Here We Go Again

Negotiations over the 2019-2022 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) are progressing poorly. In a gesture of good faith and with the intent to expedite negotiations, the Chapter put forth very reasonable compensation proposals. The proposals considered a strong economy and increases in student enrollment. Salary and other benefits, including health insurance, were considered together (the total compensation package). They were tailored to align with President Pinto’s proposed Strategic Sizing Initiative (SSI), which seeks to better align UC with other peer institutions.

Unfortunately, the administration countered with cost of living salary increases and huge increases in faculty health insurance costs, including a 21% increase to health insurance premiums in the first year. This would be followed by additional increases in subsequent years, as well as increases in co-pays and the percentage of out-of-pocket costs after deductible. The administration’s proposed increases in health insurance cost would completely offset the proposed salary increases. The administration has also proposed no increases in Regional Salaries (see 10.4 of the CBA), despite the efforts of the Regional Salaries Committee to improve inequities at Clermont and UCBA.[i]. They have also proposed reducing the paid parental leave benefit for any faculty member teaching more than two classes per semester.

In short, this is an unfortunate example of “here we go again.” The administration using the same lowball strategies that it has used in the last two bargaining cycles. The administration’s proposals and the overall tone of bargaining lead to the conclusion that this administration does not view faculty as an asset—much less an integral component of the university—but as an unfortunate budgetary annoyance.

[i] Under the Administration’s proposal, faculty at Clermont and UCBA would be eligible for across the board and other standard compensation increases, but there would no compensation increase specific to the regional campuses. These increases have been included in the last several CBA to better align Clermont and UCBA with other branch campuses across the state and with other colleges at UC.

Bargaining Update

Negotiations over the 2019-2022 Collective Bargaining Agreement are underway. The faculty bargaining team has been busy. There are forty-one provisions in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Twenty-nine of the forty-one have been opened. There have been tentative agreements (TAs) on the ground rules, definitions, and articles 2, 3, 4, 14, 20, 21, 22, 25, and 31, so much work remains.

The Chapter put forth its initial compensation proposal (article 10). The proposal contains across the board increases greater than the cost of living. This is very reasonable considering the significant increase in UC’s student enrollment and a steady economy. The Chapter’s proposal also includes benchmark increases to better attract and retain quality faculty. Finally, the proposal also seeks increases in regional campus salaries, as UCBA and Clermont continue to lag behind other Ohio regional colleges in salaries.

All of the Chapter’s compensation proposals (the total compensation package) will be designed to complement President Pinto’s proposed Strategic Sizing Initiative, which seeks to align UC with peer institutions such as Michigan, OSU, and Pitt.

AAUP-UC has also proposed a change to article 15. (Article 15 provides that the administration can provide salary or benefit increases to match a bona fide offer, to correct inequities, for retention efforts, or to reward outstanding professional contributions.) The proposal would make it clear in the CBA that article 15 increases could be funded by either the individual colleges’ budgets or the provost’s budget. This is important because colleges have different capacities to absorb these increases potentially leading to inequities between the colleges. Further, all the colleges have been under financial pressure and this could provide some budget relief. Note that there is nothing that currently prohibits article 15 increases from coming out of the provost’s budget, but it is hoped that including this in the CBA would make this clearer to the faculty and the deans.

Faculty Senate Meeting–TODAY:

President Pinto and Provost Nelson are scheduled to discuss the Strategic Sizing Initiative at the Faculty Senate meeting TODAY. It should be interesting. The meeting will be from 3:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., 400 A&B Tangeman University Center (TUC)

Survey: PBB Negatively Impacts UC

In preparation for contract negotiations, AAUP-UC sent a survey to all the faculty covered by the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The survey found widespread concern about UC’s current Performance Based Budgeting system, commonly referred to as PBB.

Faculty were first asked: In recent years, UC has converted to a Performance Based Budgeting system, commonly referred to as PBB. Would you say that PBB provides a sufficient level of resources to your unit, or do you think PBB provides insufficient resources to your unit?

Over 3/4 of faculty (75.34%) believe that PBB provides INSUFFICIENT resources to their unit.


Only 3% of faculty (3.12%) believe that PBB provides SUFFICIENT resources.


Faculty were then asked: Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statement: PBB has negatively affected the core academic mission in my unit.

Over two-thirds of faculty (69.96%)  AGREE with the statement that PBB has negatively affected the core academic mission. Over half (53. 32%) STRONGLY AGREE that PBB has negatively impacted the core academic mission.


Less than 4% (3.99%) DISAGREE with the statement and believe that PBB has not impacted the core academic mission.


This is obviously a very important issue for faculty. There will be a teach in on the subject tomorrow (February 26th) at 12:30 p.m. at UC Blue Ash, 154 Muntz Hall. It will provide critical information about PBB and its impact on the core academic mission.  Please click here to RSVP.

More information about the survey will be forthcoming.

Note that the survey had a higher response rate than any bargaining survey in recent memory—200 more faculty responded than in 2016.