All posts by

Unions United: An Open Letter to USA from the Professional Staff Union

Hello USA!  

My name is Emelia Cooper and I am the Membership Chair for the Professional Staff Union (PSU), along with being an Academic Advisor in the Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Department. Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to share with you who the Professional Staff Union is, what our shared struggles are and how we can fight and win together!  

The 2,000 Members of the PSU are working throughout all corners of both the UMass Amherst and UMass Boston campuses and are often working together with USA members. You can find us in roles in Residential Life, Information Technology, Academic Advising, University Health Services, Athletics, UMass Extension, Student Success and Auxiliary Enterprises, to name a few. In these roles, both PSU and USA are working to support students, professors and the community as a whole. When we work, UMass works. 

Our members are facing many of the same challenges that you are all facing in your roles. These challenges range from increased workloads due to understaffing in departments (e.g. members taking on the roles of 2 or 3 people), salaries that do not keep up with the cost of living and are not competitive with private-sector jobs, and the increasing threat of privatization, such as what happened to the Advancement Division on campus last year. We are proud to have rallied together with USA in the face of these changes to advocate for substantial improvements on campus and protections for our members so that we can continue doing the jobs that we love. We rallied together to stop the privatization of these 120 union jobs, we rallied together to get the Massachusetts State Legislature to return to Beacon Hill and vote to fund our 8% Cost of Living Adjustment and we will continue to rally together during this key bargaining cycle.  

Currently, PSU is going through two main contract negotiations with Management. Unit A of PSU (the largest of the two units and the one I am a part of) is attempting to put on the negotiating table several life-changing proposals, including the implementation of a brand new  salary schedule. As it stands now, members of Unit A do not get annual raises, and we do not have a step system – the only way to increase your own salary is to either take a different job or submit a reclassification request (which can take months, if not years, to process). Our members are essentially stuck in whatever starting salary they were hired into with no room for movement or growth. We are not respected or rewarded for our continued commitment to the university or our ever-increasing institutional knowledge. With a salary schedule, our members would be earning predictable, significant, yearly increases that would allow us to work and live with the dignity and respect we all deserve. 

The other half of PSU, Unit B, is submitting the same salary proposal as USA to change the current 14-step system to a 7-step system. This change would raise the ceiling of our top step and shorten the time it takes to reach that top step— we all know it doesn’t take 14 YEARS to master one’s job. By reducing the number of steps, members will reach their maximum earnings more quickly, and the university will be able to actually hire and retain the staff needed to address the understaffing crisis. 

Along with working to win better and fairer pay, PSU, along with USA and the other unions on campus, are submitting Multi-Union Proposals that cover a wide range issues affecting all of us, such as accessible childcare, improved air quality, anti-privatization and eliminating bias in discipline. We can win these proposals if we pool our collective power into a unified front, since management is not going to agree to these without a fight. 

Management does not want us to know how each other are struggling in similar ways, they don’t want us to be united and they don’t want us to see what is being said in the bargaining sessions. So, to win these proposals and improve our working conditions, we ask that you keep having conversations with your PSU coworkers about workplace challenges, come to PSU actions, and even attend a PSU bargaining session as a Silent Bargaining Representative. Both PSU and USA have invited Silent Bargaining Representatives to their bargaining tables—in fact the entire USA Bargaining Team attended a Unit A Bargaining Session as SBRs, which was an honor to see.  

UMass works because all of us, no matter what union we belong to, work, and we are proud to continue working with USA to address and overcome our shared struggles. 

In Solidarity,  
Emelia Cooper
Membership Chair for the Professional Staff Union 

Contract Corner 1: Ground Rules and Silent Bargaining Representatives

, , ,

This article is the first installment of long-form updates about the current contract negotiations for the 2024-2027 contract. Short-form updates will be available after each bargaining session with management, thank you for your patience while we establish the process. 

The Contract Corner: USA and UMass Amherst Management Agree to Ground Rules 
USA Communications Committee on behalf of the USA Bargaining Team 

After four sessions of bargaining between the University Staff Association (USA) and the management team of UMass Amherst, both sides have agreed to a set of ground rules, a set of guidelines that determine the conduct by both teams during and outside of bargaining sessions. Click here to view the ground rules.  

After a verbal agreement to the terms of the ground rules, the meeting concluded with both sides signing the agreement, observed by members both in the room and by 18 silent bargaining representatives (SBRs) via Zoom. 

Discussions of ground rules for bargaining are often uneventful, and many bargaining units often decline to adopt a set of ground rules.  However, during the fourth meeting between the two parties, the teams agreed to allow fifty USA SBRs to be present in the meeting via Zoom and ten core bargaining members in person.  Additionally, a deadline for new proposals between the two parties was established, with both parties agreeing to have all new proposals submitted by November 20th, 2024. 

While the total number of SBRs has been capped at 50, the USA Bargaining Team claimed an important victory, as it establishes precedent for a hybrid meeting model that allows for more accessibility for members to observe the proceedings, and core bargaining team members to attend sessions when they would otherwise not be able to due to illness or other concerns.  This also provides the means for both teams to attend the next several meetings without cancelling. 

Both teams anticipate exchanging proposals at the next bargaining meeting on October 9th.  

What is a silent bargaining representative? 

Silent Bargaining Representatives are an emerging strategic piece to labor negotiations across the Commonwealth.  The Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA) regularly attributes local K-12 bargaining unit wins to a more democratized union model that features the inclusion of silent bargaining representation from employees who have felt excluded from bargaining processes in the past. 

On September 20th, the USA Bargaining Team hosted a membership meeting where a 7-step plan was laid out for attending members, inviting anyone interested in being a “fly on the wall” to sign up to be an SBR by completing the SBR survey.  The Bargaining Team invites USA members interested in attending to complete the survey, and check out the USA Bargaining Headquarters page for more information. 

Nearly One Third of USA Members Struggle with Food Insecurity, Survey Reveals 

By Kyle Chambers and the USA Communications Committee  

In 2023, labor unions across UMass, including the University Staff Association (USA), prepared to negotiate their next three-year contract with university management. However, Governor Maura Healey opted to instead announce parameters that featured a one-year extension of all state contracts. With this extension of the contract, which expired in June of 2024, USA management agreed to terms on an 8% raise with the one-year extension. All USA members received a 4% raise in July 2023, and a second 4% raise in January 2024.   

Labor unions weren’t finished fighting, however. Unions across Massachusetts who had already approved these extensions had to continue fighting for their raises all the way up to Beacon Hill, where Massachusetts state lawmakers stalled on passing Governor Healey’s supplemental budget which would fund these salary increases.  It was only after receiving pressure from several of the largest public sector unions in the state that the supplemental budget was approved just before the holidays. 

As the one-year extension has officially expired for labor contracts across the University, the unions find themselves once again preparing to meet with management at the bargaining table to iron out their labor contracts for the next three years. In April 2024, the newly re-formed USA Negotiation Team sent a survey to all USA members to find out what they want in their next contract. The survey received 323 responses, about 38% of members. (You can view the results of the survey here.) These responses all indicated various priorities, but highlighted three key issues:  

  1. A lack of respect from university administration;  
  2. Compensation that does not keep up with the cost of living.   
  3. Benefits that seem unfair when compared to those afforded to other unions;

While raises for university employees from the one-year contract extension represented one of the largest one-year increases in pay in recent history, they continue to be dwarfed by higher costs from rising inflation, local cost of living increases, and competition from the private sector.  

One result of the survey indicated many employees felt that the University does not do enough to show its employees that they are valued, especially after many of them were deemed essential to continued university operations during the COVID-19 pandemic. This disrespect extends to their paychecks, being both below the rapidly rising cost of living in the local Hadley/Amherst area and being eaten away by rising health insurance costs and the rapidly increasing fees for parking. 

“As someone who spends more waking hours at work than anywhere else, it is insulting to have to pay for these things out of pocket because the university has chosen to monetize them.  Please find a better way to pay for these expenses than charging staff.  It is disrespectful and cheap,” one member answered. 

“We shouldn’t have to pay to drive to work in a town that has a poor to limited public transportation system,” wrote another member. 

In addition to needing better options for transportation, child care, and career development, respondents to the survey report having to take measures in order to make ends meet. 19.5% of respondents report working at least one additional job, amounting to roughly 1 in 5 members.  

The survey also included a question about food insecurity, asking  “In the last 12 months, did you or others in your household ever cut the size of your meals or skip meals because there wasn’t enough money for food?” Shockingly, 104 out of the 323 respondents answered “yes” to this question, indicating that food insecurity has been a problem for about one third of responding members. This raises major concerns for USA members and has far-reaching implications for other UMass workers. One-third of USA members reporting experiencing food insecurity over the last year suggests that other UMass workers in unions with a similar pay schedule, such as AFSCME or PSU-B, may also be experiencing this on a significant scale.  

USA members also felt it necessary to attain parity with other UMass unions when it comes to benefits. “Classified staff is doing all the work and not compensated properly. Classism is awful on campus!” wrote another member in the survey.  This comment was echoed by many respondents, who indicated that the benefit disparities between unions is an unfair metric that does not accurately reflect the balance of work being done across campus. 

The results of this survey are even more concerning when USA members are regularly provided with media by the University indicating the University’s clear financial stability championed by management. In the June 25th Quarterly Report, UMass President Marty Meehan noted that “As a public institution, we are firmly committed to ensuring that every dollar invested in UMass – whether from the state appropriation, tuition, or a private donor – has the greatest possible impact. That is why we are so proud to share that our strong bond ratings were reaffirmed by all three independent bond ratings agencies – Moody’s, Fitch, and S&P Global – validating our effective management and strategic planning.” While a strong fiscal outlook stands to support job security across the UMass system, university staff members who face food insecurity and who must take on second jobs to make ends meet would seem to be an accepted sacrifice to that end. 

With the start of bargaining officially underway between the University’s management and the University Staff Association, this is an opportunity for management to recognize the issue and act to support their employees while they can still afford to work at UMass Amherst. 

UMass Admin Illegally Privatized Advancement, State Auditor Finds

State Auditor DiZoglio Says Even UMass Must Comply with the Law

Dear USA Members,

Over the past year and a half, the UMass Amherst administration, led by President of the private UMass Amherst Foundation Arwen Duffy and former Chancellor Kumble Subbaswamy, has forced through its plan to privatize more than 100 jobs and eliminate the Advancement division. You have rallied and written letters and emails in protest of the administration’s actions, which have endangered our friends’ and colleagues’ livelihoods and retirements. Together with our siblings in the Professional Staff Union (PSU) we have rounded up support against these privatizing attacks from U.S. Senators Ed Markey and Elizabeth Warren, Congressman Jim McGovern, and state legislators including Senator Jo Comerford and Representative Mindy Domb. 

We now have this news to share: on May 31, 2024, the Office of the State Auditor (OSA) issued its final determination that UMass Amherst violated the Taxpayer Protection Act (TPA) when it privatized and outsourced Advancement operations from UMass Amherst to the private University of Massachusetts Amherst Foundation. 

The TPA, commonly known as “the Pacheco Law,” is intended to prevent private businesses from enriching themselves at the taxpayer’s expense. If any public institution is going to privatize any of its work, it must prove that the private business can provide at least the same level of service, but at a cheaper price.

USA and PSU have argued all along that UMass Amherst was recklessly rushing their privatization scheme–and now, the State Auditor agrees: “After reviewing this matter,” says the OSA’s final determination, “we are unable to determine that this outsourcing produced financial savings at a higher quality of public service.”

Additionally, the OSA found that:

  1. UMass Amherst was required by law to seek a determination from OSA prior to privatizing Advancement and failed to do so.
  2. When given a second opportunity, UMass Amherst could not demonstrate to the OSA that the privatization of Advancement produced financial savings at a higher quality of public service.
  3. The entire UMass system, including all other campuses, must comply with the TPA “in all respects,” now and in the future.

The fight to save public work and bring these positions back isn’t over, and we continue to believe that all public work should be done by public employees subject to public oversight and for the public good. 

We furthermore believe that this illegal forced privatization is part of a larger pattern of disregard for the UMass community that includes low pay, excessive workloads and bias in discipline and terminations. These are all issues which our bargaining team will address, and we know that when we stand together, we win.

We stand in solidarity with PSU who have done incredible work fighting this fight. We will have more privatization news in the coming weeks and months, so stay tuned. 

In Solidarity,

Mary Malinowski, President and Sheila Gilmour, Vice President

Privatization; its history on campus and steps forward.

Imagine: you’re very good at your job. You like it. You’ve been working for the common good, for UMass Amherst, the State’s premier public university, for years, and every year, you’re getting closer to vesting in the state retirement system. Or maybe you’ve already hit your ten-year mark; maybe you’ve been doing the job for decades. You breathe a little easier knowing that your years of effort and modest salary have earned you a secure future.

And then one day, out of the blue, you receive an email from UMass management telling you that all that work may have violated multiple laws. That your pension is at risk. That in order to protect your future, you may no longer work as a public employee. That you must instead go to work for the private UMass Amherst Foundation (UMAF). Imagine that you and your officemates receive a very public pink slip from the Chancellor of UMass himself, and that your entire division of approximately 100 people–co-workers and friends–will also be liquidated.

This is not a fantasy: all of this happened over the course of six months, from December 2022 – May 2023, when the University privatized Advancement–and it appears that the administration and the UMAF may be on the hunt for more state jobs to cut.

What is USA & PSU doing to fight the loss of state jobs? What can you do to protect yours?

Read on for answers to these questions – but first, a little history.

How Management at UMass Amherst Privatized 100+ State Jobs

In December 2022, the university approached the unions claiming that the Massachusetts State Retirement Board (MSRB) had concerns about state employees at UMass in the Advancement division who performed services for the private UMass Amherst Foundation (UMAF). UMass management claimed that state pensions were at risk, they called into question the legitimacy of any fundraising work performed by public employees, and cited a state law that says: “in no event shall an employee of the [public] institution spend more than twenty-five percent of his work hours engaged in services for a [private] foundation.”

UMass management and UMAF then jointly hired a private attorney who presented a suite of scenarios to PSU and other campus unions for reorganizing and privatizing Advancement, which ranged from the somewhat disruptive (some state Advancement positions privatized) to total liquidation (nearly all state Advancement positions privatized).

The unions demanded that management bargain over the restructuring of Advancement and submitted a proposal that would ensure that state workers did the vast majority of Advancement work–which management immediately rejected. Instead, management informed the unions that they were going to change the “flow of funds” for all donations: no longer would donor funds go to UMass Amherst. They would all go to the private UMAF. This was a reversal of decades’ worth of practice at UMass, but management and its private attorney claimed that a “clean break” between UMass and the UMAF was needed in order to protect state-worker pensions.

In effect, this meant that no state worker could perform any fundraising function, for fear of risking their credible service and pension eligibility, and that all advancement functions would become the sole responsibility of the private UMAF.

PSU, along with USA and other UMass unions, has been fighting back for more than a year. We’ve staged rallies and letter-writing campaigns, all-member meetings, and speak-outs. We’ve gotten the news out to media outlets around the region and country. We’ve won the support of U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey, as well as U.S. Congressman Jim McGovern. State legislators Jo Comerford and Mindy Domb supported the unions’ proposal to keep this public work publicly accountable at the university. The State Retirement Board itself publicly declared that they had no concerns about Advancement members’ retirement eligibility, and State Treasurer Deb Goldberg said, “this situation is clearly and absolutely 100% UMass Amherst’s responsibility,” adding that Advancement employees “have been confronted with a confusing, disruptive, and stressful situation for them and their families.” She demanded that the university “work with their employees” and “work with the union[s]” to resolve the situation. The State Auditor, Diana DiZoglio, sent a letter to Chancellor Subbaswamy asserting that the legal requirements for privatizing Advancement have not been met, and management must immediately stop the privatization process. And the state Department of Labor Relations has found probable cause on four occasions that management may have violated the law in privatizing Advancement.

Yet, despite all of this, UMass management blundered ahead with its disastrous plan. On International Workers Day, May 1st, 2023, then-Chancellor Subbaswamy emailed the entire Advancement division that layoff notices were being prepared and announced that UMass would go through with “the transfer of fundraising, alumni relations, and related Advancement activities to the UMass Amherst Foundation.”

One hundred and twenty-five of your friends, comrades, and colleagues had their jobs eliminated, their lives upended, and were forced to either find a new job, leave UMass all together, or go work at the private UMAF because of the unique nature of the work they do.

What to Watch out For

Despite the “clean break” that management forced, state workers all across the university are still being asked to do fundraising, alumni relations, and related advancement activities. You may be asked to help create MinuteFunds or work on alumni communications, to plan and promote donor events, or to send fundraising solicitations–all job duties that management has claimed as cause for privatization.

Without admitting it publicly, the university has completely reversed the “clean break” legal argument they used to privatize advancement functions and eliminate scores of state positions. Management now maintains that state workers can do this advancement work for a private foundation, as long as the employee does not spend more than twenty-five percent of their work hours doing so. But the university has so far refused to track time in service for a foundation in our singular time tracking system, HR Direct. In fact, Brian Harrington, of UMass Labor Relations, wrote an email to PSU suggesting that workers who fail to perform services for the private UMAF could be subject to discipline for insubordination.

And recently, a PSU member alerted the union to the fact that the president of the private UMAF, Arwen Staros Duffy, quietly approached a dean, called at least one state worker’s duties into question, and raised concerns about the member’s pension.

Duffy is using the very same job-cutting privatization playbook that started this whole mess, while Harrington is insisting that we must perform duties that put us at risk.

The difference is that this time, instead of taking on an entire division out in the open, management now seems to be singling out employees, one-by-one.

What We Can Do Together to Protect Your Job

You are not alone in your desire to do good work for a public university and receive fair pay and a well-earned retirement in return for years of service.

There is strength in numbers. If you are asked to do work for the private UMAF (or the system-wide private UMass Foundation):

1. Politely ask to have the task reassigned (if you feel comfortable doing so). 2. Reach out to USA President Mary Malinowski or PSU Co-Chairs Brad Turner and Andrew Gorry immediately to let them know If you have been asked to perform work for UMAF or think that the work you are doing may be cause for concern. 3. Record your time doing this work in this Google form

In the meantime, the UMass unions, along with our legal counsel, are working to get management to add a UMAF time code to HR direct, so that we can objectively document how many hours we work in service of the private UMAF using the same time-tracking system in which we have over fifty time codes to log everything from regular work-time, vacation time, voting time, time for jury duty, and blood-donation time, etc.

This is not the end of the fight to maintain the dignity and integrity of our public work. Together, we can ensure that no public UMass Amherst employee ever again has to go through the trauma of having their life’s work invalidated and their future imperiled by management.