UFF-FAU

May 1, 2010. Time to hunker down! FAU Administrators appear to be laying groundwork for reorganization and faculty layoffs.

“’Knock-knock-knock!’ Professor Tracy, are you in?” someone calls outside my office door. “Oh, yes,” I reply. “But like most other faculty, I’m hiding underneath my desk, waiting for FAU’s reorganization, where I may or may not find myself booted from the the University plane and careening toward earth with little-if-any parachute.”

These are, after all, tough times, or so we are told. Faculty and staff must once again pull in their belts, our well-compensated leaders tell us. Pay no attention to that pesky 2009 Financial Audit that shows the University’s $20 million increase in unrestricted net assets as it proceeded to terminate tenured faculty. That’s a tidy sum that would easily allow for a much-needed salary increase for Florida’s most poorly paid professors who reside in the state’s highest cost-of-living region. In fact, the administration is moving in the opposite direction, opening what will likely be a costly medical school and anxiously looking to place a whopping $60 million for a football stadium onto the University’s credit card. This is not to mention that administrator positions have grown far beyond those of instructional faculty since the early 2000s.

Augustine once remarked that hope has two beautiful daughters. One is anger and the other is courage. For most FAU faculty faced with the facts yet also demoralized and dealing with “battered faculty syndrome,” it is understandable to be hope-less. In fact, staying underneath one’s desk in these turbulent times certainly isn’t courageous, but it’s not entirely unwise either. Heck, it’s gettin’ ugly out there.

Consider the pronouncements of Interim President John Pritchett, who at a forum on the budget on April 5 told faculty that “layoffs are still on the table.” Such threats will likely be repeated at the May 3rd forum. Last October, however, Pritchett remarked in the College of Arts and Letters Faculty Assembly that if you “were to read a certain blog” (the one you’re presently reading, by the way) you’d think layoffs were right around the corner. What a bunch of alarmists—those union folk!  The Interim President continued to emphasize to those gathered that there would be no layoffs. Instead, administrators simply wanted to reorganize the university with the faculty’s helpful feedback and guidance, “from the ground up,” as they say. This was to be a collective “visioning” process, you will recall, done with the assistance of efficiency expert Susan Clemmons–”a fresh set of eyes.” We are now told by the same individual that layoffs are essentially not a matter of “if,” but “when.”

The threat of a substantial reorganization of the University leading to faculty terminations was again expressed in no uncertain terms by Pritchett at the College of Arts and Letters Faculty Assembly on April 23. At that time the faculty from that venerable FTE-generating dynamo—which, given this status, you may also recall , was to be “defended” from such personnel reductions—were told of forthcoming programs where professors would be offered “retirement incentives.” On a less generous note, the President remarked, it would be a priority to allow terminated faculty “more than 30 days notice” to find another job, short-sale their home, pull their children out of school, load up the car and Tom Joad-it out of South Florida. Yes, the unnerving prospect of being wheeled out to the curb is one of many endearing feature of “belonging” to the “FAU family.”

It is probable that such plans for reorganization and additional layoffs have gone forth in stealth form since mid-2009. You may recall that at that time the administration had to back track and regroup after the seriously botched attempt to layoff faculty in the College of Engineering. Not surprisingly, given the University’s considerable resources, administrators miraculously “found” the money to rehire these colleagues and avoid costly extralegal and legal actions. With Pritchett’s probable reappointment as provost it is almost a certainty that this planned reorganization and set of layoffs will be carried out like clockwork by FAU deans. And such a set of events, my dear colleague, may also tell us a great deal about FAU’s new leadership.

If you are an in-unit faculty or staff member I encourage you to review Article 13 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement: Layoffs. This article is by no means perfect. However, it does require that administrators follow certain procedures if layoffs are to take place, the most important of which is the matter of rank and seniority. When administrators and their highly-paid attorneys laid off faculty in Engineering in 2009 they set up bogus “functional units” to get around this element of the CBA. This was obvious even to the casual observer, and may be attempted again, so for the foreseeable future please be especially attuned to any abrupt changes in the organization of your department, unit, and/or college.

The continued planning of any reorganization resulting in layoffs will likely ensue over the summer and be implemented in fall. I encourage you to become a member of UFF-FAU for assistance in the grievance process should that avenue be necessary to protect your position and contest any wrongful termination. Please remember that you need to be a Union member for at least thirty days prior to any incident. If you choose not to go that route and you have reason to believe you may be targeted by the administration for layoff, it may be appropriate in the near future to consult with an attorney who will be able to act swiftly and vigorously on your behalf should such an unfortunate sequence of events come to pass.

In solidarity,

James Tracy
UFF-FAU President

See related posts:

FAU’s Assets Swell to Almost $1 Billion: 2009 Financial Audit Now Available!

FAU Personnel Growth By Employee Category

April 10, 2010. UFF can help create a workplace where faculty and staff are treated fairly and with respect, but it is only as strong as the degree of member involvement.

I picked one hell of a year to make my debut as UFF-FAU Chapter President. In the winter of 2008 a colleague who was also involved in UFF telephoned me and said they had been informed that no one from UFF was returning Palm Beach Post reporter Kim Miller’s calls. Miller really wanted to speak to a faculty and union member who would provide some remarks that might contrast with the administration’s press releases and soundbites, and reflect what at least some of the faculty likely have on their minds.

And then this person essentially said, “If you do speak to the press you had better be careful because they’re going to come after you.” I had heard similar remarks previously from others. For example, that Frank Brogan likely has an enemies list and you had better not speak out of turn or you’ll find yourself on it. So, I thought, “Who are we working with? The mob?”

So, I made a decision to speak to reporters as frequently as they wished. I figured that the administration likely has the power to retaliate, and Mr. Brogan may have an enemies list. Yet, as scholars we have an obligation to stand up and speak out against an environment of intimidation, fear and favoritism. Such an environment is totally antithetical to what we do–which is to inquire, to question, to teach, and to do so from certain underlying principles of morality and truth. And sometimes the truth flies in the face of the latest press release.

In addition, we have a union. Some of us even have tenure. And since we have these things we should put them good use; to create a workplace where faculty and staff are treated fairly and with respect.

That being said, this past year has felt more like ten years. The Union may have lost some battles. For example, the Trustees’ decision on the 2.5% salary increase that our bargaining team fought so hard to secure. It was just when I was learning the ropes of being a Chapter officer when I attended the Board of Trustees Personnel Committee Hearing last April, and the decision was made to vote down that very modest salary increase. I can’t convey to you how humiliated the faculty in attendance were made to feel at that venue.

With the layoffs of tenured faculty in the College of Engineering the following month it appeared that the administration had bent the stick too far. This was an overt attack on tenure, the Collective Bargaining Agreement, and the faculty as a whole. As one member of the Faculty Senate remarked on June 5, “If they can do that to them, they can do it to any of us.”

I think it’s safe to say that in the wake of these events the Union and the Faculty Senate fought vigorously to defend tenure and enforce our Contract. The five faculty members who were laid off have since been appointed to positions–not their original positions–but positions with their tenure and seniority intact.

We also learned a few days ago that the administration is moving to do away with the College of Engineering’s “functional units,” which were used to cordon off faculty in that College for layoffs. I’m not holding my breath for administrators to issue a statement that these actions were in response to the steadfastness of UFF, the Faculty Senate, and the Faculty Assembly in Engineering. But I would like to think that these bodies may have had some modest influences on these decisions. We should especially thank Faculty Senate President Tim Lenz for his leadership over the past year, UFF Grievance Chair Doug Broadfield, and UFF Service Unit Coordinator Bruce Nissen.

FAU also has a new university president who’s been appointed and we would like to think that perhaps we’re turning a corner.

Another exciting thing the Chapter is undertaking is a campaign to build our membership. As some of you know, this involves one-on-one contact with colleagues asking that they pay their dues, thereby becoming full-fledged UFF members. We have to remember that Florida is a right to work state, and as public employees we do not have the right not to work.

In 2003 an overwhelming majority of FAU faculty members voted to recertify United Faculty of Florida as their bargaining representative. But, in a right to work state the same faculty can opt out of paying their dues. That’s why, aside from bargaining and contract enforcement, we have to constantly build our membership. We do that by asking colleagues to become dues-paying members. We also have to make sure that all of our resources go toward building membership. That’s what makes the chapter, the statewide UFF and FEA, and our national affiliates, NEA and AFT, strong advocates for higher education in the state and federal legislative levels and capable of rendering aid locally when we need it.

Why is this important? Well, take for example what Republican legislators in Tallahassee are presently trying to do to the Florida Retirement System. Or what they’re trying to do to Florida’s school teachers. FEA lobbyists are in the halls of the capitol defending FRS, and prompting us to telephone and email our legislators to preserve the retirement system and teacher tenure.

Our website has averaged close to 1,000 hits daily over the past three-to-four weeks. We could not keep you updated on this unless our state affiliate had the resources to put people on the ground to report back to us and coordinate collective action. The same can be said for providing our chapter with legal assistance when that has become necessary.

So, our dues-paying membership is growing. We have about 42 new members sign up since September. Please thank Rob McCarthy, Mike Budd, and Dave Lee for all of their hard work on membership.

On that note, I don’t see our Chapter moving forward in the medium and long term without us building a strong sense of community and purpose. What does that entail? It entails becoming involved, even if that involvement is one or two hours per month. We can’t have a union just by people paying their dues in case something goes wrong. The union is not merely a service plan. It consists of the collective activity of its members.

We are fortunate enough to have jobs that allow us an incredible degree of professional autonomy and freedom. This makes it that much easier to say, “Well, let them do it. I’ve got my own projects and deadlines, so let the ‘union people’ do it.”

With that attitude we’ll never develop. We are the union. When we begin thinking and acting more so along those lines–each of us making a modest commitment toward building the union–we’ll be on our way. Then there will be nothing that can stop us.

James Tracy
UFF-FAU President

February 17, 2010. “Educational reform” measures put forth by Florida’s Council of 100 business leaders and endorsed by GOP power broker Jeb Bush require scrutiny in historical context.

When considering the recent proposals comprising “Closing the Talent Gap,” put forth this month by Florida’s Council of 100,  it is important to keep in mind the dramatic political and structural changes to Florida’s State University System that have occurred over the past ten years. An oft-overlooked or forgotten chapter of Florida higher education’s recent past should be kept at the forefront of our thinking so that we may place the United Faculty of Florida and SUS’s plight in proper perspective. Central to this is  the quasi-privitization of the state’s public universities, termed “devolution,” that took place under Jeb Bush’s governorship and the successful move to destroy the statewide collective bargaining framework existing between the United Faculty of Florida and Florida’s Board of Regents.

Florida is part of the “Old South,” and one of the South’s legacies is a hostility toward independent worker organization that can be traced, without too much imagination, to the antebellum era. In the face of broad unionization throughout the US northeastern, mid-west, and western states during the 1940s and 1950s, American corporations sought to relocate to areas where there was less unionization and the deck was stacked against organizing through anti-labor laws. Like many of their counterparts in the Old Confederacy after passage of the anti-labor Taft-Hartley Act, Florida legislators moved to make it more difficult for workers to form unions through implementation of “right to work,” or “open shop” laws. At institutions where a majority of workers managed to vote union representation into existence, such laws allowed employees to opt out of paying dues even though they were members of the bargaining unit and received the protections and benefits of representation. UFF’s present organizing efforts are rooted in attempts to work within the framework of these very laws designed to undermine worker power and solidarity that a strong union can provide. Our organizing efforts are never-ending.

The UFF membership’s resolve to maintain its capacity as a statewide faculty union was dealt a heavy blow in the early 2000s. The Board of Regents that oversaw the SUS resisted a handful of powerful legislators’ attempts to build law schools at Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University and Florida International University, and a medical school at Florida State University. Infuriated at the BOR’s recalcitrance, Governor Bush and an unusual coalition of Republican and Democratic state legislators moved to abolish the BOR and decentralize the SUS. The result was that each institution was placed under the direct oversight of a separate Board of Trustees.

This decentralization of power to BOTs was in close accord with the national Republican Party’s mission to privatize public institutions and run government “like a business.” The move was also an obvious attempt to weaken Florida’s teacher and faculty unions, which have been strong supporters of the Democratic Party. Bush made sure the eleven new BOTs were loaded with pro-business Republican donors, a practice reconfirmed in  BOG Chancellor and Bush associate Frank Brogan’s October 2009 BOT (re)appointments. These trustees, many of whom do not possess a full understanding of public higher education and would just as soon farm out university instruction to unqualified “private contractors” (adjuncts), are indifferent if not hostile toward public employees’ unions and collective bargaining.

The governance changes were used by the new BOTs as a basis to end bargaining that, since the UFF’s establishment in the mid-1970s, took place between UFF and the BOR. The BOTs argued unanimously that they were no longer bound by the statewide agreements. In response, with the aid of our parent organization, the American Federation of Teachers, UFF mobilized and collected thousands of authorization cards from large majorities of faculty to recertify each UFF chapter as a bargaining agent with their respective BOTs. At eight universities faculty support for recertification of UFF was 65% or more and the BOTs at these institutions voluntarily recognized UFF. At FAU 70% of faculty members who were approached signed cards for recertification. University of West Florida and Florida State University held out for elections where UFF went on to win 90% or more of the ballots at each institution. The University of Florida’s BOT refused to recognize UFF until 2005, when an appellate court decided in the Union’s favor (Fiorito and Gallagher, 2006).

The radical move to decentralize was tempered in 2002 when Florida Governor Bob Graham’s voter amendment mandated a Board of Governors to administer SUS affairs. In contrast to the BOR, however, power exercised by the BOG takes a backseat to the BOTs. (The BOG Chancellorship being occupied by Bush’s former Lieutenant Governor is a curious new development that deserves close scrutiny.) In light of the above, the aforementioned package of “educational reform” proposals put forward by Florida’s Council of 100 and vigorously endorsed by Bush must also be looked at with major reservations, particularly by public educators. For example, the moves to strip K-12 teachers of tenure–or to otherwise make tenure meaningless–is a policy already being tested in the SUS. Further, the document’s buzzwords, such as “accountability” and “efficiency,” often translate to jeopardized academic freedom and an increasingly deteriorating educational experience for students.

This history is willfully forgotten by administrators and trustees at FAU and other state universities, many of whom calculated that UFF would be incapable of reviving itself after the SUS’s decentralization. The sentiment is reflected in remarks such as, “UFF ‘represents some faculty at [ABC] University.’” Keeping in mind this recent history, such an assertion should be recognized for what it is: an attempt to mislead those of us who’ve forgotten or are unaware of our institutional and historical positions in the struggle to preserve the profession’s autonomy. Without question faculty at FAU and throughout the SUS desire independent representation before their administrations and Boards of Trustees, even though the legacy of Old Dixie allows them the opportunity not to pay for such representation.

In solidarity,

James Tracy
UFF-FAU President

Fiorito, J. and V.C. Gallagher (2006) ‘Renewal in the United Faculty of Florida: class war in paradise?’ Labor Studies Journal Vol 31,No 3:39-64.

January 15, 2010. The FAU Board of Trustees and Administration are attempting to make their corporate-style downsizing plan more palatable by cloaking it in the themes of “social justice,” “change,” and the imagery of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Slowly emerging from behind closed doors, one of the initial “Visioning Cafés”–focus groups conceived by efficiency expert Susan Clemmons and originally planned to take place on the heels of the College of Engineering’s layoff of five tenured faculty members last spring–is awkwardly scheduled as a central feature of Social Justice in Action: A Working Tribute to Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., sponsored by the FAU Office of Multicultural Affairs over the MLK holiday weekend.

As many readers of UFF-FAU’s  blog are aware, the “Visioning” exercises that began in the College of Engineering in January 2009 culminated in the creation of bogus “functional units” (or “pools”) in April and the termination of five tenured faculty members exactly one month later. The university-wide “Visioning” program is intended to prepare FAU faculty and staff for probable layoffs following the restructuring of colleges and departments. Should layoffs commence and faculty put in too much of a kick, such events and polling can be carted out as evidence that the administration made sincere efforts to actively involve faculty in restructuring plans before they were carried out. Reviewing communications between FAU administrators and Clemmons from last spring, there is an unmistakable emphasis in the consultant’s technique of manipulating employees into believing they have an active role in plans that are more or less on the drawing board and well underway. However, using the memory of Dr. King and the civil rights movement as a Trojan Horse for such a scheme marks a substantial new low.

As scholars such as Michael Erik Dyson have observed, in the last few years of his life King’s increasing intellectual development brought him to the realization that the plight of African Americans for social justice did not just involve confronting America’s enduring legacy of white supremacy; it was (and remains) intertwined with the maldistribution of the country’s resources, particularly away from educational and economic opportunities and toward the oppression of the world’s underclasses, palpable from the streets of America to the jungles of Southeast Asia. Indeed, King’s growing class consciousness was evident in his final days as he traveled to Memphis in support of a municipal workers’ strike.

Since Dr. King is not here to speak for himself, it might be worthwhile to consider whether he would look favorably on a public institution’s administrator types invoking his image and spirit to stage-manage and downsize their workforce. Given that FAU possesses one of the most racially diverse student bodies in the United States, it is doubtful that MLK would side with President Frank Brogan and the school’s Board of Trustees in their  efforts to make faculty salaries the second-lowest in the state among public institutions, and among the lowest in the nation. Nor would he condone the termination of tenured faculty without cause, which would, among other things, damage the institution’s national reputation and thereby the worth of credentials earned there. If King were afforded the opportunity, would he shy away from reminding us of Florida’s 2000 presidential election, where thousands of African Americans were deprived of the sacred right he so courageously fought to secure?

Finally, it is doubtful that this King, the one who actually lived and breathed and routinely challenged the status quo, would be at ease in a surreptitious focus group conducted in his name, under the guise of “social justice,” whose aim from the available evidence seems all too clear. This King, the one who cannot be confined to a postage stamp or other voiceless homage, advocated for a genuine social justice that runs counter to the  increasing disenfranchisement of FAU’s faculty body in the name of accountability and efficiency.

In solidarity,

James Tracy
UFF-FAU President

November 23, 2009. What should the expectations about a faculty union be among the faculty at FAU? A common remark among FAU faculty members is, “The union doesn’t really do anything for me, so why should I join?” This reflects an aloofness from university affairs and faculty governance issues that is all too common in our profession. Yet it is exactly because we perceive ourselves as independent professionals rather than what we in fact are–salaried workers–that we are able to justify our remove from such concerns and dismiss what many of us haven’t taken the time to understand, much less take an active part in.

One who has some knowledge of US labor history understands that unions have often been collective endeavors borne of grim necessity. Yet UFF is often regarded by faculty along the lines of a plumber or electrician; there is little need to call on its expertise until a pipe bursts or a circuit fails. Then the “repairman” is blamed for having allowed the breach in service, instead of the home owner, who through apathy and disengagement has allowed their pipes or wires to decay. In this way, the assertion, “The union doesn’t do anything…” amounts to a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because UFF-FAU is the exclusive bargaining entity for faculty, we are behooved to take some interest in what the union does and what is at stake in grievance procedures and the collective bargaining process.

Our disengagement is reinforced by our professional credentials and status. Again, these obscure the fact that we have bosses and work for a living, much as we would like to think of ourselves along the lines of physicians or attorneys–again, as independent professionals. Wage dependence is especially acute for those of us in the arts, humanities and social sciences, because frequently we lack sufficient avenues to secure grants that would fortify our increasingly depressed salaries. Community college faculty, in contrast, are much less mystified by their credentials and more inclined to recognize their status as workers. Thus they are more involved with their unions and on average secure stronger bargaining agreements and better salaries–indeed often stronger and better than many of us with advanced degrees from highly-regarded institutions.

Your UFF chapter has the greatest potential for ensuring quality working conditions and better compensation, yet it cannot be effective without your involvement and support. Less like faculty governance bodies, which should be commended for the time and effort they devote to providing a forum for faculty concerns and furthering university curricula and scholarship, UFF is more impervious to the influence of university administrators. In this way, the Union is the only genuinely independent collective voice for faculty. This is exactly why the FAU administration regularly calls on one of the best labor attorneys in the state to beat back UFF demands for improved working conditions, benefits and salaries.

Yet through increased membership and involvement comes recognition. At Florida International University, for example, this same attorney takes an entirely different tack at the bargaining table because the FIU faculty union has over twice as many dues-paying members as FAU’s, and far more faculty involved in union activities. This is a major reason why FIU’s collective bargaining agreement is stronger, and why faculty there are paid on average 10% more than at FAU. It is also why FIU faculty received one-time bonuses and salary raises totaling 3.5% in their last bargaining session despite trying economic times. At almost the same time FIU faculty were winning at the bargaining table, FAU faculty were cowering at Frank Brogan’s layoff threats–threats that were eventually made good on.

Our expectations for satisfactory working conditions and salaries commensurate to our effort and achievements won’t be realized through an aversion to our status as workers who have specific rights expressly defined through the collective bargaining process. With this in mind, it is time to ask not what your union can do for you, but what we can do together to make our collective wishes and expectations a reality.

In solidarity,

James Tracy
UFF-FAU President

Changes in the academic workplace come about as a consequence of clearly understood and clearly intended managerial, corporate, and political initiatives with the explicit intention of inducing the faculty to relinquish certain values and practices. Individually and collectively, faculty members make choices when they adopt new organizational cultures. -Marc Bosquet, How the University Works (10).

At a conference I attended this past spring I was chatting with a young Canadian sociologist  whose scholarship focuses on labor organization in North America and Europe’s technology industries. The conversation turned to our own academic workplaces, and I described to him the situation at FAU–how top university administrators have hired an outside consultant with expertise in “enterprise resource planning.” He looked at me with moderate alarm. “So, you’re going to be re-engineered?” “It certainly looks like that’s where we’re headed,” I replied.

No information I’ve encountered since then has convinced me otherwise, and the evidence available is worthy of our consideration. Susan Clemmons’ credentials suggest how she has spent most of her professional life advising companies such as Burger King on how they can do more with less, while squeezing existing workers to produce more without putting in too much of a kick.  Granted, conducting research in the lab or crafting an article or lecture isn’t quite like serving up a burger and fries, but this has not prevented FAU administrators and trustees from being swept away with Clemmons’ promises of “visioning” and “change.”

Clemmons’ dissertation, The Impact of Information Technology on Organizations: A Study of Enterprise Resource Planning System Influences on Job Design and Organizational Culture, suggests her expertise in the relationship between employee sentiment, “re-engineering,” and “Enterprise Resource Planning”–or ERP. Reengineering and ERP are the information age successors to the time and motion studies termed “scientific management” that Frederick Taylor imposed on factory workers a century ago. “Engineering” here refers not to the creation or manipulation of mechanical or electronic elements but rather of work processes and organizational structures. This orientation toward the workplace has since become ingrained in management thinking and practice. Indeed, Taylor’s notion of managerial surveillance and control toward increased worker productivity at the expense of worker skill and autonomy endures in ERP. Such practices have grave implications for academicians, who, like their artisan forebears, have become accustomed to a significant degree of autonomy over their work and work practices.

The deployment of ERP across service industries in the late 1980s and early 1990s resulted in waves of layoffs, yet its promise of increasing productivity remained unfulfilled. Further, as workers were shed management typically enlarged its ranks and power. As Century Foundation fellow and Financial Times correspondent Simon Head argues in his 2003 book, The New Ruthless Economy: Work and Power in the Digital Age, technology itself is a way of life–or, more specifically, a  way of work spanning from the “Fordist” (mass production) era to the present information age.

For the tens of millions of Americans who work in offices and factories, this is the definition of technology that counts. From the early 1990s onward, the twin phenomena of “reengineering” and “enterprise resource planning” have been prime examples of workplace practices built around new information technologies. Relying on computers and their attendant software, reengineering and ERP automate, simplify, join together, and speed up business processes. Reengineering and ERP do this by imposing upon those processes the standardization, measurement, and control of the old industrial assembly line. (4-5)

ERP has since become commonplace in most service industries. Since the early 1990s

reengineers have steadily widened the scope and ambition of their activities to include sales, marketing, customer relations, accounting, personnel management, and even medicine — “managed care” being essentially the reengineering of health care. For the 80 percent of Americans now employed in these service occupations, reengineering in its various forms has become a dominant force in their working lives. (5)

The sociologist Stanley Aronowitz remarked several years ago that a faculty position was “the last good job in America,” and reflecting on the surface value of that observation this perhaps all seems rather far-fetched. But the historical record is rife with examples of craft guilds and entire occupations overcome by industrialization and automation, and as the ranks of administrators grow while faculty decline those of us in higher education would be remiss to consider ourselves wholly immune from such practices, as the five colleagues laid off from FAU’s College of Engineering will attest.

Administrators have repeatedly proclaimed how with the help of Susan Clemmons, “change” will be ushered in, and soon Florida Atlantic will look like a vastly different institution. “Your current situation has presented an opportunity to use a systemic approach to change,” Clemmons gushed to FAU Provost John Pritchett and Vice President for Finance Ken Jessell via email in early March as her lucrative consulting deal was coming to fruition. “I applaud your insight in recognizing the daunting task of successful and sustainable change.”

The operative word here, “change,” is the preferred term used by ERP consultants in lieu of “restructuring,” or “downsizing,” which rightly sets off alarm bells among the rank and file, thereby greatly hampering such efforts. Similarly, the “vision” buzzword suggests a degree of shared governance and worker empowerment, but in management’s view these are acceptable only if such energy is properly channeled into a plan with largely predetermined ends.

Particularly appealing for Frank Brogan and his successor is how ERP provides upper-level administration (presidents, vice presidents, provosts) with an increasingly powerful top-down hierarchical form of surveillance, measurement, and control of middle management and workers, in this case administrators further down the totem pole (deans, assistant deans, department heads), and their subordinate faculty and staff. ERP’s privileging of efficiency and productivity over all else (e.g. producing credit hours, pulling in grant money) also provides a basis and rationale for the severances which those lesser university administrators will eventually be called on to carry out. Project Vision’s intent and design should also be of enduring interest to faculty throughout Florida since one of its early proponents is now overseeing Florida’s entire State University System.

The FAU administration is well aware that it cannot simply terminate tenured faculty because the Collective Bargaining Agreement, however flawed, stands in the way. It must therefore reorganize the Colleges and Departments in some fashion whereby the targeted faculty members–perhaps those who may be deemed “too strident” or are otherwise simply superfluous under reorganization–are sequestered for intimidation and possible elimination. (Assistant professors and instructors have another disciplinary cudgel hanging over their heads, termed “non-reappointment.”)

There have at times been instances of a renewed sense of empowerment and a broad revulsion among faculty against the administration’s actions–such as what took place in the College of Engineering’s Faculty Meeting on October 2 and the Faculty Senate on June 5–but faculty governance at FAU (or any other university, for that matter) will work to uphold the interests of faculty members only to the extent we are actively involved, and the presence and influence of administrators often makes forthright democratic exchange difficult.

UFF is the only body capable of organizing and exercising a genuinely independent voice for faculty rights at the workplace in this and many other situations, which is exactly why on many occasions the administration dispatches its bevy of attorneys to deal with us. Yet it is a voluntary organization that cannot act successfully on your behalf without your support, and as FAU administrators moves forward with their plans that will likely alter the very nature of our working conditions and livelihoods, that support is needed now more so than ever. Please consider joining and becoming involved in your UFF-FAU chapter today.

In solidarity,

James Tracy
UFF-FAU President

The title of a lesser-known collection of essays by social historian David Noble, Progress without People, lays out the author’s familiar critique of the modern development and use of technology that, within certain economic coordinates, has transformed entire modes of production and ways of life. “Progress without Faculty,” may prove an apt description for the present and future state of Florida Atlantic University. While it is true that the FAU Board of Trustees’ “Strategic Plan” pays modest lip service to a concern for faculty quality, what is unmistakably clear by now is that “progress” is largely equated with the construction of new buildings, with little regard for the nature or quality of the faculty who will occupy those buildings and conduct the teaching and research that together distinguish a sub-mediocre university from one that is truly above average, if not exceptional. In fact, Goal 3, Objective 5 of the BOT’s Strategic Plan reads:

Provide competitive faculty salaries that will assure recruitment and retention of a diverse and highly productive faculty who will contribute to building superior academic programs and research capacity.

Yet the recently updated “Report Card” shows that faculty salaries at FAU have now fallen about 15% below salaries at SUS peers FIU, UCF, and USF.

This is because Brogan and the BOT have stubbornly taken FAU in the opposite direction from greater parity with the University’s state peers. After denying modest faculty raises and undermining tenure at FAU with layoffs the administration and BOT have refused to rescind, the outgoing president is left to emphasize new building construction, in addition to the features of “traditional” university life, such as athletics, fraternities, and similar “recreational opportunities”—what Indiana University Professor Murray Sperber terms “Beer and Circus.” Sperber’s analogy to Rome is apt; at “Big Time U” the spectatorship of athletics and excessive partying gives shortchanged students the option of filling the void that often comes from feeling like another number on a Scantron and body in an overcrowded lecture hall. The undue emphases and support of buildings and recreational activities in lieu of solid investments in and maintenance of FAU’s human capital denotes what serious educational reformers just a few generations ago would have vigorously condemned.

“The object of the educational system, taken as a whole,” University of Chicago President Robert Hutchins argued in the early 1950s, “is not to produce hands for industry or to teach the young how to make a living. It is to produce responsible citizens.” Hutchins’ belief in the significance of higher education for the health of the body politic likewise made him an early proponent of tenure and equitable pay for faculty while also he also defended his faculty against the anti-intellectualism of the time, then disguised as “anti-communism.”

I am now convinced that the greatest danger to education in America is the attempt, under the guise of patriotism, to suppress freedom of teaching, inquiry, and discussion. Consequently, I am now in favor of permanent tenure, with all its drawbacks, as by far the lesser of the two evils. We cannot expect to get good teachers without decent salaries and security.

While at Chicago Hutchins also opted to take the university out of what was then informally known as the Big Ten conference. In fact, he abolished the football program and fraternities, and pursued a different path toward academic excellence—one that privileged the educational relationship between faculty and students and remains confirmed in Chicago’s venerable reputation.

FAU’s administrators and trustees would likely have very little regard for Hutchins’ belief in tenure and the relationship between free scholarly inquiry, adequate compensation, and superior education to build a strong citizenry. We instead find fundamental confusion in the very recognition of higher education’s moral compass and a similar lack of the qualitative criteria that would discern and positively acknowledge education’s non-quantifiable dimensions. In their places is a bizarre notion that erecting new buildings and creating a more “traditional,” good time university environment will somehow translate to academic excellence.

This is not to suggest that modern buildings are unimportant, that there is no place for a variety of athletics and other extracurricular activities at university. And Hutchins himself may have been somewhat overzealous in doing away with Chicago football. But such things have up until the past thirty or so years been understood as at best complementary to academics, and it is to exercise questionable judgment if these together are to be thought of as direct drivers of academic success. In the case of FAU there is serious cause for concern for all of its stakeholders because such activities are being foregrounded in terms of rhetoric and resources precisely at a time when in reality FAU is academically deteriorating, has the second lowest faculty salaries in Florida, as a result of the ongoing scandal of “tenuregate” will likely find it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain quality professors, and whose trustees and administrators make no secret of their contempt for the faculty union and faculty governance.

The passage below of President Brogan’s lengthy remarks to the Board of Trustees, prefacing General Counsel David Kian’s proposal for the private funding of FAU’s football stadium, is illustrative of exactly this tendency—a fondness for many, many more grandiose buildings and the accompanying promise of “traditional” university life, but nary a mention of FAU faculty members and how they figure into this “master plan.” The remarks suggest that in the BOT’s “Vision,” faculty take what will be at best a backseat to the window dressing that is substituted for genuine education at our aspiring “Big Time U”: new buildings–sky boxes, retail spaces, cushy dorms–keg parties, and road trips to away games. FAU students and faculty deserve much more.

In solidarity,

James Tracy
UFF-FAU President

FAU Board of Trustees Meeting, July 22, 2009

Call to Order and Roll Call

President Frank Brogan: As you all know, we have at Florida Atlantic University over the past six years developed quite a comprehensive Strategic Plan, and a very important component of that Strategic Plan not only includes the continued access opportunities that a distributed campus model can provide–and have for many years, and will for years to come, reaching students who may otherwise be shut out of a higher education degree at a university with multiple campuses and programming scattered over a hundred forty miles of southeast Florida coastline. But at the same time, we made a very important decision as a university through our Strategic Plan, with the leadership of the Board to, considerably increase the traditional side of Florida Atlantic University at the same time, and that’s not in lieu of, that those two things would work in harmony with the future, to see this university continue to provide such broad access, but also at the same time grow its traditional foundation. We recognized that that was not only going to draw a new generation of students to Florida Atlantic University, but also would provide, through the research that we’ve looked at, opportunity to see our retention rate increase, our graduation rate increase, the opportunity to provide through housing, living and learning communities. The opportunity to create, uh, true benchmarks and guideposts for the university as rally points for students—both traditional and non-traditional, such as increase—increased athletic programs, greater opportunities to participate in organizations such as Greek life. Groups, clubs, and opportunities; truly develop a traditional look for the university. This, of course, is nothing new. All you need do is look around the state of Florida to find some of the universities that are a bit older than are we to see this same blueprint having been exercised. Most notably, if you go just to the north to Orlando and look at the University of Central Florida. They were very much like we were not too many years ago. They had multiple campuses. They had a huge population of community college transfer students as we still do today and hopefully will have forever. But at the same time they made an important decision to grow the traditional side of their university. Now you go back to the campus in Orlando and you see all of the extensive housing opportunities not only for undergraduate students, but graduate students, research students. You see the increase in their athletic facilities, not only those for their N-C double A teams but also for intramurals and recreation. You see fitness centers and, and opportunities that didn’t exist just a decade ago that are not only prevalent; they have assisted and supported the growth of the University of Central Florida. And if you look at the metrics of Central Florida you will also notice the rise in their academic success during that same period of time. You’ll see the increase in G-P-A, S-A-T, A-C-T of their entry level students. You will see the number and quality of students entering, some of their wonderful academic programs increasing. All of those things that are at the end of the day most important, and that is graduation rates and others, increasing exponentially with the rise of the traditional side of their university. And again, not to diminish the non-traditional, because those who still commute to UCF, and that’s the majority of their students, just as the majority of FAU students will always be commuter students. But they have access to the same new wonderful opportunities. And so this university not only made that commitment in its strategic plan, we have been working very hard for the past six years to make sure that we set that in stone. We had this meeting scheduled in this particular facility for the obvious reason. We wanted to be near the area that is the epicenter of Innovation Village. We decided that at Florida Atlantic University as we increase the academic facilities of our university, that at the same time we-we would increase the amenities of the university, so important to university, and especially student life. And so we decided what better place to have this particular meeting today than in our alumni center, which is not new for the university; it’s the first time we’ve had an alumni center at Florida Atlantic University. It’s not only, as you’ve heard me say, a facility that’ll be here for years to come that’ll serve our alumni base, but it also makes a statement. It makes the statement that we’re becoming an intergenerational university, as we see sons and daughters of our graduates graduating, and even grandsons and daughters of our graduates graduating at Florida Atlantic University. We are growing by age, we’re growing by volume, we’re growing by quality, and we’re certainly growing by reputation. And, of course, just across the plaza from this beautiful facility lies the new fitness center, phase one, and as you probably saw, many of you driving in here today phase two well under construction and should be completed sometime midyear. This is providing, not only again, for traditional students but nontraditional students, an important place not only to recreate, but to gather. And that is a big part of university life. Of course, just down the street on the corner, is going up our brand new Engineering building [sic], and as you know will be a platinum certified Leeds facility, uh, only one of two in the southeastern United States, but it will also be the home of what is becoming a premier engineering school at a great university that will give rise I think even greater reputation and opportunity for the future of Florida Atlantic University [sic]. If you, then, turn your attention north across this plaza you can start to envision what we have scheduled to take place on that ground. That being, of course, a significant new cluster of student housing, and of course, ultimately, a football stadium. All of that will be embraced by parking opportunities and new retail opportunities for the northern side of the campus that can be shared by faculty, students, staff from all over Florida Atlantic University. And so Innovation Village, which was grounded in this building and the building just across the plaza, is getting ready to give way soon to some additional incredible opportunities. Now, as we are fond of saying at FAU, we break a great deal of ground and we cut a great many ribbons on some marvelous facilities, but it’s what happens in those facilities that is of most import. And in this particular case if you stop and consider what this injection into this university will do as it joins great facilities all over the FAU family, from new facilities in Davie that are just going up as we sit here today, to what’s going on in downtown Fort Lauderdale, to what’s taking place on our Jupiter campus as we get ready to break ground for the Max Planck facility there which will have ten-thousand square feet dedicated to FAU. Obviously all the new construction at Harbor Branch and our new facility at Port St. Lucie campus. All of these are marvelous, world class facilities that make statements about the future of FAU and our commitment to our students. But also each of them well, and thoughtfully placed in our master plan to serve an important and distinct purpose, and when put together provide an amazing tapestry of opportunities for the future of this university. And so, we have worked very hard over recent years, not waiting until all of these facilities were completed, but using those that we had and those that we’ve added, as we’ve placed living-learning communities into our existing housing facilities so that students could not only live together, but study together, recreate together, and be able to continue to see our retention rates creep upward over the last several years. We’ve used this opportunity to see new marketing abilities to send a message to students all over our service district, the state of Florida, and for that matter the country and the world that Florida Atlantic University is not only a great place to come and receive a world class educational experience, but a place to come and be a part of something special. A family dedicated to securing for you as a student the entire university experience that you can take away and be satisfied with for the rest of your life.

For Jϋrgen Habermas, one of the most influential social theorists of the twentieth century, the idea of “communicative action” goes a long way in explaining the present human condition. Shorn of its many conceptual intricacies for our purposes here, the elevator lecture on Habermas’ theory would point to how most communication between individuals is “distorted.” It is, in other words, hindered by underlying social and institutional power relations and the motives and norms arising from such. This deters the prospects for “human emancipation”–which would have as a precursor only participants sincerely engaged in uninhibited, free dialogue, since, as Habermas put it, “in the process of enlightenment there can only be participants.”

This likely sounds starry-eyed and idealistic, and while Habermas’ critics fault his ideas for being too mechanistic and old fashioned–he insists, for example, on the use “reason” and remains optimistic toward the redeemable elements of “modernity”–they are helpful for reconsidering the communication problems between FAU faculty, administrators, and the broader public that the Annual Assessment of Administrators highlights yearly.

Here’s how. You would never tell your boss to her or his face that their polka-dotted pantsuit or sport coat is an utter fashion catastrophe and causes you no small degree of torment to behold, even if that is an honest and reasonable assessment. Nor, as an FAU faculty member ,would you likely take comfort in telling a top administrator that, based on your estimation, their management style and/or set of priorities are ruining the university, even if you could point to ample evidence of how things are falling to pieces.  This might, after all, cost you your job, a promotion, or make you a target for some other less apparent retaliatory action. With this criteria in mind, faculty assemblies chaperoned by top administrators and even some department meetings are forums where distorted communication is on parade; where the administrators’ very presence tends to diminish if not eliminate forthright remarks of faculty–tenured or otherwise–and the voicing of their very legitimate concerns for fear of reprisal, a fear that many would argue has over the past several years only accelerated at FAU. The June 5 Faculty Senate meeting condemning both the administration’s reorganization of the College of Engineering and termination of tenured faculty was an instance where administrators bent the stick too far, and proved an unusual exception to the rule, but has not deterred the drive for reorganization.

UFF encourages faculty to know your rights, which include the right to voice your concerns at the workplace without fear of reprisal.  The Annual Assessment of Administrators has for over thirty years been an important –and arguably the only–”free” or “ideal speech situation” between faculty and administrators. That some of this year’s survey forms were returned with typed comments or slid underneath the UFF president’s office door suggests some faculty members’ unmistakable fear of the present administration. At the same time, it shows the extent to which some faculty desire to have their voices heard over the din of “branding,” press releases, reports and speeches, video packages, and other forms of propaganda offered up by the administration that purport to speak as one voice for the FAU community, but are to a large degree the product of a very tightly controlled communication apparatus. What is more, many of the surveys were completed in the wake of Frank Brogan and the Board of Trustees’ refusal of a modest pay increase that arose from an impasse process the BOT itself requested, and so there is a considerable degree of “I’ve absolutely had it!” frustration evident, particularly in the dozens of written responses.

UFF-FAU is now increasing the availability of the 2007-08 and 2008-09 survey results by making them available on its website. In future months we also want to increase the number of opportunities where faculty can weigh in on a variety of concerns relating to your FAU employment–including, but not limited to, faculty confidence in administrators’ performance. For example, what things can UFF be doing to better serve its members and further strengthen the faculty’s workplace rights and collective voice? What areas of our contract with the FAU Board of Trustees are most important to faculty and should be opened for bargaining this coming year?

In short, since the faculty are indeed the heart and soul of the University, UFF-FAU seeks to aid in the faculty’s role in shaping the university’s priorities by insisting on a meaningful place for the faculty at the table where it is able to freely participate and be heard without fear of dismissal or reproach. The momentum is building toward that end but we can only do this together. I encourage you to stay tuned for your opportunity to participate and become more involved.

Please also try to attend the September 11 UFF-FAU Luncheon from 11:30AM to 1:30PM in the Board of Trustees Room on the FAU Boca Raton campus. Bring your questions for UFF officials who will be in attendance.

In solidarity,

James Tracy
UFF-FAU President

August 17, 2009. Your rights as a public employee in the state of Florida, as well as the right for UFF to be your representative, are defined under Florida Statute 447: Labor Organizations. I encourage you to read this important law in full at your leisure, and draw your attention to four of its most pertinent sections concerning you and your employment below.

Some FAU faculty members and staff represented in the Bargaining Unit are reluctant to outwardly support or become members of UFF. In some instances this may have to do with their misunderstandings about their rights as employees. Or, it may involve misconceptions about labor unions in general often circulated via mass media, or through peers and other cultural outlets. In other cases, however, there is the actual fear of reproach by the FAU administration. That this has crossed the academic’s mind even in the slightest points to an environment that is intellectually inhibiting and indeed a poor backdrop for creative inquiry and overall scholarly development. Section 501 of FS 447 expressly forbids employers from interfering with a labor union’s formation and development, normal functions, or expression related to such when carried out within the parameters of this law. Further, this section forbids intimidation of or discrimination against employees because of their membership in or activities in support of such an organization.

On a related note, the FAU administration and its highly paid attorneys would probably like for you to believe that the UFF-FAU chapter is a sort of fringe group that has little influence or clout. As far as chief administrators are concerned, the fewer employees who sustain UFF through their activities and dues the easier it is for them to enforce their will as they please. Indeed, in his August 3 letter to Governor Charlie Crist, FAU President Frank T. Brogan referred to FAU’s UFF chapter as “the union that represents some faculty at Florida Atlantic University” (my emphasis). In fact, UFF represents almost all full-time faculty at FAU–close to 1,000 professors, instructors, and librarians. This is because after Governor “Jeb” Bush abolished the Board of Regents and set up local Boards of Trustees, thereby decentralizing the bargaining process and jeopardizing UFF’s very existence, faculty at each of Florida’s public universities including FAU voted overwhelmingly in favor of UFF as its independent advocate and bargaining agent rather than relying on the whim and fancy of the newly established Boards of Trustees to do as they please. Even so, as you likely know, under Brogan the FAU-BOT has been emboldened to spurn the recommendations of the PERC Special Magistrate over faculty salaries and more recently convinced itself that it can run roughshod over tenure, a decision UFF is presently fighting through the grievance process. We deem each of these moves truly “vitriolic,” and contrary to sound university governance.

It is important to keep in mind that despite their ominous-sounding titles, often hefty salaries, or even political pedigree, administrators are here to serve the faculty, and not the other way around. Knowing your rights under the law helps to establish and ensure a workplace free of intimidation, favoritism, “old boys networks,” whispering campaigns; indeed, it allows us to build an enviornment of mutual respect that benefits us all, and thus the students and communities we serve. UFF is the most effective avenue for the realization of such a workplace, but it can only do so through your involvement and support.

UFF stands for the faculty’s rights and, in the spirit of the US Constitution, ensures the specific right to petition management for the redress of grievances without fear of retribution and provides assistance for binding arbitration in the event that such grievances cannot be adequately settled. However, we can only assist you in the grievance process if you are a dues-paying member of the union. Please consider becoming a member of your UFF chapter at FAU today.

In solidarity,

James Tracy
UFF-FAU President

447.209  Public employer’s rights.–It is the right of the public employer to determine unilaterally the purpose of each of its constituent agencies, set standards of services to be offered to the public, and exercise control and discretion over its organization and operations. It is also the right of the public employer to direct its employees, take disciplinary action for proper cause, and relieve its employees from duty because of lack of work or for other legitimate reasons. However, the exercise of such rights shall not preclude employees or their representatives from raising grievances, should decisions on the above matters have the practical consequence of violating the terms and conditions of any collective bargaining agreement in force or any civil or career service regulation.

History.–s. 3, ch. 74-100.

447.301  Public employees’ rights; organization and representation.–

(1)  Public employees shall have the right to form, join, and participate in, or to refrain from forming, joining, or participating in, any employee organization of their own choosing.

(2)  Public employees shall have the right to be represented by any employee organization of their own choosing and to negotiate collectively, through a certified bargaining agent, with their public employer in the determination of the terms and conditions of their employment. Public employees shall have the right to be represented in the determination of grievances on all terms and conditions of their employment. Public employees shall have the right to refrain from exercising the right to be represented.

(3)  Public employees shall have the right to engage in concerted activities not prohibited by law, for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. Public employees shall also have the right to refrain from engaging in such activities.

(4)  Nothing in this part shall be construed to prevent any public employee from presenting, at any time, his or her own grievances, in person or by legal counsel, to his or her public employer and having such grievances adjusted without the intervention of the bargaining agent, if the adjustment is not inconsistent with the terms of the collective bargaining agreement then in effect and if the bargaining agent has been given reasonable opportunity to be present at any meeting called for the resolution of such grievances.

History.–s. 3, ch. 74-100; s. 9, ch. 77-343; s. 191, ch. 79-400; s. 6, ch. 83-214; s. 154, ch. 97-103; s. 1007, ch. 2002-387.

447.401  Grievance procedures.–Each public employer and bargaining agent shall negotiate a grievance procedure to be used for the settlement of disputes between employer and employee, or group of employees, involving the interpretation or application of a collective bargaining agreement. Such grievance procedure shall have as its terminal step a final and binding disposition by an impartial neutral, mutually selected by the parties; however, when the issue under appeal is an allegation of abuse, abandonment, or neglect by an employee under s. 39.201 or s. 415.1034, the grievance may not be decided until the abuse, abandonment, or neglect of a child has been judicially determined. However, an arbiter or other neutral shall not have the power to add to, subtract from, modify, or alter the terms of a collective bargaining agreement. If an employee organization is certified as the bargaining agent of a unit, the grievance procedure then in existence may be the subject of collective bargaining, and any agreement which is reached shall supersede the previously existing procedure. All public employees shall have the right to a fair and equitable grievance procedure administered without regard to membership or nonmembership in any organization, except that certified employee organizations shall not be required to process grievances for employees who are not members of the organization. A career service employee shall have the option of utilizing the civil service appeal procedure, an unfair labor practice procedure, or a grievance procedure established under this section, but such employee is precluded from availing himself or herself to more than one of these procedures.

History.–s. 3, ch. 74-100; s. 1, ch. 74-378; s. 14, ch. 77-343; s. 38, ch. 87-238; s. 12, ch. 88-290; s. 32, ch. 91-57; s. 135, ch. 95-418; s. 156, ch. 97-103; s. 154, ch. 98-403; s. 101, ch. 2000-349.

447.501  Unfair labor practices.–

(1)  Public employers or their agents or representatives are prohibited from:

(a)  Interfering with, restraining, or coercing public employees in the exercise of any rights guaranteed them under this part.

(b)  Encouraging or discouraging membership in any employee organization by discrimination in regard to hiring, tenure, or other conditions of employment.

(c)  Refusing to bargain collectively, failing to bargain collectively in good faith, or refusing to sign a final agreement agreed upon with the certified bargaining agent for the public employees in the bargaining unit.

(d)  Discharging or discriminating against a public employee because he or she has filed charges or given testimony under this part.

(e)  Dominating, interfering with, or assisting in the formation, existence, or administration of, any employee organization or contributing financial support to such an organization.

(f)  Refusing to discuss grievances in good faith pursuant to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement with either the certified bargaining agent for the public employee or the employee involved.

(2)  A public employee organization or anyone acting in its behalf or its officers, representatives, agents, or members are prohibited from:

(a)  Interfering with, restraining, or coercing public employees in the exercise of any rights guaranteed them under this part or interfering with, restraining, or coercing managerial employees by reason of their performance of job duties or other activities undertaken in the interests of the public employer.

(b)  Causing or attempting to cause a public employer to discriminate against an employee because of the employee’s membership or nonmembership in an employee organization or attempting to cause the public employer to violate any of the provisions of this part.

(c)  Refusing to bargain collectively or failing to bargain collectively in good faith with a public employer.

(d)  Discriminating against an employee because he or she has signed or filed an affidavit, petition, or complaint or given any information or testimony in any proceedings provided for in this part.

(e)  Participating in a strike against the public employer by instigating or supporting, in any positive manner, a strike. Any violation of this paragraph shall subject the violator to the penalties provided in this part.

(f)  Instigating or advocating support, in any positive manner, for an employee organization’s activities from high school or grade school students or students in institutions of higher learning.

(3)  Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (1) and (2), the parties’ rights of free speech shall not be infringed, and the expression of any arguments or opinions shall not constitute, or be evidence of, an unfair employment practice or of any other violation of this part, if such expression contains no promise of benefits or threat of reprisal or force.

History.–s. 3, ch. 74-100; s. 1, ch. 77-174; s. 160, ch. 97-103.