By SUSAN JONES
Whatever salary raise pool is approved later this summer by Pitt’s Board of Trustees for 2025-26 may ultimately not apply to staff who are in the new union bargaining unit, represented by the United Steelworkers.
The Union of Pitt Staff said in its latest bargaining update on June 9 that the union rejected the University’s “take it or leave it” deal, in which the union would have to agree to the higher health and dental insurance costs that non-represented staff will have in fiscal year 2025-26 in order for bargaining unit staff to receive raises — tentatively set at 2.5% — for the same period.
But Jennifer Goeckeler-Fried, chair of the staff union bargaining committee and a lab manager and research specialist in the Department of Biological Sciences, that doesn’t necessarily mean that represented staff won’t get raises. She noted that in the June 11 Pitt town hall, Dwayne Pinkney, executive senior vice chancellor for administration and finance and chief financial officer, said Pitt’s administration is proposing a 2.5% salary pool to the Board of Trustees, which will vote on the University budget next month.
“Even though we’re in status quo, I can assure you the union would approve that,” Goeckeler-Fried said. And, she said, they hope to negotiate more robust raises in the future.
“We understand that raises are important, and we expect to bargain significant wage increases in this contract, but with even moderate usage of the health plan, the increased costs of the administration’s benefit changes would effectively negate the administration’s proposed 2.5% raise,” the union bargaining committee said in its update.
The premiums for all three available plans — Panther Gold, Plus and Basic — and dental coverage are set to increase about 8% starting in July for non-represented faculty and staff, and those working under a current contract (such as the Union of Pitt Faculty and the several other staff unions on campus),
Goeckeler-Fried said they were first presented with the University’s proposal on May 22, but weren’t given data until June 6 that showed the vast majority of people in the bargaining unit get health insurance through Pitt. With that information, the bargaining committee decided the plan “didn’t make financial sense.”
“For these reasons, and because the administration’s last-second proposal made consultation with the membership impossible, we rejected this proposed deal,” the bargaining update said. “We will negotiate pay increases in our contract. We will bargain about benefits. But we weren’t going to be pressured into taking a bad deal for our members.”
The University said in a statement: “While the University of Pittsburgh’s operating budget, including potential salary increases, is slated for a vote by the Board of Trustees in mid-July, we wanted to provide an avenue in which any such raise pool could potentially be made available to staff who are included in bargaining units represented by the United Steelworkers Union (USW), while also considering the fiduciary realities that necessitate coupling the provision of such raises with the same benefits changes that were made for non-represented staff.
“During ongoing union negotiations, there is a requirement to maintain the status quo regarding the wages and benefits of represented staff, unless an agreement to make changes is reached by the University and the USW. Given that, this proposal was in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that was presented to the USW staff bargaining committee for its consideration. The USW did not accept the proposal.”
It is unclear if represented staff would have been able to change their health benefit selections, since the open enrollment period ended May 14. With the largest increases in co-pays and deductibles coming in the Panther Gold plan, some might have wanted to opt for Panther Plus or Panther Basic.
The Union of Pitt Faculty, during its first year of negotiations in 2022 on the inaugural contract, was able to reach a memorandum of understanding with the University to allow faculty to receive raises, but to leave health insurance premiums unchanged.
Other issues
The union said the other area of disagreement during recent negotiations has been over academic freedom.
“We had been making good progress in our discussions about Academic Freedom, and thought that we were extremely close to coming to an agreement,” the union’s May 23 update said. “So we were shocked and irate that they suddenly withdrew their counterproposal and are now refusing to bargain with us over Academic Freedom at all, stating that it doesn’t apply to staff.”
Goeckler-Fried said since the issue was first raised in January, it appeared that both sides were in agreement “that bargaining unit staff who teach and/or do research are entitled to full freedom from interference to teach or conduct research in their academic fields and to publish their results. We were also in agreement that staff could speak as private persons without fear of censorship or discipline as long as we don’t present ourselves as spokespersons for the University without permission.
“We’re not sure why this would suddenly be controversial, but our attempt to get clarification on the reasons behind the administration’s shocking reversal garnered only this response: ‘We don’t think that academic freedom applies to staff.’”
The University said a statement: “As defined by the American Association of University Professors in its 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, Academic Freedom focuses on the scholarly activities of faculty, which is why it was included in the faculty collective bargaining agreement (CBA) but is not currently under consideration for the staff CBA.”
Performance evaluations: The union said a tentative agreement was reached that would require supervisors provide evaluations to bargaining unit staff at least one business day prior to the performance evaluation meeting, to allow the staff member adequate time to prepare.
It also introduces an opportunity for staff members to indicate an interest in promotions and/or professional development, and asks that supervisors strive to provide professional development opportunities.
New union proposals
A proposal on career advancement outlines the process and requirements for promotions, reclassifications and transfers, and if successful, would eliminate the current practice of having a new provisional period in all three situations, with a shorter (90 day) trial period upon transfer.
A proposal on Inclusive Work Environments asks that bargaining unit staff be permitted to use their preferred name and pronouns in University systems (except where otherwise required by law), that the University provide gender-neutral restrooms in University-owned buildings, and that bargaining unit employees should be free to use the restrooms that correspond to their gender identity.
Susan Jones is editor of the University Times. Reach her at suejones@pitt.edu or 724-244-4042.
Have a story idea or news to share? Share it with the University Times.