HOME | CONTRACT

PSC CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS
WITH THE RESEARCH FOUNDATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS
click to go to item

• CONTRACT BULLETIN ONE

• PSC's OPENING STATEMENT

• PSC's CONTRACT DEMANDS

The PSC held its first negotiations session with RF/CUNY management on Thursday, February 15, 2001 at the Research Foundation offices. Representing the PSC Negotiating Team, selected by the members of the PSC/Research Foundation Chapter, were Debra Bergen, Director of Contract Administration; D. Nicholas Russo, Director of Legal Affairs; Nancy Romer, Senior College Officer; Paul Pfannekoh, Chapter Chair; Anthony Dixon, Vice Chapter Chair; Dion Brown, Chapter secretary; Antoinette Morizio and Kadesha Atkins-Bey.  In addition, Mary Ann Carlese, PSC’s Associate Executive Director, will be attending the sessions as part of the PSC negotiating team. The PSC negotiating team will also include at future sessions Arthur Schwartz and/or Susan Jennick, PSC’s outside legal counsel.  

Research Foundation/CUNY management is represented by Ken Kruger, a consultant to the Foundation; Jerry Steele, Chief Operating Officer; Wendy Patitucci, Director of Employee Policy and Practices; Fred Chin, Director of Grants and Contracts; and Judith G. Bartlett, Secretary to the Board of Directors.  

The session began with introductions by both teams and pleasantries were exchanged.  The PSC then began the session by clarifying administrative issues, which included a proposal that the sessions take place on a rotating basis at the Foundation offices and the PSC headquarters. We offered additional negotiations meeting dates and times through the end of March. The PSC proposed that any items agreed to by both sides be put in writing as tentative agreements pending the conclusion of negotiations and ratification of the agreement as a whole by the PSC’s Research Foundation chapter and the RF/CUNY’s Board of Directors.  The union also advised Foundation management that we would be keeping our members informed of the progress of these negotiations by written bulletins and on the PSC/CUNY Web site. 

The PSC then presented an opening statement and provided RF/CUNY management with our 37 contract demands with a general description of the topics that they cover, which include demands on recognition and coverage, Research Foundation/PSC relationships, Information and Data, Time and Leave, Evaluation of Employees, Promotional Opportunities and transfer, Disciplinary actions, Terminations, Occupational Safety and Health, Salaries and Duration. The union reserved the right to modify the proposals and to submit additional proposals during these negotiations. Copies of the union’s opening statement and our contract demands have been distributed to the members of the PSC/RF chapter and can be found on the PSC-CUNY Web site. The Research Foundation made no opening statement and was not prepared to present proposals to the PSC. 

In response to our demands, the Research Foundation indicated that there might be areas that we can agree on but indicated to us that they had certain constraints and goals. These were to improve services to their “customers” and to reduce costs. They indicated that they need to address complaints received from CUNY researchers and will be introducing new technologies and new procedures in an attempt to address problem areas.  The PSC responded that while we recognize and share the Foundation’s goal to improve services to whom they refer to as their “customers” that these “customers” were the faculty that the PSC represents in our collective bargaining agreement with the City University. We expect that these improvements would not be made at the expense of our members’ salaries and workload at the Foundation. 

After a brief caucus, the Research Foundation responded to our proposed meeting dates and agreed on those offered and proposed additional meeting dates and times. However, the Foundation management team flatly rejected the union’s proposal that the site of the negotiations alternate between the Foundation office and union headquarters.  The rationale offered was that it would be inconvenient and that the Foundation team must be available on the premises of the Foundation.  

The union countered with a proposal that we alternate sites so that any morning sessions occur at the PSC and afternoon sessions occur at the Foundation.  The PSC cited that the Foundation’s refusal to alternate sites was contrary to the precedent established in previous contract negotiations with Foundation management, which did occur at both the Foundation and the PSC and is counter to the practice established between the City University and the PSC whose current contract negotiations take place at both the University offices and the PSC.  We stated that meeting at the PSC would not be an inconvenience for the Foundation because they could be in constant contact with the Foundation by phone and computer from the PSC office and we had rooms available for caucuses.  The Foundation stood by their position of refusing to meet at alternate sites despite the PSC’s offer and the union then adjourned the session on that note. 

While we agreed on future dates the location of those meetings has yet be determined. We will keep you informed on this and other matters as they unfold. 

The contract demands of the Professional Staff Congress will reflect an attempt to rectify inequities, both economic and non-economic, which exist for our members at the Foundation.  The PSC recognizes and supports the Foundation’s goal of providing quality services to the academic community of the University. The faculty is a shared constituency of both of our organizations.   However, the unconscionable working conditions and non-competitive salaries of the Foundation’s workers translates into high staff attrition and overwork, which in turn creates poorer services to faculty researchers. We believe that your goal of providing quality service can be achieved by working with the PSC in a spirit of mutual cooperation resulting in mutual gain.  

We recognize the Foundation has adopted a new management structure, an organizational model and team approach in an effort to remedy problems it has encountered in the processing of grants and related issues, however, the PSC has an obligation to ensure that our members’ working conditions and salaries are not detrimentally affected while the Foundation moves to optimize efficiency and maintain higher production standards.  The basic thrust of our non-economic demands is to improve and strengthen our members’ rights and protections in the face of the on-going reorganization of the Foundation and to seek improvement in our working conditions and job security.  We also seek improvements in time and leave and due process rights.

Through our economic demands we strive to improve promotional opportunities for our members and to ensure that the Research Foundation workers are justly compensated for the work they do at the Foundation. The erosion of salaries at the Foundation has been absolute as a result of the recent broadbanding of titles in Grants and Contracts and Human Resources/Payroll and we will be addressing these salary inequities in these negotiations. The current salaries make the Research Foundation jobs unattractive, non-competitive and create high turnover.

In preparing for these negotiations I was struck by the repetitive nature of the environment in which we historically entered into collective negotiations. The PSC-Foundation negotiations have been influenced by changes in the Foundation’s departments of Human Resources and Labor Relations preventing the kind of continuity and stability in the labor-management relationship that exists in many other negotiation settings. While these administrative and structural changes may be a necessary component of the Foundation’s goal to improve the delivery of services to the University community, they have unfortunately resulted in an unstable work environment for our members, reducing job security and increasing stress.  It has resulted in declining morale and a growing distrust of Foundation management.  During the past three years, I have heard countless stories from our members of fear and intimidation by on-line supervisors as well as confusion over the lines of supervision.  We are very concerned with these trends and it is our goal that through these negotiations we can build a better working environment for our members at the Foundation and strengthen communications between the PSC membership and Foundation administrators.

During the past three years we have witnessed an increase in the use of part-time and temporary workers employed at the Foundation. With the recent reorganization of the departments of Grants and Contracts and Human Resources/Payroll and the broadbanding of titles in these departments, our members have been deprived of promotional opportunities and employees who worked hard to obtain upper level grades are being rolled back to lower salary grades while being asked to take on additional tasks and responsibilities.  Therefore, one of our key objectives in these negotiations is to protect the integrity of our bargaining unit and obtain salaries commensurate with job functions and increased workloads.

To these ends, we must work together to achieve the following:      

            -Labor-management cooperation must be maintained. The PSC seeks the right to negotiate all changes in the Foundation that affect the terms and conditions of its members.

-The employees of the Foundation must be compensated to reflect the changes in job content and function. The PSC seeks substantial salary increases across the board and a revamping of the current salary structure that will provide yearly salary increments and increased recognition of longevity.                           

-The day to day worklives of our members and improvements in the morale and environment must be a mutual goal of both the Foundation and the PSC.  The PSC seeks to achieve equal working conditions for all its members of the Foundation regardless of date of hire in annual leave and sick leave; enhance health and safety protections; improvements in leaves for family, personal, bereavement and parental leave; to provide further protections against unjust disciplinary actions and arbitrary evaluation procedures and to improve recognition of service through improved severance packages.

Our proposals were developed by the Research Foundation’s workers and are a reflection of their desire for more fair-and-equal treatment and in recognition of their contributions to the Foundation on a daily basis. The Foundation can only benefit by this with increased productivity and stability from its workforce. However, these goals can only be achieved through mutual cooperation between the PSC and the Foundation through an honest and open dialogue of the issues.

back to TOP

HOME | CONTRACT