Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Negotiating Team Members: Linda Buyer, Jamie Daniel, Carla Johnson, Mike Hart, Tony Labriola, Brian McKenna, and Pam Stipanich 2013 GSU-UPI LOCAL 4100.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Negotiating Team Members: Linda Buyer, Jamie Daniel, Carla Johnson, Mike Hart, Tony Labriola, Brian McKenna, and Pam Stipanich 2013 GSU-UPI LOCAL 4100."— Presentation transcript:

1 Negotiating Team Members: Linda Buyer, Jamie Daniel, Carla Johnson, Mike Hart, Tony Labriola, Brian McKenna, and Pam Stipanich 2013 GSU-UPI LOCAL 4100 MEMBERSHIP SURVEY SUMMARY AND IDENTIFIED ISSUES

2 SURVEY RESULTS

3 Thank-you, Thank-you, Thank-you 235 people responded to the membership survey Approximately half of the respondents (N = 101) answered at least some of the demographic questions at the end of the survey 69.3% identified themselves as Unit A faculty, 19.8% as Unit B Faculty, and 10.9% as Academic Support Professionals (ASPs). The distribution of the membership into these categories is Unit A = 56.7%, Unit B = 33.3%, and ASP = 10.0%.

4 Survey Results We asked, article by article and appendix by appendix, how satisfied with the current contract you were. We also asked a few additional questions about issues that crossed articles. First, the good news: % Satisfaction: Articles 26, 27, and 32 and Appendices A, B, D, E 80-89% Satisfaction: Articles 11, 12, 22, 24, and 30 and Appendices F, G, K and the question about contract numbering/indexing 70-79% Satisfaction: Articles 10, 15, 18, 20, 23, 25 and Appendices C, H, N 60-69% Satisfaction: Articles 13, 14, 19, 21, and 31 and Appendices I, J, L and “Unit A”/”Unit B” language, and Post-tenure review questions 50-59% Satisfaction: Question re Credit for Teaching, Service and Research in 6 years prior to tenure

5 Survey Results More good news: % Dissatisfaction: None 80-89% Dissatisfaction: None 70-79% Dissatisfaction: Article 17 (Eval. & Eval. Criteria), PAI Inequity & CUEs as “scrip” questions 60-69% Dissatisfaction: Articles 28 (Salary) and 29 (Additional Comp.) 50-59% Dissatisfaction: Article 16 (AODs/Work Plans), Appendix M (parking & walkways), and questions re use of “Exceptional”, etc. in Articles 18 & 19 and the Excellence Awards Dissatisfactions are not as strong as satisfactions. Number of things you are dissatisfied with is small and “hangs together”.

6 Survey Results Because the answer to a question sometimes depends on how is it asked, we also asked for you to identify the three articles/appendices you would most like to see stay the same and the three that you’d most like to see changed in the next contract The articles most often found in the “stay the same” category were: Article 13: Grievance Procedure (14 votes) Article 18: Retention (11 votes) Appendix A: Certification of Representative (9 votes) Article 20: Tenure (8 votes)

7 Survey Results Because the answer to a question sometimes depends on how is it asked, we also asked for you identify the three articles/appendices you would most like to see stay the same and the three that you’d most like to see changed The articles most often found in the “stay the same” category were: (from the item by item questions listed earlier) Article 13: Grievance Procedure (14 votes) (69.2% satisfied) Article 18: Retention (11 votes) (76.6% satisfied) Appendix A: Certification of Representative (9 votes) (97.1% satisfaction) Article 20: Tenure (8 votes) (73.5% satisfaction)

8 Survey Results The articles most often found in the “should be changed” category were: Article 28: Salary (37 votes) Article 16: Assignment of Duties/Annual Work Plan (31 votes) Article 29: Additional Compensation (22 votes) Article 17: Evaluation and Evaluation Criteria (18 votes) Article 19: Promotion (12 votes) Article 21: Additional Evaluation… (11 votes) Article 31: Compensable Fringe Benefits (8 votes)

9 Survey Results The articles most often found in the “should be changed” category were: (from the item by item questions listed earlier) Article 28: Salary (37 votes) (61.4% dissatisfied) Article 16: Assignment of Duties/Annual Work Plan (31 votes) (54.3% dissatisfied) Article 29: Additional Compensation (22 votes) (66.7% dissatisfied) Article 17: Evaluation and Evaluation Criteria (18 votes) (73.6% dissatisfied) Article 19: Promotion (12 votes) (61.6% satisfied) Article 21: Additional Evaluation… (11 votes) (60.0% satisfied) Article 31: Compensable Fringe Benefits (8 votes) (64.4% satisfied)

10 Survey Results Again, because the answer to a question sometimes depends on how is it asked, we were concerned that all of our “checkboxes” might be limiting what you told us about your concerns The last contract question was “Please tell us what your single biggest concern is about the new contract that we have been tasked to negotiate” and was open-ended. We coded the written responses we received as to the concerns that they mentioned. 17 different things were mentioned more than once as your primary concerns:

11 Survey Results Salary (N = 22) Equity (N = 20) Teaching CUEs/Load (N = 19) Research Expectations/CUEs (N = 15) Service Expectations/CUEs (N = 14) Increased Expectations (N = 9) Unit B Inequity (N = 8) Decisions by Administrative Fiat (N = 7) Percentage vs. Fixed Increases (N = 5) Shared Governance (N = 5) (This one includes Excellence Awards decisions) Benefits (N = 4) Transparency (N = 4) ASP Inequality (N = 3) Evaluation Processes/SEIs (N = 3) Academic Quality (N = 2) Faculty Autonomy (N = 2) Overload (N = 2)

12 First step in the Modified Traditional Bargaining Process is to Exchange Issues with the Administration Team ISSUES WE IDENTIFIED AFTER REVIEWING SURVEY RESULTS

13 Your Issues: Identified 6 Major Issues: How can we reconfigure workload such that the CUES and/or work plans are more equitable across constituencies? How can we keep compensation and work assignments appropriately in line with changing expectations? How can we provide more regularized and accountable evaluation processes? How can we adjust the reward system such that everyone is eligible for recognition of excellence? How can we assure that the contract is being acted upon? (Reportability/Reporting Structure) How can division criteria be brought into greater alignment with the GSU UPI contract time line?

14 Your Issues First Question: Do you have a concern that does NOT fit into one of the issues we identified?

15 Your Issues First Question: Do you have a concern that does NOT fit into one of the issues we identified? Second Question: Do we have the right ordering of the issues (most to least important)?

16 Your Issues First Question: Do you have a concern that does NOT fit into one of the issues we identified? Second Question: Do we have the right ordering of the issues (most to least important)? Last Question: Are you going to be eligible to vote to ratify the new contract? “Fair share” members are NOT eligible to vote See Carla Johnson (D34102) or Pam Stipanich (G184) to fill out a membership card (membership is same cost as fair share)

17 Again, thank you for helping to inform our negotiations We will make every effort to keep the lines of communication with you open as we engage in the negotiation process

18 Stay Tuned: AFT.ORG/4100/563/HOME OR AFT.ORG/4100/563/CONTRACT- NEGOTIATIONS


Download ppt "Negotiating Team Members: Linda Buyer, Jamie Daniel, Carla Johnson, Mike Hart, Tony Labriola, Brian McKenna, and Pam Stipanich 2013 GSU-UPI LOCAL 4100."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google