A: The current TA represents a significant retreat from the CFA’s original proposed pay increases.  In these original proposals, the CFA demanded: a 4% raise to base pay (GSI) every year from 2020-2021 to 2022-2023; two years of SSI increases of 2.65%; full professors and some lecturer faculty (D) not eligible for SSI raises would receive PPI increase of 2.65% for two years.  The TA includes only: a 4% raise to base pay (GSI) for one year and an additional 4% GSI contingent on increased state funding to CSU; one 2.65% PPI for full professors and lecturer faculty (D).

A: The COVID “bonus” is a one-time, pro-rated payment that does not add to your base salary.  Because it does not affect your base salary, this makes a big difference to your longer-term earnings.  

For example, if you work full-time at SFSU and earn $75,000 now, your 2022-23 salary under the TA will be about $79,000; under the CFA’s original proposal, your salary will be about $88,000.  The difference ($9,000) is far greater than the one-time COVID “bonus,” and more importantly, this difference will increase over time - -  any future raises under the TA will start with a base pay of  $79,000 rather than $88,000.  This lower salary progression will also affect your CALPERS/retirement pension. 

You can use our “TA vs. Original Proposal” salary calculator to see what your salary will look like in 2022-23 based on both scenarios. 

A: Well, that depends.  If we adjust everything for inflation, your salary in real dollars may actually decline.  For instance, although inflation was pretty low in 2020-21 (2.06%), the U.S. inflation rate for 2021-2022 has reached historic proportions - - about 6%.  Most economists believe that inflation rates over the next couple of years will hover around 4%. 

To use our previous example: if you earn $75,000 now, factoring in inflation, under the Tentative Agreement your $75k salary in real dollars will be about $71,500 in 2022-23; again, factoring in inflation, your 2022-23 salary under the Original Proposals will be about $77, 600. Sadly, you might actually take a salary cut in real dollars under the Tentative Agreement.

There’s a reason the Social Security Administration is increasing social security payments this year by almost 6%. Even under the better outcomes of the CFA’s Original Bargaining proposal, inflation will devour the real value of our salaries.

A: CFA began negotiations with a strong proposal around range elevation reform for lecturer faculty. Had it been adopted, lecturer faculty would have been eligible for range elevation with each additional three-year appointment. This proposal was basically dropped. 

Instead, the TA simply codifies current practice by incorporating a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that has defined range elevation practice since 2016. The MOU adds one additional path to range elevation (to a system that was for all intents and purposes broken) by allowing lecturer faculty to apply for elevation after they occupied a range for the equivalent of 6 years at a time base of .8 or more. Unfortunately the time base of most lecturer faculty is under .4, meaning that it will take them at least 12 years to become eligible for range elevation.

A. No, the Tentative Agreement did not make any changes to article 20 on Workload regarding course enrolment caps. Our original proposal was to add a new subsection to Article 20  with the following language: “The parties agree to use EP & R 76-36 to set course caps when a campus’s academic senate has not standardized course caps. These caps may only be waived on a case-by-case basis, and only when agreed to by the faculty member assigned a particular course.” EP & R 76-36 is a policy document with indicative course caps per type of course and college which used to be in our contract and was taken out, to become only an appendix.  This makes it impossible to file grievances on course caps. 

A. No, we did not win a standalone academic freedom article.  This means we still cannot file formal grievances and seek formal redress via the union when the academic freedom of faculty is violated. A mention of academic freedom remains in the "Preamble" of our contract, as a common framework for our employment. We will continue to organize around these issues with rank and file union members, and work with the Academic Freedom Committee of the Academic Senate when possible.

A. No, we did not win any contractual reform on campus police. Our proposal was to add two sections to Article 37 of the contract on Safety. The proposed language was intended to diminish the reliance on police and develop alternatives to policing on campus. Here is the language we initially proposed: 

“37.9 On all campuses, the CSU shall designate a person or persons, other than campus police, to respond to non-criminal health and safety concerns including, but not limited to classroom disruptions and interpersonal conflicts among campus community members.” 

“37.10 On all campuses, the CSU shall designate at minimum one Unit 3 ombudsperson who is trained in dispute resolution for faculty complaints against other CSU employees and/or students. There shall be a minimum 0.4 timebase appointment for every 500 Unit 3 faculty members on a campus per academic term. The ombudsperson shall attend at least one CFA training on anti-racism within one year of ratification. Faculty unit employees shall not be required to seek resolution through mediation.” 

Instead of contract language we obtained the following agreement: “A memo from the chancellor calling for the convening of a diverse group of CSU faculty, staff, unions, students, and other stakeholders, to look at alternatives to police on our campuses, as well as improved options for conflict mediation, that includes clear recognition of CFAs work to push this conversation forward.”

A. No, we did not win our initial demand and the parental leave language will stay the same. Our proposal was to increase the leave time from 30 days minimum to a full semester or 2 quarters. Instead, the university committed to participate in a joint taskforce to produce a report: “A joint workgroup tasked with producing a report on all forms of parental support in the CSU that includes suggested improvements, along with cost estimates and an agreement that the CSU can at any time increase the number of paid days of parental leave.”

No, the TA does not remove the exclusionary language regarding coaches which still remains: “Temporary faculty unit employees (excluding coaches) employed during the prior academic year and possessing six (6) or more years of prior consecutive service on that campus shall be offered a three-year temporary appointment following an evaluation…”. What was added was a sentence afterwards with the following: “Nothing in this section limits a coach from being offered a multiyear appointment pursuant to Provision 12.3”. That coaches are “eligible” for multiyear contracts is great, and it was possible before. Now the possibility is spelled out in the contract. Our initial demand however was to make 3-year contracts the norm for temporary coach faculty as is the case for instructional, librarian and counselor faculty. That equality in temporary appointments is not achieved in the TA.  

No, we did not win this demand and no contract revisions are made in this regard. Instead we got a taskforce to explore this issue: “Joint CSU/CFA workgroups to develop a framework for longer-term contracts for contingent faculty beyond the three-year appointment and for a possible professor of practice/teaching tenure classification.”

No, we did not win any change to lower the counselor-students ratios. Our original proposal was to add three subsections to article 20.11 regarding counselor faculty workload: 

 “a. Counselors may be assigned direct services as part of their workload not to exceed 65% of their time. Such direct service shall include, but not be limited to individual, couples, family, and group therapy; intern training and supervision; referral and follow-up; triage and assessment; crisis intervention; and outreach and prevention activities. 

b. Adequate time should be allocated for non-direct service activities. 

c. Every effort should be made to maintain minimum staffing ratios in the range of one FTE [faculty] member (excluding trainees) for every 1,000-1500 students.” 

Instead, Article 20.11 of the Tentative Agreement does include some brief, new language about consultation between administrators and counselor faculty: the assignments of a counselor faculty “including adequate time for non-direct service activities, shall be made by the appropriate administrator after consultation with the counselor faculty unity employee.”