Sacramento State members of the California Faculty Association explored the possibility of a work stoppage if they cannot come to terms with the California State University over its next salary contract, at a meeting last Wednesday.

With negotiations set to begin in March, much of the debate between the two sides is over Faculty Merit Increases, which are pay increases based on evaluation of faculty performance. They currently comprise 28 percent of the total faculty pay increases.

Currently there is no official plan or threat by the CFA for a work stoppage, although CFA members have discussed it both statewide and at Sac State.

A form of work stoppage would show solidarity among faculty, said statewide CFA President Susan Meisenhelder.

“There are models out there [for a work stoppage],” Meisenhelder said.

Meisenhelder mentioned several possibilities, including “rolling stoppage,” which would allow for the University to remain operating to some capacity and “multi-campus” and “campus by campus” proposals.

“There has been discussion, but there has been no resolution,” said Donald Nostrant, membership chair of the CFA at Sac State and a professor of Civil Engineering Construction Management, when asked if the local CFA has discussed work stoppage after the meeting.

“It causes temporary harm to the student, and I regret that, but if we don?t it will cause a more serious permanent harm to the student,” Nostrant said.

All talk of work stoppage at this point in the bargaining process is purely speculative, according to David Wagner, dean of Faculty and Staff Affairs. He said in an interview the day after the meeting that he has not received any such notification by the CFA.

“I have not heard about it in the context of the current negotiations,” Wagner said.Talks of work stoppage did occur during negotiations for the current salary contract three years ago, but did not materialize, he said.

According to Wagner, a work stoppage could only occur if negotiation is not successful by the time the current contract expires on June 30, and even then, both sides could agree to extend the contract while negotiations continue. Under the current contract, there is an agreement to avoid work stoppage, Wagner said. He expects the CFA to agree to an extension as long as meaningful negotiations take place.

There is still reason to believe that the CFA and CSU can come to terms, Wagner said. In previous interviews with The State Hornet, he has said that the two sides had taken part in interim talks, which should be helpful when official bargaining begins.

“My hope is that both parties are fixing their sights on an agreement,” Wagner said.Talks at the meeting did not reflect confidence in negotiations with CSU Chancellor Charles Reed.

“The chancellor has a serious problem with the concept of compromise,” Meisenhelder said.

Jeff Lustig, a professor of government at Sac State and president of the campus CFA, offered a similar view.

“The prediction would be that we are going to run into conflict down the line,” he said. If an agreement cannot be reached by the July 1 deadline, then the “last best offer” that the CSU submits will go into effect, according to Wagner.

This gives the CSU an advantage, according to Meisenhelder, who said that “political pressure” and “campus pressure” are ways to gain leverage in negotiations. The CFA is also seeking changes in the negotiation process, she said.

The meeting stressed the importance of the upcoming negotiations and the necessity for CSU faculty to support CFA efforts.

“The bargaining is going to frame faculty lives,” Lustig said.

The salary contract is an issue for all faculty, not just active CFA members, he said. He supports the CFA claim that FMI gives power to the administration at the expense of faculty.

“The shared government that we have been used to has been undermined by the administration,” Lustig said.

He asked CFA members to mobilize and begin speaking to other faculty. Meisenhelder echoed this sentiment, and added that there were other issues on the table, including faculty workload.

“I do believe faculty are smart enough to see what is at stake,” Meisenhelder said.Under the current contract, the criteria for FMI are based primarily on teaching performance, but also include “scholastic” performance, which ranges from research to published work. The final criterion is “service to the university and community.”One of the main arguments that the CFA has made is that many of the departments, who operate on separate merit pay contracts, are putting as much emphasis on research and publishing as teaching. This has a detracting effect on teaching, Nostrant said.

“The more time they spend on research, the less time they will be available to the students,” he said.

Nostrant said that there are professors spending too much time doing research and publishing, which can lead to disinterest and intimidation to students, he said. Not all faculty share the union viewpoint. Brian Roberts, a professor of history and CFA member is opposed to FMI, but for reasons other than the Union has stated.

According to Roberts, who did not attend the meeting, FMI has its merits. It has had the positive effect on the campus by encouraging research, which is vital to teaching, he said.”People who are committed to teaching will make their teaching better with better research,” Roberts said.

Roberts said that there has been more research done on campus since the FMI contract three years ago, but opposes merit pay because it has caused divisiveness in the faculty.”What you have is people who do not do research, criticizing those who do,” Roberts said.There has been resentment among faculty over who is getting the largest merit increase, which results in finger pointing at those faculty who are publishing, Roberts said.

“The people who do the research are now considered targets,” Roberts said.

According to Roberts, many faculty would agree on a standardized process of rewarding research, if there were sufficient research funding provided by the University, which he says is not the case.

“The University has made no efforts to support research since FMI,” he said.Nostrant said the CFA is also blaming the current salary contract for the loss of over 1,100 full time professors in the CSU system over the past 10 years, according to CFA statistics. He blamed limitations in raise structures and caps in salary for the losses.

“The senior faculty look at the system and say that it is not worth being here anymore,” Nostrant said.

Full professors in the CSU are being paid 17.5 percent less than in comparable institutions surveyed, Nostrant said. He says full time professors are being encouraged to retire in favor of cheaper faculty in an attempt to save money by the CSU.

The full time professors are being replaced largely by part time lecturers that are not as available to the students because of their unit requirements, according to Nostrant. There has also been an influx of younger professors who also are cheaper to the University but do not have the experience of the full time professors.

This is where a rift might be forming in the CFA, according to Roberts, who is an assistant professor.

“It seems to me that the union is not protecting the issues of part-timers,” Roberts said.Many of the best, most active researchers are part time faculty, and many of them are publishing, he said. Roberts does not see evidence of what he referred to as the “myth” that part-time faculty are less qualified as teachers. He also said that the lower salaries of part time faculty allow for the maximum salaries of full time professors.

“Departments are dependent on part-timers,” Roberts said.

During the meeting, CFA members discussed the logistics of a potential walkout. One member brought up the feasibility of organizing one if necessary.

“Its easier to talk a strike and another thing to make it happen,” Meisenhelder said.Another questioned the effectiveness of a “rolling stoppage” as described by Meisenhelder.

“I think we underestimate our powers of intimidation sometimes,” Meisenhelder said.