Current Negotiations
Guide to the Tentative Agreements for the 2023-2026 CBA
The University Education Association entered into bargaining in May 2023, and we came to the table with reasonable demands and ready to have a serious conversation with the Employer’s team. On March 19, a Tentative Agreement was reached between the UEA and the administration. This page provides a high-level overview of the major changes in contract language that we have negotiated in this tentative agreement. It also seeks to answer some of the frequent questions we get about the new language.
You can find all of the new language here.
You can find a timeline of MOUs and Workload issues during bargaining here.
Click on the links below to jump to the section or read below for the full review.
Heinous clause will be removed from all term faculty appointment letters
All MOUs in the CBA remain in place & interpretation of “Definition of a Member MOU”
Duration of the Agreement
This is a three year CBA, starting on July 1, 2023 and going through June 30, 2026. We are about ¾ into the first year at this point.
Annual Salary Adjustments
The big picture: Our annual salary adjustments (merit, etc.) will be tied to the percentages in the spring salary memo for the three years of this CBA. This is the same as previous CBAs in the past decade. Please go to the “response to the salary study” for extra salary funds coming to UMD.
Relevant section(s): 501.250
When this tentative agreement was reached: 03/19/24
In FY24 (July 2023-June 2024), UMD will receive a pool of money equivalent to 3.75% of the total salary pool, as specified in the “FY24 spring salary memo”.
This increase will be retroactive to the first pay period of FY24 (July 2023) and will go to all Members who were employed at UMD during the 2022/2023 academic year. We will receive the retroactive pay after the CBA is fully ratified by both our Members and the Board of Regents.
Adjustments will be distributed to Members according to Section 501.260 (i.e., ⅓ as the same lump sum to each member, ⅓ as a reflection of your base salary, and ⅓ reflective of merit). The allocation of a salary increase between a lump sum, a percentage of base salary, and merit reflects practice on the UMD campus for the last decade. Ideally, it has the effect of raising the salary of our lowest paid members (the lump sum) while also recognizing the work history of higher-paid members (percentage of salary) and individual merit.
In FY25 and FY26, UMD will receive a pool of money equivalent to the percent specified in each year’s “spring salary memo”, to be distributed to Members according to 501.260 (⅓ each lump sum, percent of salary, and merit).
Linking our salary increases to the spring salary memo has been standard across CBAs for at least the last decade.
We expect the FY25 salary memo to be published in May 2024. The increase specified in the spring salary memo is determined by the Employer, and applies to all employees in the UMN system.
Response to the Salary Study
The big picture: All members will be brought up to a 0.75 compa ratio in FY24, and there is ~$200,000 in recurring money that will be used to address salary equity issues in FY25 and FY26. This is the first time that we have achieved extra money to address faculty salaries in at least a decade.
Relevant section(s): 501.250
When this tentative agreement was reached: 03/19/24
Anonymized results from the salary study were released in 2022 to UEA members and to the Board of Regents. The recommendations of how to act on these results is available here.
In FY24 (July 2023-June 2024), all Members with a compa ratio below 0.75 will be brought up to 0.75 (i.e., brought up to at least 75% of the median salary for their discipline and rank). This money will go to Member’s base salaries, so it is recurring through time.
In each of FY25 and FY26, UMD will receive a pool of money equivalent to 0.25% of the total salary pool (~$100,000 each year), which will be distributed to address salary equity. This money will go to Member’s base salaries, so it is recurring through time.
The salary adjustments in FY25 and FY26 will be distributed by the Employer, but we will submit information requests each year to track how the funds are used.
Who will receive the salary adjustments? Is this money only for dues-paying Members? Every faculty member is potentially eligible for these adjustments (they will be distributed based on salaries). The UEA negotiates for the benefit of all faculty. If you appreciate these changes and want to support these efforts, join the UEA and get involved!
Salary Floor
The big picture: Going forward, all Members will be maintained at a 0.75 compa ratio (i.e., their salary will be at least 75% of the median salary for their discipline and rank).
Relevant section(s): 501.500
When this tentative agreement was reached: 3/19/24
After the adjustment to bring all Members up to an 0.75 compa ratio in response to the salary study is made in FY24, each Member’s salary will be evaluated each year. Each Member will be brought up to 0.75 of the compa ratio for their discipline and rank every year. This provision satisfies one of the recommendations of the salary study negotiated in the last CBA.
The new language differs from our previous method of determining a salary floor using a single dollar amount across all disciplines. It will potentially help us recruit and retain new colleagues more effectively, given that our previous salary floor was a flat $42,000 for a 100% appointment, regardless of discipline.
Term Faculty Promotion Tracks
The big picture: The UEA has been advocating for term faculty promotion tracks for over five years, and now we finally have CBA language. These promotion tracks are not where we want them to be yet, so we will continue to improve them in future rounds of bargaining.
Relevant section(s): 201.500-201.580 (these are new sections in the CBA)
When this tentative agreement was reached: 2/29/24
In summer 2024, all Assistant Professors on a term appointment will receive a new job classification as “Teaching Assistant Professors”. Please note that this is a title for HR purposes only so that the promotion to “Teaching Associate Professor” can be accomplished.
There will be two promotion options:
Instructor to Senior Instructor
Teaching Assistant Professor to Teaching Associate Professor
If a Member earns a terminal degree in their discipline, they will be automatically promoted to the correct rank the following year, with no need to apply (i.e., a Senior Instructor who earns a PhD will automatically become a Teaching Associate Professor).
Promotion criteria will be based on the teaching and service sections of your department’s 7.12 document.
Right to review and respond to each decision in the promotion process mirrors those granted to Members applying for other promotions. The final decision in this promotion ends with the EVCAA, which differs from decisions for tenure, which proceed to the Chancellor and Board of Regents.
The raises associated with a promotion to Senior Instructor or Teaching Associate Professor will be ⅓ of that granted for promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor (Currently $4,100/3 = $1,367; this goes to base salary and is recurring).
Promotions are not tied to multi-year appointments; the two application processes are separate.
The option to apply for promotion is subject to a three-year phase-in process:
Year 1 (2024): Members with 12 years of service are eligible
Year 2: 8 years of service are eligible
Year 3: 6 years of service are eligible
Teaching Evaluations
The big picture: In order to gain term faculty promotion tracks, we had to agree to make SRTs mandatory again, in addition to other forms of evaluation.
Relevant section(s): 202.100-202.300
When this tentative agreement was reached: 01/04/24
SRTs (and response rates) are now a required form of evaluation, in addition to at least one other evaluation tool each year.
Departments will continue to define their own set of evaluation tools, and faculty will select their non-STR tool from this set.
Remember that one evaluation tool can be the qualitative evaluations from students (i.e., their written comments submitted with SRTs). If your department does not already include this as an option, you may want to revise your list to include it.
You are still only required to evaluate 50% of your courses per academic year.
All evaluations must be considered in personnel decisions (i.e., merit and promotion).
Heinous Clause to be Removed from All Term Faculty Appointments Letters
The big picture: The “Heinous Clause” will be removed from all term faculty appointment letters.
Relevant section(s): N/A, this is not in the CBA
When this tentative agreement was reached: 01/05/24
We did not specify during mediation whether this would be applied retroactively to letters of appointment issued for the coming academic year. We will inquire about this possibility and update you on the result.
We appreciate this change in letters of appointment. However, this is not as strong as a protection of job security in the CBA itself. We ask that our Members alert us to any language that is similar to the heinous clause appearing in their letters going forward.
All MOUs in the CBA Remain in Place & Interpretation of "Definition of a Member MOU"
The big picture: We are essentially back to where we were before bargaining started in terms of these two issues (i.e., the MOUs are still present and valid, the UEA and the Employer may still interpret the MOU on the “Definition of a Member” differently). It is frustrating that so much effort was required to get to this point, but it is important to consider the alternative - in the absence of union, the Employer could make these changes unilaterally and we would have no reprisal.
Relevant section(s): MOUs are on pages 62-68 of the 2021-2023 CBA
When this tentative agreement was reached: 03/19/24
MOUs remain in place: In October, the UEA filed an Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) against the Employer, focused mainly on the Employer’s dismissal of existing MOUs. “Winning” this ULP would have meant that the Employer would have to bargain fairly around MOUs (there are no punishments or fines associated with ULPs). Now that the Employer has walked back its stance on MOUs, the UEA will withdraw the ULP, because we have reached the same endpoint that winning the ULP would have granted us.
Interpretation of the “Definition of a Member MOU”: The UEA and the Employer have historically had a shared understanding that the “0.85” term in the equation in the “Definition of a Member” MOU on page 62 means that a full-time teaching load is 85% of the departmental limits in Table 1 of the CBA. In August, the Employer sent a letter indicating that they were ending this “past practice”. In the last day of bargaining in March, the Employer stated that they would withdraw this termination, but also stated that “This withdrawal neither reflects nor implies the University’s agreement with UEA’s interpretation of this MOU, nor does it in any way impact, prejudice or prevent the University from expressing its disagreement with the interpretation of this MOU.”
Implications for workload: The Employer imposed increases in workload outside of bargaining (based on what we consider to be an incorrect interpretation of the CBA), and the UEA will continue to resist increases in workload through non-bargaining tools, especially by grieving cases where workload has exceeded the limits specified in the CBA. See the “Workload Work Group MOU” for details on other actions.
Joint Workload Group MOU
The big picture: During the 24/25 academic year the UEA and the Employer will cooperate to revise and clarify workloads. In addition, Members who’s workload has increased by more than one course in the 24/25 or 25/26 academic year can be considered for additional compensation.
Relevant section(s): New MOU, search for “workload”
When this tentative agreement was reached: 03/19/24
We hope that we can work productively with the local UMD Administration to clarify workload for Members. From the UEA perspective, this will need to include a clarification of the difference between limits (currently specified in Table 1) and norms. If we cannot reach a satisfactory resolution through this workgroup, we will make workload our #1 priority for the next round of bargaining, which will begin in spring of 2026.
During mediation, the Employer expressed that increased workloads are necessary to meet budgetary challenges on the UMD campus, and they anticipated that no faculty would have their workload increased by more than one course. If your workload has been increased by more than one course, you will be considered for additional compensation. The UEA will set up a mechanism to collect this information, and facilitate meetings with the UMD Administration for Members who fall into this category.
Does the UEA agree with an increased workload without an increase in compensation? No, we do not. Your negotiation team worked for most of the business day on 03/18 to address workload, which had not been the topic of negotiations since August. We were unable to come to an agreement with the Employer on this topic. The UEA was at a disadvantage because the Employer strategically began their efforts to raise workload entirely outside of bargaining and after they filed for mediation. This means we were not able to leverage the full power of collective bargaining around this topic. We agreed to an imperfect place-holder for this CBA, and will work with local administration in the workgroup. Workload will be the #1 bargaining issue in spring 2026 if a satisfactory resolution is not reached through the workgroup.
Historical MOU Work Group
The big picture: The Employer consistently stated that their motivation for denying all existing MOUs was that “they could appear from nowhere” (i.e., the Employer did not have a record of existing MOUs). To alleviate this, the UEA proposed a working group to catalog all existing MOUs.
Relevant section(s): New MOU, search for “historical”
When this tentative agreement was reached: 03/19/24
The workgroup will be established in May 2024 and conclude in September 2024. The workgroup is not an opportunity to renegotiate MOUs. All existing MOUs will be included in the catalog. Any MOU that is not in the catalog at the conclusion of the workgroup will be discarded. We can continue to create new MOUs going forward, and they will be added to the catalog.
Harassment and Discrimination
The big picture: The UEA has been working for at least five years to improve the language around harassment and discrimination in our CBA. In this round of negotiation, the Employer considered this proposal for the first time. We were not able to incorporate our proposed language, but instead agreed to language that echos system policy. Because we are part of a union, violations of the policy language are grievable.
Relevant section(s): 103.000-103.500 and 105.000-105.200
When this tentative agreement was reached: 11/14/23
Here are links to the relevant system policies that will now apply to UMD.
Reimbursement After a Sabbatical or SSL
The big picture: This new language clarifies reimbursement after an SSL (the existing language was complex) and requires a slightly longer ‘payback’ period after a sabbatical or SSL. We anticipate that there are very few Members who will be impacted by this change, because the majority of our members return to full-time employment after a leave.
Relevant section(s): 601.500 & 602.300
When this tentative agreement was reached: 8/17/23
Members must complete two semesters of full-time employment after taking a sabbatical or an SSL, or they must refund the Employer for the cost of salary and fringe benefits.
A sabbatical or an SSL cannot be directly followed by phased retirement (i.e., part-time employment).
The length of full-time employment is required after a sabbatical or an SSL because sabbaticals are generally at 50% salary while SSLs are at 100% salary.
The clause “if such employment is made available to them” means that if (for example) a term faculty member takes an SSL and then is not offered employment in the subsequent year, they will not be required to pay the university anything.