PUBLIC SECTOR BARGAINING: 

In the past year (2003/04) New York State government settled contracts with many state government employees, including our SUNY colleagues in UUP (United University Professions).  UUP members accepted a four-year contract worth 15% in salary improvements over the life of the agreement, including an $800 cash bonus. 

SPRING

SEMESTER

2006

CONTRACT

BULLETINS

NEW UPDATE

• APRIL 11th UPDATE

Click below for:

• March 31st Update

• March 16th update

• March 2nd Update

• Feb. 16th Update

• Feb. 2nd Update

• Jan. 27th Update

Nov/Dec 2005 updates

Oct. 18, 2005 update

Barbara Bowen's Sept. 29 Address

Sign the Ad

More on the Contract Campaign

2002-05 Negotiations Timeline

APRIL 11

"Much progress was made toward a contract settlement yesterday at a twelve-hour negotiating session that lasted until after 10:30 pm.  The PSC negotiating team and representatives of CUNY management were able to resolve most of the remaining issues. "

back to top

April 11, 2006

Dear PSC Members and Colleagues, 

Much progress was made toward a contract settlement yesterday at a twelve-hour negotiating session that lasted until after 10:30 pm.  The PSC negotiating team and representatives of CUNY management were able to resolve most of the remaining issues.  The two sides will continue to work together informally during the rest of the week in an effort to finalize all points and complete discussions with the City and State.  

The proposal under discussion remains as I have reported on it in previous messages; its major features include:   

• across-the-board salary increases of, on average, 9.5% (8.48% + $800 added to base salary)—the same annual salary increases as in the current contract for SUNY faculty and staff.
• a multi-million dollar increase in CUNY management’s annual contributions to the Welfare Fund.
• at least two years of retroactive pay (approximately 6%).
• a contract of four years and ten months.
• agreement to support a change in the tenure clock for new hires from five years to seven.
• increased research support to accompany the longer tenure clock: additional research time for junior faculty and enhanced sabbaticals.
• ability to start fall semester classes three weekdays before August 30.
• a commitment to add 100 new full-time Lecturer lines, for which long-serving CUNY adjuncts will be selected.
• renewal of the HEO/CLT Professional Development Fund; creation of an Adjunct Professional Development Fund.
• equity improvements to address some long-standing issues, including a reduction in the workload at New York City Tech to 24 hours; improvements in annual leave for faculty counselors and in professional leave for library faculty; a higher minimum salary for College Language Immersion faculty.

I want to stress that this is not a comprehensive list and that nothing is final until everything is final.  As soon as a settlement is reached, the union will provide full details of every provision.  We will also publish the complete Memorandum of Agreement before asking members to vote on ratification. 

It may be necessary to add that there is no truth to the headline published today in The New York Sun claiming that the union’s salary demands have been lowered.  It is outrageous that a newspaper would publish such blatant misinformation and would not seek to ascertain correct information by checking the public reports on the contract by either the PSC or CUNY management.  This is not the first time The Sun has shown a disregard for the facts when it comes to unions and a willingness to confuse editorial views with reporting.  The settlement under discussion includes exactly the same 9.5% salary increase that I have previously described.   

In the coming days, the union negotiating team will continue to work to reach closure on the settlement.  That work includes discussion not only with CUNY management, but also with the City and State.  The process is long because of the number of parties involved, but also because we are determined to get the best settlement we can within the constraints of the City and State economic package.  That means arguing for fair implementation of every provision we have negotiated.  Many of the provisions are complex, and have required hours of back-and-forth discussion before they were satisfactorily resolved.  I will report as soon as we have further news.  

In the meantime, I thank you for your patience during this exceptionally hard round of bargaining.  I also appreciate your engagement in the process of settling the contract, even when your comments are critical.  Our best chance of achieving more than incremental gains in the future, especially in this political environment, is through deeper membership involvement. 

Finally, on a different subject, Governor Pataki has until midnight tonight, Tuesday April 11, to accept or veto the Legislature’s proposed budget, including an additional $66.2 million for CUNY.  At stake is the best budget for CUNY in at least a decade.  The additional funds would mean more full-time instructional staff positions, and more money for academic programs and student support.  If you have not yet sent a message urging the governor not to veto the CUNY budget, I urge you to do so right now.  Hundreds of members have already used the PSC website to send a message.  It takes less than five minutes to enter your name and address, and the message will be sent automatically.  Go to: http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/PatakiLegislature.  Let’s make sure Governor Pataki gets hundreds more faxes from CUNY faculty and staff before midnight tonight. 

In solidarity,
Barbara Bowen
President

MARCH 31

"The Legislature’s agreement on higher education represents a major victory for the PSC.   We took a strong stand in support of restoration of public funds and against making higher education even less affordable for CUNY students.  The union proposed that funding could be increased without further privatization in the form of increased tuition.  The Legislature has accepted the PSC’s position, rejecting requests for increased tuition by both the Governor and the Chancellors of CUNY and SUNY." 

Dear Colleagues and PSC Members,

I write to update you on the contract—and ask you to take action today in support of the Legislature’s proposal for increased CUNY funding.  We are in the final week of the State budget process, and the Legislature has presented to the Governor the best budget for CUNY in more than a decade.  The PSC played a major part in achieving the Legislature’s budget; now we need to ensure that the Governor does not turn it down.  I’ll say more at the end of this letter about what the budget would mean for us and what we can do to support it, but I start where most faculty and staff are focused: the contract.

At the bargaining session on March 1, the PSC identified a short list of items—fewer than ten—that must be resolved before a settlement can be reached.  As I noted in my last report, these are not minor items.  The knottiest and most important of them is ensuring sufficient increased contributions to the Welfare Fund.  We continue to work on that issue, primarily with the City, to maximize the available money for Welfare Fund benefits. Other unresolved issues include the precise economic values of several elements in the contract, final discussions on the Educational Opportunity Centers and Hunter Campus Schools, and the funding of research time. 

ONLY A FEW ISSUES REMAIN

Many of the issues have now been resolved; only a few remain.  The PSC bargaining team is working to narrow the differences between the two sides and reach resolution on each issue in preparation for a final bargaining session.  Our aim is to come to the table as soon as possible with solutions to each issue already in place.  The process has involved an intense schedule of meetings, conference calls and one-on-one discussions with the representatives of CUNY management, the City and the State.  After three-and-half years of tough negotiations, we are redoubling our efforts in this final stage so we can be certain that we achieve the fairest and most advantageous settlement possible in this round of bargaining.  We are working at a level of detail that includes discussion of hundredths of a percentage point as we seek to obtain the full value of the economic package for the faculty and staff.  

Several members of the PSC leadership have attended chapter meetings during the past few weeks.  We have listened hard to the issues you raised and have learned from you.  Some of the comments you have made have been incorporated into our discussions with management and have been very helpful as we work to finalize a settlement.  I want to thank you for your comments, even when they have been critical: the union bargaining team invariably benefits from hearing from you.    

When union and management reach a tentative agreement on a final settlement, I will announce the outline of the tentative agreement, and it will be submitted to the PSC Executive Council and Delegate Assembly for their recommendation.  The next Delegate Assembly is on April 27.   Delegates have the responsibility of voting whether to recommend a proposed settlement to you for ratification; if they do, ratification takes place through a secret ballot vote among the entire membership.  Any proposed settlement would also have to be ratified by the CUNY Board of Trustees before becoming final.  I will update you as soon as we have news of further developments in bringing this long process to a close. 

SEND A FAX TO PROTECT LEGISLATIVE GAINS

Meanwhile, I ask you to take five minutes and send a letter to Governor Pataki urging him to maintain the Legislature’s proposed increases for CUNY in the final State budget.  Visit the union website and have your letter sent directly to the Governor by clicking  here.  While the contract is the union’s primary arena for advancing the economic interests of the faculty and staff, the CUNY budget also has a direct effect on our professional lives.  Five years of systematic work by the PSC on the budget have paid off.  For the first time in more than a decade, the two houses of the New York State Legislature have agreed on a budget proposal for public higher education that contains significant increases for CUNY—and does so without increasing tuition.    

The Legislature’s agreement on higher education represents a major victory for the PSC.   We took a strong stand in support of restoration of public funds and against making higher education even less affordable for CUNY students.  The union proposed that funding could be increased without further privatization in the form of increased tuition.  The Legislature has accepted the PSC’s position, rejecting requests for increased tuition by both the Governor and the Chancellors of CUNY and SUNY.  

The Legislature’s proposal provides a total of $66.2 million in additional operating support to CUNY’s senior colleges and an increase of $4.7 million in base aid to the CUNY community colleges, or a $75 increase per FTE.  This will mean more money for new full-time lines and increased support for the daily operations of the colleges.  The Legislature’s agreement also provides a 10% increase in funding for SEEK and College Discovery (after years in which we scrambled just to avert cuts) and an additional $700 million in capital funding for SUNY and CUNY.  The capital funding will allow CUNY to complete desperately needed new buildings and long-overdue renovation.  In addition, the Legislature rejected the Governor’s cuts to TAP and created a new plan for TAP for part-time students—a proposal advanced by the PSC.   

While the Legislature’s budget is far from a perfect solution to fifteen years of underfunding, it takes the first major step in providing adequate public support for CUNY.  And, critically, it recognizes that a public university should be publicly supported—not dependent on “tuition indexing” or increases in tuition and fees.  We applaud the Legislature for their groundbreaking budget and call on the Governor to approve it in its entirety. 

The next week is critical; Governor Pataki has a short period in which to accept or veto the Legislature’s proposal.  We cannot allow the breakthrough achieved in the Legislature to slip away.  Hearing from hundreds of CUNY faculty and staff could make the difference.  Please send your letter now: http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/PatakiLegislature.     

Thank you for your support of this important budget initiative, and I will inform you as soon as there is more news to report on either the budget or the contract.

MARCH 16

"Throughout the last two weeks, union and management representatives have been meeting in sidebar sessions and holding informal discussions to resolve as many issues as possible before returning to the bargaining table.  We have made some progress, and the union is pressing hard to move to final negotiations quickly.  There was no formal bargaining session last week, but we are working constantly through conversations on individual issues to prepare for a session that would bring the negotiations to a close. "   

Dear PSC Members and Colleagues, 

As I reported in my last message about the contract, the PSC bargaining team on March 1 made a comprehensive counterproposal to reach a settlement.  The onus is now on management to come to the table and resolve the remaining issues.  Meanwhile, the union is doing everything it can to push the process to completion.   

Throughout the last two weeks, union and management representatives have been meeting in sidebar sessions and holding informal discussions to resolve as many issues as possible before returning to the bargaining table.  We have made some progress, and the union is pressing hard to move to final negotiations quickly.  There was no formal bargaining session last week, but we are working constantly through conversations on individual issues to prepare for a session that would bring the negotiations to a close.     

At every stage, the PSC has had to push CUNY management to treat our contract as a matter of urgency.  This stage is no different.  It took Chancellor Goldstein two years to put any economic offer on the table, and when an offer finally materialized, it was for a total of 1.5%.  That was December 2004.  (Meanwhile, he had accepted a 40% raise for himself.)  Since then union pressure has increased CUNY’s offer and defeated such concessionary demands as removal of department chairs from the bargaining unit.  But we still have battles to win.     

You might want to refer to my earlier contract reports, all of which are available on the PSC website at http://www.psc-cuny.org/Winter05_06bulletins.htm for a summary of our most recent proposals.  Here I’ll highlight the major features of the union proposal and summarize the issues that remain to be resolved.   

Not Minor Issues

Although the union identified fewer than ten remaining issues, they are not minor ones, nor are they issues that affect only small constituencies of members.  We are tenacious because we are determined to achieve the most beneficial contract we can within the economic constraints imposed on us by City and State power.  Until we are prepared to mount the kind of campaign it would take to defeat that amassed power—and CUNY’s alignment with it—we will continue to have to work, as creatively as we can, within the same constraints that have been imposed on every other public-employee union in the City and State.  I look forward to starting that campaign once this contract is settled, but in the meantime we are doing everything we can to produce a contract that responds to the needs you have identified. 

Salary Increases and Welfare Fund Stability

The union counterproposal includes annual across-the-board salary increases identical to those achieved by SUNY faculty in this round of bargaining: a one-time, non-recurring sum of $800 (pro-rated for part-timers) in the first year; a percentage increase of 2.5% in the second year; an additional 2.75% in the third year; and a further 3% in the fourth year, for a total percentage increase of 8.48%, when compounded.  In addition, the proposal includes $800 (pro-rated for adjunct titles) added to base salary on the last day of the contract.  The value in percentage points represented by $800 on base salary differs, of course, depending on one’s salary—it’s a 2% increase for someone earning $40,000 and a 1% increase for someone earning $80,000.  An average figure for the total value of the salary increases is 9.5%. 

Under the union’s counterproposal, stability for the Welfare Fund would be created by devoting a portion of the collective retroactive pay to the Welfare Fund reserves.  There would still be retroactive cash as part of the settlement, but collectively we would get more value for our money and more lasting value if we direct some of it, pre-tax, to the Welfare Fund reserves.  Additional money in the reserves—plus the recurring increase we have proposed—would mean no reduction in current prescription drug benefits.  

One of the major issues on which we need management to move in order to settle this contract is an increase in recurring contributions to the Welfare Fund.  On March 1 the union proposed that the City work with us on providing more than two-and-a-half million dollars in increased contributions on an annual, recurring basis to the Fund.  As I mentioned in an earlier message, the City’s proposal to increase the contribution rate would mean that the Welfare Fund gets 58 cents for every dollar we take out of our total economic package.  In making this proposal, the City is relying on a formula for valuing welfare fund contributions to municipal unions that it has used with all unions for many years.  This formula doesn’t work for the PSC, and we need to settle this issue before coming to a final agreement. 

Research Support and Equity

Other unresolved issues include the union’s proposals to increase research support through enhanced sabbaticals and a full year of research time for future faculty, if the longer tenure clock comes into effect.  We have made progress in discussion of both of these subjects, but agreement has not yet been reached.  The increase in junior faculty leave, if it is part of the final agreement, will not take effect until the contract is ratified and the State Education Law on time-to-tenure is changed.   

The final group of issues includes equitable application of the various increases to salary; conclusion of the discussions about the Hunter Campus Schools and the Educational Opportunity Centers; and resolution of the two equity provisions that were part of our November framework and were dropped from management’s February 16 offer.  None of these is trivial.  They represent significant steps forward and a lifting of concessions made by union leadership in the 1990s. Together with the salary increases and increased Welfare Fund contributions, they would make this a contract that provides some imaginative and long-sought improvements in professional life at CUNY, despite the politically-driven constraints within which we are working.   

When even a transit strike that shut the city down for three days did not immediately succeed in breaking through these political and economic constraints, it’s clear that we will need concerted labor action, with the support of the communities we serve, to set a different political and economic agenda.  Every contract for public employees in this round has either been below the level of inflation or included major give-backs, such as deep cuts in the starting salary for future employees.  A hallmark of the PSC’s proposal is that it does not include such cuts, and that it continues to press ahead on issues such as sabbaticals and research leave that go right to the heart of a university’s intellectual vitality.  

The PSC has put on the table a proposal that would bring us to a settlement in the next bargaining session.  We have worked in a principled way within the economic package offered by CUNY, the City and the State.  It’s time for management to come to the table with the final issues resolved.  The PSC bargaining team is working daily and tirelessly to make that happen; we appreciate your continued support. 

In solidarity, 

Click here for
printer friendly version

MARCH 2

 “Obviously, this must be the beginning of a serious political discussion in the union.  If management agrees to our proposal, the proposed settlement would go first to the union’s Executive Committee and then the Delegate Assembly before it is submitted to you for ratification.  At every stage of that process we will take the opportunity to have open debate about the political choices that led to our presenting a proposal that falls short of the goals that thousands of people fought for.”

Dear CUNY Colleagues, 

The PSC bargaining team met yesterday, March 1, with representatives of Chancellor Goldstein, together with the New York City Commissioner of Labor and his staff.   

Speaking for Goldstein, Vice Chancellor Brenda Malone rejected the union’s proposal that management provide additional funding for enhanced sabbaticals.  Despite Goldstein’s repeated claims about his concern for the faculty, the truth is that he has failed to come through.  His representatives offered nothing but the substandard economic package that has been the norm in this round of bargaining with the City and State.  Their repeated message was that they are not willing or able to go beyond the “pattern” of collective bargaining settlements for public employees.  It makes no difference to them that this pattern damages the University.  Nor, apparently, does it matter to the City and State that the parameters that may be acceptable to other unions—whose members are not recruited through national searches—are ruinous at CUNY.  I am not the only person whose department is finding that job candidates who express a strong preference for CUNY eventually turn us down because of the impossible salaries and workload.   

Management also said there was little flexibility in getting full value from the 1.5% we are willing to take from our package for the Welfare Fund.  Because of the City’s historical way of valuing Welfare Fund contributions as part of contract settlements, the proposal made by management would provide only 58 cents on the dollar of Welfare Fund money.  The union cannot accept that. 

In responding to management, the union voiced the anger felt by CUNY faculty and staff—first at the unconscionable delay in this contract, and second at the failure of our collective bosses to offer anything like an appropriate settlement.  Despite having agreed in November to an imaginative framework that (while far from perfect) would have met many of the union’s needs, CUNY management has now aligned itself with the punitive contract settlements that no union in this round has yet been able to defeat.   

The PSC negotiating team, then, was faced with the decision of either working within this inadequate framework or walking away from the table with no contract.  As you can imagine, this was a difficult choice, but the majority position of the negotiating team was to try to work within the parameters in the most principled and imaginative way we could to fashion a settlement.  In this spirit, we offered the following counterproposal as a way to reach final resolution: 

·    First, the Welfare Fund reserve would be restored, providing stability to the Fund, by using a portion of the retroactive pay, including some of the retroactive amount in year two. 

·    Second, we proposed that the City would agree to allocate a smaller amount than 1.5% on a recurring basis to the Welfare Fund, but that this amount would go into the Fund at its full value.  The result of this would be stability for the Fund, but probably not enough money to enhance the dental benefit.   

·    Third, we proposed that the remaining funds from this 1.5%, plus the value of the $500 management had offered to employees with “permanent” status, be used to create the necessary funds to provide sabbaticals, with no cap on the annual number, at 80% pay.  We argued that using the $500 in this way creates a lasting benefit for permanent employees, and that unlike the $500 bonus, it would not be lost when each individual leaves or retires.   

·    Fourth, we proposed that because of the impact on future faculty of the legislative change in the tenure clock, junior faculty should have access to the equivalent of a full year of paid research time to prepare for tenure.  Thus we proposed that the additional research time for future junior faculty (to begin when the tenure change begins) would be 15 hours at the community colleges and 9 hours at the senior colleges.   

·    Fifth, we indicated that the settlement would need to include the two additional “equity” items to which we had agreed in the fall.  They are the provision of paid sick days to the hundreds of part-time College Lab Technicians and non-teaching adjuncts; and the groundbreaking new proposal for 100 full-time positions reserved for eligible CUNY adjuncts.   

·    Sixth, we said that the $800 added to base salary on the last day of the contract would have to be applied to all members of the bargaining unit, including Continuing Education faculty. 

·    Finally, the union reminded management that we also represent the four Educational Opportunity Centers and the Hunter Campus Schools.  We need to have the across-the-board raises applied to the EOCs and to resolve some professional issues at the Hunter Campus Schools. 

This, in addition to some questions and technical points we raised, was our proposal.  It leaves unchanged the annual salary increases of $800 in cash in the first year, 2.5% in the second year, 2.75% in the third year, and 3% in the fourth year, with an additional $800 on base salary on the final day of the contract, after an extension of ten months.  It also includes flexibility of up to three days on the starting-date for the fall semester; the equity items to which we had already agreed; and the provision that the union would support legislation changing the time to tenure from five years to seven (except for CLTs and Hunter Campus Schools teachers). 

 Management responded that they would consider each of the elements of the union’s proposal, and did not foreclose the possibility of agreement.  They also provided answers to some of our technical questions, and a further technical meeting is scheduled for today, March 2.  We got a commitment from CUNY and the City to return to the bargaining table for a full session next week. 

Obviously, this must be the beginning of a serious political discussion in the union.  If management agrees to our proposal, the proposed settlement would go first to the union’s Executive Committee and then the Delegate Assembly before it is submitted to you for ratification.  At every stage of that process we will take the opportunity to have open debate about the political choices that led to our presenting a proposal that falls short of the goals that thousands of people fought for.  The mobilization for this contract is the best this union has ever done; never before have we had this level of membership commitment and fight, this kind of organization on the ground, this network of over 400 picket captains.  Your effort, led by the union’s Executive Council and chapter activists, is what forced management to move beyond its previous economic offers, agree to several important advances for faculty and staff, and take off the table such demands as reduced job security for HEOs and removal of department chairs from the union.   

Now, however, it’s clear that it will take far more than even that mobilization to break through the punitive contract patterns being forced on unions by the City and State—and now embraced by CUNY.  When we reached an acceptable framework for an agreement with CUNY, they failed to gain City and State approval.  The question the union faces together is when and how the PSC is best positioned to undertake a breakthrough fight.  Members will take different positions on that question, and the discussion will call on us to analyze exactly what political forces we’re up against and what it will take to wrest from them a transformative contract.   

As soon as we hold the next session, I will report to you on whether management has agreed to a settlement.  Thank you again for your support, your comments and what is sure to be an important discussion in the coming weeks.     

In solidarity, 

Barbara Bowen
President

Click here for
printer friendly version

FEBRUARY 16

"CUNY management came to the table with a proposal that was substantially different from the conceptual framework on which union and management had agreed in November.  The PSC negotiating team registered the members’ anger at receiving a proposal that differed in major ways from the conceptual framework, but in an effort to bring this contract to a fair conclusion, we offered a counterproposal.  The representatives of CUNY management, the Mayor and the Governor agreed to consider our counterproposal and to return to the bargaining table quickly."

Dear PSC Colleagues, Members and Friends, 

The result of our long day of bargaining today is that negotiations will continue, with the goal of reaching a settlement.  CUNY management came to the table with a proposal that was substantially different from the conceptual framework on which union and management had agreed in November.  The PSC negotiating team registered the members’ anger at receiving a proposal that differed in major ways from the conceptual framework, but in an effort to bring this contract to a fair conclusion, we offered a counterproposal.  The representatives of CUNY management, the Mayor and the Governor agreed to consider our counterproposal and to return to the bargaining table quickly.  A technical meeting on details of costing is scheduled for tomorrow morning at 8:30 a.m.; all the parties have agreed to work on scheduling another full bargaining session before the end of next week.   

PSC Negotiators Buoyed by Spirited Rally

The union bargaining team entered the session energized by the support of more than 200 members who turned out in front of the City’s Office of Labor Relations on Rector Street.  Anyone who knows the caverns of lower Manhattan can picture the effect of scores of red signs, whistles and chants on that narrow street as PSC members from across the University marched in protest.  Your demand for a fair contract clearly helped to create a sense of urgency throughout the bargaining session.  (Photos of the protest are up on the PSC website: www.psc-cuny.org.) 

Substantial Differences from the Agreed-Upon Framework

As we predicted, the proposal advanced by CUNY management, the City and the State differed in major ways from the conceptual framework that the PSC and CUNY had worked out in November.  The key difference arises from an unwillingness to use an additional office hour for full-time faculty to add to the value of the package, as had been agreed in the November framework.  More than 3% had been added to the economic package in return for an additional office hour per week.  Without that amount, the proposal contained less money for salary increases and no provision for the increase in sabbatical pay to 80% that was part of the November framework.  In addition, the proposal included an inadequate solution to the Welfare Fund issues, and did not come through on the complete list of equity improvements we had agreed to in November.

 Collective bargaining for public employees is a political process—it’s about power, not logic or worth or quality education.  Both the Mayor and the Governor have been explicit about their political goals of extracting more give-backs from unions—whether it be lower starting salaries or cuts in healthcare or pensions, as with the transport workers.  The representatives of the Governor made it clear that they were unwilling to agree to a salary settlement for the PSC that goes beyond the salary agreements they have reached with other State unions.  The proposal management advanced today included exactly the same annual across-the-board increases as were negotiated with the SUNY union, UUP:  a one-time lump-sum amount of $800, pro-rated for adjuncts, in the first year; 2.5% in the second year; 2.75% in the third year; 3% in the fourth year; and an additional $800 on base salary (pro-rated for adjuncts) on the final day of the contract.  The total across-the-board increase is, on average, about 9.4%.   

The Union Response

The union bargained in good faith to reach the November framework.  Today we made clear our disappointment, after three years of bargaining, at management’s unwillingness to hold to that framework.  We pressed hard for the full package to which we had agreed, and urged management to reconsider the office hour proposal, especially as a benefit to our students.  The PSC team spoke about the history of salary erosion at CUNY and the critical importance of improving salaries, benefits and sabbaticals if CUNY is to continue to attract and retain top-quality instructional staff.  As part of our discussion of management’s proposal, we also presented a series of detailed questions about individual issues of economic value.  Some were answered; some await further discussion in the technical meeting on Friday morning.  But we had made a commitment to our members to see if we could arrive at an acceptable settlement across the bargaining table, so we came back to the City, State and CUNY with a proposal for reaching closure.  The outline proposed by the union centers on three issues. 

 First, we need a full solution to the issues facing the Welfare Fund: while management’s proposal today represented some additional contributions to the Fund, it is not sufficient to meet our members’ needs.  We made a proposal, working within the economic package management presented today, to meet that need.   

Second, the union is committed to funding the entire list of equity items on which we reached agreement in November.  These include such issues as a removal of a 1998 concession on the workload for faculty counselors, a reduction in teaching load at New York City Tech, and the creation of 100 new full-time lines for which only long-serving adjuncts would be eligible to compete.  We proposed a way to fund the complete list within the economic package offered today.

 Third, we said that we would be willing to support the major structural change of extending the time to tenure if management restored the enhanced sabbatical pay that had been part of our November framework.  (The additional paid research time we had negotiated for junior faculty affected by the tenure change remained a feature of management’s proposal.)  We asked that the City, the State and CUNY management seek ways to fund the enhancement of sabbatical pay to 80%, as an addition to the economic package they presented today.  We argued that the longer time to tenure is typical of colleges and universities that provide much more research support than CUNY; improved sabbaticals, along with additional reassigned time for future junior faculty, should be part of this change. 

The union’s arguments were grounded in a commitment to creating a university in which real teaching and learning can take place—a university that offers the best education possible to the people of New York.  In response, the management side of the table agreed to look seriously at our counterproposal.  They explained their difficulty with different pieces of it, but did not rule out working toward an agreement.  They agreed to come back for another full bargaining session as quickly as possible, and made a commitment to try to do that within a week.  I will let you know as soon as we set the date for that session. 

My thanks to PSC members for the full-throated support today, and for the rich, challenging and supportive comments you have made during the last few weeks on email and in person. 

In solidarity,
Barbara Bowen
President

Click here for
printer friendly version

FEBRUARY 2

"You will find on the union website letters to the Chancellor, the Mayor and the Governor demanding that their representatives come to the table and stay at the table until a fair contract is finalized, and that they honor the November 14 agreement on a conceptual framework.  I urge you to take the time to let the other side know how you feel prior to the February 16 negotiating session.  Go to www.psc-cuny.org and click on the box that says 'Act Now!'"

Dear PSC Members, Colleagues and Friends, 

The union negotiating team welcomes Chancellor Goldstein’s news that on February 16 CUNY will come to the bargaining table with the City and State to continue negotiations on the conceptual framework for an agreement that CUNY sent to City and State officials on November 14, 2005.  February 16, however, is three months after the framework was agreed on and three years after the expiration of our contract.   

It’s time for CUNY to commit itself to continuous negotiations.  The PSC negotiating team calls on CUNY, the City and the State to remain at the table and negotiate until we finalize a fair contract. 

We will listen carefully to what CUNY, the State and the City have to say on February 16, and we will evaluate what Goldstein calls CUNY’s “modified” proposals.  While the union has had indications that CUNY has had problems gaining approval from the City and State for the framework on which we agreed at the bargaining table, Chancellor Goldstein has not, as of this writing, shared with the union the formal proposal CUNY plans to present on the 16^th. 

If CUNY’s “modifications” of the framework deviate significantly from the November 14 agreement, negotiations may be difficult.  With your support, we are committed to staying at the table as long as it takes to settle a contract that is consistent with the goals you identified and fought for in this round of bargaining. 

The document CUNY sent to City and State officials on November 14, 2005 was titled “Draft Conceptual Framework for an Agreement between the PSC and CUNY.”  Yet Goldstein’s February 1 letter pointedly avoids the word “agreement”; instead, he refers repeatedly to “understandings.”  What we reached with CUNY was more than an understanding; it was an agreement—with costs detailed to the hundredths of a percentage and details of contract language resolved. 

As I explained in my last message, much of significance was accomplished leading up to the November 14 framework for the contract.  Bargaining in good faith, the PSC engaged in the process of give-and-take to reach agreement with CUNY.  Proposals were offered, demands were withdrawn, and detailed resolutions were reached.  CUNY negotiators represented to us that they had the authority to negotiate such agreements.  We agreed in good faith to a framework for a settlement, and we expect that framework to be honored. 

I ask for your continued support as we move into this final phase of negotiations.  Starting February 3, you will find on the union website letters to the Chancellor, the Mayor and the Governor demanding that their representatives come to the table and stay at the table until a fair contract is finalized, and that they honor the November 14 agreement on a conceptual framework.  I urge you to take the time to let the other side know how you feel prior to the February 16 negotiating session.  Go to www.psc-cuny.org and click on the box that says “Act Now!”  With the strength of the membership at our backs, we will remain resolute as we work to bring this round of negotiations to a close. 

In solidarity, 

Barbara Bowen
President, PSC

Click here for
printer friendly version

JANUARY 27

"The union bargained in good faith.  We expected CUNY to do the same.  I am writing now to tell you how the "conceptual framework" was reached, the major elements it includes, and how the union plans to respond if we find that CUNY has failed to gain City and State approval for the framework we reached."

January 27, 2006 

Dear Members, Colleagues and Friends, 

Thank you for the patience and support you have shown during this long fight for a fair contract.  I write to report to you on the status of negotiations. 

On November 14, 2005-three years after the expiration of the last contract-the Professional Staff Congress and CUNY management reached a tentative agreement on a framework for a settlement.  Since then, the City and State have been reviewing the settlement prior to giving it their approval.  On January 13, 2006-two months after the union and management came to an agreement-CUNY Vice Chancellor Brenda Malone wrote in a letter to me: "the City and State expressed concerns about some items and requested additional information about others."  We do not yet have a formal report on those "concerns," but as members, you have waited long enough, and I wanted to write immediately after discussing the contract last night at the union's Delegate Assembly. 

The union bargained in good faith.  We expected CUNY to do the same.  I am writing now to tell you how the "conceptual framework" was reached, the major elements it includes, and how the union plans to respond if we find that CUNY has failed to gain City and State approval for the framework we reached. 

CUNY management began to negotiate seriously with the PSC only after we exerted constant membership pressure, including a new level of mobilization as we prepared for a possible referendum on a strike.  Remember, it took CUNY 18 months to make any economic offer at all, and that offer was for 1.5% over four years.  The intense membership pressure leading up to the September 29, 2005 mass meeting, coupled with a series of contract settlements for other public-employee unions in New York City, pushed CUNY to increase its economic offer in early November.  By November 3, the deadline the union had set, the PSC Executive Council determined that we had an acceptable framework for a settlement.  Negotiations accelerated in the next two weeks, and we hammered out details of costs and language.  It took us two weeks of intense and often heated bargaining sessions, but by November 14 the PSC and management arrived at a framework whose cost was worked out down to hundredths of a decimal point.  Each provision, both economic and non-economic, had been discussed in detail; points as fine as contractual language had been settled. 

The PSC bargained hard and in good faith.  We didn't think the agreement was perfect, but we believed it held true to the principles we had articulated and members had fought for.  While the PSC bargaining team is aware of the legal requirement for City and State approval of our contract, we expected CUNY to come to the table each time with the authority to close the deal. 

The union identified and organized for three goals in this contract: 1) salary increases of at least 10%; 2) stabilization of the Welfare Fund and a restoration of the dental benefit; and 3) improvements in equity and working conditions.  It's a measure of the hostile political climate we face that those relatively modest goals are absurdly difficult to achieve.  We also took a strong stand against a contract based on concessions.  The PSC refused to sell out "the unborn," as new workers are sometimes called, or to sell out those who might be called "the reborn"-retirees, who depend on the Welfare Fund for prescription drugs.  We demanded a principled contract that recognizes the work we do, improves rather than cuts our health benefits, and advances our individual and collective professional lives. 

In addition, we pressed for direct assistance from the State of New York to preserve supplemental health benefits through the Welfare Fund.  The State provides more than 80% of the government funding for CUNY, and has intervened in the past with other union welfare funds to ensure that benefits are preserved.  The PSC leadership has also sought to have the City cover health insurance for part-time instructional staff who meet eligibility requirements, just as the City covers health insurance for other part-time employees. 

During the summer of 2005, the context for public employee bargaining in New York began to shift.  The police union received an arbitration award that offset higher salaries for current workers with deep salary cuts for new employees, and the UFT settled a contract with the City that included higher salaries as well as "productivity increases" and "reforms" sought by the City.  In this context, the PSC negotiating team agreed to consider some proposals management introduced late in the bargaining-as long as they would lead to substantial salary increases and other real advances in working conditions.  As part of the conceptual framework, we agreed to support a change in the time to tenure from five years to seven, and to have full-time faculty hold one additional office hour per week-in exchange for salary increases above 12%, a doubling of reassigned time for junior faculty, substantially improved sabbatical pay and other gains. 

In addition, we got management's demand to remove department chairs from the union off the table, and we resisted a number of other concessions, such as cuts in holidays for HEOs and CLTs, and the weakening of HEO job security. We moved management off their demand to end annual leave on August 22, and instead agreed on a formula for starting the fall semester up to three weekdays before August 30.  Meanwhile, we also won agreement on an array of improvements in equity, including a reduction to 24 hours of the teaching load at New York City Tech, the introduction of paid sick days for non-teaching adjuncts and adjunct CLTs, the restoration of faculty counselor annual leave, a professional development fund for adjuncts, reassigned time for research for junior faculty in Library and Counseling, an increase in the starting pay for CLIP faculty, and the creation of 100 new full-time lines for which only experienced CUNY adjuncts would be eligible to apply. 

These are the elements of the framework we negotiated in good faith.  I understand that there are major changes here, and issues about which people will take different positions.  The union leadership would like to have a much more extensive discussion with the membership of the issue of time to tenure (though the provision we tentatively agreed to would not affect current junior faculty and would also not affect CLTs).  The union leadership has taken the position that time to tenure is a subject CUNY had to negotiate with us, not impose unilaterally, and that an increase in the untenured period had to be accompanied by a significant increase in support for research.  We would also like to discuss with you the issue of an additional office hour: the negotiating team believed that in the context of a good economic settlement we could support a provision for four office hours a week.  I want to emphasize, however, that none of these elements is final.  I share them with you because I feel you are entitled to know why this contract has taken so long and what is under discussion. 

Of course everything changes if the City and State fail to approve the conceptual framework.  We have had several indications that the framework will not be approved.  The union negotiating team remains prepared to listen to the presentation by CUNY, the City and the State, but we cannot accept major changes on such issues as office hours and time to tenure if the settlement as whole does not represent a significant advance. 

Last night at the Delegate Assembly, PSC leaders unanimously passed a resolution calling on members to demand that CUNY, the City and the State come to the bargaining table immediately and settle a fair contract with the PSC.  A bargaining session is currently being scheduled, but we need immediate movement toward a settlement.  If CUNY does not deliver on City and State approval for the conceptual framework, the union is fully prepared to take all necessary action to achieve a settlement consistent with our goals. 

PSC members have fought hard for three years-too hard to give up under pressure from City and State governments that have demanded ever-increasing concessions from public employees.  You have held out because you believe that faculty and staff at New York City's public university are entitled to decent pay and working conditions.  That is what the negotiating team is committed to achieving.  With your support, I believe we can. 

In solidarity, 

Barbara Bowen
President

Click here for
printer friendly version