APSCUF Negotiations FAQ

Q. The contract is still not settled, but contract negotiations between the State System and APSCUF started in August 2002. How often are the two sides meeting?
A: The APSCUF Negotiation Team offered to meet with the Chancellor’s Team every Thursday and Friday until we signed a new collective bargaining agreement. The Chancellor’s Chief Negotiator, Michael K. Becker, announced at the joint session on August 26, 2002, that he would not meet on Thursdays at all, as he did not believe it was “worth it.” Throughout the course of negotiations, the APSCUF Negotiation Team has remained ready and accessible to the Chancellor to work toward a timely settlement. The APSCUF Team has continually come prepared to engage in all-day discussions regarding contract issues; however, Chief Negotiator Becker has consistently cut short each bargaining session after only one or two hours. APSCUF maintains the importance of reaching a fair and equitable agreement prior to the expiration of a contract. However, we are not willing to accede to the Chancellor’s proposals when they jeopardize the quality of education at State System Universities. APSCUF intends to continue working toward an acceptable settlement. The Chancellor’s attitude toward negotiations is most accurately reflected in her representative’s statement.

Q: Why were no bargaining sessions scheduled from September 5 to October 3?
A: Chief Negotiator Becker informed the APSCUF Team that there is no point in bargaining between September 5 and October 3 because the “climate is not right,” leaving 101,000 students and 5,500 faculty members waiting until he decides to return to the table next month.

Q: I understand that the State System’s proposal includes a wage freeze for faculty in 2003-04. Have managers really frozen their salaries as the Chancellor claims?
A: Management salary increases announced in January of this year were made retroactive to July of last year. Chancellor Hample received a 5.75% increase ($15,813), pushing her salary to $290,813, the highest paid state employee, earning more than the Governor of the Commonwealth. Two University Presidents received more than a 15% salary increase, while one new University President’s salary is $200,000, up from the retiring president’s salary of $156,000 – a 27% increase. The most egregious of the presidential increases amounted to a 15.3% increase in salary. Apparently management can “justify” those increases, while not noticing last year’s student tuition and (technology) fee hike of 12%. Apparently, management did not take into consideration the 3% reduction in appropriations from the State when deciding how much of a salary increase to give themselves. Now management proposes to freeze their salaries after these big salary increases last year and a 5% tuition hike. On top of all of this, the Chancellor proposes that faculty salaries be frozen for two years (2003-2004 and 2004-2005).

Q: What is a “step” increase? Many faculty are upset that they have been denied their step increase for 2003-04. Why did this happen?
A: A step increase is an annual increase in compensation, which is based on years of service, the percentage of which is negotiated between APSCUF and the Chancellor’s Office. Once a faculty member reaches the top step of the salary scale (currently Step 12), he/she will not receive additional steps. A majority(54% or 3078 faculty) of the faculty would not receive any step increases.Alittle overa third (36% or 2064 faculty) would receivethe 2.5% steps increases, and less than 10% (523 out of a total of 5,500 faculty) would receive the 5% steps increases. Generally, the faculty members on steps are younger and newer, and who were recruited to come to the university based on the promise of regular step increases.

Q: Wasn’t the Chancellor’s revoking of step increases illegal?
A: The Chancellor’s decision not to pay step increases this year is unprecedented and a contractual violation. APSCUF has filed a statewide policy grievance on this matter with the expectation that an arbitrator will order the Chancellor to compensate all eligible faculty for this loss of income.

Q: What would be the consequences if the health plan co-pay proposed by the Chancellor goes into effect?
A: The universities will have more difficulty in recruiting new faculty and retaining current faculty. But let’s set the record straight: the faculty already contribute to their health care, including payment for doctor visits and prescription drugs. Some of these expenses may be reimbursed, but not always. The State System has provided an adequate program of benefits to faculty and staff in the past, and a “Cadillac” plan for System managers. As state-owned institutions, the State System Universities do not offer the same quality of compensation packages as private universities; therefore, a good benefits package is especially important for recruitment purposes. APSCUF is very concerned that the changes proposed to faculty benefits will have a detrimental effect on university recruitment efforts. Of course, if System universities are unable to recruit good faculty in search of a good benefits package, it will have a direct impact on students

Q: The Board of Governors raised tuition 5% for 2003-04. Does that mean there is money available to increase faculty salaries?
A: APSCUF faculty has never relied on tuition increases to ensure increases in their own salaries. In fact, the State System has other income sources (e.g. state appropriations, contributions, corporate agreements, and investments), and it has accumulated multi-million dollar reserve funds. Still, because state funding has declined dramatically during the past few years (in fact, under the current Chancellor, State appropriations have decreased 8%), a heavier fiscal reliance has been placed on student tuition and fees. Whatever the System’s source of revenues, the share that goes to compensate faculty has been declining steadily, while the share that goes to managers has been rising dramatically, increasing by 33% in five years.

Q: I see a good bit of construction on my campus. If the universities can afford to build new buildings, doesn’t that mean the State System really has resources to increase faculty salaries?
A: No. Faculty do not expect to receive their salary increases from funds designated for the construction of facilities to improve educational opportunities for students. APSCUF Faculty strongly support all construction that will improve those opportunities. Faculty do expect the Chancellor to be honest in regard to the amount of funds available for faculty salaries and the methodology used to cost out the proposals on the table. To date, despite APSCUF’s repeated attempts to clarify these issues, the Chancellor has continued to dodge this discussion, which is extremely important to the prompt and successful settlement of the contract.
The real question is, in tight economic times, do we really need to renovate/build five elaborate presidential mansions for university presidents for an average of $590,000 each for a total cost of $2.9 million?

Q: Why won’t APSCUF accept an AFSCME-like settlement?
A: AFSCME agreed to a four-year contract that includes a wage freeze in the first year, a step increase in the second year for all its members (those at the top step get a cash payment), an across-the-board increase of 3% and no step increase in the third year, and a 3.5% across-the-board increase and two step increases (again, for all members) in the fourth year. AFSCME also received an immediate $ 60 million infusion in its health and welfare fund (which provides all insurance coverage) along with very significant boosts in employer contributions per member for each year of the contract. If these funds are insufficient, some increases in insurance co-pay may have to be made by AFSCME members.

The real question is, whether the outcome of the AFSCME negotiations is relevant to APSCUF’s contract. In many ways it is not. Comparing the APSCUF contract to the AFSCME contract can lead to problems. The work performed by a staff union and a faculty union are very different, and the two contracts reflect those considerable differences. For instance, consider overtime versus overload, hourly pay versus salary, shift differentials versus distance education. It makes more sense to compare APSCUF faculty with other faculty organizations. According to the March/April issue of Academe, our average salaries, compared to the average salaries of other mid-Atlantic region faculty, are near the 50th percentile.

Also, APSCUF’s health and welfare fund is fiscally sound and does not need an infusion of cash to keep it solvent, nor do future employer contributions need to be so high.

Additionally, the State System’s notion of continually increasing faculty “productivity” -- packing more students into classes -- which is clearly visible on many campuses already, does not have an equivalent provision in the AFSCME contract.

Q: What is the Chancellor’s Team offering to APSCUF?
A: The State System is proposing a four-year contract with an across-the-board wage freeze for the first two years, a step increase for less than 46% of the faculty in the second year, an across-the-board increase of 2.5% and no step increase in the third year, and a 3% across-the-board increase and a step increase (again, for a minority of the faculty) in the fourth year.
The APSCUF Negotiation Team has proposed a four-year contract that includes a general wage freeze (0%) in the first year, a 2.25% general pay increase in the second year, a 3% general pay increase in year three, and a 3.5% general pay increase in the fourth year. These increases include step increases as discussed above with a new 2.5% step (Step 13) in the third year and a new 2.5% step (Step 14) in the fourth year. This modest proposal is actually very close in terms of cost to that proposed by the Chancellor’s Office and mirrors the rate of inflation (2.25%).

The State System has proposed that a Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) with a 10% premium co-pay be considered the base plan beginning in 2004-05, which means that it will cost faculty more (the 10% premium co-pay plus the difference in cost of the PPO and the indemnity or HMO plan for the same type of contract) if they want to remain in either the indemnity plan or an HMO. The APSCUF Negotiation Team has requested information regarding the proposed PPO so that it can make an informed decision regarding this negotiation point, but the Chancellor’s Office has not yet responded to those requests. It is noteworthy that PPO programs are not easily accessible to a number of our campuses. It is also interesting that while the State System froze managers salaries this year, it did not implement any co-pay for managers’ insurance, nor does it require managers to select PPO’s.

APSCUF has proposed the establishment of a cost-containment committee with equal representation from both faculty and management to analyze benefits and make recommendations regarding the extent and level of benefit coverage. This is an approach that is recommended by health care experts who claim that, “perhaps no other change in our health care system would do more to reward quality and value.” [1]

[1] Walter Zelman, Harvard University.

<< back to the news page

back to top of page

.............................................................................................................................................................................................................

Home > News > APSCUF Negotiations FAQ

.............................................................................................................................................................................................................