I cannot think of any other words to describe the email that we received today from Gail Brooks at the Chancellor’s Office: Just Despicable. (see full text below)

According to Ms. Brooks CFA is simply greedy. CFA is asking for hundreds of millions in pay raises for faculty. Her email is one of the most intellectually dishonest expressions I have ever read.

So where do those big numbers that she cited come from? They come from the last contract that she and the Chancellor negotiated and then failed to deliver on.

What CFA is asking is that the Chancellor keep his promises; promises that neutral fact finders have found that the CSU can afford. Charlie would just rather use the money differently. Like arranging for huge pay increases for campus presidents.

In the meantime let’s total up the CSU’s offer to faculty: $0. That’s right: Zero, zilch, nada, bupkis. Worse than that, the Chancellor’s Office would like the right to reopen salary and benefits clauses of the next contract. The only interpretation of that position is that they want to DECREASE faculty salaries!

It is obvious: What the Chancellor’s Office is trying to do is cast faculty as greedy. Ms. Brooks email indicates the contempt that she and the Chancellor have for faculty.

If you were not ready to vote to authorize a strike before, you ought to be ready to vote YES now. We need to send the Chancellor and Ms. Brooks a message.

There is still time to PLEDGE to vote YES: http://www.calfac.org/form/count-me-0

Instructions regarding HOW TO VOTE in the upcoming strike vote will be forthcoming. That election will BEGIN on Monday April 16th and voting with continue through Friday April 27th.

I hope that we can count on your support.

 

 

To:                          CSU Faculty

 

From:                    Gail Brooks, Vice Chancellor, Human Resources

 

Re:                         Update on CSU, CFA Negotiations

 

CFA’s proposals are estimated to cost the CSU a minimum $504.1 million in additional expenses over the life of a new agreement, and $244.3 million by the end of the next fiscal year.

 

On April 9th I sent a message to all faculty that contained the CSU’s full mediation proposal for a successor Agreement with the CFA. Prior to sending out that message, the CSU notified the CFA that it was adopting this proposal for the fact-finding stage of the impasse process. CFA has now formally notified the CSU that “Except for TAs we agreed to in mediation[i], CFA did not modify our proposals during mediation”. Given CFA’s position, the CSU believes that it is important for faculty to understand the significant costs associated with CFA’s current proposals. These estimates do not include all the potential impacts associated with CFA’s full proposal. And, as I am sure you are aware, these demands come at a time when the CSU has had its budget cut by $750 million, with an additional $200 million cut possible at some point in the next fiscal year.

 

 Rhetoric v. Reality

 

CFA Rhetoric:

 

“We have framed our economic proposals to make them possible in the current fiscal climate. Yet the Chancellor will have none of it.”

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                CFA letter to faculty (undated)

 

CSU Reality:

 

• Minimum Estimated Cost to CSU of Implementing CFA’s Proposals over the term of the proposed CBA = $504.1 million
• Minimum Estimated Cost to CSU of Implementing CFA’s Proposals in FY’s 2011-12 and 12-13 = $ 244.3 million

 

 Cost of CFA’s Salary Proposal would be a minimum of $214.3 million[ii]

 

• CSU has proposed to maintain salaries for 11/12. Given the continuing uncertainty around CSU’s budget, either party could re-open negotiations over salaries and benefits for 12/13 and 13/14.
• CFA is proposing a 1% General Salary Increase (GSI) for 11/12, 12/13 and 13/14; a 2.65% Service Salary Increase (SSI) for all eligible faculty for each of those years;  a $7 million equity program for 11/12; and a 5% GSI in the first year that CSU’s “operating budget exceeds $4,797,935,000”.

 

The cost to the CSU of a 1% GSI in 2011/12 is estimated at $16.3 million; the cost of a 2.65% SSI is estimated at $15.4 million. With the additional cost of the equity program of $7 million, CSU would have to find an additional $38.7 million in this fiscal year for faculty salary increases. In 12/13 the ongoing cost to the CSU would increase to $71.2 million in faculty compensation; by 13/14 the ongoing cost would rise to $104.4 million for a three year cumulative total of $214.3 million in guaranteed faculty raises over the next two fiscal years. And this figure does not even include the 5% increase (a further$83 million per year) that CFA is demanding if CSU’s operating budget exceeds CFA’s “trigger” amount.

 

 

 

Cost of CFA’s Sabbaticals Proposal would be a minimum of $81 million

 

• CSU has proposed maintaining the status quo on Article 27.
• CFA is demanding that CSU agree to quadruple the number of sabbaticals awarded per year.

 

The value of sabbaticals awarded would increase by $85.4 million per year.  Even using a lesser “replacement cost” calculation, this still would mean an increase of some $40.5 million per year in the cost of providing sabbaticals if CSU were to accept CFA’s proposal.[iii]

 

 

 

Cost of CFA’s Proposal to hire 1000 more tenured/tenure-track faculty by the end of 2013/14 is estimated at $203 million

 

• CFA has proposed that CSU be contractually required to increase the number of tenured or probationary faculty by more than 500 by the end of the 12-13 academic year compared to the end of the 10-11 academic year, and by more than 1000 by the end of academic year 13-14. CSU estimates the cost of hiring this number of faculty as being approximately $91 million in the first year (2012/13) and $203 million over 2 years.  These costs assume that lecturer positions would be reduced to accommodate the new tenure-track hires; costs would rise if the new positions were in addition to current instructional staffing.[iv]

 

Cost of CFA’s Fee Waiver Proposal would be $3.7 million

 

• CSU has proposed that the dependent and employee fee waiver should be limited to the part-time graduate fee for its doctoral programs, including the Ed. D. and the two new doctoral programs (DNP and DPT) that will begin in 2012-13. Recognizing the potential impact on individuals currently enrolled in the Ed. D., CSU has proposed “grandfathering” in these individuals who would retain the current fee waiver entitlement for the remainder of the program. CSU regards this as a reasonable compromise that provides a substantial benefit to employees and dependents while safeguarding the financial integrity of the programs.
• CFA has proposed expanding the eligibility for fee waiver to all faculty and increasing the eligibility for dependent fee waiver from age 23 to age 26. CSU estimates that this would increase the cost of providing the benefit by approximately $1.85 million per year.[v]

 

 

 

Cost of CFA’s Paid Leave Proposal would be $2.1 million

 

 

 

CSU has proposed status quo on leaves with pay. CFA is proposing to increase parental leave from 30 days to 45 days. CSU estimates that the cost of increasing the benefit would be $1,043,000 per year.[vi]

 

 

 

CFA’s Extended Education Proposal would potentially increase student fees in Special Sessions[vii]

 

• CSU has proposed status quo on Article 40.
• CFA has proposed radical changes to Article 40 based on their argument that “work is work.”  Under this proposal all extended education classes would be paid using regular faculty classifications and salaries. This proposal would substantially increase the costs of instruction for courses offered through extension. Special Session programs are self-supporting and must cover all costs from student fees. Fifteen special sessions programs were examined for impacts. Fourteen of 15 programs would see salary costs rise under CFA’s proposal (by an average of more than 50%). Benefits costs would also rise. As a consequence, if these costs were passed on to students, fees for these programs would be expected to increase by anywhere from 11% to more than 150%.