Update #5

Meeting dates: 17 July, 19 July, 2 August
Bargained Article: 23 (Salaries)
Issue: Base Salary Adjustment
CBA Language under review: Section 23.4.B

back to all updates

Base Salary Adjustment Section 23.4.B

The three most recent union/management bargaining sessions focused on Article 23: Salaries. On 17 July, management discussed FGCU’s current budget situation and fielded questions from the bargaining team. A summary of the information, phrased by the Director of University Budgets for the minutes of the 17 July meeting, is as follows:

“Discussed the current budget situation and both the short and long-term impacts of the loss of Performance-Based Funding. The team had long conversations about the make-up of the budget, the various fund types, and the multitude of restrictions on the various sources of revenues. The latter of which makes for a budget that is more complex than it appears on the surface and creates challenges in providing a clear picture of the budget.”

On 19 July UFF presented an overview of the need of the membership for competitive pay, compared FGCU’s salary averages to the rest of the SUS, and noted that those schools in the SUS that perform poorly on state metrics also happen to be the schools with the lowest faculty compensation structure. UFF then presented its first written proposal for Article 23: a 5% base salary increase to in-unit faculty, and a separate increase to all in-unit 9-month members to the state instructor average of $47,000/contract term. Any faculty (including advisors) on a 12-month contract would receive the same increase adjusted upward commensurate with the CBA’s 12-month calculation policies.

On 2 August, the bargaining teams reconvened. Management presented its position on the budget as quoted above, noted that comparing FGCU salaries to SUS averages is fallacious, and provided a comparison of FGCU salaries to peer IIA institutions. Management declined UFF’s proposal from 19 July. What follows is the sequence of verbal proposals put forth by both parties at the 2 August meeting (note: all proposals include full funding for promotion increases):

Party	Base % increase	Minimum increase	Result
Management	0%	$0	UFF declined
UFF	4%	$3000	Management team caucused for approximately 20 minutes, returned with a declination
Management	0%	$0	UFF declined
UFF	3.5%	$2500	Management declined
Management	0%	$0	UFF declined
UFF	3.5%	$2500	Management called for adjournment

The meeting ended with UFF noting its commitment to flexibility in bargaining and expressed desire that management would display that same commitment at the next meeting. Management called for adjournment to take UFF’s most recent offer to President Martin for review.