BARGAINING UPDATE #18 Last 2 sessions 6/25 and 6/29
Arbitration as a topic was hanging up on which arbitration service(s) to build into the contract provision. Richard Hinckley discussed the diversity of arbitrators available, comparing AAA (NFA’s preference) with ARM and JAMS, CSN’s prefs; JAMS has a higher diversity component. CSN Admin said they will bring something forward on Friday.
NFA next presented Dr. Howard Bunsis’s verbal analysis of Mary Kaye’s slide presentation on CSN finances. Differences between Bunsis’s reserve analysis and Mary Kaye’s Slide 7 analysis originate in different nomenclature, not radically different $ amounts in “reserves.” Patty expressed concern about the declining reserve ratio: it may be a healthy 20% now, but that ratio is decreasing. Patty did not want to go into too much more detail on this topic because Mary Kaye is not here to participate in discussion. Robert Manis testified that the latest numbers available show a slight increase to reserves this year. He also used an example to show the differences between “restricted reserves” (legally obligated) and “earmarking” (notetaker’s term) that expresses preferences for how available money “should be” spent. “Budgets are priorities” (Manis). “We’re arguing that point,” and that NSHE has historically placed low priority on faculty salaries. In the CSN budget, the “dubious” argument is that only $7 million is “unrestricted” whereas the audited statements identify $29 million (CSN) or $26.5 million (Bunsis). Patty disagreed with some of Jason’s comments, but Jason will send her Bunsis’s text and we will return to this topic on Friday when Admin brings its Salary counterproposal on Friday. Patty asserted that whatever goes into the CB must be “sustainable.” Jason for NFA asserted that the point of the analysis is to examine what “wiggle room” exists to fund contract proposals.
After some discussion on hiring, CSN Admin next presented its counterproposal on Counselors. A lot of it mirrors the Librarians proposal; Emily King asked if the compensation language in that proposal could be added into the Counselors proposal. Jason asked if Counselors are currently required to teach; Juanita explained that some may do so as adjuncts, but the Admin’s position on their workload may change, and Patty said that in this eventuality Admin would seek a contract re-opener.6/29NFA first presented our Grievance counter; Jason explained the changes, including a “trade” provision agreeing to removal of the 365-day time limit on discrimination and harassment grievances if Admin accepts 61 day (larger) timeframe for filing informal (Step 1) grievances and asks for an HR rep with technical expertise to participate in the meeting at which grievant presents the written grievance. NFA removes Admin language stipulating/limiting NFA’s representative to Chapter Pres or Executive Director.Emily King next presented NFA’s Hiring counter, explaining changes. Section 1 still includes Program Directors in the consultation on preparing the job announcement. Patty reported that Workday’s workflow has changed so that now the Screening Committee does not need to be formed before the job announcement gets published. Emily, Steve, and Jason reinforced the need for subject-matter, technical input into writing accurate job descriptions. Most changes requested by Admin have been accepted. Section 6 (c) differs by asking that the Screening Committee chair attend the Hiring Committee interviews as an observer only. Section 6 (d) adds “one business day” to move hiring process forward in a timely manner. Discussion of “hosting policy” revealed that it is already published on the college website as a “Finances” policy. Patty reported that Clarissa, who is not here today, will need to review these suggestions, but both teams feel “pretty darn close” to reaching an agreement. Emily reinforced that sticking points emerged from a lot of work surveying faculty.Patty presented Admin’s Salary counterproposal, which included a raise for overload pay from $825 to $925 over a two year period, but again a zero dollar commitment for pay equity, but acknowledging the need for a second equity study as mandated by NSHE code during the 3 year contract period. Robert Manis asked if Admin has a “ballpark range” of $$ to be expended this year on salary equity. Mary Kaye said she doesn’t have a number now because the study demonstrating need hasn’t been done yet. Amin asked about criteria being applied to the study: is Admin expecting to adjust salaries for faculty up to a specified # of years of experience? John Scarborough reported that salaries for all academic faculty are to be re-evaluated.Admin also refused to commit to any raise in lab contact hours until more study has been done, and offered a joint NFA/Admin task force as a solution.Faculty Engagement, Admin’s counterproposal, blends their original expectations for compulsory graduation attendance and other college and departmental functions with our contract types. At least they increased the B+ contract value by .5% (from 10% to 10.5%).After a lengthy caucus, Jason communicated NFA’s consensus that, despite movement in the Salary proposal and overload increases, we would not accept their offer and countered that having a minimum 1.25% pool to distribute for equity needs is important to all NFA members; in addition to year 1 and year 2 increases to overload, NFA asks for a year 3 overload pay of $975 per credit hour. As for Contact Hours, language about the committee is okay, but NFA wants to see an actual commitment of some modest increases so that the committee is not just a waste of time.Both sides agreed to an additional meeting the week of July 9, now scheduled at 2pm July 13 at West Charleston room TBA
Overview and more details at: http://nfacsnnegotiations.blogspot.com/2018/07/bargaining-overview.html