Tag Archives: sbr

“Where the **** are our raises?” – Parameters, Bargaining, and More

, , , , , ,

By the University Staff Association (USA) Communications Committee 

 As we find ourselves in January 2025, there are a few things to be expected. New university policies, the start of the new Spring 2025 semester, and the frustration of accidentally writing “2024” on your documents. 

But more importantly, it’s likely you’re reading this and wondering: shouldn’t we be getting a raise soon? 

For USA members in their early years of service to the University, it’s likely you’ve been earning a step increase yearly based on your anniversary date.  However, for members who have been with the University for more than 14 years, it’s likely you have only received raises based on the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) parameters set by the Office of the State Governor. 

What are parameters? 

In the state of Massachusetts, labor unions don’t bargain for wages in the traditional sense. Rather, the Governor’s office sets the wage increases, referred to as “parameters.” Essentially, they determine how much money from the state budget will be put towards wage increases in our contracts. 

Parameters can be confusing, which is partially by design. As a result of the parameters from the governor’s office, the raises that are on the table from management for the contract from 2024-2027 include the following language: 

Effective the first day of the first pay period following the date that the parties reach agreement on a successor collective bargaining agreement but no sooner than January 5, 2025, employees will receive an increase of three percent (3%) increase in base salary rate.  

Effective July 13, 2025, employees will receive a two percent (2%) increase in base salary rate.  

Effective January 4, 2026, employees will receive a two percent (2%) increase in base salary rate.  

Effective July 12, 2026, employees will receive a two percent (2%) increase in base salary rate.  

Effective January 3, 2027, employees will receive a two percent (2%) increase in base salary rate. 

In addition to the inequitable process for which parameters are bargained is the ugly side: management generally uses parameter raises as a bargaining chip to try and hurry the bargaining process along and force the unions to settle for less than they deserve, which has resulted in the erosion of the bottom line for many employees, both across the unions on campus and throughout the UMass system. 

Parameter raises also represent a fundamental disagreement between the unions and management. While the unions across the UMass system view the parameter raises as a cost-of-living adjustment to the realities of steadily increasing costs of living, management has consistently viewed parameter raises as, well, raises – and this is consistent with management’s proposals on other bargaining tables. PSU-A has reported that management put forward a proposal to convert their parameter raises into “merit based” raises, designed to reward those employees for going above and beyond for the UMass system. This is consistent with what many union members have said is one of Chancellor Javier Reyes’s main goals to drive innovation and reward hard work on campus.  

In practice, however, this practice is highly inequitable, especially when stagnant wages are at the heart of many of the issues we face on campus. If a member struggles with food and housing security, the catch-22 becomes evident: they’re not likely not going to be able to go “above and beyond,” meaning they won’t earn a raise to address the issue. 

While it’s admittedly demoralizing to know that we will have to wait for a bump in your paycheck, it’s important to note that USA intends to work as diligently as possible to negotiate in good faith for a contract that we all deserve. 

Shifting the Pay Scales 

At the December 11th bargaining session, USA put forth their ambitious plan to address both retention and financial insecurity.  Before the bargaining team presented the plan to management, several USA silent bargaining representatives provided testimony: some at the beginning of their careers and hopeful that UMass will right the wrongs and support their needs in the coming years, others having crossed the threshold of being at their top step.  All of them face financial hardship as a result of stagnating wages, despite funds brought into the university system as a result of their hard work. 

At the following bargaining session, the final meeting between both sides of 2024, UMass Labor Relations Director Brian Harrington suggested that the 7-step proposal would need state legislator approval, and their team likely wouldn’t be able to reach a tentative agreement to approve the plan.  However, it is USA’s position that the cost would likely be offset by the savings resulting in decreased turnover, which include the candidate searches, onboarding process, and productivity slowed by training and other operational needs, as well as reducing the need for seeking outside contractor work. 

In addition to these figures, it’s OK to be skeptical at Harrington’s assertion that the decision cannot be made at the University level, as members of the unions have watched as UMass proudly announced the hiring of new UMass Football coach Joe Harasymiak to a 5 year contract worth approximately $1.3 million per year, and the reported $1.4 million buyout due to former football coach Doc Brown.  It’s also worth mentioning that A&F Vice Chancellor Andrew Mangels approved a $500 thousand bonus to outgoing chancellor Kimbel Subbaswamy, just weeks before his retirement and after he signed the layoff notices of 120 members of the Advancement division. 

To address management’s assertions that we’d need to go to the legislature to fight for higher wages, it’s already been done. MTA unions, including USA, fought for the Fair Share Amendment, an amendment to the state constitution that has added a small surtax on the wealthiest people yet generated billions of dollars in revenue for transportation and education in the state of Massachusetts.  What the unions did NOT fight for, however, was the $20 billion allocated for “endowment matching” in FY24 — funds that were placed into the UMass endowment to accrue interest on top of itself, instead of addressing labor-related issues across the campuses. 

Here’s how YOU can help

While your USA Bargaining Team is doing its best to make cohesive arguments at the table, it’s crucial to our efforts that you show your support in the coming months.  Your presence at the USA bargaining table as a Silent Bargaining Representative (SBR) is a great help in affirming and validating what is being said by both sides, and we invite you to sign up to be an SBR for our next bargaining session here. 

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.