Membership vote for strike action authorized
By unanimous vote of the more than 100 delegates gathered in Sacramento, the CFA Assembly on Sunday authorized a membership vote to take job actions to break through an impasse in collective bargaining talks with the CSU administration.

Leaving open options—but no ambiguity as to the seriousness of the situation—the Assembly resolution defines job actions as “rolling walkouts, two-day strikes and/or a system wide strike.”

Combining perspective with tactical determination, CFA President John Travis characterized the Assembly’s decision as a logical ratcheting up of the resolve of the CSU’s 23,000 professors, lecturers, librarians, counselors and coaches.

“At this historic moment, the entire CSU system is in jeopardy because of a lapse of leadership by the university’s management and trustees,” Travis said. “They have engaged in unfair labor practices, stonewalled bargaining and brought us to this juncture.

“Our bargaining problems are symptomatic of a much larger ailment. I believe that it is time for CSU students, faculty and staff to take a stand.

“All of us are increasingly frustrated over inadequate pay proposals while top executives receive large pay and benefit increases and outgoing executives enjoy lavish golden parachutes. The latest round of these outrages was exposed by the news media just this summer. This administration and board are not providing leadership that is focused on the classroom and our 400,000-plus students.

“In the eight years of Charles Reed’s chancellorship, he has continued the march of his predecessor, Barry Munitz, toward privatization of the public universities. Reed puts his corporate and political relationships ahead of the CSU’s needs. The result has been plunging state support for the CSU, and still more skyrocketing fees for students of a crippled institution that is losing teachers and basic resources.

“That—as well as our determined advocacy for our member’s interests—is what is at stake for CFA in the months ahead.”

The Assembly resolution culminated a weekend of reports and discussions on the last 18 inconclusive months of bargaining—which led the state Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to certify an impasse and authorize the beginning of mediation under PERB’s auspices. (Job actions by CFA will become legally permissible after mediation and the next statutory step, known as “fact finding,” are exhausted without a settlement.)

Deftly adding a touch of humor to the somber proceedings, Chapter President Susan Green and other delegates from Chico presented a parody entitled “Wheel of Misfortune,” which included an “Executive Pick-a-Perk” board.

In a three-part presentation, San Bernardino Chapter President Tom Meisenhelder addressed the crippling corporate influence of the Reed administration on the state of the university, while statewide Associate Vice President-Lecturers Elizabeth Hoffman talked about its negative impact on the faculty. Dominguez Hills Chapter President David Bradfield’s remarks focused on the plight of students.

Bradfield painted the whole grim picture as an “integrated attack.” He said, “Only the executive friends of Reed, and Reed himself, are doing well.”

“If you doubt how faculty and student fates are tied together, ask the faculty and students at Humboldt State, East Bay or Dominguez Hills,” Bradfield added. “Ask the students who carry heavy debt and can’t get their classes. Ask the lecturers who are no longer teaching on those campuses. Ask the remaining faculty who are now teaching classes that have quadrupled in size.

“We’re fighting for the kind of higher education system we will need in the future, one that is affordable, one that provides increased—rather than decreased—access to quality education. It is up to every faculty member to take a stand.”

CFA’s public announcement of the Assembly resolution authorizing a membership vote to take job actions is viewable at http://www.calfac.org/resolutions.html

Come join your CFA bargaining team members and statewide officers for an update on contract and salary negotiations. Meetings are being held on each campus and feature a report on this summer’s marathon negotiations between the CFA and CSU bargaining teams, the administration’s bogus salary increase offer, and CFA’s proposed salary structure to close the CPEC pay gap.

These meetings are open to all faculty members. Please join us to help further this important dialogue. Check in with your campus’s CFA office to find out the time and location of your meeting. Click here for contact information for your chapter.

Campus bargaining meeting schedule:

Bakersfield Thurs. Oct. 5, 3:30

Dominguez Hills Tue. Sept. 26, 4 pm &
Wed. Sept. 27, 11:30 am

East Bay Tues. Oct. 10, 12 pm &
Wed. Oct. 11, 12 pm

Fullerton Wed. Sept. 26

Humboldt Tues. Sept. 25, 12-1 pm & 1-2 pm

Long Beach Thurs. Sept. 21, 5:30-6:30 pm,
Chart Room

Maritime Wed. Sept. 13

Monterey Bay Tues. Sept. 26, 3-6 pm

Northridge Wed. Sept. 20, 12:30-2 pm

Pomona Wed. Oct. 18

Sacramento Wed. Sept. 27, 4-6 pm

San Bernardino Wed. Oct. 11 11:30 am, Sycamore Room & Thur. Oct. 12 11:30 am, Sycamore Room

San Francisco Thurs. Sept. 28, 12-2 pm Rosa Parks Student Center Rm. D

DID YOU READ YOUR BARGAINING NEWSLETTER?

By now you should have received the CFA bargaining team’s letter about the newest contract proposals. The letter addresses this summer’s week-long bargaining marathon, the truth about Chancellor Reed’s salary offer, and CFA’s plans for the bargaining. If you have not yet read the letter, click here to view.

If you did not receive a copy of the letter at your home, it means your mailing address or other contact information is not up to date with CFA. The CFA helpdesk is a resource where you can: join CFA, update your contact information, and find out how to get your questions answered by CFA leadership, get information of grievances and much more. Click here to access the CFA helpdesk.

The major issue still before us in bargaining is faculty salary. CFA’s bargaining team developed a set of “salary principles,” which were adopted as goals on salary by CFA’s 64th Assembly last April. The bargaining team wants discussions with the CSU administration on these principles as soon as possible.

See http://www.calfac.org/salaryprinciples.html

At the time the Assembly adopted these principles, CFA President John Travis, chair of the CFA bargaining team, said, “There is a crisis in pay; there is a crisis in equity.”

“Our salary structure is a mess,” he said. “It’s been allowed to erode to a state that there’s no quick road to a solution. It has left junior, senior and lecturer faculty alike angry and frustrated.”

The principles tackle our salary problems from various angles, including the pressing need for a fair General Salary Increase in each year of the contract. But, the team believes, across-the-board raises are not enough. The CPEC gap between CSU faculty salaries and those of colleagues at comparable institutions across the country is at 18 percent, and it continues to grow.

“We not only need more money, we need to construct a way to eliminate the problems,” Travis said.

The CSU and the CFA bargaining teams continued discussions last Thursday and Friday on extension, evaluations and reprimands. The parties are scheduled to meet again this Wednesday and Thursday.

According to CFA Director of Representation Ed Purcell, "Bargaining continues to move at a very slow pace. In an attempt to move things more quickly, we tried to package several different proposals, but the CSU team rejected the offer. After more than a year of bargaining, in most part trying to fight off takeaways, the frustration level of our bargaining team is building."

SUMMER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT REACHED

After more than two months of bargaining over this single issue, the CFA Bargaining Team announced early Friday morning that an agreement has been reached with the CSU Bargaining Team over summer pay and employment conditions.

The new agreement will cover summer work in 2006 and after resolving a few additional issues, it will apply to 2007 and 2008. It will be implemented immediately although the remainder of the successor contract is unsettled and the parties continue to bargain.

According to the CFA President John Travis, “We are pleased with this agreement, which came together at last when the negotiators from the chancellor’s office backed away from several regressive proposals. One of these would have taken away our right to the significant salary gains in summer won in a CFA arbitration case.

“On a positive note, the CSU bargaining team was responsive to our demand that the newly won higher pay rates also replace lower extension pay rates. This is a notable achievement,” Travis added.

For the first time in the history of the CSU, summer extension pay rates will be based on academic year faculty pay rates, thereby reducing the incentive to move summer work to extension.

The new agreement provides, for the first time, compensation for indirect instruction during summer. The agreement also allows for a small reduction in pay for under-enrolled courses.

“We went back and forth about the need to demonstrate some flexibility from our full pay demand,” Travis continued, “and eventually decided to allow for a slight reduction for summer classes less than 15 students as long as the faculty members retain the right to refuse to teach the course if that were their preference. In the end, we felt that allowing for some flexibility for under-enrolled classes during the next few summers was responsive to the needs of the students for certain courses during the summer and helpful in preventing small classes from being canceled.”

The agreement includes the following provisions:

SALARY

Extension Pay Rates--Pay rates for summer teaching of for-credit courses offered through Extension will be raised to the level of regular, state-funded summer courses; this provision reduces the incentive to move for-credit courses to Extension because faculty salaries are lower there.

Computation of Summer Pay Rates--On semester campuses, faculty will be paid at the rate of 1/30 of their full-time academic year salary for each Weighted Teaching Unit (WTU) taught (1/45th on quarter campuses). In order to provide increased opportunities for summer and to prevent the cancellation of small classes, courses below 15 students may be offered with a slightly reduced salary (not to exceed 85% of the full rate). The President may offer rates higher than the reduced compensation rates for low enrollment.

Indirect Instruction--Tenure-track faculty will receive $150 of indirect instruction compensation for each WTU taught. The agreement includes explicit contract language specifying that Lecturers who are assigned indirect instructional work will be compensated for that work.

JOB SECURITY & BENEFITS

--Improved eligibility for benefits for summer work at semester campuses (bargaining to continue on benefits for summer work at quarter campuses);

--Health benefits stipends for eligible Lecturers at both quarter and semester campuses;

--Extension of priority hiring order for incumbent Lecturers to quarter campuses;

--Regular access to data on students who are employed as instructors in the CSU to help ensure that such employees are appropriately classified.

CFA worked hard to reach an agreement on Summer Employment for 2006 to ensure that students would be able to get the classes they need and that faculty would have enough time to prepare for summer courses.

Expressing the feelings of CFA’s bargaining team, General Manager Bob Muscat commented, “While we wanted to move quickly, we were also committed to providing improved compensation and benefits to those who teach during summer term. Although it took us a while to reach agreement, we are hopeful that this progress means we can move more quickly toward a positive conclusion on the other outstanding issues.”

For a complete copy of Article 21, Summer Employment, click here.

A three-day bargaining session last week brought CFA and CSU administration negotiators closer to an agreement on pay and other conditions for summer teaching, otherwise known as YRO.

The administration has been asking CFA to explore exceptions to standard faculty pay rates for low-enrollment classes during the summer. CFA would like to see low-enrollment classes offered in the summer for the students’ sake. Though lower summer pay had been the practice in the CSU, it was ended by an arbitration decision favoring CFA’s claim that the lower pay violates the faculty’s collective bargaining agreement once state support for summer sessions was made the same as other academic sessions. CFA needs to be convinced that there is a serious problem with regard to under-enrollment that must be addressed.

The lengthy time spent in talks on YRO have been well spent because they could be an indication of how future negotiations will progress on other issues, including pay increases, maintaining Lecturer rights under Article 12, protecting the Faculty Early Retirement Program and reducing the grievance backlog.

“Reaching an equitable agreement on YRO is important to the faculty who want to make plans for summer ‘06 and for our students,” said CFA President John Travis, a member of the bargaining team and a professor at Humboldt. “It’s no simple matter to anticipate how changes under consideration will work on 23 different campuses this summer and in future summers.

“Nevertheless, we’ve given it serious attention; we need to wrap this subject up in the next week or we will have little choice but to put it aside and move on to other equally important issues such as salaries. Reaching an agreement gives us a better starting point for moving on, and I believe that making every effort to reach an accord on YRO is the right thing to do.”

In addition to regular bargaining sessions, special “facilitated talks” began last week under the guidance of consultant Richard Barnes to bring clarity to the issues and report back to the bargaining table. The talks continue Thursday and Friday in Los Angeles.

SALARY: The sides differ on priority. CFA's is closing the CPEC salary gap between the pay at CSU and the pay at comparable institutions, thereby improving pay in all ranks and levels. The administration emphasizes discretionary “merit” pay that would benefit some while failing to deal with salary for all the faculty. Very few CSU administration proposals actually define “merit.” Rather they are concerned with who gets the power to decide who will be rewarded and who will not. Their scheme would put the bulk of the power into the hands of the campus presidents.

CFA's bargaining team persistently points out that the CSU already has a merit program-the RTP (retention, tenure and promotion) system. The team has been open to discussing ways to build on the existing RTP system, including the possibility of making post-tenure review more important. Currently, post-tenure review is a pro-forma process.

SERVICE STEP INCREASES: Differences between the sides continue to grow. CFA has found that other state agencies including the state's Dept. of Finance understand that step increases to not cost a large institution more money. There is a balancing out as people enter at the bottom of the steps, move up the steps, and retire off the top of the steps.

Yet the CSU administration stubbornly insists it must reduce the pool of money available for raises by the amount of the step increases granted. Business professor George Diehr, who serves on the CFA bargaining team, has argued for years that the CSU administration's bargainers simply don't understand salary steps.

FACULTY EARLY RETIREMENT PROGRAM: The administration has altered its proposal, first from eliminating FERP entirely, then to reducing it to two years, and most recently to reducing it to three years.

This has been a confusing issue for those who assume the administration's bargaining demands are based on reducing costs given tight budgets. In that light, it makes little sense because FERP saves the CSU money. As it eases out high-priced older faculty who work part-time, it allows hiring younger faculty lower on the pay scale. Plus the CSU no longer has to pitch in for the FERP faculty's retirement and health benefits. Those are paid by CalPERS.

So what is this really about? Most CFA leaders believe it's an attempt to solve a management responsibility by other means. It's harder to tell more experienced faculty members what to do. They are tenured and have strong views on shared governance, which they inculcate in younger faculty. In that light, reducing FERP would shift more power to the MPPs.

WORKLOAD: CFA is pressing to keep and enforce existing guidelines for class size and faculty compensation for excess class size. Workload relates directly to the fight over adequate CSU funding. If the administration and Trustees don't ask for the resources needed to hire enough faculty, the only solution is larger classes. In this regard, CFA continues to fight for more tenure-track hiring.

“JUSTICE DENIED”: The terrible backlog in settling grievances that has strung out resolution of even obvious disputes for years. The faculty's contract needs more teeth in making sure that grievances get attention by punishing stonewalling and nitpicking.

LECTURERS: The underlying issue for the administration is more discretion in hiring, in this case at the expense of lecturers' job security. Job security for every faculty member benefits everyone. It makes for a stable workforce. It improves campus relationships. The CFA bargaining team is determined to stop the trend to make the contingent workforce even more contingent.

PRIVACY: The CFA bargaining team believes the current contract fulfills the needs nicely and we don't need to require every faculty member to report all other jobs at the beginning of each term. Right now, if an administrator believes a faculty member is not doing his or her job because of outside employment, the contract allows the appropriate administrator has to ask for a report of outside work. The problem for the administrator: the need for the courage to ask when they need to ask. The contract doesn't need to be revised to address this.

The CFA and CSU bargaining teams met several times during the last two weeks. Talks mainly focused on developing Year Round Operations language in regard to faculty summer employment.

With both sides saying they want to reach an agreement on summer work before summer session scheduling is finalized, the CFA and CSU bargaining teams moved a bit closer last week to agreeing on contract language that would settle key issues of faculty salaries and benefits for Year Round Operations.
 
Though campuses go on break during March, CFA President John Travis said he hoped that CFA and the CSU administration would continue talks on YRO.  Travis challenged the CSU negotiators to keep the talks going on a daily basis in between formal bargaining sessions to get the job done, so that campuses can begin to make plans for summer 06.
 
CFA wants to resolve YRO issues for the next three years even as negotiations would continue on the remainder of the successor contract.
 
“We really hope to avoid the hardship that will be caused to our students and the faculty if we continue to allow time to pass without reaching a final agreement on YRO.  We just hope the other side in these negotiations feels the responsibility we feel to make this happen”.
 
BARGAINING CONSULTANTS TO TRY TO AID CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS

With the help of bargaining consultants, the CSU administration has recognized the obvious: its relationships with the labor unions representing its 11 employee bargaining units are not working.
 
The Chancellor’s Office has contracted with C. Richard Barnes and Associates to look into labor relations between the administration and CSU unions. Barnes brings a wealth of experience to this particular challenge. A longtime representative of the Laborers International Union of North America (LIUNA), Barnes also served as director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service in the Clinton Administration. (See http://www.crichardbarnes.com/ <http://www.crichardbarnes.com/> ) Barnes and his West Coast associate, John Swarbrick, attended three sessions of negotiations between CFA and the administration as neutral observers.
 
Although Barnes concluded that the relationship between CFA and the administration was extremely dysfunctional and marked by a high level of distrust, he has proposed some steps to ameliorate the problems.
 
CFA President John Travis said, “We welcome Mr. Barnes’ investigation and assessment of our relationship with the University’s administration. CFA is committed to making bargaining and other negotiations with he CSU administration work; Mr. Barnes may be able to help if the Chancellor’s Office and Board of Trustees shares our commitment.”  
 
Travis added that he is “cautiously optimistic” that the consultants can help with current negotiations.

CFA’s Campus Action Days kicked off Monday with three huge events that invigorated faculty members, students and staff on campuses and sent a clear message to the campus presidents of dissatisfaction with the status quo on bargaining and university resources.

More campus events will take place throughout the week with the purpose of encouraging their campus presidents to take the faculty’s message to the chancellor and the CSU Board of Trustees so they can advocate for more resources for the university, and Headlines will report on them in upcoming special editions.

At San Jose, more than 150 faculty members, students and staff rallied and marched to campus President Don Kassing’s office, following a half-hour of speakers, including San Jose Vice Mayor Cindy Chavez.

CFA Chapter President Liz Cara, dressed as Chancellor Charles Reed, along with political science lecturer Elena Dorabji, led the sign-laden crowd through the campus to the president’s office, where a handful of faculty members and CFA student intern Ali Rahnoma presented him with his report card, on which he received “F” grades in all subjects, such as faculty salaries, workload, hiring and retention of tenure-track professors and student fees.

“People are really frustrated,” Dorabji told President Don Kassing. “They’re at the end of their ropes. We need our campus administration to join us in speaking up about the real needs of the campus and its faculty, staff and students.”

Kassing went so far as to say he “shares a common interest” and would like to discuss the issues further, but when Rahnoma asked him if he was planning on donating his $25,020 raise given last October as Chico President Paul Zingg had done, he simply answered, “No.”

Despite his response, Dorabji said she is pleased with Kassing’s overall reaction. “We’re quite encouraged that the action got the attention of the administration, and we fully expect him to forward our message to the chancellor and the Trustees.”

See more at:
http://media.www.thespartandaily.com/media/paper852/news
/2006/03/07/News/Group.Gives.Kas
sing.A.Failing.Grade-
1657449.shtml?sourcedomain=www.thespartandaily.com
&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com

Humboldt faculty members held the largest-ever faculty-led demonstration in the campus CFA chapter’s history. About 150 faculty members, students and staff gathered on the steps of the library below the president’s office where they made noise, held picket signs and listened to speakers who discussed the myriad of problems on that campus and systemwide.

An aide from state Sen. Wes Chesboro’s office told the crowd that those who have responded the loudest in the past have received more funding from the state.

Faculty members will meet with President Rollin Richmond on Friday, when they plan to deliver signed petitions and a DVD of faculty interviews, said CFA Chapter President Robin Meiggs. “The
people on our campus are angry about a lot of different things,” she said. “But their biggest disappointments are things happening on campus.”

See more at http://www.times-standard.com/local/ci_3577395

Faculty members at Fullerton gathered in the Academic Senate chambers with students and staff for the final CFA Budget & Bargaining meeting conducted by San Marcos business professor George Diehr, and a rally with student and faculty speakers.

See more at:

http://www.dailytitan.com/media/paper861/news/2006/03/07/
News/Teachers.Protest.Contracts.C
uts-1657824.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.dailytitan.com

These events were followed by several more around the state today, including a rally with keynote speaker Sen. Gloria Romero at Sacramento State.

The actions continue Wednesday, Thursday and Friday on additional campuses.

See a full schedule of March actions at http://www.calfac.org/marchactions.html

Last week Sam Strafaci, CSU Assistant Vice Chancellor of Human Resources and leader of the CSU bargaining team, sent out a bargaining report to the faculty; but in typical CSU fashion, he left out or obfuscated some key points that must be clarified.

“It’s so hard to teach someone the organizational importance of being straightforward and how to be otherwise wastes so much time and resources,” said CFA President John Travis.

The following are clarifications to Strafaci’s report:

YRO
Strafaci correctly points out that recent bargaining sessions have been devoted to discussing summer employment, and that CFA is willing to implement a summer term agreement that will cover “all summers of the new contract even as the full contract talks continue.” He begins to stray when he adds that the “major outstanding issues regarding summer employment at this time include salary and benefits eligibility issues, which will continue to be discussed....” What he doesn’t say is that the CSU is proposing to take away already settled terms of summer employment: reduce salaries (recently withdrawn), cut lecturer appointment rights and restrict health benefits.

MERIT PAY
Strafaci said the administration is proposing a merit program whereby “one-third of the faculty would be eligible each year” of the contract “using faculty review procedures.” However, the CSU is not offering merit pay. Its offer is for a discretionary pay plan that campus provosts and presidents will completely control. There will be no criteria for the distribution of salary increases and the only appeal would be from the provost to the president. CFA argues that this money should be used to address the issues of salary compression and inversion.

PAY INCREASES
Strafaci brags that their “merit pay” scheme would have guaranteed funding, but fails to explain that, in contrast, the general salary increases the CSU is offering are conditional upon full Compact funding from the Legislature, which assumes continued hefty annual student fee increases.

Strafaci’s report does not mention Salary Step Increases, which the CSU refuses to include in its offer. CFA thinks annual SSIs should be an automatic part of the pay plan because they are the foundation of moving junior faculty up the salary structure and self-funding.

PARKING FEES
Strafaci said the CSU has proposed to raise faculty parking fees to the rate that students and administrators at all campuses pay. CFA argues that these fees significantly would cut into any negotiated cost of living increase, and the union wants to audit how parking funds are collected and spent.

FACULTY EARLY RETIREMENT PROGRAM
Strafaci said the CSU has proposed to reduce the popular FERP program from 5 to 2 years beginning in 2006/07; the CSU initially wanted to completely eliminate FERP. Strafaci does not say, however, that FERP saves the CSU money and keeps seasoned faculty members on the job. CFA does not understand why the CSU would want to cut this program other than to agitate the faculty.

UNION REIMBURSABLE LEAVES
Strafaci said the CSU proposed that CFA must reimburse the university for all union leave time currently paid by the CSU. Strafaci does not say that these leaves are standard in public employment and most public employers recognize the service and value of members not completely reliant on paid union staff.

LECTURER RIGHTS
While CFA understands the need for evaluations, what Strafaci doesn’t say in his report is the CSU proposal allows the administration to hire new full time temporary faculty disregarding incumbent lecturer three-year contracts and preference for work provisions.

But, Strafaci did get some things right: Bargaining is scheduled to continue on March 9, 10, 23, 24 and 25.

One of the longest standing and most contentious issues in bargaining between CFA and the CSU administration over the faculty’s contract concerns Service Step pay increases (SSIs).

The CSU administration argues that SSIs cost the CSU extra money that needs to be deducted from the total compensation package for the faculty. In other words, if there is say 4 percent in increased funding available for faculty salaries, they want to charge 1 percent of that money to SSIs.

CFA argues that SSIs don’t cost the CSU more money because as older faculty members retire from the top steps at higher salaries, younger faculty members enter the system on lower steps at lower salaries. It all averages out over time.

“SSIs are self-funded as long as the CSU is a robust system with young new faculty coming at the lower steps and older faculty retiring from the high steps,” reiterates CFA President John Travis. “This is why SSIs should be automatic and not a bargaining issue over how much to deduct from the General Salary Increase, which is our cost-of-living adjustment for all faculty."

CFA’s position on SSIs reflects what is practiced in other state agencies in California. A review of other state agencies revealed that step increases are not even treated as a bargaining issue because they are regarded as a wash over time. “For them, SSI is a non-issue,” says George Diehr, chair of CFA’s Contract Development & Bargaining Strategy Committee. “SSIs don’t come up in bargaining and they are not carved out of the cost-of-living adjustment (the GSI in the case of the faculty)."

Nevertheless, the CSU administration’s negotiators in effect say they don’t care, they are going to charge the faculty’s compensation funding for SSIs.

They have rejected a CFA bargaining team proposal to bring in a neutral outside expert to study the cost of SSIs in the CSU. “They don’t care about modeling, science, or data analysis,” Diehr says.

Following up on the moving call to the CSU Trustees for stronger action to
advocate for the CSU and to settle a fair contract with the faculty (see CFA Headlines Feb. 7), CFA campus chapters are planning actions on the campuses to take place March 6-13.

Faculty members from all 23 campuses gathered in Sacramento last weekend to prepare for a wide range of activities aimed at convincing campus presidents that they need to speak out to the Chancellor on behalf of the needs of the faculty, students and staff.

“California’s economy is on a rebound. This is the time to rebuild, especially in the CSU’s primary mission—instruction,” says CFA President John Travis. “Yet, the CSU administration is demanding take-aways in the faculty’s contract and refusing to face up to severe problems in salary and grievance resolution, among other things.

“This behavior is inappropriate for the times and reveals a lack of understanding of what it will take to build a stable faculty work force that is good for students, for the faculty and for all CSU employees,” Travis added.

At the preparatory training session, just before CFA’s Board of Directors meeting, faculty members studied bargaining issues and worked on planning. They came away with the clear understanding that settlement of a good contract depends on demonstrative support for the bargaining team by the faculty on the campuses.

Contact your campus chapter to learn more about planning on your campus. Find your chapter contact info at http://www.calfac.org/chapters.html

Learn more about CFA’s overall plan for spring “Unite to Win” action at http://www.calfac.org/unite2win.html

As difficult as it is to recruit and retain faculty members at the CSU in the face of California’s high cost of living, the CSU has some policies of its own doing that make the task even tougher.

For example, junior tenure-track faculty members confront salary structure problems that lead to what policy-makers call “salary inversion” and “salary compression.”

Inversion occurs when new faculty members are hired at higher salaries than the starting pay of previously hired faculty members. Even in cases in which the previously hired faculty got pay increases, in some cases, they are earning less than the new hires. Lately this has become fairly common, especially among those at the assistant professor rank.

Sometimes new faculty members are hired in at such a high step in their rank that there is no room to move up when SSIs (Service Salary Increases) are available. In fact, sometimes even when they are promoted, junior faculty members can hit immediately the top salary of the next rank. So there’s no chance to improve one’s salary, except for the GSI (General Salary Increase), which is the faculty’s cost-of-living raise and must be negotiated between the CFA and the administration.

Part of the problem is overlap of the ranks. But the larger problem is we have a salary structure that doesn’t reflect the reality of today’s job market and the compensation needs in higher education.

All of this puts intense pressure on junior faculty members who are trying to get to a salary level at which they can support a family, and, glory be, even buy a house. There is a joint union-management salary structure committee trying to come up with ideas to solve these and other salary structure problems that affect senior faculty and Lecturers, too.

CFA has a bargaining proposal on the table to mitigate some of the pressure on junior faculty caused by inversion and compression through equity adjustments and changes to the overall salary schedule. So far, the administration bargaining team has not been prepared to deal with this issue.

In last week’s Headlines, we explored the differences over the Faculty Early Retirement Program (FERP) at the bargaining table between CFA and the CSU administration. This week, we take a look at the bargaining issues around “Article 12: Appointments” in the faculty contract.

Throughout American higher education, people lament the increasing use of temporary appointments in place of tenure-track faculty positions. It is wellestablished that excessive use of temporary appointments negatively affects tenured and tenure-track faculty as well as those who get the temporary appointments, even if in different ways.

The language CFA won in the last round of contract talks, particularly the threeyear temporary appointments once a Lecturer has met specific requirements that are contained in Article 12, combined with other efforts to press for more tenuretrack hiring, is an attempt to turn the tide.

The three-year appointments provide a modest degree of job security for Lecturers. Job security is good not only for the individual Lecturer affected, but also for academic freedom in general, and for continuity for students who can have some assurance that their teachers will be around from term to term.

Nevertheless, the CSU administration’s bargaining team seeks to eliminate this three-appointment clause won in the most recent Unit 3 contract.

“They seek a completely discretionary appointment system,” says CFA Associate Vice President-Lecturers Elizabeth Hoffman. In effect, she notes, the policy to persistently replace tenure-track positions with temporary appointments is “eroding tenure by diverting funds to hiring and churning of new full-time temporary faculty instead of hiring new tenure-track or re-appointing incumbent Lecturers.”

The “churning” of Lecturers curtails their ability to earn a livable wage by restricting service step pay increases, pay range elevation, and benefits like health insurance.

Hoffman notes that all this creates instability because when the university won’t commit to a Lecturer, it is hard for the Lecturer to commit to the university.

It’s a problem that isn’t going away soon. A few years ago, the CSU faculty headcount tipped from a majority of tenure-track faculty to a majority Lecturer faculty. Meantime, governance workload for tenured and tenure-track faculty has consistently increased in lockstep with the growing number of Lecturers. That’s because almost all Lecturers are paid only for instructional activities; the few who participate in governance do so as volunteers.

“In that sense,” says Hoffman, “the growing use of short-term temporary appointments is an attack on faculty governance, too. And we should all worry about that. The heart of our world university system has been the ability of the faculty, not bureaucrats, to make decisions about instruction.”

Headlines will take up other issues in bargaining in future weeks. Meantime, you can get background on bargaining at http://www.calfac.org/bargaining.html

Starting this week, CFA Headlines will explore specific issues on which the CFA and CSU administration bargaining teams are the furthest apart. This week, we look at FERP (Faculty Early Retirement Program), which the CSU administration proposed to eliminate entirely in its initial bargaining proposals released last year.

Elimination of or reducing the years covered by FERP is a prime example of a “take-away” demand made by the CSU administration’s bargaining team. A takeaway would remove something of value from the faculty contract that is already there.

CFA has found that FERP is one of the CSU employment programs that has worked very well since its inception. The program is a win-win in that it provides advantages both for individuals by letting them prepare for retirement and for the university by ensuring continuity in instructional programs.

"What's more, a faculty member in FERP saves the CSU money versus someone who continues in full-time employment. There is a significant saving because the FERP is retired; thus, the CSU no longer makes its 17% of salary contribution to the CalPERS retirement fund--a savings on order of $7,000 for the typical FERP. Furthermore, for the other half of a FERP's workload--teaching 12 units--the CSU typically employs one or more part-time lecturers at a savings of about $25,000 in compensation cost."

In recent bargaining sessions, the CSU administration team dropped the demand to eliminate FERP and instead proposed to reduce the program from five to two years.

So why would the CSU administration want to eliminate or reduce FERP? That is not explicitly explained. They had alleged it to be a cost savings measure, but that has been established to be not the case. CFA speculates it would be a “power” move to replace more quickly tenure-track jobs with temporary appointments filled by faculty members they find easier to “manage.”

In contract talks last week, the CFA and CSU administration bargaining teams moved closer to agreement on Year ‘Round Operations (YRO). The sides are trying to attain an early agreement on how faculty members will be paid for teaching YRO classes this summer, as well as in the summers of 2007 and 2008.

The CSU administration has proposed to handle 2006 as was done in 2005. This means full pay just as people are paid for teaching other terms, as well as some pay per unit for indirect services. The exact amount remains under discussion. Earlier in the talks, the administration had offered less than full pay for YRO teaching. The CFA team still sees improvements it would like in the offer, but notes the administration team has improved their position on YRO.

CFA has put on the table a set of “talking points,” or principles, regarding faculty workload. The administration is now considering them. The CFA principles address workload from three perspectives: amount of teaching credit for large classes, the need for more tenure-track faculty, and the number of WTUs (weighted teaching units) required each term.

CFA stands firm against the CSU administration’s ongoing attempts in bargaining to take away current benefits and contract language in key areas such as summer work, retirement and lecturers’ rights.

Some of the well-established rights and benefits at stake are:

• The Faculty Early Retirement Program, which the administration wants to shorten from five years to two;

• The recent favorable Year-Round Operations arbitration award decision
concerning summer work, where the administration wants to eliminate full
pay in some instances as well as other rights;

• Three-year appointment rights for lecturers, which the administration
wants to weaken;

• Salary Step Increases, which the administration will only provide if they
are deducted from everyone’s general salary increases;

• Disguised as a Faculty Merit Incentive program, the administration wants to hand over $10 million to campus provosts and presidents to award each year—at their unchallengeable discretion—to faculty members.

While CFA remains committed to no takeaways, its bargaining leaders
stress the frustration of continually having to battle for contract language
that had already been settled in previous talks or arbitrations.

“This problem has been with us a long time,” said Director of Representation Ed Purcell. “Every time [we’re at the bargaining table] we have to defend improvements we’ve made over previous years.”

Purcell chalks this up to a culture within the top levels of the CSU administration that wants unilateral authority to make decisions, he said

. “It’s pretty clear to everybody that there’s a problem between the labor relations administration and the unions in the CSU,” said CFA President John Travis, who has served on numerous bargaining teams. “It would be
one thing if it was just CFA, but it’s true of all the unions for all the CSU
bargaining units.”

The Academic Professionals of California, which represents CSU Bargaining Unit 4, bargained for two-and-a-half years before it could reach a settlement on a contract for its members. They also fought takeaways.

“Bargaining a fair contract is one of the most important things we do for the faculty,” he said. “It takes so long for us to accomplish something that in a normal setting shouldn’t. We’ve already wrestled through these issues and we shouldn’t have to do it every single time.”

The contract must be a solid foundation for what comes next, said Purcell. “The CSU’s efforts to rollback language and reduce benefits doesn’t allow us to improve the nature of the relationship we have with the
administration.”

As negotiations for a successor Unit 3 Collective Bargaining Agreement continue,
CFA’s Bargaining Team has been meeting with the CSU administration about
summer employment, appointment and faculty salaries.
CFA is proposing adding an article to the contract dealing with summer
employment that encompasses the Year-Round Operations decisions the union
recently won. According to CFA Director of Representation Ed Purcell, there are
a few areas on which both parties agree, but CFA would like to get the language
finalized so campuses that are planning their 2006 summer sessions now can
use the contract as a guideline.
The CSU wants to eliminate three-year lecturer contracts, which the union will
not stand for, Purcell said.
“We’ve been spending time getting the CSU to explain what the problem they’re
having is,” he said. “We’re not going to let them destroy the article.”
CFA will meet with the CSU again Thursday and Friday to discuss these issues,
plus have some preliminary talks about faculty salaries.
http://www.calfac.org/bargaining.html

CFA’s Bargaining Team continues to meet with the CSU administration to
negotiate a successor Unit 3 collective bargaining agreement covering the
faculty, librarians, counselors and coaches on the 23 campuses.
The big issues remain faculty salary, workload and tenure. And again, the CSU
Trustees are looking to shortchange the faculty by proposing takeaways on the
Faculty Early Retirement Program (FERP), lecturer rights, summer work and
other areas.
Headlines will keep you updated on bargaining progress as it is made.

Bargaining between the CFA and CSU has resumed, the “cooling off period”
having ended. Both sides are committed to adding dates and trying to move
bargaining along, but a very difficult fight is expected to take center stage right
after the election.
“Our position will be stronger if we win in the Special Election, so do everything
you can in the last week,” said CFA president John Travis. “Remember the last
shot the Governor took at our pensions? If he wins next Tuesday, we may see
that kind of pension attack at the bargaining table. Is keeping that from
happening worth an afternoon of your time precinct walking?” said Travis.
http://www.calfac.org/Insiders.html

The CSU Administration said it is making the necessary adjustments in the payroll system to implement last week’s agreement with the CFA for an immediate 3.5% general salary increase (GSI). This will be reflected both in lump sum payments, retroactive to July 1, and in future paychecks. According to the Chancellor’s office, salary increases will be reflected in the warrants for the October pay period (reflected in the checks issued on November 1), and the retroactive checks should be processed in mid-October.

Following our GSI agreement, the university also reached an accommodation with the non-faculty CSU Employees Union, SEIU Local 2579. See http://www.calcsea.org/csu/bargaining/20050922-update-ta.pdf.

With the GSI breakthrough, the CFA Bargaining Team declared an end to the "cooling off period" in contract talks that had helped bring it about.

The CFA has agreed to resume negotiations on such outstanding issues as Service Step Increases (SSI's), the Faculty Early Retirement Program (FERP), workload, the grievance backlog and lecturer protections.

CFA President John Travis said he was pleased that the GSI agreement put bargaining "back on a constructive track." However, looking ahead, he also urged faculty "to make the connection between our ability to advocate for them and our political power, and to understand that we must defeat the governor's ballot measures in the Nov. 8 special election in order to preserve that strength.

Prop. 75-the measure that would handicap public employee unions by making it harder for them to spend money on political action-is too close to call in most polls. Prop. 76-which would give the governor virtually unchecked power to make drastic cuts in the state budget and shift funds from education, health care and other public services-appears headed for defeat but is considered still vulnerable to end-of-campaign TV ads underwritten by corporate friends of a governor who has announced his determination to "starve the beast" of the public sector.

The CFA Bargaining Team is pleased to announce that we have signed an agreement with the CSU Board of Trustees and the CSU Administration thatwill provide the faculty with an immediate 3.5% General Salary Increase (GSI is an across-the-board raise) retroactive to July 1, 2005.

The parties have also agreed that bargaining on a range of other
critically important issues, including Service Step Increases (SSI), the
Faculty Early Retirement Program (FERP), workload, the grievance
backlog, and lecturer protections among others, will resume.

This is a positive sign that the Trustees and the CSU Administration can be persuaded to do the right thing.
Earlier proposals from the Administration had disappointed us by requiring any immediate raise to be linked to acceptance of a three year "UC-like" merit pay program carved out of our GSI.

On Tuesday CFA President John Travis and Vice President Lil Taiz told the CSU Trustees' Collective Bargaining Committee that faculty deserved the full 3.5% GSI with no strings attached. The committee later met in closed session and agreed.

The Trustees and the Administration were motivated, we hope, by the personal sacrifices that faculty have made over the last two and a half years; during this time we have worked harder than ever while receiving no pay raises at all.

CFA also hopes that this agreement is a signal that all of our outstanding issues are resolvable. We look forward to restarting our bargaining meetings and moving resolution of outstanding issues forward.

One of the important lessons from this experience is that we must never allow ourselves to be pressured into making bad decisions with likely long-term consequences. As much as we all wanted to get financial relief as soon as possible, the Bargaining Team resolved not to succumb to the pressure to tie it to an ill-conceived and undefined merit pay plan. In the end, our resolve-and our unity on this issue-served the faculty well.

CFA President Travis added: "Now, during this critical special election season, all of us also need to realize that our faculty union needs to maintain political clout-not only to further our campaign to Rebuild the CSU, but also to continue the struggle for a fair and equitable contract.

"That's why we must turn our attention over the next six weeks to defeating Propositions 75 and 76. The Bargaining Team will go back to the table and provide full and timely reports on our progress. In the meantime, please contact your local CFA chapter to see how you can do your part to build on today's achievement and celebrate again on November 8th."

CFA President John Travis and Vice President Lil Taiz addressed the CSU Board of Trustees’ Collective Bargaining Committee at their Tuesday morning meeting in Long Beach. Both urged the Board to respond to the faculty’s need for the first general salary increase in two and a half years. Taiz pointed out that the administration’s last proposal for a 3.5% GSI with “strings”—tied to contingencies of a merit pay plan with no specifics—makes no sense for anyone.

As of Tuesday afternoon, the Collective Bargaining Committee reported that a response of some sort would be issued after tomorrow morning’s closed-door Board session. A special edition of Headlines will be issued as soon as there is further news.

As noted in yesterday’s special edition of Headlines
(http://www.calfac.org/allpdf/headlines/headlines_91205SPR.pdf), the BargainingTeam has announced a “cooling off” in negotiations with the CSU administration.
This followed a set of unacceptable proposals attaching strings to what the CFA had been told was a willingness to quickly put through a 3.5% general salary increase.

Today CFA President John Travis announced that members of the Bargaining Team will address the CSU Board of Trustees’ Collective Bargaining Committee about this issue at their meeting next Tuesday, September 20, in Long Beach.

We are disappointed to announce that a raise for the faculty has hit a disappointing obstacle. We are angry and place the blame squarely on the California State University administration.

As a result of this development, the CFA bargaining team has called for a “cooling down” period in negotiations and has broken off bargaining.

We call on the CSU administration to agree to an immediate 3.5% general salary increase for faculty in the current fiscal year while we continue to bargain on the other difficult issues on the table. It’s the right thing to do.

The reason for our action is simple — CSU negotiators have attached strings to the salary proposal that they know are not acceptable.

Attaching strings to a salary proposal is not an unusual tactic in collective bargaining. But the CSU administration’s actions at the bargaining table contradict the chancellor’s recent email communication with all faculty promising quick salary relief.

We condemn this attempt to manipulate our general salary increase (our cost of living adjustment!) in order to squeeze concessions from our bargaining team.

And we feel we must reveal the details to you, the faculty who would be affected if CFA’s bargaining team were to give in to the administration’s scheme.

CONCESSIONS HIDDEN IN STRINGS ATTACHED TO SALARY PROPOSAL

Representatives of the administration had approached CFA informally with an acceptable plan to implement a 3.5% across the board general salary increase (GSI or COLA) while continuing negotiations over other issues. CFA applauded them for their initiative and for recognizing the severity of the faculty salary problem.

However, in the short time it took for them to formalize their proposal, they added objectionable conditions that faculty contribute part of future general salary increases to an unspecified merit pay plan and to pay for junior faculty Service Salary Step Increases (SSIs).

This switch from a straightforward offer of a 3.5% raise to an offer with strings attached was a dismaying and erratic change in direction.

STRINGS ATTACHED ONLY FOR FACULTY RAISES

We feel a strong response is required considering that strings have been placed on raises only for the faculty.

Management personnel (MPPs) in the Chancellor’s office received a more generous 3.65% across the board salary increase – no conditions, no merit pay, no delay. The proposal for the State University Police Association has not been finalized, but the offer is 5% – no conditions, no merit pay, no delay. Agreements with other groups are expected this week.

USING SERVICE STEP INCREASES TO DIVIDE

Everyone, including CSU negotiators, knows that the CSU junior faculty have an exceptionally serious salary problem and should receive an SSI. However, the CSU negotiators’ offer is to fund an SSI only by reducing the General Salary Increase for everyone else.

In truth, the CSU can afford both a 3.5% raise and an SSI for junior faculty. The administration’s position is intentionally divisive. It is designed to set junior faculty against senior faculty.

MERIT PAY – YET AGAIN

CFA agreed to take a serious look at new and creative approaches to merit pay. The CSU bargaining team proposed a joint CSU/CFA committee to study the feasibility of a merit plan.

However, we will not agree to a merit plan in advance of a specific proposal that spells out exactly how the program would be conducted. The administration must make a compelling case for a plan that will work fairly for everyone. Two previous failed merit pay schemes severely damaged collegiality on our campuses and led to years of confusion, grievances and lost pay for many faculty members. (For more on the problems with merit pay plans, please see CFA’s Insiders Guide to Collective Bargaining at www.calfac.org/insiders.html).

Also, we do not support any merit plan that is funded from GSIs – the general salary increase is necessary to keep all faculty up with the cost of living and must not be treated as a pool from which to reward only a few.

Merit pay must not be used to detract from the necessary effort to close the California Post-Secondary Education Commission (CPEC) salary gap.

Over the course of the state budget crisis, CFA agreed to a two-year salary freeze. It was the responsible thing to do. It is unconscionable to use our overdue salary increases to manipulate us into accepting an undeveloped merit program

YOUR SUPPORT NEEDED

The CFA bargaining team asks for your support.

We encourage faculty members, our families and supporters to advise the administration as to the importance of agreeing to the GSI now with no strings attached.

The CFA Bargaining Team

CFA President John Travis issued the following statement:

The Chancellor’s recent email letter expressed the hope that the faculty and staff would soon receive the 3.5% raise included in the final adopted budget. CFA wholeheartedly agrees with the Chancellor, and as soon as he makes such a proposal, the CFA Bargaining Team will recommend acceptance of the increase and continue to bargain over the other unsettled issues. We are ready. On the other hand, if he decides to attach conditions that he knows are unacceptable to the faculty or reduce the amount of the raise, we’ll all know the fine compliments he so generously included in his email letter for staff and faculty, as well as his stated goal, to “get these raises to everyone as soon as possible,” were less than sincere.

The CSU and CFA bargaining teams are meeting tomorrow and Friday. We will report the outcome in the next Tuesday’s CFA Headlines.

CFA PRESIDENT JOHN TRAVIS HAS ISSUED THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT:

I know that many faculty members have questions about FERP (Faculty Early Retirement Program), and I hope the joint CFA/CSU statement below helps to answer some of them.
Because FERP is part of the CFA/CSU collective bargaining agreement, please keep the following in mind as you read the statement.
The bargaining process established in statute is a long one. It requires the parties to negotiate until they reach impasse, and then to submit to mediation and possible fact-finding.
If mediation is unsuccessful, either side may request that a neutral third party—a “fact finder”—be appointed to hear arguments by the two sides. Following the report of the fact finder, the parties can once again engage in bargaining. If no agreement is reached at this point, the administration has the right to “impose terms and conditions of employment” based on its “last, best offer,” at which juncture any FERP program that might exist would be dictated by the position of the CSU. At that juncture, terms of the FERP program as it is presently detailed in the Collective Bargaining Agreement could well change.
Because this process obviously takes extensive time, we do not expect any changes in FERP in the immediate future, and certainly not before the full statutory bargaining process is completed.
Joint CSU/CFA Statement
Status of FERP during Bargaining
August 29, 2005
1. If you have already applied for and been accepted into the FERP program for Fall 2005, the terms and conditions of the current program (5-year duration) will be in effect.
2. Unless the terms and conditions of the program have been changed through collective bargaining or unilaterally changed by CSU following exhaustion of the bargaining process, if you have already applied for and been accepted into the FERP program for Winter or Spring terms 2006, terms of the current program will most likely be in effect. (It is unlikely that either condition for program modification can be met within this time frame.)
3. If you contemplate applying in Fall 2005 for admission to FERP in Fall 2006, it is possible that the terms of the program may be changed by Fall 2006. If the program changes in ways unacceptable to you, you can decline to retire and decline to enter FERP at that time. (This can be accomplished by withdrawing yours PERS retirement request or declining to cash your first pension payment.)
4. Keep in mind that you must apply for FERP six (6) months in advance of the academic year in which you want to enter the program. (It is the case, however, that CSU campuses may waive this requirement upon request. If the six (6) months advance notice period has passed for the academic year in which you wish to enter FERP, you may consider making a request for an exception.)
Arbitrators have ruled that your request to enter FERP cannot be made more than one year in advance of the term in which you wish to enter the program. For instance, if you wish to enter FERP in Fall 2006, you cannot make application earlier than Fall 2005.

During last weekend’s Board of Directors’ meeting, CFA President John Travis reported slow progress in bargaining for a new faculty contract.
He said the negotiation sessions so far show “it will clearly be an arduous campaign” and “we are not likely to reach agreement soon.”
Travis reminded the board that, as has been previously reported, the CSU administration wants to limit the Faculty Early Retirement Program. And he indicated that the administration’s proposals on Article 12: Appointment emphasize a continued effort to weaken the tenure system. For more detail on bargaining, see the Summer 2005 “Insiders’ Guide to
Collective Bargaining,” which has been mailed home and distributed to faculty mailboxes on campuses.
Contact your campus chapter if you did not receive your printed copy, or see the “Insiders’ Guide” online at http://www.calfac.org/insiders.html

The Insider’s Guide to Collective Bargaining, a recent CFA background report on contract negotiations between the union and the CSU administration, is now available on the CFA Web site at http://www.calfac.org/Insiders.html
The guide, which was delivered to all faculty mailboxes and sent to CFA members’ home mailing addresses last week, includes an introduction to the bargaining process, an article on merit pay, a breakdown of some of the main issues CFA is working to resolve and stories from members of the bargaining team.
The current faculty contract expires June 30, but, as required by the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA), it will continue to remain in effect until either a successor contract is signed or the statutory bargaining process comes to an end.

The California Faculty Association and the California State University administration held their initial bargaining session at CFA’s Los Angeles Office on April 28 and 29. Even though the current collective bargaining agreement expires on June 30, 2005, neither CFA nor the administration expects negotiations to be completed by July 1.

After opening statements by Assistant Vice Chancellor Sam Strafaci and CFA President John Travis, in which both expressed interest in a productive and timely process, CFA submitted language on the first ten contract articles; no changes were proposed on several of these. Because changes to Article 10 on grievance procedures are complex due to the need to implement SB 1212, and because these changes affect Article 19, on disciplinary action, the union also introduced language on the latter.

The remainder of the Thursday session was devoted to a discussion of CFA’s proposals. On Friday, the parties accepted CFA’s minor modification to Article 8, and the administration submitted language on Article 16. There was further discussion on all the propositions introduced.

The parties scheduled future bargaining dates for May, June, and July.

CFA board members and bargaining team members reviewed results from the faculty-wide bargaining surveys this weekend.

The Bargaining Team also will review a long list of suggestions that bargaining team members and CFA officers heard from CFA campus leaders and members during Bargaining and Budget meetings held on the campuses in October.

From both the surveys and the meetings, one very strong message is being heard: Salary and workload stand out as major concerns for the faculty.

Members of the Bargaining Team will devote the next two months to working on
CFA’s initial bargaining proposals based on the surveys as well as recommendations from CFA councils, committees and the previous bargaining team. The Bargaining Team thanks those who took the time to fill out the survey.

CFA statewide officers conclude Bargaining and Budget meetings this week, discussing strategies and priorities.

The meetings have been held at campuses throughout the month, and the officers have received a wealth of input from faculty members, offering insights into what the faculty needs in order to provide its students a quality education, said CFA Vice President Lillian Taiz.

During her many campus visits, Taiz said she has seen how budget cuts have affected the faculty and students.

“The budget cuts, which the chancellor seems to feel we’ve managed our way through, are taking a terrible toll on faculty and students throughout the campuses,” she said. “People are stressed out. They’re overworked. And yet, almost heroically, they’re doing the best possible job they can do under the circumstances.

“Everyone is suffering,” she continued. “But at the same time, it’s a remarkable testament to people’s commitment that they would keep trying to do the same kind of job even under these circumstances.”

The CFA bargaining team will use the faculty feedback during contract negotiations next year, and this information also will be used to strategize for next year’s budget fight at the Capitol.

All faculty members, whether or not they got a chance to attend a meeting on their campus, should complete the CFA Bargaining Survey, which has been distributed to every faculty member.

Next year, CFA and the CSU administration will negotiate a new collective
bargaining agreement-known as a "successor contract"-for the faculty.
Preparations for this often difficult, marathon process have begun.
CFA's Contract Development/Bargaining Strategy Committee (CDBS) is meeting to discuss possible bargaining issues based on experience with the current three year contract.