New year brings new dues structure |
|
|
Beginning January 1st, new members joining the Nevada Faculty Alliance will have their dues calculated as a percentage rate of their base salaries. The NFA State Board voted for a rate of 0.5%, payable through monthly payroll deductions. |
|
|
The new structure will not affect existing members who are currently paying flat amounts for their monthly dues, unless they elect to move to the new percentage rate dues. For some members the percentage rate may result in lower monthly dues than the flat amounts. The 0.5% dues rate is about half, or even a little less, than rates charged by other unions representing NSHE workers, such as Classified employees.
The change will address several shortcomings of the flat amount structure. Primarily, dues collections tied to a percentage rate tend to rise with inflation through cost of living adjustments. The current NFA dues have not kept pace with the increased membership fees charged by AAUP, leaving NFA without the funds needed for our in-state programs. The flat amount structure also established different levels of dues for non-tenured and tenured faculty, but NFA never asked newly tenured members to complete the paperwork to adjust their dues to a higher amount. As a result, inequities exist between members who joined after being tenured compared to those who joined before.
While we welcome all members to sign up for the percentage rate dues by completing a new application form, it is not necessary. |
|
|
NFA opposes changes to termination for cause policy
|
|
|
Based on input received from faculty members, the State Board of the Nevada Faculty Alliance issued a letter on December 2nd to the Board of Regents opposing changes to the NSHE policies and procedures that govern terminations of faculty for cause.
|
|
|
The proposal would grant the Chancellor final authority to settle faculty appeals of termination. It requires the Chancellor to consult with the chair of the Board of Regents but otherwise removes the Regents from the process entirely. It was presented for its first reading during the December 4th meeting of the Board in Las Vegas. Because the proposal would modify Title 2 of the Board of Regents Handbook, otherwise known as the NSHE Code, another reading is required at a second meeting before a vote is taken.
The NFA asserts that the proposal violates the long-standing doctrines from AAUP's 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure. The principles, and recent interpretations of them, establish that the governing board is responsible to review appeals and take the final action. By removing the Board from the process, the proposal diminishes due process and removes what little transparency exists because proceedings will no longer appear on Board agendas. Giving the authority exclusively to the Chancellor curtails the diversity of perspectives from the full Board and tips the balance in favor of the administration.
The NFA urges all faculty members to contact their Regent and tell them to reject the proposal to modify Title 2, Chapters 6 and 8 in the Handbook. All avenues of due process must be exhausted in proceedings where an individual's career or an institution's reputation are at stake.
|
|
|
Biannual survey reveals mixed picture of faculty satisfaction |
|
|
Results from NFA's survey of rank-and-file faculty at the seven NSHE colleges and universities in November show improving opinions on compensation and strong support for collective bargaining. |
|
|
After our two large cost-of-living adjustments of 12% in July 2023 and 11% in October 2024, for which NFA fought strongly, faculty are feeling better about their overall compensation, with 62% saying they moderately or strongly agree that their overall compensation is satisfactory while 37% moderately or strongly disagree. That’s a reversal from two years ago when 64% of respondents reported dissatisfaction with their overall compensation. However, approximately half of the respondents believe their compensation is not appropriate compared with others in their field and stage of career nationally or compared with others hired before or after them at their institution.
Although the percentages vary by institution, faculty generally expressed serious concerns about shared governance and budget management. At the four institutions without faculty collective bargaining units (GBC, NSU, UNLV & UNR), a supermajority of 78% of respondents support the formation of a bargaining unit to negotiate for improved compensation, benefits, and working conditions.
READ MORE >> 2024 NFA Survey of NSHE Faculty
|
|
|
NSU-NFA collective bargaining campaign heats up |
For several years, members of the NFA Chapter at Nevada State University have been exploring the possibility of forming a collective bargaining unit. Last year, chapter leaders initiated a grassroots effort aimed at securing a vote for collective bargaining in the 2024-25 academic year. The campaign had a strong start in August, successfully gathering signatures from over 70% of NSU faculty within a two-week timeframe. The chapter has an adequate number of signatures to request that NSHE conduct a vote on collective bargaining in the semester.
In the past two months, efforts have continued to advance the campaign by submitting the validated signatures to NSHE. A key aspect of this phase involves understanding the requirements outlined in Title 4 Chapter 4 of the Board of Regents Handbook. Both NFA's legal counsel and NSU's General Counsel concur that the Board must include NSU-NFA's election request on the agenda for the next quarterly meeting. Following this, the Board will facilitate a secret ballot election for eligible NSU faculty members within 15 to 30 days after the meeting where the request is discussed.
To avoid scheduling the election during the winter break, NSU-NFA officers decided to skip the December BOR meeting and will instead submit their request in time for the March quarterly meeting, which will take place on the NSU campus. This timing paves the way for a faculty vote in early spring.
With a few months ahead without major activities, NSU-NFA officers intend to focus on increasing membership and mobilizing the campus community. Watch for updates as the chapter works toward a strong close to their campaign with a successful vote in April.
|
|
|
NFA encourages additional public comment to oppose PEBP proposal |
|
|
An upcoming meeting of the legislative Interim Retirement and Benefits Committee will offer state employees, including those from NSHE, another chance to express their concerns regarding a proposal currently under consideration by the Board of the Public Employees Benefits Program (PEBP). This proposal seeks to remove the Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) and Exclusive Provider Organization (EPO) options from the state health benefits package. The annual meeting, during which PEBP and the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) will present their reports to the legislature, is scheduled for 9:00 AM on Tuesday, December 17th, at the new southern Nevada legislative building. Individuals interested in providing public comments can do so in person, via email at irbc@lcb.state.nv.us, or by phone.
The final opportunity for public input will take place during the PEBP Board meeting on January 23rd. This follows a closed session on January 16th, where confidential proposals for a new HMO provider contract will be discussed, with the PEBP Board expected to reach a final decision at the January 23 meeting.
The significant opposition expressed during the public comment period at the October meeting prompted the PEBP Board to postpone their decision and conduct further analysis. Many employees rely on the HMO in southern Nevada and the EPO in the north for their healthcare needs. Although they incur higher monthly premiums, they appreciate the predictability of out-of-pocket copays without unexpected costs. Participants are concerned that these changes could disrupt their established relationships with healthcare providers and necessitate finding new providers who are accepting new patients.
The NFA has consistently voiced its opposition to the proposed changes and has encouraged members of the Board of Regents to communicate these concerns on behalf of all NSHE employees to the PEBP Board as well.
|
|
|
{Organization_Name} {Organization_URL}
|
|
|
|
.png)