH5H5K8mkVkLbUI/s1600-h/LobbyDay2010CC.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmNIw1C00vW9BDwuyxFamcqXc91zebwNFep294khQOvmi7tqUyHuR-q6VjNl5tEJOvd9NjTVad_GNjJNxF4yYiCWO_4HaVbwiqqa1uLkN1jOBSHB9uq0wGLSFHEBaPUH5H5K8mkVkLbUI/s320/LobbyDay2010CC.jpg" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> L-R: Susie, Pam, Indrea & Regina</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">After an overnight bus trip best left undescribed, we four USFers met with approximately 250 AFSCME members and supporters over an impressive 7 am buffet breakfast where we learned about the issues to be addressed that day, received a crash course in lobbying and picked up our t-shirts and loaded canvas bags. The assembled activists then broke up into groups each advocating for issues of concern in their particular workplaces, be they State offices, Juvenile Justice Offices, Hospitals, School Boards, or State Universities. Another large group, comprised of the myriad of other public employees from around the state, would spend the day fighting legislative assaults on the Florida Retirement System on behalf of us all ( see: <a href="http://www.afscme.ourusf.org/2010retirementsheet.pdf">http://www.afscme.ourusf.org/2010retirementsheet.pdf</a>) .</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
<a name='more'></a></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">As part of the University contingent, Regina, Indrea, Pam and I teamed up with AFSCME activists from USF, FSU and FAMU under the fearless leadership of long-time progressive activist and lobbyist, Barbare DeVane. Before starting out, we quickly refined our message, agreeing to ask our Florida legislators to support: </span></div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">More funding for Higher Education</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">A long-overdue raise to the base for University staff who serve the state by providing services to the students who are its future; and</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Senator Evelyn Lynn's Workplace Safety Bill (<a href="http://www.afscme.ourusf.org/2010safetysheet.pdf">http://www.afscme.ourusf.org/2010safetysheet.pdf</a>)</span></li>
</ul><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Then we all boarded buses for the capitol where our first order of business was to keep each other warm while attending a wind-whipped, outdoor press conference to publicize the Floridians for Public Workplace Safety Coalition, an unprecedented coalition of labor, business, safety and health professionals working for passage of Senator Lynn's Workplace Safety Bill. (full text of Senate bill: <a href="http://www.myfloridahouse.us/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=_s0154__.DOCX&DocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=0154&Session=2010%20%29">http://www.myfloridahouse.us/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=_s0154__.DOCX&DocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=0154&Session=2010%20)</a></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">We University workers then spent the rest of the day finding our way around the maze that is the Capitol building, first just missing a meeting of the Senate Higher Education Appropriations Committee that had adjourned early (whose meeting notes we later obtained hot off the presses), delivering our message to the offices of targeted legilators, witnessing the passage of the Hourse Higher Education Appropriations Committee version of the higher ed. budget, and addressing any legislator Barbara managed to buttonhole, including locals Faye Culp and Betty Reed.</span></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Somewhere in the middle fo all this, we headed back outside, relieved to find the weather had warmed up enough for us to really enjoy the delicious lunch open to anyone who cared to join us at one of many long, cloth-covered tables. As we ate, we chatted and listened to short messages of greeting and solidarity from legislators James Bush III and Audrey Gibson, among others. AFSCME Legilative Director, Doug Martin, had also lined up presentations by AFSCME activists from around the state, including workers fighting to save Jacksonville public hospitals and Daytona Beach worker Michael Martin, the lone survivor of a chemical explosion that killed two of his coworkers and prompted the Workplace Safety effort.</span></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Before heading back inside to pack the House and Senate galleries as part of the AFSCME "sea of green," we USFers also took the time to check out the National Guard's display on the mall, where my intrepid companions made themselves right at home, no invitations needed.</span></span></div><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQcDExkT2kDX6gZ6sV4SgEZqaPXOkGoomOS4M0q31qPw7gkHBvJV0AQjvvbKC4ZzyKMVk4bWBhy-YCCvkJmqmwdXUBkiLSyJ5TZr9d_tFIdPQ79bzSfM4apT1GNfqKfhly58tz28_npJs/s1600-h/ChopDreaCC.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQcDExkT2kDX6gZ6sV4SgEZqaPXOkGoomOS4M0q31qPw7gkHBvJV0AQjvvbKC4ZzyKMVk4bWBhy-YCCvkJmqmwdXUBkiLSyJ5TZr9d_tFIdPQ79bzSfM4apT1GNfqKfhly58tz28_npJs/s320/ChopDreaCC.jpg" width="304" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGTgoTLAxG4RMzLxt661YZowi7csEcXm4_p6buIYlJUSHPacY07s_GC_VTyphId4CJFi73aOEV0htpEVmyfgxQTiBtSoRMe2igsRa11YBWkW-HRnUu_6q9VdciqwnQdJjJTc0w-nyX2KI/s1600-h/ChopPamCC.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGTgoTLAxG4RMzLxt661YZowi7csEcXm4_p6buIYlJUSHPacY07s_GC_VTyphId4CJFi73aOEV0htpEVmyfgxQTiBtSoRMe2igsRa11YBWkW-HRnUu_6q9VdciqwnQdJjJTc0w-nyX2KI/s320/ChopPamCC.jpg" width="296" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEtM64KI7fNH0ybg4t_QczyX5hWZDgeG8b4L2cLNpzrFEZ8E4obXVOSKHhhPJu6GOjQs3CgSTvwRLbMiZy5obhHPdjUOqRNIhvcWKINj4qPEq2XwXdr2RF2kYSs3ffaEz2Y667N7nFj_k/s1600-h/ChopReginaCC.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEtM64KI7fNH0ybg4t_QczyX5hWZDgeG8b4L2cLNpzrFEZ8E4obXVOSKHhhPJu6GOjQs3CgSTvwRLbMiZy5obhHPdjUOqRNIhvcWKINj4qPEq2XwXdr2RF2kYSs3ffaEz2Y667N7nFj_k/s320/ChopReginaCC.jpg" width="288" /></a></div><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">At the end of a very busy day, all we University folks followed up on a hot tip to check out the 22nd floor of the Capitol building which provides a 360 degree view of Tallahassee. Finally, we all boarded buses heading beack to the Civic Center where box lunches were distributed for munching during the movie marathon we watched (or slept through) on the long ride through Orlando and back to Tampa where we finally arrived back at the AFSCME office at 11:30 pm, 23 hours after we first started out.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Regina, Pam, Indrea and I feel proud and privileged to have represented USF staff workers. We truly enjoyed this opportunity to learn about and participate in the democratic process and to fight for issues of concern to the people without whom this state could not function. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Thanks also to all of you who wanted to come this time around but could not. We hope that many more of you will make plans to join AFSCME Lobby Day 2011.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>AFSCME3342http://www.blogger.com/profile/01109412357182400315noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1143030402424715318.post-16132951588804849802010-02-22T11:17:00.001-05:002010-02-22T11:19:09.761-05:00UFF posts update on AFSCME impasse<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=1143030402424715318&postID=1613295158880484980" name="021810impasse"> </a><br />
<h3><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=1143030402424715318&postID=1613295158880484980" name="021810impasse">AFSCME IMPASSE UPDATE</a></span></h3><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=1143030402424715318&postID=1613295158880484980" name="021810impasse">In Monday morning's student newspaper, the USF Oracle, there was an </a><a href="http://tinyurl.com/yl8p6sc">article</a> 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
USF management sent an e-mail out to staff on Friday after rejecting the special magistrate recommendations, and in response, this week AFSMCE distributed an e-mail from its president, Bill McClelland, available on <a href="http://afscme3342.blogspot.com/">AFSCME 3342's new blog</a>. In its e-mail to staff, USF management claimed that adopting the special magistrate's recommendation on references to the BOR regulations would wipe out any additional benefits from USF regulations currently being applied to staff that were not in BOR staff regulations. President McClelland’s response is that there is nothing in the recommendation or in the AFSCME contract’s current language that prohibits USF management from continuing the benefits mentioned in management’s e-mail.<br />
<br />
There is one other simple fact about terms and conditions of employment placed in regulations as opposed to a bargained contract: nothing prohibits USF management from proposing to include those benefits in the AFSCME-USF contract.<br />
<br />
The special magistrate’s recommendations are non-binding, and the understanding of UFF's state-level staff is that a Board of Trustees is required to eliminate all contact with its bargaining team on the substantive issues in the impasse until a public hearing, so that it can legally remain neutral … but the BOT’s bargaining committee is likely to impose what management recommends. Florida law gives the advantage to management in impasse so that in many cases, the governing board that supervises the bargaining team also has the authority to impose a settlement at the end of the impasse procedure.<br />
<br />
(When management does not think it needs a waiver from the union on a mandatory subject of bargaining – i.e., a subject that management is required to negotiate by law or regulation – the primary power of the union is to organize against ratification of the imposed settlement. The reason is this: if the impasse resolution is not ratified, the imposed resolution lasts only to the end of the fiscal year. This means that bargaining on non-salary issues has to start from square one at the beginning of the next fiscal year.)<br />
<br />
After an imposed settlement, as our statewide staff has explained the process, representatives of both sides then need to meet after imposition to draft contractual language that is then put up for ratification. In the case of an imposed settlement (different from a regularly-bargained tentative agreement), the union is free to organize against ratification of an imposed settlement. If the unit votes in favor of ratification, and the board also ratifies the language, the imposed settlement language becomes part of the binding contract that remains in effect until a contract agreement (or another imposed impasse resolution). If the unit does not ratify the language of the imposition, then the imposed settlement is in effect only until the end of the fiscal year. If employees in AFSCME’s unit at USF reject an imposed settlement, the main effect is primarily in the bonus, which is a one-time payment, and the other provisions would die on July 1. If employees in AFSCME’s unit at USF ratify an imposed settlement and the BOT also ratifies it, then all the provisions of the imposition would continue past the end of the fiscal year.<br />
<br />
A longer discussion of impasse proceedings is available at the <a href="http://tinyurl.com/ylohs82">UFF-USF blog</a>; and background is in the <a href="http://www.uff.ourusf.org/biweekly/Spring10.html#020410impasse">previous Biweekly</a>. As of yet, there is no date for the impasse hearing of the BOT.AFSCME3342http://www.blogger.com/profile/01109412357182400315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1143030402424715318.post-84725917643641318712010-02-16T15:43:00.006-05:002010-02-16T15:57:42.179-05:00What the Special Magistrate Actually SaidThe 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!<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
What the Magistrate said is, “It is recommended that the current language in Article 17.1 [Leaves of Absence/Holidays] remain unchanged. “ The current language in Article 17.1 has been operational since the BOT took over as our employer in 2003. How does that same language now remove bereavement leave, floating holidays, and maximum holiday pay? If this were so, why didn’t the University make this point in front of the Magistrate at the hearing?<br />
<br />
His recommendation does not remove this leave and the University did not raise this point because that argument has no truth to it.<br />
<br />
The Union is opposed to the removal of any bereavement leave, floating holidays, and maximum holiday pay. If the University is sincere in opposing loss of this leave as well, why don’t they join us in protecting these issues by a simple agreement?<br />
<br />
USF further claims that the recommendation removes meaningful performance incentives. In actuality, the Magistrate states in his findings:<br />
<br />
• The current evaluation process was negotiated to capture employee performance, not to impact employee’s pay – there is a difference.<br />
<br />
• At any time there is a percentage of employees who have no evaluation on file and would default to “satisfactory”. Those employees deserve to receive the wage increase to which they are entitled.<br />
<br />
• Supervisors are not required to have training in the evaluation process.<br />
<br />
• Supervisors are not held accountable for their performance in conducting evaluations.<br />
<br />
• Performance standards are not required to be in writing.<br />
<br />
• Tying pay to the current evaluation process could open many grievances.<br />
<br />
• While USF has indicated a commitment to basing wages on a tiered performance-based scale, their actions suggest the opposite. USF authorized a 2% base increase for all Out-of-Unit Faculty rated “Satisfactory” or higher, the same criteria proposed by the Union. Thus, the USF proposal suggests that while basing its lowest-paid employee salaries on a tiered performance scale is necessary, it does not hold its administrative, out-of-unit faculty to the same standards. <br />
<br />
The Magistrate recommends “For the reasons stated above, it is concluded that the current evaluation process should not be used to determine the amount of wage increase an employee will receive.” Meaningful performance incentives are not possible under the current evaluation system.<br />
<br />
Also the University failed to mention in its email to staff that they also oppose the Magistrate’s recommendation to provide qualified employees assignment to work shifts based upon seniority – clearly a good result for the many employees who may face shift change. <br />
<br />
The University says it now can offer an increase to its last pay proposal. They claim “Under this enhanced proposal the majority of in-unit employees would receive at least a $1,000 bonus based on performance with many receiving $1,500.” They do not mention that many employees, including most of the least paid, would make $250 less than that recommended by the Magistrate.<br />
<br />
Where was this extra money when the University swore in the impasse hearing that their last proposal was the best they could do?<br />
<br />
As the University has misrepresented the amount of money available to staff at the hearing, it is misrepresenting the Magistrate’s own words. They are trying to create confusion in the staff as to the real merits in his recommendation. <br />
<br />
Read the recommendation yourself at: http://www.afscme.ourusf.org/images/SM%202009%2032%20Recommendations%202.pdf<br />
<br />
Bill McClelland, President Local 3342 AFSCMEAFSCME3342http://www.blogger.com/profile/01109412357182400315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1143030402424715318.post-77137135098326284202010-02-12T09:34:00.007-05:002010-02-12T15:02:16.655-05:00Response to University's Impasse Decision<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuEmC4hWuAqSNBRt0PMLExKCe6PmfWCgPM6jihunO2PHN7pdg0cnPnKWU-lfsJ73itAyQ_zjbMRYvwluaY6A0HbKxHF3NNWHHTDAW_WvTZy-QsVf5mMEySLzKqCU-mrrF8NlQtoum__QY/s1600-h/staffabuse.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" ct="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuEmC4hWuAqSNBRt0PMLExKCe6PmfWCgPM6jihunO2PHN7pdg0cnPnKWU-lfsJ73itAyQ_zjbMRYvwluaY6A0HbKxHF3NNWHHTDAW_WvTZy-QsVf5mMEySLzKqCU-mrrF8NlQtoum__QY/s320/staffabuse.jpg" /></a></div>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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
As most of us are aware, in 2001, the State University System (SUS) was dissolved. In 2003, the University was charged with developing new USF Regulations to replace the old SUS Rules. In most cases, the language, intent and effect of the Regulations remained the same as the old Rules. In some cases, changes were made that benefitted the workers, including increased bereavement leave and the addition of floating holidays. In some cases, the changes were not so beneficial. Bill McClelland, staff Union President, pored over those rules for months in order to bring the discrepancies to the Special Master to protect the employee rights that the new Regulations had modified or tossed out. <br />
<br />
Ultimately, the Special Master decided in favor of one of the University's changes to the Regulations and decided that the Union had the right to bargain the rest. He never said that all the Regulations were bad and had to be thrown out, nor did he rule that the University had to review all those Regulations already on the books. He clearly did not advocate the dumping of the baby along with the bathwater. <br />
The University has been using the all-or-none argument at the bargaining table since we first introduced the issue of Rules vs. Regs. They claimed all along that a change to one Regulation risked changing all. The Special Master's split decision clearly indicates that this argument does not hold water. That the University will soon be dragging it out again despite the Recommendation is purely to discredit the Union by punishing its constituents, threatening to take away our floating holidays and extended bereavement leave because we won the right to bargain the potentially harmful changes to the status quo. Clearly if the Union does not object to any particular change, then it is the University and the University alone that is objecting to and changing its own Regulations. <br />
<br />
From the start of these negotiations, the University has made an assumption of staff ignorance and incompetence. By now, they should know better. We are the ones who keep this University ticking and we are the ones whose arguments prevailed at the Special Master's Impasse Hearing. Was our presentation perfect? No, we made a few mistakes and missed a few turns. But by and large, we prevailed because our arguments were logical, precise and fair. That the University is going to once again attempt to bank on our supposed ignorance and our lower status within the University hierarchy is a disgrace and a shame. Let's not allow them to get away with it. <br />
<br />
This next part was written today in response to the pay issue:<br />
<br />
As noted in the University’s post, the Union was not contacted with any new pay deal until yesterday. This is tactical timing, folks. While both sides were reviewing the recommendation, we offered to meet with the University IF they had something substantive to discuss but did not receive a reply. We had no opportunity to meet and bargain this new pay deal. We did quickly study it and request clarification which we did not receive. Bear in mind also, that the University witnesses swore with hands in the air that the pay proposal presented before the Special Master was the best the University could do. They gave no indication before yesterday that they had testified wrongfully. <br />
<br />
Also, the University’s claim that most people would get more money under this new plan ignores the fact that many of the lowest paid people would get $250 less than the Special Master recommended they receive. These are the people the University wants you and the Union to forget.<br />
<br />
Additionally, not only would this new proposal provide less money to the large pool of the most neglected USF workers, It would perpetuate the unfair performance evaluation system that the Special Master objected to in every single aspect outlined by the Union, a system that promised to keep these same full-time workers living in poverty year after year, the same system that the University is desperate to maintain in its current form.<br />
<br />
Finally, the threat that we would lose the benefits outlined in the University’s post was made repeatedly at the bargaining table but it was notably absent from the testimony given before the Special Master. It is disingenuous, it is untrue, and if we lose those benefits, it is because the University has chosen to take them away.AFSCME3342http://www.blogger.com/profile/01109412357182400315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1143030402424715318.post-85695596976891625192010-02-09T14:53:00.002-05:002010-02-12T10:30:24.256-05:00UFF Supports AFSCME<span style="color: black; font-family: arial;">The faculty union at USF wrote a fantastic article in this week's UFF Newsletter regarding our union. </span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: arial;"></span><br />
<br />
<a href="" name="020410"></a><span style="color: black; font-family: arial;">United Faculty of Florida -- USF Chapter Newsletter Article:</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: arial;"></span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: arial;"></span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: arial;">February 4, 2010 </span><span style="color: black; font-family: arial;">AFSCME IN IMPASSE: THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE RECOMMENDS...<br />
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?</span><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
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.AFSCME3342http://www.blogger.com/profile/01109412357182400315noreply@blogger.com0