Kincsemfarm@cs.com (John Biro) wrote (Apr 21, 10:33am):

Dear Dr. Davis:

    I have read the e-mail message from you to the faculty of the College of
Engineering, urging them to vote against implementing these new provisions.  I
would like, with your indulgence, to address the concerns you express in both
messages.

    First, with respect to issue of having too little time to study the new
contract provisions, the union certainly agrees with you.  UFF/UF has never
before tried to hold a vote of bargaining unit faculty with such short notice.
Unfortunately, however, in this case the late notice was unavoidable.  The
union has for weeks been seeking agreement with the administration that would
permit holding the vote sooner and giving faculty more notice. Partly because
the administration did not think a faculty vote necessary, ultimate agreement
in principle on the MOA was not reached until the "eleventh hour,"  leaving us
with only a week before the last feasible date for a vote this semester.

    Since we are near the end of the academic year, there were in practical
terms only two options available: (1) give the faculty a chance to vote (but
with only a week's notice) on provisionally implementing now the new rights and
protections that had already been agreed to; or (2) delay putting those
provisions into effect and deny faculty significant additional rights until at
least the fall or even much longer.  The union decided to try to get
provisional implementation, because, under the current fiscal and
administrative uncertainties, not having these new protections in place could
have disastrous consequences for many faculty.  UFF believes that the short
notice is tolerable, given tha this vote is only on putting the new contract
provisions into effect on a temporary, trial basis.  The faculty will have the
opportunity to approve of reject them in the final contract ratification vote,
and if it turns out in the mean time that there are truly serious problems, the
BOT and UFF will have the opportunity to modify the relevant articles to
correct those problems before the final ratification.

    On the question of the outside letters for tenure and promotion, I
recognize that your concerns are valid; I share them.  It has never been the
union's approach to force changes in college procedures that are agreed to be
working well.  In fact, as you and your colleagues can easily see for
yourselves, a great many of the new contract rights and protections are
designed precisely to protect departments and colleges from inappropriate
intrusion by the upper administration and other forces.  However, I hope you
can appreciate that collectively bargaining new contract provisions requires
agreement by BOTH the administration and the union, and reaching mutual
agreement often requires give and take over a long period, with many
compromises, some of them highly distasteful but necessary to reach agreement
at all.  In the long run, requiring MUTUAL agreement, instead of mere
'consultation', is usually very much better for faculty.

    The number of outside letters mutually agreed upon by the BOT and UFF was
not arbitrary, but it probably WAS a classic case of painful compromise in the
face of numerous competing variables.  I cannot speak for the administration,
but the union's proposals regarding outside letters were derived from, among
other places, (a) recommendations from two faculty task forces on tenure and
promotion (which contradicted each other in some respects); (b) complaints by
faculty and chairs from several colleges, particularly smaller colleges and
more specialized disciplines, about an excessive number of letters being
required; and (c) the formal recommendations from two prominent national
associations which strongly sought a reduction of the outside-referee burden on
senior faculty.  UFF was aware that six outside letters, although a typical
number for many top-tier universities and definitely a greater number than some
UF colleges wanted, were still fewer than the customary practice in some UF
disciplines.  The union DID offer solutions that it believed could accommodate
all colleges and still meet other necessary considerations, particularly the
maintenance of standards of excellence, but none of those proved accepta ble to
the administration. 

    Negotiations on this first BOT-UFF contract have continued at scheduled
sessions nearly every week for over two and one-half years now (bargaining on
the tenure and promotion articles took nearly a year).  Progress has often been
slow, in my opinion partly because the BOT team has often canceled sessions and
rarely works past two o'clock when they do attend.  If the union bargaining
team was not able to address all of your needs satisfactorily, then you can be
sure the union will try again as soon as possible with whatever relevant data
you can provide to us, hoping for  greater success the next time.

    UFF/UF is a democratic organization that has always sought input from all
faculty in preparing contract proposals.  Indeed, in these negotiations UFF has
occasionally called upon individual engineering faculty for information and
advice, and on at least two occasions the union has offered to come to any
forum of engineering faculty to field questions and suggestions and to try to
answer any concerns (although to my knowledge no invitation was extended as a
result of those overtures).  The union has not ignored your college's concerns.
In fact, the market equity adjustments that the union insisted upon, against
strong administration opposition, actually benefited the College of Engineering
more than any other college except one, partly because the salaries of
engineering lagged significantly behind national peers.

    I appreciate that your Faculty Council's position is that engineering
faculty should vote against implementing scores of new contract rights and
protections largely on the basis of your serious objection to one section in
the very extensive tenure and promotion articles.  However, since this faculty
vote clearly cannot be postponed, and since even if the MOA is approved the new
contract provisions would be implemented only provisionally (and you retain the
option to reject them in the final contract ratification), it seems to me that
by voting "no" you gain very little in comparison to what you and all other
bargaining unit faculty will lose if the MOA is not approved.  It is not as if
the BOT has been eager to provide faculty stronger protections and better
working conditions; your turning down those UFF has secured would undoubtedly
be welcomed by it.

    If the new provisions are not put into effect immediately and the upper
administration can operate under its interpretation of the status quo,  faculty
who are doing a good job could be laid off much more easily, would continue to
be deprived of pay while appealing disciplinary actions, be terminated prior to
their tenure review, be more open to retaliation , and continue to be deprived
of adequate due process.  You may want to consider whether it would not be far
better to vote "yes" and give the administration and the union the opportunity
to fix any other glitches (including that concerning outside letters) prior to
the really decisive vote at the time of final ratification, than to vote "no"
and have faculty forego  new rights and protections at a time when they may
need them the most.

    Thank you for sharing your concerns with me and giving me the opportunity
to respond to them.  I leave it to you whether to share my letter with
the rest of the engineering faculty.

Best regards,

John Biro
President, UFF/UF