After Two Years, Still Fighting For A Contract

By W. Earle Simpson

STAFF WRITER


For the third consecutive year, Faculty at Broward College will continue to work without a Ratified Contract if the administration and the Union- United Faculty of Florida (UFF) find no solution to what has been declared an ‘impasse’.

“Over the last several years there have been a series of problems at the negotiations between the union and the board of trustees. The board of trustees has been very slow in granting an agreement to the faculty contract. Two years ago the board put off voting on our contract for four months. There was an agreement in July 2006, but the board waited and waited until November and since then, we have not gotten a ratified contract. In fact, in September the board declared an impasse,” noted Robert Koppelman, UFF State Senator and BC faculty member.

That impasse led to a Public Employees Relations Commission-PERC arbitration, for which a ruling will be had on Oct. 25, 2008. According to Dr. Daniel Rieger, Vice President of UFF and Chief Negotiator of UFF/BC, “There are legal issues that have been encountered in terms of getting a contract and those legal issues have been addressed in a recent hearing before PERC at the end of Aug. 2008.” PERC is the organization that holds hearings throughout the state of Florida on labor and employment disputes. After hearings, PERC issues a final order, which may be appealed directly to the District Courts of Appeal.

But the Union is not expecting that an appeal will have to be made. “I have no basis for thinking that the ruling will be against the Faculty, but if it is in favor of the Union, the Administration may appeal…in which case, I would be unable to say when Faculty will have a ratified contract,” cautioned Dr. Rieger.

Ratification of contracts has been an annual event since Faculty first joined the UFF on May 22, 1981. The UFF prides itself in effectively negotiating collective bargaining contracts, thereby “strengthening administrative accountability and faculty authority,” and promises Florida higher education professionals to bargain on their behalf for “improve salaries, hours, terms and conditions.” Since 1981, UFF would, between February and March of each year, smoothly negotiate contracts on behalf of its BC members.

But according to the Nov. 2006 issue of the UFF Community College Update, “today a board of trustees appointed by Governor Jeb Bush is challenging faculty standards and principles in ways faculty have never seen before…but Broward faculty is rising to the challenge.”
Back then, according to a report in the October issue of this paper, faculty members rose to the challenge by “dress[ing] in black and graduation attire and picketed on what they viewed as a violation of an agreement made between UFF and BCC administration on Oct. 12 on Central Campus.” Those demonstrations did not render a solution to the problems they sought to highlight. Rather, they were reported to have resulted in the resignation of the then president.

Today, whereas faculty is still upset, both they as well as the head of administration are exhibiting caution in ways contradictory to the openness and bravery associated with their actions in 2006. “Some faculty may be reluctant to talk about it because we just want position to be stated. We want to make our position very clear; what we think the legal and ethical issues are and we want to keep those front and center,” opined Koppelman. When prompted to comment, President Armstrong, apparently mindful of legal implications, related that he’d rather speak on the issue after the PERC, while several calls made to Human Resources and Equity Vice President, Dr. Edna Chun were not returned.

At the heart of the matter, according to the UFF, are issues arising from articles five, six and seven of the 2006-2007 Collective Bargaining Agreement between UFF/BC and The Board of Trustees of BC. Article five deals with faculty compensation; article six with benefits, including health insurance, while article seven with faculty work conditions. “Over the years since 1981, some of these issues have been debated and re-debated,” said Damon Davis, UFF/BC president. “The issue of salaries and benefits which houses health care, which houses dental care and all the benefits that are entitled to faculty. But the sore points here would be salary increases; how much there are and how they are calculated.”

Each year the board and UFF struggles to agree on these three areas but board member Levi Williams sees the problem a different way. “I think that at the heart of the matter is really the difficulty of the union to make a decision in the best interest of those that it serves,” he insisted.

Davis countered and in clear reference to his 400 members, representing 70% of faculty, said, “our take on this is that we are a part of a family and we have to interact as a family. We are in the house, not outside of it. We serve a major role and I think a justifiable one.” Furthermore, like Koppelman, Davis believes that the board violated state law when they gave a salary increase without having a written agreement.

Yet, sometimes the line between where one year’s negotiation completes and the next begins is blurred by lack of agreement and when asked why not opt for longer term contracts, Dr. Rieger commented, “Our lives are not static. Our lives are subject to change and because of that it is important to negotiate compensation and benefits year to year. The advantage of having a yearly ratification is that issues that arise can be addressed immediately.”

Not-with-standing Rieger’s comment, Williams thinks that “the contract before everybody that the union is using has been patch worked, piece-mealed and bastardized for the last 20 to 40 years,” he said. “There are terms and conditions in the contract that make it difficult for both parties to move forward in an effective and productive manner. I have communicated with representatives of the union multiply times about the fact that the contract needs to be overhauled. If that was done, one of the potential benefits would be the possibility of multi-year agreements. Under the current contract, such agreements would be impossible due to its many ambiguous and failing language.”

So how will this crisis be resolved? “We believe that PERC will rule in our favor and if they do, it will set a precedent that the board has to follow the law. And once the board is humbled somewhat, realizing that they can’t just do anything they want, ultimately, the administration will have to show more integrity and honesty in their negotiations with us,” Koppelman suggested. “But if the ruling goes against us, I think we will continue to have difficulties until this board or some of its members get replaced.”

But until then, everyone awaits the PERC rulings.