\n\tBy SUSAN JONES<\/p>\n
\n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n\tAs the bargaining committees for faculty and staff represented by the United Steelworkers continue to negotiate with Pitt\u2019s administration, a big issue this fall for both groups is pay raises.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n\tThe University has proposed a freeze on all salary increases for the 2026-27 fiscal year for the approximately 9,000 Pitt employees in the two bargaining units.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n\tThe budget approved by the Pitt Board of Trustees in July included a 2% performance-based maintenance salary increase \u2014 along with a half percent salary pool for merit, market and equity considerations \u2014 for nonrepresented faculty and staff.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n\tThe Pitt Staff Union, which has been negotiating its first contract since December 2025, said in its bargaining update on Sept. 1 that it rejected a one-time payment of $2,000 to represented staff this year, which would not be included in subsequent years. Instead, the union had in June proposed interim salary increases of 7% or $3,000, whichever was greater, while bargaining continued.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n\tThe University is dealing with reductions in federal funding for research, increased costs for healthcare, lower net tuition revenue and increased facility costs. When the budget was approved, the University said that each senior vice chancellor area \u2014 including offices of the Provost, Health Sciences, and Finance and Operations \u2014 \u201cis being asked to reduce costs, reallocating budget dollars to ensure Pitt\u2019s priorities are being met.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n\tThis has resulted in most departments looking at a 5% reduction, on top of the 5%\u00a0 they were asked to cut during the 2025-26 fiscal year.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n\tThe other new issue that the staff union has raised concerns about is making sure pay grades are aligned with the education, experience and impact of jobs.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n\t\u201cThose of us who have been around a while know that the \u2018Compensation Modernization\u2019 initiative was supposed to address issues surrounding our compensation structure. In some cases, it did not,\u201d the bargaining committee said in its latest update. \u201cTherefore, we hope to establish a process for the union to request a review of the pay grade that is associated with a job title and a fair resolution of disputes over what pay grade a position should have.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n\tFor the faculty union, Melinda Ciccocioppo, the union\u2019s recording secretary and a psychology faculty member, said that \u201cwe haven\u2019t received a single counter on any of our economic proposals. At this point, all they\u2019ve told us is that they don\u2019t want to give us even a cost of living adjustment. They want to freeze our salaries.\u201d She noted that a salary freeze is actually a pay cut, because of the rising cost of living.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n\t\u201cWe think (salaries) should be stable. We think they should be fair,\u201d Ciccocioppo said. \u201cSo people with more experience should earn more money \u2014 salary compression is a big issue right now. And we think they should be predictable. There should be transparent annual increases so that people can actually plan for their futures at Pitt.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n\tA University spokesperson said that during the negotiating session on Sept. 1, the USW bargaining representatives rejected the University\u2019s counterproposal for a compensation memorandum of understanding, which included a lump sum payment to both full-time and part-time faculty. \u201cThe faculty union rejected this proposal and indicated they would rather discuss this year\u2019s annual increase as part of their larger compensation proposals for the (collective bargaining agreement),\u201d the spokesman said.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n\tThe other big issue for the faculty union, which began negotiating its second contract in January, is job security, particularly for faculty who are reliant on grant money for their salaries.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n\t\u201cIf you\u2019ve got someone who has been reliably bringing in grant money, and they find themselves in a fix without grants for three months, six months, whatever, we think they should be able to keep their jobs,\u201d Ciccocioppo said. \u201cThey shouldn\u2019t just be let go because of the situation in D.C. or just because they are between grants.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n\tThere was some bridge money available last year through the provost\u2019s office, Pitt Research and the Office of the Senior Vice Chancellor for Health Sciences, but Ciccocioppo said it was sporadic. \u201cIt\u2019s unclear who gets that money and what determines who gets that money and how much money they can get.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n\tShe said the union wants to have a clear, transparent process for providing bridge funding or job continuity for people who find themselves in those situations.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n
\n\t\tSusan Jones is editor of the University Times. Reach her at suejones@pitt.edu<\/a> or 724-244-4042.<\/p>\n \n\t\t\u00a0<\/p>\n \n\t\tHave a story idea or news to share?\u00a0Share<\/a>\u00a0it with the University Times.<\/p>\n