AFT 1493 CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS REPORTS

Questions?  Contact: AFT 1493 Executive Director Marianne Kaletzky

Negotiations Reports contents:

Reopener Negotiations (July 2022 through June 2025 contract):

New 3-Year Contract Negotiations: July 2022 through June 2025:

Fall 2022 MOU Negotiations re Covid-related working conditions

Summer 2022 MOU Negotiations re new SMCCCD masking framework

Spring 2022 MOU Negotiations Sessions (Nov. 15th, 17th & Dec. 7th, 8th, 14th 2021 )

Fall 2021 MOU Negotiations Sessions (June 29th-30th 2021)

New 3-Year Contract Negotiations: July 2019 through June 2022:

April 6th: Highlights of MOU on Effects of District Actions due to COVID-19 pandemic
March 30th Negotiations Session (on MOU on COVID-19 Measures)

Reopener Negotiations
(July 2022 – June 2025 contract)


July 12, 2024 Negotiations Session

AFT:  Joaquín Rivera, Monica Malamud, John Perez, Jennifer Van Sijll, Marianne Kaletzky (negotiators); Tamara Perkins, Mick Song, Rika Yonemura-Fabian (AFT member attendees)

SMCCD: Randy Erickson, Julie Johnson, Joe Morello

On July 12th, AFT and the District came to agreement on the two outstanding reopener issues: evaluation procedures and forms (Appendix G) and full-time workload.

Both teams had been close to agreement on evaluation procedures and forms and were able to resolve the few outstanding issues at this negotiation session. AFT will be posting the revised Appendix G and forms to our website as soon as they are ready for use beginning in Fall 2024.

On full-time workload (Article 6), AFT and the District agreed to the following provisions on non-primary professional responsibilities (that is, professional responsibilities beyond a faculty member’s primary instructional, counseling, or library duties):

  • Participation in non-primary professional responsibilities (for example, committees) shall be initially determined by the faculty member, subject to limited review by the dean
  • Non-primary professional responsibilities shall represent the equivalent of 2.5 hours per week.

The 2.5-hour specification will replace the workload point system pilot. Nothing in the revised language of Article 6 requires faculty to tally points or hours, or to report on professional activities beyond what is already incorporated into the evaluation process. We are hopeful that by specifying the expectation for how long faculty should spend on professional responsibilities, the revised Article 6 will promote more sustainable workloads and give faculty who believe they are overburdened a foundation for discussion with their dean.

July 2, 2024 Negotiations Session

AFT:  Joaquín Rivera, Monica Malamud, John Perez, Marianne Kaletzky (negotiators); Mick Song (AFT member attendee)

SMCCD: Randy Erickson, Julie Johnson, David Feune, Joe Morello

On July 2nd, AFT and District negotiators continued discussions of Evaluation Procedures (Appendix G) and Full-Time Workload (Article 6).

On evaluation procedures, AFT and the District disagree on the reasons that a tenured faculty member may use the grievance process to address issues with an evaluation. Specifically, the District team wants to constrain tenured faculty’s right to grieve evaluations more strictly than current, status quo language does. AFT and the District also disagree about the consequences of an Unsatisfactory rating in a single category (ex. portfolio or dean’s assessment) for tenure-track faculty. The District believes that a tenure-track faculty member who receives an Unsatisfactory in any category should be automatically referred to HR for potential further action. AFT believes it should be up to the tenure committee to determine a summary rating and issue a recommendation.

On evaluation forms, the District indicated that we appear close to agreement but that they are still reviewing all the forms.

On full-time workload, the District previously rejected AFT’s previous proposals to implement a modified workload point system for one or two years. On July 2nd, AFT came to the table with a new proposal that would define expected non-teaching workload for instructors at 44 hours per semester, or the equivalent of 2.5 hours per week. AFT proposed that faculty who exceed 44 hours a semester would be eligible for compensation at the special rate so long as they had pre-approval from their dean. The District rejected this proposal.

On part-time healthcare, AFT and the District came to an agreement on June 21st. On July 2nd, the District indicated that they still need the Board to pass a resolution regarding part-timers’ eligibility for medical plans offered by our healthcare provider, CalPERS, before they can move ahead to set up a special open enrollment period for part-timers. In the meantime, part-timers who will have a load of at least 40% at SMCCCD this fall can continue buying their own plan and can expect to get reimbursed up to $1021.41 per month. We will keep members posted on the timeline for part-timers to enroll in District medical plans.

Future bargaining dates:

  • Friday, July 12: 1-4 p.m.

June 21, 2024 Negotiations Session

AFT:  Joaquín Rivera, Monica Malamud, John Perez, Jennifer Van Sijll, Marianne Kaletzky (negotiators); Beth LaRochelle, Jessica Silver-Sharp, and Rika Yonemura-Fabian (AFT member attendees)

SMCCD: Randy Erickson, Julie Johnson, David Feune, Joe Morello

On June 21st, AFT and the District came to an agreement on part-time healthcare. Under this agreement:

  • Part-timers with at least 40% load in SMCCCD will be eligible for all District medical insurance plans that full-time faculty are eligible for, with the same employer contributions as full-timers receive. You can see a list of plans and employer and employee contributions here. Note that the District’s healthcare provider, CalPERS, requires faculty to be enrolled in either CalSTRS Defined Benefit, CalSTRS Cash Balance, or CalPERS retirement in order to sign up for District healthcare plans.
  • Part-timers with at least 40% load in SMCCCD will also have the option of continuing to buy their own plan and get reimbursed up to $1021.41 per month.
  • Part-timers who have less than 40% load in SMCCCD, but who work a total of at least 40% between multiple community college districts, will be able to continue buying their own plan and having a portion of that plan reimbursed. In order to be eligible, these multidistrict part-timers cannot have 40% load in any district that offers health benefits to part-timers. The portion of premiums reimbursed by SMCCCD is based on the number of districts the part-timer teaches in (2 total districts=half of premiums reimbursed by SMCCCD; 3 total districts=one-third of premiums reimbursed by SMCCCD).

The MOU will last through December 31, 2026. Eligibility for medical benefits will be measured on the Monday of the third week of each semester. In general, part-timers who qualify in fall and are enrolled in district plans will have coverage November 1st through April 30th; part-timers who qualify in spring and are enrolled in district plans will have coverage May 1st through October 31st. However, the District plans to work with our healthcare provider CalPERS to open a special open enrollment window for part-timers who will be newly eligible for plans under this agreement. Please stay tuned for details of the special open enrollment window.

Part-timers claiming reimbursement will be eligible to have July through December premiums reimbursed if they qualify in fall and to have January through June premiums reimbursed if they qualify in spring.

If you plan to sign up for District medical coverage and are waiting for the open enrollment window to open, you can continue buying your own plan. You will be eligible to be reimbursed for premiums beginning with July 2024 as long as you have at least 40% load in SMCCCD this fall.

We are happy to have come to an agreement that provides eligible part-timers with access to District plans, while also offering the option of continuing with reimbursement for those part-timers who prefer to buy their own plan.

AFT and the District also continued negotiations over evaluation forms and full-time workload. On evaluation forms, we are working on logistical details and are close to agreement.

On full-time workload, the District rejected AFT’s proposal to continue with a modified version of the point pilot for a year, which would give negotiators time to discuss alternative methods to manage full-time workload in regular negotiations. The District maintains that faculty should choose their non-primary duties, subject to limited review by and consultation with their dean, and should prepare a report on the non-primary duties they performed at the end of each year. The District has not proposed any methods for addressing the excessive workloads faced by some full-time faculty. The two negotiating teams will continue discussing evaluation forms and full-time workload at our next sessions.

Future bargaining dates:

  • Tuesday, July 2: 1-4 p.m.
  • Friday, July 12: 1-4 p.m.

May 16, 2024 Negotiations Session

AFT:  Joaquín Rivera, David Hasson, Monica Malamud, Jennifer Van Sijll, Marianne Kaletzky

SMCCD: Randy Erickson, Julie Johnson, David Feune, Aaron McVean, Winnie Li

On May 16th, the District presented a counter-proposal on full-time workload (Article 6). AFT had proposed modifying the current point system and using the modified point system for two more years, still as a pilot, to see if we can build on benefits of quantifying workload while addressing some of the issues that arose during the first two years. AFT also proposed exempting counselors and librarians from the point system based on feedback from those two groups, and instead returning to a system in which counselors and librarians work a set number of hours per week and are eligible for compensation for hours worked beyond that set number. AFT proposed adding instructional designers to the point system, again based on feedback from instructional designers themselves.

The District responded on May 16th that they are proposing discontinuing the point system, while continuing to specify in the contract that every full-timer should file a report each spring summarizing professional duties they undertook that year. The District also proposed adding a list of “additional professional responsibilities” for counselors to Appendix D-2 and specifying that those duties are not subject to additional compensation. AFT has not yet responded to the District’s proposal on full-time workload.

The District also responded to AFT’s most recent proposal on evaluation procedures (Appendix G). District negotiators accepted some of AFT’s language on outstanding issues. However, the District still wants to limit the grievability of evaluations for tenure-track faculty: tenure-track faculty would only be able to file a grievance about procedural irregularities in their evaluation process if a procedural error is substantive, meaning it can be shown to have affected the outcome of the evaluation. AFT believes we should maintain status quo language on the grievaility of evaluations.

On evaluation forms, AFT and the District appear very close to agreement.

On part-time healthcare, the District did not put forward a proposal, as they have not yet had a chance to meet with the Board of Trustees regarding the possibility of providing dental and vision coverage for part-timers. We hope to hear from them on part-time healthcare at our next negotiations sessions, which the District has sent a poll to schedule.

Future bargaining dates:

  • To be announced

May 9, 2024 Negotiations Session

AFT:  Joaquín Rivera, David Hasson, Monica Malamud, Jennifer Van Sijll, Marianne Kaletzky

SMCCD: Randy Erickson, Julie Johnson, David Feune, Aaron McVean, Winnie Li

On May 9th, the District responded to AFT’s proposals for revised evaluation forms. Recommendations for revising the forms were originally generated by a task force of representatives from District Academic Senate and AFT. Following the discussion on May 9th, AFT and District negotiators believe we are very close to agreeing and signing off on the forms.

AFT also responded to the District’s most recent proposal on Appendix G, which covers evaluation procedures. Although the two negotiating teams have made progress towards agreement here, the main outstanding area of difference is the grievability of evaluations. The District team wants to restrict evaluee grievances to procedural violations that are “substantive,” meaning they affect the outcome of the evaluation. AFT wants to maintain status quo language regarding what evaluees may grieve.

On part-time healthcare, District negotiators indicated they have a cost estimate of $500,000 per year for providing dental and vision benefits to part-timers with a load of at least 40% in SMCCCD. This estimate assumes that all eligible part-timers choose to enroll in District dental and vision plans. The District negotiating team said they have not yet had the opportunity to meet with the Board to get direction on whether to offer dental and vision to part-timers. However, they hope to have a new proposal on part-time healthcare at our next negotiations session.

The District also plans to respond to AFT’s proposal on full-time workload at our next session, which will take place Thursday, May 16th, from 9 a.m. to noon. Up to four AFT members (in addition to our negotiating team) are welcome to attend. Interested in joining? Let your (newly elected) campus chair know:

  • Cañada: Camille Kaslan (kaslan@aft1493.org)
  • CSM: Beth LaRochelle (larochelle@aft1493.org)
  • Skyline: Mick Song (song@aft1493.org)

Future bargaining dates:

  • Thursday, May 16th, from 9 a.m. to noon.

April 25, 2024 Negotiations Session

AFT:  Joaquín Rivera, Monica Malamud, David Hasson, Marianne Kaletzky

SMCCD: Randy Erickson, Julie Johnson, David Feune, Joe Morello

On April 25th, negotiators for the District responded to our union’s most recent proposal on part-time healthcare. AFT had proposed that the district provide part-timers working at least 40% in SMCCCD with the following:

  • Access to the same medical plans as full-timers, with the same premium contributions as full-timers
  • The option to continue with the current reimbursement program, for part-timers who prefer to buy their own plan and get reimbursed by SMCCCD up to a cap (currently $1021.41 per month)
  • The same dental and vision coverage full-timers have access to

The District has already agreed to provide part-timers who work at least 40% with access to the same plans (and the same employer contributions) as full-timers. On April 25th, they additionally agreed to continue the reimbursement option, which they had previously refused. Under the District’s April 25th proposal, part-timers who work at least 40% in SMCCCD will be able to choose between signing up for a district plan or continuing to buy their own plan and get reimbursed.

The District also indicated that they are looking into the cost and liability of providing dental and vision coverage for part-timers who work 40% or more in our district.

District negotiators also responded to AFT’s most recent proposal on evaluation procedures (Appendix G of our contract). They indicated they are sharing AFT’s proposals on evaluation forms and the workload point system pilot with deans and other administrators, and will respond after gathering feedback.

The negotiating teams scheduled two future sessions: on Thursday, May 9, from 1 to 3:30 p.m., and on Thursday, May 16th, from 9 a.m. to noon. Up to four AFT members (in addition to our negotiating team) are welcome to attend each session. Interested in joining? Let your campus chair know:

  • Cañada: Michael Hoffman (hoffman@aft1493.org)
  • CSM: Evan Kaiser (kaiser@aft1493.org) and Tamara Perkins (perkins@aft1493.org)
  • Skyline: Rika Yonemura-Fabian (fabian@aft1493.org)

Future bargaining dates:

  • Thursday, May 9, from 1 to 3:30 p.m.
  • Thursday, May 16th, from 9 a.m. to noon.

April 19, 2024 Negotiations Session

AFT:  Joaquín Rivera, Monica Malamud, David Hasson, Marianne Kaletzky

SMCCD: Randy Erickson, Julie Johnson, David Feune, Winnie Li, Joe Morello

Summary:

On April 19th, AFT presented a proposal on the successor to the workload point system pilot. AFT negotiators proposed continuing the pilot with a modified point system for another 2 years for instructional faculty, as well as adding instructional designers. During these two years, AFT has proposed exempting counselors and librarians from the point system and reverting to an expectation of a set number of hours per week within which counselors and librarians could do committee work and other service work.

AFT also presented our response to the District’s most recent proposal on faculty evaluation procedures (Appendix G) and part-time healthcare.

—–

Full report:

At the April 19th bargaining session, AFT presented our reopener proposal on the successor to the workload point system pilot. The pilot was conceived as a way to address the significant increase in full-time faculty workload that faculty reported on multiple surveys conducted during the 2010s. The District rejected a number of AFT proposals to address unsustainable faculty workloads—from hiring more full-time faculty who can share the load to setting an expectation for the number of hours faculty should spend on committee work—before agreeing to the workload point system.

A group of AFT’s Executive Committee members met to develop the proposal based on the results of our survey and forums on the workload pilot, both of which had excellent participation. Based on faculty feedback, AFT proposed the following:

  • For instructional faculty, trying a modified workload point system for the next two years, with modifications based on faculty responses to the survey and forum.
  • Exempting counselors and librarians from the point system and reverting back to the previous system in which:
    • Counselors have a set workweek of 30 hours of counseling appointments and pro time and the ability to do committee work within those 30 hours.
    • Librarians have a set workweek of 32.5 hours of librarian services and the ability to do committee work within those 32.5 hours.
  • Including instructional designers in the point system based on their responses.

District negotiators indicated they would gather feedback on AFT’s proposal from deans and other administrators at their upcoming managers’ meeting.

After presenting our workload proposal, AFT responded to the District’s most recent proposal on Appendix G (Evaluation Procedures). Although AFT and the District were able to come to agreement on many items, we did not agree with some elements of the District’s proposal including:

  • The District has proposed that if tenure-track faculty receive a rating of Unsatisfactory in any category of the evaluation (ex. portfolio, class observation), they will be referred to the appropriate Vice President and HR for potential further action on their employment. AFT has proposed that tenure-track faculty should only be referred to the VP and HR if they receive Unsatisfactory on the evaluation summary, as is the status quo.
  • Similarly, the District has proposed that tenure-track faculty who receive a rating of Needs Improvement or Unsatisfactory in any category should receive a Faculty Growth Plan. AFT has proposed that faculty should only receive a Faculty Growth Plan (previously called a Performance Improvement Plan) if they receive Needs Improvement or Unsatisfactory on the evaluation summary.
  • The District has proposed that after the first semester of employment, adjunct faculty who receive a Needs Improvement or Unsatisfactory rating on their evaluation will only have one follow-up evaluation to improve; if they receive a second Needs Improvement or Unsatisfactory, they will not be renewed for employment. AFT has proposed that after the first semester, adjuncts should have two follow-up evaluations as opportunities for improvement.

Finally, AFT responded to the District’s April 4th proposal on part-time healthcare. At that session, the District proposed giving part-time faculty with load of at least 40% access to the same healthcare plans as full-timers. However, District negotiators refused to give these part-timers access to full-time dental and vision plans, or to maintain the current option for these part-timers to buy their own medical coverage and get reimbursed up to a cap (currently $1021.41 per month). And District negotiators refused AFT’s proposal to give part-timers access to full-time healthcare plans at no cost to the part-timers.

On April 19th, AFT negotiators agreed to the District’s proposal to provide part-timers with 40% load access to full-time healthcare plans with the same contributions as full-timers. However, AFT continued to propose that eligible part-timers should have access to the same dental and vision plans full-timers do, and should continue to have the option of buying their own plan and getting reimbursed by the District.

The District will respond to AFT’s proposals at our next negotiations session on Thursday, April 25th, from 1 to 3 p.m. Are you an AFT member interested in attending the session? Let your campus chair know:

  • Cañada: Michael Hoffman (hoffman@aft1493.org)
  • CSM: Evan Kaiser (kaiser@aft1493.org) and Tamara Perkins (perkins@aft1493.org)
  • Skyline: Rika Yonemura-Fabian (fabian@aft1493.org)

April 4, 2024 Negotiations Session

AFT:  Joaquín Rivera, Monica Malamud, David Hasson, Marianne Kaletzky

SMCCD: Randy Erickson, Julie Johnson, David Feune, Winnie Li, Joe Morello

Summary:

AFT negotiators had hoped for movement from the District on part-time healthcare coverage at the April 4th bargaining session, since District negotiators met with the Board of Trustees on March 27th. However, on April 4th, the District presented a part-time healthcare proposal identical to their previous one: it offers part-timers with at least 40% load access to healthcare plans at the same costs as full-timers, but does not offer dental and vision coverage or a reimbursement option. AFT indicated we will need to bring the District’s proposal back to our Executive Committee and membership. The District also responded to revisions to Evaluation Procedures proposed by representatives from AFT and Academic Senate. While the District accepted many of our revisions, they also proposed several changes that could make the evaluation process more punitive and less fair than it currently is.

—–

Full report:

At the April 4th bargaining session, District negotiators presented their current proposal on part-time healthcare. AFT negotiators had hoped the District team might come closer to agreement with AFT at this session, since they had discussed our negotiations in Closed Session with the SMCCCD Board of Trustees at the Board’s March 27th meeting. However, the proposal the District presented on April 4th was identical to their previous proposal. The current District proposal offers part-timers with at least 40% load in our District all the same medical insurance plans that full-timers have access to, with the same contributions full-timers pay. It also allows reimbursement of a portion of medical premiums for part-timers with at least 40% load between multiple community college districts. By meeting these conditions, SMCCCD will be eligible to be reimbursed up to 100% of their part-time medical costs by the state of California. However, the District continues to insist on:

  • No dental or vision coverage for part-timers—even though full-timers receive free dental and vision coverage, and even though AFT costing has shown the District could pay for dental and vision with the money it’s saving by becoming eligible for reimbursement from the state.
  • Having part-timers contribute the same dollar amounts to their medical plans as full-timers—even though state funding means the District could offer eligible part-timers medical plans for free, and even though the District refuses to provide part-timers with the same dental and vision coverage as full-timers.
  • No reimbursement option for part-timers. AFT has argued for providing the current reimbursement option, in which part-timers with at least 40% can buy their own plans and get reimbursed up to a cap, alongside access to District medical plans. However, the District continues to refuse.
  • Contingency language stating that the District would stop providing part-time medical plans if it does not get reimbursed 100% of its costs by the state. In that case, the District would return to the current program in which part-timers buy their own plans and get reimbursed up to a cap.

AFT presented a counterproposal that included dental and vision coverage for eligible part-timers, providing medical plans to eligible part-timers at no cost, and a reimbursement option. Our previous proposal allowed for the District to move from providing part-time medical plans to offering reimbursement if the District got reimbursed less than 80% of its costs by the state. On April 4th, we changed that number to 90%.

District negotiators responded to our proposal by saying that the Board is not interested in offering part-timers dental and vision, offering medical plans at no cost, or offering a reimbursement option alongside access to plans. AFT indicated that we will need to confer with our Executive Committee and membership before responding.

The District negotiating team also responded to AFT’s proposal for revisions to Appendix G of our contract, which covers evaluation procedures for all faculty. The District accepted much of AFT’s language, including language on diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility; specifying that class observations shall be scheduled by mutual consent between evaluator and evaluee; and creating a timeline for librarian evaluations. However, the District proposed some language that could make the evaluation process more punitive and less fair than it currently is. Specifically:

  1. The District is proposing more restrictions on the grievability of evaluations, meaning it could be more difficult for faculty whose evaluation process doesn’t conform to the procedures to resolve issues through the grievance process.
  2. The District is proposing that tenure-track faculty who receive an Unsatisfactory rating on any component of their evaluations (for example the portfolio, dean’s assessment, or a single classroom observation) shall be forwarded to the appropriate Vice President and Human Resources to determine what action is warranted. Currently, only tenure-track faculty who receive Unsatisfactory on the evaluation summary are forwarded to the VPI/VPSS and HR for potential adverse action.
  3. Reducing the number of follow-up evaluations for tenured and adjunct faculty who receive negative ratings on their evaluation summary. Specifically, where tenured faculty who get a negative evaluation currently have three follow-up evaluations before District action is possible, the District is proposing only two follow-ups. Similarly, according to current contract language, adjuncts who have previously received a positive evaluation and now receive Needs Improvement or Unsatisfactory have two follow-up evaluations to improve. The District wants only one follow-up: according to their proposal, if this follow-up evaluation results in Needs Improvement or Unsatisfactory, the adjunct would not be renewed for employment.

AFT negotiators plan to bring the District’s Appendix G proposal back to the Academic Senate and AFT reps who worked on our proposed revisions. As we currently have no further negotiation dates, the District will be polling negotiators for both sides to get more dates on the calendar. We will reach out to members with an invitation to observe negotiations once we get those dates.

March 19, 2024 Negotiations Session

AFT:  Joaquín Rivera, Marianne Kaletzky (negotiators); Teeka James, Rika Yonemura-Fabian (member attendees)

SMCCD: Randy Erickson, Julie Johnson, David Feune, Winnie Li, Joe Morello

At the March 14th bargaining session, District and AFT negotiators presented opening proposals on faculty evaluations. During this negotiations session on March 19th, District negotiators asked AFT to walk through our proposed changes to Appendix G, which sets forth evaluation procedures for all faculty. AFT negotiators described the proposed changes and their rationale. Also on hand were Teeka James (CSM) and Rika Yonemura-Fabian (Skyline), who participated in the work to revise Appendix G and the evaluation forms undertaken by representatives from AFT and Academic Senate.

Changes proposed by AFT to Appendix G include:

  • Including as evaluation criteria the faculty member’s use of equity-minded techniques in the performance of their duties
  • Specifying that observations shall be scheduled by mutual consent between evaluator and evaluee
  • Clarifying in what circumstances a formal Improvement Plan should be assigned
  • Including a timeline specifically for librarian evaluation

District negotiators asked questions about the AFT proposal but did not offer a formal response. We expect to discuss Appendix G as well as proposed revisions to the evaluation forms at future sessions.

Upcoming bargaining dates:

  • Thursday, April 4: 12-3 p.m.

March 14, 2024 Negotiations Session

AFT:  Joaquín Rivera, Monica Malamud, David Hasson, Marianne Kaletzky (negotiators); John Perez (member attendee)

SMCCD: Randy Erickson, Julie Johnson, David Feune, Winnie Li, Joe Morello

Summary:

On March 14th, negotiators representing SMCCCD and AFT presented their opening proposals on faculty evaluations. The two parties also continued negotiations on part-time healthcare. The District proposed offering part-timers with at least 40% load in SMCCCD access to the same healthcare plans as full-timers, with the same contributions full-timers pay and no access to employer-paid dental and vision coverage. AFT responded by proposing that SMCCCD offer eligible part-timers healthcare plans at no cost, as well as offering these part-timers dental and vision coverage.

—–

Full report:

At Thursday’s bargaining session, District and AFT negotiators presented opening proposals on faculty evaluations. The District proposed new versions of contract Appendix G (which covers evaluation procedures) and evaluation forms, which they had revised based on regulations from the State Chancellor’s Office that require evaluations of all employees, including faculty, to take into account competency in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA).

AFT presented revised versions of Appendix G and evaluation forms created by representatives from District Academic Senate and AFT. These include new forms for the evaluation of faculty coordinators, personal counselors, child development center directors, and instructional designers (with the instructional designer forms to be presented at a subsequent negotiations session) as well as revised forms for librarians, instructional faculty, and academic, career, and DSPS counselors.

The two parties also continued to negotiate over part-time healthcare. The District is continuing to propose that part-timers who will be eligible for District medical plans should pay the same contributions as full-timers, while AFT has proposed that the District should offer these part-timers medical plans for free. According to legislation passed in 2022, the District will be eligible to have 100% of its spending on part-time healthcare premiums reimbursed by the state, so SMCCCD could give part-timers healthcare for free at no additional cost to the District. However, District Chief Negotiator Randy Erickson refused, saying that the District saw no justification to offer part-timers medical plans for free. District negotiators also refused again to give part-timers access to dental and vision coverage.

However, the District did agree to make the part-time healthcare provisions effective for longer than they had previously proposed: rather than proposing an MOU expiring at the end of 2025, they agreed to extend part-time healthcare provisions through December 31, 2026.

Finally, the District continued to propose that the part-time healthcare program under discussion would be automatically discontinued if the District gets reimbursed any less than 100% of its costs by the State of California.

After a caucus break, AFT responded to the District’s proposal. AFT continues to propose that the District offer eligible part-timers medical plans at no cost and also offer these part-timers dental and vision coverage. AFT negotiators presented a cost estimate for dental and vision coverage showing that the District can provide these and still spend less on part-time healthcare than they did in AY 2021-22, before the state allocated $200 million to reimbursing community college districts for spending on part-time medical costs. AFT is also proposing that the District should continue the program unless SMCCCD gets reimbursed less than 80% of its costs by the state, in which case the District would return to the current part-time healthcare program.

The two parties will continue to negotiate on evaluations this Tuesday, March 19, from 1 to 4 p.m. We will negotiate on part-time healthcare on Thursday, April 4, from noon to 3 p.m.

Upcoming bargaining dates:

  • Tuesday, March 19: 1-4 p.m.
  • Thursday, April 4: 12-3 p.m.

March 7, 2024 Negotiations Session

AFT:  Joaquín Rivera, Monica Malamud, David Hasson, Marianne Kaletzky (negotiators); Tamara Perkins (member attendee)

SMCCD: Randy Erickson, Julie Johnson, David Feune, Winnie Li, Joe Morello

Summary:

On March 7th, AFT presented our most recent proposal on part-time healthcare. Under this proposal, the District would give part-timers with at least 40% load in our District access to SMCCCD medical, dental, and vision plans at no cost, as well as continuing to offer a reimbursement option for those part-timers who prefer to buy their own plan and get reimbursed by the District. AFT and the District have already agreed on a medical premium reimbursement program for “multidistrict part-timers”—those who work at least 40% total time between multiple community college districts.

The District previously proposed “contingency language” stating that part-timers’ access to medical plans would end if SMCCCD has less than 100% of its part-time healthcare costs covered by the state. On March 7th, AFT proposed alternative contingency language stating that the parties will renegotiate if the District has to spend more than $400,000 on part-time healthcare, since the District has been spending approximately that amount on part-time healthcare in recent years.

The District asked a number of questions about AFT’s proposal, but did not yet provide a proposal in response, which they will do at the next bargaining session on March 14th.

—–

Full report:

At our first “reopener” bargaining session on February 29th, AFT and the District presented initial proposals on part-time healthcare. Currently, part-timers are covered by a one-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that reimburses faculty with at least 40% load in our District up to the cost of the Kaiser single person plan, and that offers a proportional reimbursement for faculty who work 40% between multiple districts. Read more about the MOU here. We are now negotiating over what options will be available to part-timers when the MOU expires on June 30, 2024.

On February 29th, the District agreed to AFT’s proposal for the District to give part-timers with a load of at least 40% in SMCCCD access to the same healthcare plans as full-timers, including plans that cover dependents. They also agreed to AFT’s proposal for covering multidistrict part-timers—those part-timers who work a total of at least 40% time between multiple community college districts. District negotiators agreed that SMCCCD will reimburse a portion of healthcare premiums for these multidistrict faculty according to a formula set forth in state legislation on part-time healthcare.

However, the District did not agree to AFT’s proposal to provide part-timers with access to District medical plans for free—even though under state legislation, SMCCCD can be reimbursed up to 100% of its costs for part-time medical premiums, meaning that the District can provide cost-free medical plans to part-timers without incurring any additional costs itself. The District also refused to provide dental and vision coverage to part-timers and refused to continue the current reimbursement option for part-timers who work at least 40% in our District and want to buy their own medical plans rather than signing up for District plans.

At the March 7th session, AFT presented a proposal including the following:

  • For faculty who work at least 40% time in SMCCCD, the District should provide medical plans at no cost to the faculty.
  • For these same part-timers, the District should continue to offer a reimbursement option for faculty who prefer to buy their own plan and get reimbursed by the District. Under AFT’s proposal, faculty who choose this option could get reimbursed up to the current Kaiser single person rate (currently $1021.41 per month).
  • The District should provide part-timers who work at least 40% time in our district with the same dental and vision coverage full-timers have access to.

SMCCCD negotiators have proposed putting part-time healthcare provisions in a temporary Memorandum of Understanding, rather than the regular contract, and also including a stipulation that the new part-time healthcare provisions would automatically terminate if SMCCCD gets reimbursed any less than 100% of its part-time medical premium costs by the state. On March 7th, AFT negotiators countered the District’s proposal for contingency language by proposing instead that part-time healthcare should be included in the regular faculty contract, but with language stating that the parties will renegotiate if the District has to spend more than $400,000 on part-time healthcare, since the District has been spending approximately that amount on part-time healthcare in recent years.

AFT and the District will continue negotiating on March 14, and March 19. AFT members are welcome to attend negotiation sessions (which take place on Zoom) and should contact their campus chair with interest.

Upcoming bargaining dates:

  • Thursday, March 14: 1-4 p.m.
  • Tuesday, March 19: 1-4 p.m.

February 29, 2024 Negotiations Session

AFT:  Joaquín Rivera, Monica Malamud, David Hasson, Marianne Kaletzky (negotiators); John Perez, Vera Quijano, Jennifer Van Sijll (member attendees)

SMCCD: Randy Erickson, Julie Johnson, David Feune, Aaron McVean, Winnie Li, Joe Morello

Summary:

This past Thursday, AFT and the District met to hold reopener negotiations on part-time healthcare. (See below for more on what reopener negotiations are and what issues we’ll negotiate.) AFT began by presenting our proposal for the District to provide part-timers who have at least 40% load in our District with access to District medical plans at no cost, as well as dental and vision coverage. We are also proposing that the District preserve a reimbursement option for part-timers who work at least 40% time in our District but prefer to buy their own plan and get reimbursed up to a specific maximum. Finally, we are proposing to continue a reimbursement scheme for multidistrict part-time faculty (faculty who work 40% total time across multiple community college districts).

The District presented a counter-proposal. They are offering to continue current provisions for multidistrict faculty and to provide part-timers who work at least 40% time in our District with access to District medical plans. However, under the District’s proposal, these part-timers would pay the same contributions that full-timers do and would not have District dental or vision coverage. The District does not want to continue the reimbursement option for these part-timers, and the District’s proposal is a 1.5-year MOU that would be subject to early discontinuation in certain circumstances.

—–

Full report:

As you know, our most recent faculty contract was ratified in November 2023 after many months of sometimes challenging negotiations. During those negotiations, AFT and the District agreed on specific issues we could negotiate outside the regular contract cycle. Those issues include 1) the workload point system pilot for full-timers 2) part-time healthcare and 3) faculty evaluations. We plan to negotiate on all three issues this semester. We also agreed to a potential reopener on a fourth item—a raise of more than 3% for AY 24-25—if property tax revenues for this fiscal year increase by more than 6%. That revenue figure will be available after the San Mateo County budget year ends on June 30.

This Thursday, AFT and the District met for an hour and a half to bargain over part-time healthcare. Currently, part-timers are covered by a one-year Memorandum of Understanding  (MOU) that reimburses faculty with at least 40% load in our District up to the cost of the Kaiser single person plan, and that offers a proportional reimbursement for faculty who work 40% between multiple districts. Read more about the MOU here. We are now negotiating over what options will be available to part-timers when the MOU expires on June 30, 2024.

AFT began by presenting our proposal, which includes:

For faculty who work at least 40% in SMCCCD:

  • Access to District medical plans, including plans that cover dependents, at no cost to the faculty member. Under AB 190, which allocates $200 million in ongoing annual funding for part-time healthcare, SMCCCD can be reimbursed up to 100% of its costs for part-time medical premiums. So there is no reason not to offer part-time faculty these plans for free.
  • The same dental and vision coverage full-timers have access to.
  • A reimbursement option for faculty who prefer to buy their own plan and get reimbursed by the District. Under AFT’s proposal, faculty who choose this option could get reimbursed up to the current Kaiser single person rate (currently $1021.41 per month).

For multidistrict faculty (who work less than 40% in our District, but work at least 40% total between multiple community college districts):

  • Reimbursement of a portion of healthcare premiums for a plan of their choice, based on the formula included in AB 190.

After a caucus, the District presented their counterproposal, which includes:

For faculty who work at least 40% in SMCCCD:

  • Access to District medical plans, including plans that cover dependents. The District is proposing that part-timers pay the same contributions that full-timers do—even though SMCCCD could get fully reimbursed by the state to provide these plans to part-timers for free.
  • No dental or vision coverage.
  • No reimbursement option.

For multidistrict faculty (who work less than 40% in our District, but work at least 40% total between multiple community college districts):

  • Reimbursement of a portion of healthcare premiums for a plan of their choice, based on the formula included in AB 190.

Another important difference between the two proposals is the duration of the agreement. AFT is proposing to include part-time healthcare provisions in our contract, meaning they would remain there until both parties agree to change them in contract negotiations. The District is proposing an MOU that would automatically expire on December 31, 2025, unless a new agreement is negotiated by then. The District is also proposing that the new part-time healthcare provisions would automatically terminate if SMCCCD gets reimbursed any less than 100% of its part-time medical premium costs by the state.

AFT and the District will continue negotiating on March 7, March 14, and March 19. AFT members are welcome to attend negotiation sessions (which take place on Zoom) and should contact their chapter chair with interest.

Upcoming bargaining dates:

  • Thursday, March 7: 2-4 p.m.
  • Thursday, March 14: 1-4 p.m.
  • Tuesday, March 19: 1-4 p.m.

New 3-Year Contract Negotiations
(July 2022 – June 2025)


August 30, 2023 Negotiations Session

AFT: Joaquín Rivera, Monica Malamud, Marianne Kaletzky, David Hasson, Steve Lehigh (negotiators); David Laderman, John Perez, Tamara Perkins, Erin Persley, Lori Slicton, Kathy Zarur, Michael Vargas (member attendees)

SMCCCD: Randy Erickson, Julie Johnson, David Feune, Aaron McVean, Joe Morello

Summary:

At today’s negotiations, AFT and the District came to agreement on a one-year Memorandum of Understanding significantly increasing the healthcare reimbursement for part-timers, and expanding the pool of part-timers eligible for reimbursement. See further details in the full report. This agreement is a major victory for our union and our part-timers, and it would not have been possible without the continued organizing of both full-timers and part-timers to get our District to provide better healthcare for adjunct faculty. At the same time, this MOU is not the end of the story: before it expires in June 2024, AFT expects to work with the District to fully implement AB 190 and provide eligible part-timers with all the coverage options available to full-timers, with the same District contributions full-timers receive.

Despite the progress on part-time healthcare, District negotiators indicated today they believe we are close to an impasse, defined legally as a point at which further negotiations would not be productive. According to the District, they believe we may have reached impasse due to the two negotiating teams’ being far apart on a proposed MOU covering dual enrollment teaching and on articles including those covering union rights (Article 2), remote work (Article 7), parental leave (Article 11), part-time assignment (Article 19), and a proposed new article on academic freedom. On all these articles, AFT has made substantial movement from our original proposals, while the District has made no movement at all since negotiations began in May 2022. The District continues to insist on status quo proposals in all these areas, meaning they are unwilling to change anything about faculty’s current rights and working conditions.

If impasse is declared and certified by the California Public Employee Relations Board, the parties would go through a legally mandated confidential mediation and, if mediation is unsuccessful, fact-finding.

AFT negotiators will be discussing what a potential impasse declaration would mean and soliciting members’ perspectives at our membership meeting on September 13, 2023 (more information on impasse procedures from our union colleagues at the San Luis CTA here).

—–

Full report:

Part-time Healthcare:

Today AFT and the District came to agreement on an MOU covering part-time healthcare for AY 23-24. The MOU will go into effect immediately and will increase the medical reimbursement for part-timers with load of at least 40% in SMCCCD to equal the premium for the Kaiser single-person plan offered by the District, currently $914 per month. These part-timers will be eligible for $5484 per semester in reimbursement—an increase of 66% over the previous amount of $3305.

The new MOU will also allow part-timers teaching at least 40% between SMCCCD and one or more other community college districts to claim healthcare reimbursement for the first time. For these part-timers, the District will reimburse a portion of healthcare costs based on how many districts the part-timer teaches in. (For example, a part-timer teaching 40% between SMCCCD and one other district would be reimbursed half their healthcare costs by SMCCCD, up to a maximum of $914 per month.)

Part-timers will be eligible to claim reimbursement going back to premiums paid in July of this year. Reimbursement will be paid four times per year, in October, January, April, and July. This  change from the District’s current practice of twice-yearly payment was proposed by AFT in response to feedback from part-timers, and is intended to allow part-timers to take advantage of the higher reimbursement amount  (by, for example, enrolling in a more expensive plan) without having to pay significantly more out of pocket before being reimbursed.

As soon as the MOU is finalized, AFT leaders will work with District HR to produce guidelines and forms to allow part-timers to take full advantage of the new provisions. Thank you to all faculty who organized and advocated to make these new provisions possible!

AFT and the District also continued discussion on a new article on Class Scheduling for Full-Timers and on Article 13 (Professional Development).

However, although the parties moved closer to agreement on these articles, District negotiators indicated they believe we may be at an impasse. Impasse is a legally defined term meaning that the two parties have reached a point at which further negotiations would not be productive. In explaining the District’s rationale for a possible impasse declaration, Chief Negotiator Randy Erickson listed a number of articles on which he believes the two parties remain far apart, including pay (Article 8), parental leave (Article 11), remote work (Article 7), part-time employment (Article 19), union rights (Article 2), a proposed new article on academic freedom, and a proposed new MOU on dual enrollment. On parental leave, remote work, part-time assignment, union rights, academic freedom, and dual enrollment, AFT negotiators have made significant movement from our initial proposals, while the District has made no movement. District negotiators have communicated that they are happy with the status quo and have repeatedly said that they are “not interested” in AFT’s proposals. Today, Chief Negotiator Randy Erickson said that District negotiators presented AFT’s most recent proposals to the Board, and that the Board agrees with maintaining the status quo in these areas. Below is a summary of where the parties fall on major areas.

 

Agreement reached:

Full-time Healthcare (Article 9)

Part-time Healthcare (new MOU)

Disability Accommodations (new article)

Reassigned Time (Article 6)

Faculty Service Areas (Article 20)

 

Under discussion with room for movement in District’s view:

Professional Development (Article 13)

New article on class scheduling for full-time faculty

 

Still in dispute and possibly at impasse according to District:

Pay (Article 8):

  • AFT proposal: Raises for all faculty of 7% for 22-23, 5% for 23-24, and 3% plus a possible additional raise based on the District’s property tax revenue for 24-25. Raises for instructional part-timers of these amounts plus 3.5% additional raise per year for each year of the contract.
  • District proposal: Raises for all faculty of 7%, 5%, and 3%, with no possibility for an additional faculty raise in 24-25 if District revenues are high. Raises for instructional part-timers of these amounts plus 2.5% additional raise per year for each year of the contract.

Dual enrollment (proposed new MOU):

  • AFT proposal: limit duties required of dual enrollment faculty to those required of all instructional faculty and listed in Appendix D1 of our contract; compensate dual enrollment faculty for all days worked beyond the 175 days in the SMCCCD academic calendar.
  • District proposal: no agreement to limit required duties of dual enrollment faculty to those listed in Appendix D1 or to compensate faculty who voluntarily perform those duties, meaning dual enrollment faculty could (for instance) be required to attend parent-teacher conferences without compensation; compensate only “net days” of additional work for full-timers (meaning that if SMCCCD has a different Spring Break from a high school district, faculty teaching at both would not receive any additional compensation, despite losing their Spring Break)

Work location / work hours (Article 7):

  • AFT proposal: all faculty able to choose to work up to 50% of hours remotely; counselors allowed to take Zoom appointments from a location of their choice and to do prof time at a location and time of their choice, with FT counselors required to be in person no more than 3 days a week; 11- or 12-month contracts possible for faculty who do substantial coordination work over summer if faculty and dean agree
  • District proposal: status quo. The District sees work location as “management right” and wants to give administrators complete discretion over where faculty work—including allowing counseling deans to force counselors to come to campus to take Zoom appointments or send emails. The District has not offered any language allowing 11- or 12-month contracts for faculty who do substantial coordination work over summer.

Part-time employment (Article 19):

  • AFT proposal: all part-timers entitled to receive the same or similar load they had in the previous semester before less senior part-timers have any assignment. If a part-timer involuntarily lost load due to class cancellation, the faculty member will be given the same load the faculty member had before the class cancellation happened. “Same or similar” defined as within .1 FTE of previous load.
  • District proposal: status quo.

Summer session employment (Article 18):

  • AFT proposal: follow seniority rules when making summer assignments for part-timers.
  • District proposal: status quo. Deans have free rein to assign summer classes however they choose.

Leaves (Article 11):

  • AFT proposal: all faculty who become new parents entitled to 15 days of fully paid parental leave before having to use sick time or go on partial pay
  • District proposal: status quo. No paid parental leave other than the option to use sick time or go on partial pay, which is the minimum required by law.

Union rights (Article 2):

  • AFT proposal: increase release time available to union members for union-related work representing faculty, conducting negotiations, and organizing to 48 FLC per semester.
  • District proposal: status quo. 36 FLCs per semester available to union members for union-related work.

Academic freedom (proposed new article):

  • AFT proposal: new contract language providing that administrators shall not censor faculty or interfere in any way with faculty’s academic freedom, and affirming that faculty maintain the exclusive right and responsibility to determine grades.
  • District proposal: status quo—no contract language on academic freedom.

AFT negotiators invite all members to attend our September Membership Meeting 9/13 at 2:30 p.m. to discuss the status of negotiations, hear more about the implications of a potential impasse declaration from the District, and share your perspectives about where our union should go from here.

 

August 23, 2023 Negotiations Session

AFT: Joaquín Rivera, Monica Malamud, Marianne Kaletzky, David Hasson, Steve Lehigh (negotiators); John Perez (member attendee)

SMCCCD: Randy Erickson, Julie Johnson, David Feune, Aaron McVean, Joe Morello

Note on full-time benefits and CalPERS notices:

We know that many members have recently received notices of healthcare premium increases sent by CalPERS. These premium increases will be effective January 2024.

AFT and the District have already agreed that, for the duration of the next contract, the District will pay a percentage of the Kaiser plan rates towards each full-time faculty member’s healthcare premiums. This is a change from the current practice in which the District pays a set dollar amount. This change means that when Kaiser premiums go up, the District’s contributions will also go up. During the next contract, the District will pay:
  • 100% of the Kaiser single-person rate for every full-time faculty member on a single-person plan
  • 88% of the Kaiser two-party rate for every full-time faculty member on a two-person plan
  • 88% of the Kaiser family rate for every full-time faculty member on a family plan

This change will go into effect when our contract is ratified.

—–

Summary:

At today’s negotiations AFT and the District continued negotiations on an MOU to expand and increase the part-time healthcare reimbursement for AY 23-24, after which our union hopes to negotiate the full implementation of state legislation that would give part-timers with loads of 40% or more the same healthcare coverage full-timers have, and would make the District eligible to be reimbursed 100% of what it spends on part-time healthcare.

District negotiators continued to refuse to move from the status quo on remote work rights and parental leave, with the District’s chief negotiator reiterating that they see work location as management right and that they think that the parental leave currently offered by the District—the minimum required by law—is sufficient. District negotiators also refused movement on their previous dual enrollment proposal: in particular, they will not agree to limit the duties of dual enrollment instructors to those required of on-campus instructors .

On salary, AFT is currently proposing raises for all faculty of 7% for AY 22-23, 5% for 23-24, and 3% plus a possible additional raise based on property tax revenue for 24-25. In order to help part-time instructors reach parity, AFT is proposing that part-time instructors receive an additional raise of 3.5% per year on top of those paid to all faculty.

—–

Full report:

Article 7 (Hours of Employment):

Previously, AFT had proposed that all counselors be able to perform at least half of their hours of work remotely. AFT presented this proposal to the District five times, and the District rejected it each time. In response to the District’s total refusal to move, and based on discussion with a group of counselors, AFT presented a new proposal today. AFT’s current proposal stipulates that counselors can take virtual counseling appointments from a location of their choice (rather than having to be in the office, as current contract language allows deans to require). AFT also proposed language saying that counselors can conduct “prof time” activities like updating records, preparing for appointments, and following up on appointments at a time and place of their choosing. Currently, deans can require counselors to schedule prof time and be in the office during prof time hours.

District Chief Negotiator Randy Erickson refused these proposals, saying, “Faculty don’t get to decide what their remote hours are. It’s a management decision.” As AFT negotiator Monica Malamud has pointed out in negotiations and at yesterday’s Board meeting, requiring counselors to be in their offices for remote appointments and prep creates inequities among faculty, as our contract allows instructors to teach online from wherever they want and to do prep and grading at a place and time of their choosing.

Article 8 (Pay and Allowances):

The District most recently proposed raises for all faculty of 7% for AY 22-23, 5% for 23-24, and 3% for AY 24-25, with an additional 2.5% per year for instructional part-timers.

AFT has accepted the District’s proposal for facultywide raises for AY 22-23 and 23-24. For AY 24-25, we are proposing 3% plus a possible additional raise based on property tax revenue allocated to the District. AFT is proposing that part-time instructors receive an additional raise of 3.5% per year on top of those paid to all faculty.

Article 11 (Leaves):

Currently, new parents who are SMCCCD faculty, and who do not want to lose income, must use sick leave to care for their child. AFT has proposed that the District offer faculty 15 days of fully paid parental leave before they have to use sick leave. The District rejected this proposal again today, with Chief Negotiator Randy Erickson saying, “We’re offering what’s already the most employee-friendly leaves in the nation. We’re fine with that.” The District currently offers the minimum parental leave allowed by California and Federal law.

At AFT’s request, Chief Human Resource Officer Julie Johnson shared data showing that five faculty took parental leave (using sick time) in 2020-21, 14 faculty took parental leave in 2021-22, and 10 faculty took parental leave in 2022-23, for an average of 10 faculty per year. That means that, under AFT’s proposal, the District would have to grant an average of only 150 days of paid parental leave per year for all faculty.

MOU on Part-Time Healthcare:

AFT and the District continued negotiations on a Memorandum of Understanding increasing the part-time healthcare reimbursement to the amount the District pays towards a full-timer’s single-person coverage, currently $914 per month. According to this MOU, the part-time healthcare reimbursement would increase from the current amount of $3305 per semester to $5484. Part-timers with a load of at least 40% in SMCCCD would be eligible to receive this reimbursement, and part-timers with a load of 40% or more between multiple community college Districts would also be eligible to have a portion of their healthcare costs reimbursed by SMCCCD. The MOU would expire in June 2024. Prior to the expiration of this MOU AFT expects to work with the District to offer part-timers with a load of 40% or more in SMCCCD the same range of healthcare plans, and the same District contributions to healthcare premiums, currently available to full-timers.

Today the District agreed that the coverage periods would be July through December for faculty eligible in the Fall semester and January through June for faculty eligible in Spring semester. The District has also agreed to increase the frequency of reimbursement from twice a year to four times per year so that faculty don’t have to wait so long to be reimbursed.

MOU on dual enrollment:

The District has already agreed to compensate dual enrollment instructors for travel time (adjuncts) and mileage (full-timers), and to compensate dual enrollment adjuncts for contact hours worked beyond their contract.

However, today the District rejected language from AFT limiting dual enrollment instructors’ required duties to those required of on-campus faculty and listed in Appendix D-1 of the contract. Language that the District is currently proposing means that dual enrollment faculty could, for instance, be required to conduct parent-teacher conferences in the evenings. And the District wants to compensate only adjunct faculty for these duties, rather than offering compensation to all dual enrollment faculty who perform duties beyond those currently required by the contract.

The District also rejected AFT’s proposal to compensate full-timers for any days worked beyond the 175 specified in the SMCCCD Academic Calendar. Instead, the District proposed a complicated system of “net days” in which, for example, a full-timer would not get compensated for teaching during SMCCCD Spring Break if the high school had a Spring Break of equal length during a different week. In other words, under the District’s proposal, a full-timer could be required to work on SMCCCD breaks and holidays and not receive any compensation beyond their standard faculty salary.

Finally, the District rejected AFT’s proposal to extend the MOU to all off-campus worksites, like the Coastside Education Center in Half Moon Bay that the District is planning to open this fall. According to Erickson, the District wants the MOU to apply to dual enrollment programs only—meaning there is no contractual language providing that instructors assigned to the Coastside Education Center will get compensated for travel.

Upcoming bargaining dates:

  • Wednesday, August 30, 2-5 p.m. on Zoom

Thank you to all the faculty who’ve signed up to attend negotiations on August 30th! We are currently full up at our maximum number of member attendees, which is excellent. For those faculty who’ve already signed up to attend on the 30th, we will be in touch soon with logistical details. For other members, we will be in touch with further opportunities for you to attend negotiations when we get more negotiation dates.

August 11th, 2023 Negotiations Session

Attendees:

AFT: Joaquín Rivera, Monica Malamud, Marianne Kaletzky, David Hasson (negotiators); Andrea Fuentes, Deb Garfinkle, Katharine Harer, Kiran Malavade, Chris Smith, Jeramy Wallace (member attendees)

SMCCD: Randy Erickson, Julie Johnson, David Feune, Joe Morello

Summary:

At today’s negotiations AFT and the District came to agreement on a brand-new contract article covering reasonable accommodation for faculty with disabilities. We also reached a Tentative Agreement on new provisions for faculty with reassigned time, including coordination time.

AFT and the District also continued negotiations on a new MOU covering off-campus teaching (including dual enrollment teaching) and an MOU significantly increasing the healthcare reimbursement available to part-timers in this academic year and expanding coverage to part-time faculty with a total appointment of 40% split between two or more districts. The two parties also continued discussing Article 19 (Part-Time Employment) and a new article on full-time scheduling.

Unfortunately, the District continues refusing to move on AFT’s proposals for lab/lecture equity, applying seniority rules to part-time appointments in summer, a remote work guarantee for all faculty including special provisions for counselors, a new article on academic freedom, and 15 days of fully paid parental leave.

On compensation, AFT continues to propose raises for all faculty of 7% for 2022-23, 5% for 2023-24, and 3% plus a possible additional raise based on property tax revenue in 2024-25. For instructional part-timers, AFT is proposing raises of 10.5% for 2022-23, 8.5% in 2023-24, and 6.5% plus any property tax-based increase awarded to other faculty for 2024-25. The District is proposing 7%, 5%, and 3% (with no additional property tax-based increase) for all faculty, and 9.5%, 7.5%, and 5.5% for instructional part-timers.

—–

Full report:

New Tentative Agreements:

AFT was happy to arrive at Tentative Agreement to get language covering disability accommodations in our contract for the first time ever, as well as new language on reassigned time that will be inserted into Article 6 (Workload).

  • Disability accommodations: The District agreed to language saying administrators will meet with faculty seeking reasonable accommodations and their union reps as part of the ADA-required interactive process; will inform faculty and their union rep in writing of the resolution of their request for accommodation (what accommodation has been granted or if the request has been denied); and will meet with faculty and union reps as necessary to review problems concerning reasonable accommodation. The District would not agree to a timeline for giving a status update on requests, as AFT had proposed.
  • Reassigned time: The District agreed to contractual language specifying that before reassigned time (including coordination time) is assigned to a faculty member, the faculty member and their dean must agree on the list of duties and the total reassigned time. This language addresses the concerns of faculty coordinators who found their workload expanding and had no recourse because the duties of their position had not been clearly specified.

Articles/MOUs under continued discussion:

  • Part-time healthcare for 2023-24: Our union is continuing to work towards full implementation of new law AB 190, which allows districts to get reimbursed up to 100% of their costs if they provide part-timers with load of at least 40% the same healthcare as full-timers have. In light of some operational issues with our insurance provider (CalPERS) and the fact that the academic year is starting now, AFT and the District have agreed to a one-year provision increasing part-time healthcare reimbursement equivalent to 100% of the Kaiser single person rate, after which we hope to give part-timers access to all plans that full-timers have.

    Previously, the District had proposed that part-timers would get reimbursed for healthcare costs only twice per year—meaning part-timers using the full reimbursement (currently $914 per month) would have to pay almost $5500 out of pocket before getting reimbursed. AFT negotiators noted that part-timers can’t afford to wait so long for reimbursement, and that the timeline alone would prevent some faculty from taking advantage of the healthcare reimbursement program . Today the District agreed to AFT’s proposal for reimbursement four times per year.

    The MOU also provides coverage to part-timers teaching a total of 40% between SMCCCD and other community college districts. For the first time, these part-timers will be able to have a portion of their healthcare premiums reimbursed by SMCCCD, with the possibility of also being reimbursed a portion of their costs by the other district(s) they work at.

    We continue to negotiate the specifics and hope to arrive at an agreement and implement the MOU very soon.
  • Dual enrollment: The District has agreed to compensate faculty who travel between multiple worksites for their travel: adjuncts will be compensated per hour of travel time at the special rate, and full-timers for mileage at the IRS rate. The District has also agreed to compensate adjuncts teaching off-campus for hours worked in excess of contract hours, and the two parties are negotiating on the specifics for how to compensate full-timers for days worked beyond the SMCCCD calendar.

    However, the District has so far refused AFT’s language specifying that faculty teaching off-campus will only have the required duties listed in Appendix D1 of our contract, and will be compensated for duties beyond those (including parent conferences and calls, meetings at the high school, etc.) if they are asked and agree to do them.
  • Full-time scheduling: On AFT’s proposal for a new article on full-time scheduling, the District has agreed to language specifying a contractual process for full-timers to submit their schedule preferences and providing that the dean shall not arbitrarily disregard them. AFT and the District continue to negotiate over whether there will also be an appeal process and over the specifics of making up an underload.
  • Part-time appointment stability: AFT has proposed that a part-timer be entitled to receive the highest load they had over the past three semesters before a less senior part-timer gets load. Currently, the load a part-timer is entitled to is based only on their load in the previous semester—meaning that if a part-timer loses load one semester due to class cancellation or being bumped by a full-timer, they also lose their right to that load in the future. The District has proposed that part-timers be entitled to “the same or similar load as in the past three semesters,” but has refused to provide specifics on how that load would be calculated. Today District Chief Negotiator Randy Erickson said that providing a specific formula for calculating the load a part-timer would be entitled to would lead to load “incrementally increasing, and that’s not what we’re interested in doing.”

Issues where the District still refuses any movement:

Going into our second year without a faculty contract, the District continues to refuse any movement on AFT’s proposals covering:

  • Lab rates: AFT is proposing lecture/lab parity for all labs, meaning that 1 hour of lab will count for 1 FLC, just like 1 hour of lecture. The District has refused this proposal and indicated that they want to retain the status quo in which lab rates vary across disciplines, with the highest lab rates at .8 FLC per hour.
  • Part-time appointments in summer: AFT is proposing that summer assignments for part-timers be made according to seniority rules. The District says they want to maintain the current system in which deans have free rein to assign summer classes however they choose.
  • Remote work: AFT is proposing that all faculty have the right to work at least 50% of hours remote, with counselors having the right to take at least 50% of appointments virtually. Additionally, AFT is proposing that counselors should not be required to come to campus to conduct Zoom appointments or complete their prof time, just as instructors are not required to come to campus to teach online courses or do grading and prep. District Chief Negotiator Randy Erickson replied that work location is management right, and the District is not interested in giving that right up. AFT negotiator Monica Malamud asked why the District needs to control counselors by requiring them to be in the office even for tasks that can be performed remotely, and whether there have been problems calling for this level of control. The District did not offer a response to her question.
  • Academic freedom: The District continues to refuse AFT’s proposal to create a new contractual article guaranteeing academic freedom.
  • Parental leave: The District continues to refuse AFT’s proposal for 15 days of fully paid parental leave before new parents have to use sick leave or take leave at partial pay.

Upcoming bargaining dates:

  • Wednesday, August 23, 3-5 p.m. on Zoom
  • Wednesday, August 30, 2-5 p.m. on Zoom

AFT member? Sign up to attend negotiations. Let’s show the District faculty across colleges, disciplines, and roles are committed to getting a fair contract.

 

August 2nd, 2023 Negotiations Session

Attendees:

AFT: Joaquín Rivera, Monica Malamud, Marianne Kaletzky, David Hasson (negotiators); Katharine Harer, Elizabeth Ingber, Evan Kaiser, Beth LaRochelle, John Perez, Vera Quijano, Elinor Westfold (member attendees)

SMCCD: Randy Erickson, Julie Johnson, Aaron McVean, Max Hartman

Summary:

Now that faculty contract negotiations have left confidential mediation, we are once again able to share information about negotiations with you. On Wednesday the 2nd, AFT negotiators presented our counters to District proposals on salary and benefits and dual enrollment.

We also presented proposals on remote work, disability accommodations, parental leave, part-time rights in summer, and union rights. AFT did not receive District counters on any of the proposals we presented on Wednesday, but the District’s team indicated they should have responses at our next negotiation session Friday, August 11th. (Sign up here to attend on Zoom as an AFT member.)

—–

Full report:

AFT began the negotiating session by presenting our proposals on salary, benefits, dual enrollment, and remote work.

Salary (Article 8):

  • The District has proposed a 15% raise for all faculty over the life of the contract (7%, 5%, and 3%). AFT has agreed to the District’s proposal of a 7% raise for all faculty for AY 2022-23 and an additional 5% raise for all faculty for AY 2023-24, but is also proposing a property tax-based formula to give faculty raises over the District’s proposed 3% in AY 2024-25 if property tax revenue is high.
  • AFT is also asking that the District apply an 11.5% raise to the part-time instructional salary schedules in AY 2022-23, an additional 9.5% raise in AY 2023-24, and a further 7% raise plus the property tax formula in AY 2024-25. (The District is proposing part-time instructional raises of 9.5%, 7.5%, and 5.5%.) While parity percentages vary based on step and column, AFT’s proposal will bring many instructional part-timers to the 85% parity goal, and will bring average parity across the salary schedule to a little over 84%.

Benefits (Article 9):

  • On benefits, AFT is proposing that the District use the money allocated by AB 190 to provide part-timers who have a load of 40% or above the same medical coverage that full-timers get, with the same District contributions.
  • AFT and the District have agreed that for the life of the contract, full-timers will receive District medical contributions equal to 100% of the Kaiser single-person rate, 88% of the Kaiser two-party rate, and 88% of the Kaiser family rate.

Dual Enrollment (new Memorandum of Understanding):

  • AFT agreed to the District’s proposals to compensate all faculty teaching at multiple worksites during the same day for travel. Full-timers will be reimbursed for mileage traveled at the IRS rate; part-timers will be compensated for travel time at the non-instructional special rate.
  • AFT also agreed to the District’s proposals for compensating faculty in dual enrollment programs who participate in trainings relevant to teaching high school students or undertake professional development at a high school, as assigned by the appropriate dean.
  • AFT is proposing language stating that faculty teaching in dual enrollment programs will only be required to carry out the duties listed in Appendix D-1 of our contract. If faculty teaching in dual enrollment programs voluntarily take on other duties, they will be compensated at the lecture rate for actual hours spent. The District did not respond to this proposal.
  • AFT and the District continue to negotiate over how to compensate faculty for time worked outside the standard SMCCD calendar.

After a caucus break, AFT also presented proposals on the following issues:

Disability accommodations (new article proposed by AFT):

  • AFT is proposing language stipulating that faculty who request reasonable accommodation for a disability will receive a response, including a status update, from HR within 30 days.
  • AFT is also proposing that when an accommodations is granted, HR will provide the faculty member a written description of the accommodation; that when no accommodation is granted, HR will provide upon request the reason for the denial; and that an appeal process be available.

Union recognition and rights (Articles 1 and 2):

  • AFT is proposing language stipulating that the District will not invite individual faculty to engage in conversation with administrators about contract proposals under negotiation (often known as “direct dealing.”) In the past, the District was found to have carried out an Unfair Labor Practice by the Public Employee Relations Board when they invited individual faculty to discuss proposals with administrators.
  • AFT is proposing that reassigned time for union business be increased from 36 units per semester to 48 units, to allow sufficient time for union leaders to represent faculty and do organizing work.

Coordination time (Article 6):

  • AFT is proposing that before coordination time is assigned, the faculty member and the appropriate dean should agree on the specific duties of the coordination role and the proportion of reassigned time allocated to each duty.

Remote work (Article 7):

  • AFT is proposing that all faculty have the right to work up to 50% of hours remotely.
  • AFT is also proposing that counselors be required to take no more than 50% of counseling appointments in person.

Parental leave (Article 11):

  • AFT is proposing that all faculty who welcome a new child (by birth or adoption) be entitled to 15 days of fully paid parental leave before they have to use sick time or take leave at partial pay.

Professional Development (Article 13):

  • AFT and the District continue to negotiate over changes to the guidelines and processes for the allocation of faculty Professional Development funds. The changes AFT is proposing were suggested by the College PD committees.

Summer Session Employment (Article 18):

  • AFT is proposing that summer assignments for part-timers be made according to the seniority rules that apply to semester assignments.

We look forward to receiving the District’s response to our proposals at our next negotiating session Friday, August 11, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.

Upcoming bargaining dates:

  • Friday, August 11: 10 a.m.-4 p.m.

 

January through July 2023 – Negotiations in Confidential Mediation

At the December 22, 2022 negotiations session, District Chief Negotiator Randy Erickson proposed that AFT and the District enter confidential, pre-impasse mediation in an effort to reach agreement on the next faculty contract. AFT agreed to Erickson’s proposal.

 

According to the guidelines of confidential mediation, AFT was not able to share negotiations updates with members as long as mediation was ongoing. The two negotiating teams agreed to leave mediation on July 7, 2023, and return to regular negotiations, with the first session taking place on August 2, 2023. Now that confidential mediation has concluded, AFT negotiators are once again able to share updates from negotiations sessions with all our members.

 

December 15 & 16, 2022 Negotiations Sessions

Attendees:  AFT:  Joaquín Rivera, Monica Malamud, Marianne Kaletzky (negotiators); Evan Kaiser, Lori Slicton, Michael Song, Suji Venkataraman, Elinor Westfold, Rika Yonemura-Fabian, Kathy Zarur (observers)
SMCCCD: Randy Erickson, Julie Johnson, David Feune, Aaron McVean, Joe Morello, Charlene Frontiera, Max Hartman

Summary:

The District presented their first counterproposals on compensation and benefits at negotiations last Thursday and Friday. The District is proposing raises of 5%, 3%, and 3% for all faculty over the 3 years covered by the contract, with an extra half-percent per year for instructional adjuncts. The 2022-2023 raise of 5% that the District is proposing falls well below the inflation rate for 2022, meaning that it is effectively a pay cut. Furthermore, the extra half-percent the District is proposing for instructional adjuncts does very little to close the parity gap between instructional adjuncts and their full-time counterparts or to allow the District to reach its parity goal of 85%. Non-instructional adjuncts (including counselors and librarians) are already at or above the 85% threshold, but instructional adjuncts still make on average only about 75% of what full-timers make per class.

AFT responded to the District by proposing that all faculty receive raises of 10%, 8%, and 8%, while instructional adjuncts receive total raises of 17%, 15%, and any additional raise needed to reach the 85% goal in the third year of the contract.

AFT is also proposing increases in employer healthcare contributions sufficient to make the Kaiser single, two-party, and family plans free to full-timers. Finally, AFT continues to propose  quality, affordable District healthcare coverage for part-timers working at least 40% in SMCCCD, with an expanded reimbursement program for part-timers working at least 40% between multiple community college districts.

—–

Full report:

For a number of years, most SMCCCD employees have received salary increases according to the District’s Total Compensation Formula. This formula allocated 80% of new property tax revenue to improvements in compensation for employees represented by AFT, CSEA, and AFSCME, as well as administrators not represented by a union. The 80% was divided among the employee groups according to the percentage of total employees each group comprised, resulting in a total sum for each group that was used to pay for increases in compensation and benefits as well as costs to the District associated with that group, including STRS/PERS increases to the employer contribution and step-and-column advancement.

Many AFT members know that last year the Total Compensation Formula resulted in a raise of only .54% for faculty, with 0% raises for CSEA and AFSCME employees. In our initial proposals to the District, AFT proposed a different property-tax-based formula. However, in negotiations with AFSCME, CSEA, and now AFT, the District has proposed discarding the formula in favor of more conventional percentage increases. This past Thursday, the District put forward their first salary proposal for faculty, proposing raises of 5% for 2022-2023, 3% for 2023-2024, and 3% for 2024-2025.

Given extremely high inflation and the fact that faculty received only a half-percent raise last year, the District’s proposal falls far short of addressing faculty needs. On Friday, AFT countered with our first percentage-increase proposal. AFT is proposing that all faculty receive a raise of 10% in 2022-2023, 8% in 2023-2024, and 8% in 2024-2025.

Through organizing during our last contract campaign, AFT members were able to persuade the Board of the need for fair compensation for adjuncts. As a result of member action, the District included a parity goal of 85% in our contract for the first time and committed to allocating money specifically to adjunct parity (over and above raises for all faculty) until they reach the goal. The 85% goal means that adjuncts should make at least 85% of what full-timers make for the same work: while non-instructional adjuncts are already at or above the 85% threshold, instructional adjuncts on average make only about 75% of what their full-time counterparts make to teach the same class.  Despite the written commitment in our 2019-2022 contract from the District to achieve pay parity by contributing to instructional adjunct salaries above and beyond raises for all faculty, the District’s Chief Negotiator maintains that this commitment no longer exists because the contract expired on June 30, 2022.

On Thursday, the District proposed funding an additional half-percent raise for instructional adjuncts each year of the contract. As AFT noted in negotiations, a half-percent increase will do little to close the parity gap. AFT is proposing that instructional adjuncts receive a total raise of 17% in the first year (the 10% for all faculty plus an additional 7%) and 15% in the second year (the 8% for all faculty plus an additional 7%). In the third year, we are proposing that adjunct instructors receive any additional increase needed to get them to 85% parity.

The District also presented a proposal on full-time benefits, according to which they will pay $914 per month towards medical coverage for a faculty member only, $1558 per month towards coverage for a faculty member and one dependent, and $2026 towards coverage for a faculty member and two or more dependents. For 2023, Kaiser plans will cost $914 for a faculty member only, $1827 for a faculty member and one dependent, and $2376 for a faculty member and two or more dependents. AFT is proposing that the District pay employee contributions of $914 (individual), $1827 (individual plus 1), and $2376 (individual plus 2 or more) in 2023, and increase these amounts to match the corresponding Kaiser plan in subsequent years, so that that Kaiser plan would be free to full-time faculty. (The same employer contributions would also be applied to other available plans: see a full list of plans and costs here.)

AFT presented our proposal on adjunct healthcare in September and has been waiting for a counterproposal from the District ever since. On Thursday, the District team deflected again by proposing that the two parties reopen negotiations “within 30 days after guidelines are issued by the State Chancellor’s Office.” It is not clear to AFT what guidelines the District is waiting for or expecting, since the legislation making community college districts eligible to be reimbursed up to 100% of their spending on part-time healthcare by the state has already been passed and signed into law, and $200 million has already been allocated for this purpose. AFT knows that part-timers can’t wait for quality, affordable healthcare. We continue to propose that part-timers working at least 40% in our District have access to the same coverage and the same employer contributions SMCCCD offers full-timers, and that part-timers working 40% between multiple community college districts be eligible for expanded reimbursement for their healthcare costs.

Finally, AFT and the District continued to negotiate over a number of other articles, including reaching a Tentative Agreement on Article 6 (workload). Both sides agreed that before reassigned time is assigned, a faculty member and the appropriate administrator must agree on a specific list of duties and the proportion of reassigned time expected to be spent on each one. AFT believes this stipulation will help address issues raised by faculty who were offered reassigned time but later found the percentage time inadequate to the duties expected, or were surprised by duties not initially disclosed to them.

Upcoming bargaining dates:

  • Thursday, December 22: 11 a.m.-2 p.m.

 

November 21, 2022 Negotiations Session

Attendees:  AFT: Joaquín Rivera, Monica Malamud, Marianne Kaletzky (negotiators); Eric Brenner, Katharine Harer, Jessica Silver-Sharp, Lori Slicton, Suji Venkataraman (observers);
SMCCCD: Randy Erickson, Julie Johnson, David Feune, Aaron McVean, Joe Morello, Charlene Frontiera, Max Hartman (negotiators); Richard Storti, Bernata Slater, Peter Fitzsimmons (guests)

Summary:

AFT hoped to receive a compensation proposal from the District today, but the District did not come ready to offer one. Instead, they presented an estimate indicating that offering part-timers medical coverage through District plans would cost $20 million—an order of magnitude greater than AFT’s estimate. The District later revealed that their estimate was based on providing coverage for 1296 part-timers—more than double the 505 part-timers currently working in the District, and 5 times the number of part-timers who would have been eligible to choose District-provided healthplans based on their load in SMCCCD this past fall. The District continues to reject AFT’s language giving all faculty the right to work a certain percentage of their hours remotely, as well as language specifying that off-campus worksites shall be assigned only with the consent of faculty.

—–

Full report:

At the November 21st negotiations, District negotiators were joined by SMCCCD Executive Vice Chancellor Richard Storti, who offered an overview of the District’s current financial position. Storti said that the District’s economic situation is volatile due to decreasing home sales, which could impact the District’s revenue from property taxes, and potential rising unemployment, which could impact the small portion of revenue the District receives from sale and use tax. However, Storti stressed that “The District is in a very strong financial position.” As AFT Chief Negotiator Joaquín Rivera noted, San Mateo County’s property tax assessment is already 3.96% above last year’s assessment just halfway into the fiscal year, indicating that we can expect a substantial increase in property tax revenue by the end of the year.

Unfortunately, Storti’s presentation, intended to give context for the District’s economic proposal, did not conclude with District negotiators actually presenting that economic proposal. AFT is still awaiting a proposal on compensation, which the District says they hope to be able to present at our next negotiations on December 15th. Meanwhile, the District again failed to bring a counter to AFT’s September 21 proposal to offer District health coverage to all part-timers teaching 40% or more in our District, with the same plans and same District contributions that full-timers receive, and a reimbursement for part-timers who have at least a 40% load among multiple districts. However, the District did offer a cost estimate indicating that part-time medical coverage would cost $20 million. Based on this estimate, the District questioned whether the $200 million provided by the state to reimburse community college districts for part-time healthcare costs could possibly be sufficient to reimburse all eligible districts 100% of their costs.

However, when questioned about the assumptions behind the $20 million estimate, Chief Financial Officer Bernata Slater and Budget Officer Peter Fitzsimmons indicated that their estimate was based on providing coverage for over 1200 part-timers—more than double the 505 part-timers currently working in the District, and 5 times the number of part-timers who would have been eligible for District-provided coverage based on their load in SMCCCD this past spring. At AFT’s insistence, the District agreed to fine-tune their cost estimate using actual data from our district. The District also agreed to conduct a joint survey of part-timers together with AFT to gather more information on how many part-timers are likely to take advantage of District healthcare coverage if offered.

In non-economic proposals, the District continues to reject language guaranteeing all faculty the right to work at least 50% of their hours remotely and language guaranteeing counselors the right to take at least 50% of appointments remotely, saying that the Board has emphasized the need to maintain flexibility and AFT’s proposal is not in keeping with that need. District negotiators did note that the District is currently considering a telework pilot program for eligible classified staff and non-instructional faculty, that AFT will have the opportunity to negotiate impacts and effects of that program should it be approved, and that they think the contract is not the appropriate place for a remote work policy.

District negotiators also continued to reject language specifying that work at off-campus worksites—including dual enrollment programs conducted at local high schools—should be opt-in. They continued to propose take-backs on transfers between colleges and reassignment to new FSAs: the language proposed by the District gives management more rights, and faculty fewer rights, than language in the current contract.

Amidst the lack of progress in many areas, AFT is heartened by the fact that our contract negotiations appeared on the Board’s Closed Session agenda this past Wednesday after being absent for a number of Board meetings, meaning the Board has provided some guidance to their Chief Negotiator about our contract negotiations. We are also grateful to the District for offering additional negotiations dates over the holiday break, since we are always eager to be at the table. We look forward to receiving the District’s compensation offer in December and will keep members updated on any developments.

Upcoming bargaining dates:

  • Thursday, December 15: 8-10 a.m.
  • Friday, December 16: 8 a.m.-4 p.m.
  • Thursday, December 22: 11 a.m.-2 p.m.

 

November 2, 2022 Negotiations Session

Attendees:  AFT: Joaquín Rivera, Monica Malamud, Marianne Kaletzky; AFT observers: Eric Brenner, Katharine Harer, Lori Slicton, Rika Yonemura-Fabian
SMCCCD: Randy Erickson, Julie Johnson, David Feune, Max Hartman, Joe Morello

Summary:

Contract negotiations continue to stall due to the District’s lack of movement and unwillingness to work collaboratively towards agreement. At today’s negotiations sessions, the first since September 20, the District failed to provide a counter to our proposal on part-time healthcare. They also rejected our proposal to increase Professional Development funding (Article 13), and proposed multiple takebacks on Transfers and Reassignments (Article 12). The District reminded us that 8 articles are now in the “parking lot” due to our inability to make progress towards agreement. For 7 of these 8 articles, the District has repeatedly expressed their unwillingness to move from the status quo.

—–

Full report:

This past Wednesday, negotiating teams representing AFT and the District met for the first time since September 21. Shortly after the September meeting, AFT offered the District 7 negotiation dates in October, but the District Chief Negotiator did not respond for weeks and did not offer any meetings in October. While we were glad to finally be back at the table on Wednesday, we were disappointed to find that the District continues to refuse significant movement on AFT’s proposals.

In one case, the District will not even provide a formal response to a major proposal. On September 21, AFT put forward our proposal for part-time healthcare coverage. Under our proposal, part-timers working 40% or more would be eligible to enroll in District healthcare plans and receive the same District contributions towards their premiums as full-timers do. This plan stands to save the District money, as recent legislation passed through CFT’s efforts allows them to get reimbursed up to 100% of their costs by the state as long as they provide part-timers quality, affordable healthcare. We were looking forward to seeing the District’s counterproposal at the November 2 negotiations session, as they had had 6 weeks to consider our proposal. However, the District declined to respond, saying they needed more time to consider a guidance document the Chancellor’s Office had released the day before. This document is only five pages long and mostly summarizes information already available in the legislation passed in August and signed by the Governor in September. We do not believe its release should have prevented the District from responding to our proposal.

The District did respond to AFT’s proposal on Article 13 (Professional Development). While they accepted some procedural specifications suggested by AFT, they rejected AFT’s proposal to increase the level of funding from 1% to 2% of the total tenured, third-year tenure track, and fourth-year tenure track salary cost at each college, arguing that funds sometimes went unused. AFT negotiators noted that many faculty do not apply for sabbaticals because they know the money is not there to fund them, and that PD committee members often work with faculty to fund their proposals more modestly than those faculty originally proposed to be sure there is enough money to go around. Leftover money does not indicate that funds are adequate or that faculty aren’t interested in using them.

On Article 12 (Transfers and Reassignments), the District continues to propose multiple takebacks, including changing language that voluntary reassignments will be preferred to involuntary ones from “whenever possible” to “whenever practical,” and changing language that transfer requests shall not be denied unless they cause “actual harm to the educational program” at either college to language that they shall not be rejected for “arbitrary and capricious reasons.”

Finally, the District reviewed the 8 articles now in the “parking lot” because we have been unable to make progress on them. For 7 of these 8 articles—including Sick Leave, Disability Accommodations, Academic Freedom, Union Recognition, Organizational Rights, Layoffs, and Summer Session— the District negotiating team has been unwilling to move from the status quo. They have made movement towards AFT’s proposal on only one article–Part-Time Employment—and only after AFT scaled back our proposal significantly.

We hope to make better progress in our next negotiations session scheduled for November 21.

Upcoming bargaining dates:

  • Monday, November 21: 2 – 5 p.m.
  • Thursday, December 15: 8 – 10 a.m.
  • Friday, December 16: 8 a.m. – 4 p.m.

 

September 20, 2022 Negotiations Session

AFT:  Negotiators: Joaquín Rivera (Chief Negotiator), Monica Malamud, Marianne Kaletzky; Observer: Lori Slicton
SMCCCD District: Negotiators: Randy Erickson (Chief Negotiator), Julie Johnson, David Feune, Aaron McVean, Max Hartman, Charlene Frontiera, Joe Morello

Summary:

Today AFT and the District came to an agreement on a Fall 2022 MOU on the effects of the District’s change in masking requirements. This MOU includes provisions for accommodations for faculty who are immunocompromised, live in a household with an immunocompromised person, or have a very young child. It also sets forth a process for faculty and deans to decide how to cover instruction if a faculty member is required to isolate due to Covid, or must care for someone who is isolating.

AFT and the District also continued negotiating over our multiyear contract, with AFT presenting proposals on part-time healthcare, hours of employment (including remote work arrangements), and professional development funding, among other issues.

Full report:

Fall 2022 MOU:

Since the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020, AFT and the District have been negotiating Memoranda of Understanding covering special, Covid-related changes to working conditions. We have been able to negotiate these MOUs according to a process called “effects bargaining,” in which changes to working conditions (like the shift to all-online instruction at the beginning of the pandemic) allow unions to bargain over the effects of those changes outside the regular contract bargaining cycle. When we set out to negotiate a Fall 2022 MOU, however, the District refused to consider our proposals, with their Chief Negotiator claiming that faculty were no longer facing effects of the pandemic and saying we are now “back to status quo.” The District later changed course and agreed to negotiate an MOU specifically over the effects of changes in masking requirements, which the District implemented in June of this year.

While AFT proposed a more expansive Fall 2022 MOU so that faculty could better support our students, the District insisted that all MOU provisions be narrowly related to the change in masking requirements. Thus, the MOU as settled is fairly short. It includes the following provisions:

  1. The District will continue to make N95s and surgical masks available to all students, faculty, staff, and community members who want them. The District acknowledges its obligation to comply with county and state public health orders.
  2. The District will consider accommodation requests from faculty who need an accommodation due to their own medical condition; from faculty who live with someone who is immunocompromised, cannot be vaccinated, or is not adequately protected by vaccination; and from faculty who live with a child under one year of age.
  3. Faculty who are teaching in-person or hybrid classes and need to isolate due to testing positive for Covid, or need to care for someone required to isolate, will coordinate with their dean to find a way to cover the in-person portion of instruction. Possible ways to cover the in-person portion include pivoting to online delivery or identifying a substitute.

View complete Fall 2022 MOU

Multiyear contract negotiations:

AFT and the District also continued negotiations over the contract that will cover faculty working conditions between July 2022 and June 2025. We negotiated over provisions including:

  • Medical, dental, and vision plans for part-timers
    • AFT has proposed that part-timers working at least 40% in our District be eligible to enroll in District plans and receive the same employer contributions to healthcare premiums that full-timers do.
      • This means that the Kaiser plan for a single person would be free to all part-timers working at least 40% in SMCCD.
      • Part-timers could also cover dependents for the same employee-paid premiums that full-timers pay.
      • Non-Kaiser plans would also be available to part-timers and their dependents for the same employee-paid premiums that full-timers pay.
    • AFT has proposed that part-timers working at least 40% in our District can also access the same dental and vision plans, and receive the same District contribution towards premiums, that full-timers do.
  • Dental plans for all faculty
    • AFT has proposed increasing the maximum in the PPO dental plan to $5,500 for in network and $5,000 for out of network, and adding dental implants as part of the plan coverage.
  • Hours of employment/remote work provisions
    • AFT has proposed that all faculty (both instructional and non-instructional) be required to work no more than 50% of their hours in person, with the option to work the other 50% of hours remotely.
    • Additionally, AFT has proposed that counselors be required to hold no more than 50% of counseling appointments in person, with the option to hold the other 50% of appointments remotely. AFT has also proposed that counselors should not have to schedule their “prof time” (time reserved for tasks like preparing for appointments, updating notes, and following up with students), just as instructional faculty do not have to schedule prep time.
    • AFT has proposed that full-time faculty in specific fields who perform significant coordination duties during the summer may be assigned to an 11- or 12-month contract by mutual agreement between AFT and the District. AFT proposed this language in response to faculty who report performing unpaid work to coordinate student externships in certain CTE fields during summer. In several other districts, full-time faculty in certain fields can have an 11- or 12-month contract, meaning they receive their regular pay for one or two months of the summer.
  • Professional development funding
    • AFT has proposed doubling the existing pool of professional development funding, since the current funding levels are not sufficient to allow any significant number of faculty to take a sabbatical.
    • At the request of the PD committees at the colleges, AFT has also proposed clearer guidelines for PD approval procedures to make the process more transparent to all faculty.
  • Work location
    • AFT has proposed that faculty can only be assigned to off-campus work locations (ex. a local high school or community center) if they agree to it. Based on feedback from faculty, AFT leaders believe that dual enrollment teaching and other kinds of in-person, off-campus faculty work should be opt-in.

Upcoming negotiations dates:

  • To be announced. Currently we do not have any more negotiations scheduled; however, we are working with the District to find new dates and hope to negotiate again in early October, if not sooner.

 

September 2, 2022 Negotiations Session

AFT:  Negotiators: Joaquín Rivera (Chief Negotiator), Monica Malamud, Marianne Kaletzky; observers: Eric Brenner, Rika Yonemura-Fabian, and Lori Slicton

SMCCCD District: Randy Erickson, Julie Johnson, Mitch Bailey, David Feune, Aaron McVean, Max Hartman, Joe Morello, Charlene Frontiera

Summary:

After refusing to even negotiate over an MOU at our last bargaining session, the District opened this session with a proposal to continue the provisions of the MOU from Summer 2022. AFT offered a counter, but the District would not agree to several of our proposals, and discussions on the Fall 2022 MOU will continue at our next session. The parties also discussed contract articles on union rights and part-time seniority.

—–

Full report:

At the last AFT/SMCCCD negotiations session on August 24th, the District’s bargaining team refused to even negotiate over AFT’s proposal for an MOU covering Covid-specific conditions, including the District’s recent adoption of a framework that makes indoor masking optional in some circumstances. District chief negotiator Randy Erickson argued that faculty no longer need an MOU as we have returned to the status quo.

At this negotiation session, the District changed course and proposed an MOU for Fall that continues the provisions of the brief Summer 2022 MOU, namely:

  1. The District will continue providing N95s as well as surgical masks to employees, students, and community members.
  2. Faculty will have access to an interactive process to determine if a reasonable accommodation is available if a) the faculty member themselves has a health condition that necessitates accommodation so they can continue doing their job amidst the new masking framework or b) the faculty member lives with someone who is immunocompromised, under 1 year of age, or medically documented to be at higher risk of complications from Covid.

While the summer MOU was necessary to offer essential protections to faculty working in summer, summer is a very short term, and AFT believes that additional MOU provisions would do more to ensure that student learning continues as smoothly as possible during Fall 2022, even amidst the inevitable disruptions of Covid. AFT negotiators responded to the very brief MOU proposed by the District with an MOU that has far fewer articles than the Covid MOUs from Spring 2022 and prior, but that nonetheless provides key support for faculty. AFT’s MOU proposal included, in addition to the articles proposed by the District:

  • The right for faculty to temporarily pivot to remote delivery if they have to isolate or quarantine, yet feel well enough to continue working remotely. This provision would also allow faculty to temporarily pivot to remote delivery if they have to care for a household member who must isolate or quarantine. In this case, rather than having to hope a substitute is available and risk disruption to their students’ experience, faculty will be able to continue working remotely for a short period.
  • The guarantee that the District will provide the additional Covid sick time buckets currently guaranteed by California law—even if that law expires on September 30th, as originally specified by the state. While indications are that Supplemental Paid Sick Leave may be extended, AFT’s proposal would guarantee that faculty who contract Covid or must care for someone who has to stay home due to Covid-related reasons will have additional sick leave available, regardless of state law.
  • The guarantee that the District will provide synchronous technical support to students between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. Without guaranteed tech support provided by the District, faculty may face a higher workload if they are forced to provide tech support for students who need it while continuing to carry out their primary duties.

The District rejected these proposals. In response, AFT submitted one more counterproposal on the MOU just before the close of negotiations at 5 p.m. The District did not respond to this counter on Thursday, and indicated they will respond at our next negotiations session on September 20, 2022. While we would rather have an MOU in place sooner, it unfortunately has not been possible given the dates we have on the calendar and the approach the District has taken.

AFT and the District additionally continued negotiations over Article 1 (Union Rights) and Article 19 (Part-Time Employment) of our multiyear contract. However, we were unable to reach agreement on either article.

Upcoming bargaining dates:

  • Tuesday, September 20: 1-5 p.m.

 

August 24, 2022 Negotiations Session

AFT:  Negotiators: Joaquín Rivera (Chief Negotiator), Monica Malamud, Marianne Kaletzky; observers: Mandy Lucas, Tamara Perkins

SMCCCD District: Randy Erickson (Chief Negotiator), Julie Johnson, David Feune, Aaron McVean, Mitch Bailey, Max Hartman, Charlene Frontiera, Joe Morello

Summary: This past Thursday, AFT negotiators put forward an MOU for Fall 2022 that gives faculty the support we need for a successful return to on-campus instruction. Unfortunately, the District’s representatives refused to even negotiate over our proposals, claiming that we are back to status quo and no longer need an MOU. In addition, the District refused to show any movement on our proposals for a month of fully paid parental leave, stronger reappointment rights for part-timers, and a clear timeline and process for faculty with disabilities to obtain reasonable accommodations. These proposals aim to allow faculty to better support our students, and we are disappointed that the District is currently refusing to work towards an agreement on them.

—-

At Thursday’s negotiations session, AFT hoped to work towards agreement on both a Fall 2022 MOU and several articles of our next multiyear contract. AFT proposed a Fall 2022 MOU that includes:

  • Paid leave for faculty who contract Covid or who must care for a household member with Covid, and which will not count against a faculty member’s accrued sick leave. This leave is currently guaranteed by California law; however, the law expires on September 30 of this year.
  • Guaranteed access to free surgical and N95 masks, as well as free Rapid Antigen Test kits and free PCR testing through the District.
  • The right for a faculty member who contracts Covid or has Covid symptoms to pivot to online delivery if they are currently working in person.
  • The right for faculty to implement social distancing in their classrooms or offices should they choose to do so.
  • Technical support for faculty teaching online and students taking courses online.

Rather than offering a counterproposal to any of these provisions, the District flatly refused to negotiate over an MOU. The District’s Chief Negotiator said that an MOU was not necessary because we are back to the status quo, there are no mandates in place, and Covid is being handled like the cold or flu. While AFT knows our members have diverse views on issues like the optimal masking policy, we think the majority of faculty would agree that conditions have changed markedly since two years ago, and we have not returned to the status quo. A CDC isolation order is still in place for those who contract Covid, meaning that if California’s Supplemental Paid Sick Leave expires, faculty with Covid would have to use sick days to stay home—even if they feel well enough to teach or meet with students online. And many faculty are justifiably asking what steps they can take to protect their own health, as well as the health of their students and their families, as they return to on-campus work.

In addition to refusing to negotiate over an MOU, the District refused to show movement on four proposals the parties have been discussing for several sessions:

Proposed new article on class scheduling for full-timers

AFT has proposed language guaranteeing full-timers the opportunity to submit a schedule request expressing preferences including particular courses, modalities, times of day, and locations, and stipulating that a dean will not arbitrarily disregard a faculty member’s preferences. We have also proposed that no full-timer will be assigned more than 3 preps except by their own agreement, and that a full-timer who believes they have been assigned too many preps may appeal to the VPI.

The District has rejected the 3-preps limit, saying the issue is already covered by current contract language stating that the number of preps shall be “fair, reasonable, and equitable.” They have also rejected language regarding appeal to the VPI, as they argue an avenue for appeal already exists in the contract.

Proposed new article on a process and timeline for disability accommodations

AFT has proposed a new article setting forth a process and timeline for faculty to receive accommodations for disabilities, including the provision that District personnel must respond to a faculty member’s request for accommodation within 30 days of the request. (Although the accommodation may not yet have been determined, our language only requires the District to update faculty on the status of their request.)

The District continues to reject AFT’s proposal, claiming that a faculty member who thinks their request for accommodation has not been processed in a timely manner should appeal to a government agency (like the Department of Fair Employment and Housing or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) for assistance.

Article 11 (Leaves)

The District continues to reject AFT’s proposal for a month of fully paid parental leave before a faculty member must use accrued sick time. The District has refused to show any movement on this proposal, with the District’s chief negotiator saying that the District is not interested in offering parental leave beyond that guaranteed by California law since, he says, California is the most generous state for family leave in the nation. AFT negotiators have pointed out that the United States compares unfavorably to most countries in the world when it comes to family leave policies, and that our District should be a model for other employers in developing a family leave provision that promotes equity

Article 19 (Part-Time Employment)

Under our current contract, the load a part-timer is entitled to for one semester is wholly dependent on the load they had the previous semester. So a single semester of low enrollment can have permanent, negative consequences for a part-timer. According to AFT’s current proposal, a part-timer would be entitled to receive a load at least equal to the highest load they have had over the past 3 semesters before a less senior part-timer in their division gets an assignment.

In our last negotiations session, the District offered a counter-proposal under which part-timers would be entitled to the same or similar load as they had over the past 3 semesters. District negotiators indicated that “load over the past 3 semesters” would neither be the highest load of the past 3 semesters, nor an exact average. This session, the District continued to propose basing the load a part-timer is entitled to on their load “over the past 3 semesters,” while failing to clarify how that load would be calculated.

Our AFT negotiators hope to get our contract settled as soon as possible, as we are sure you do. However, we cannot settle without making progress on the issues you have indicated matter to you.

Upcoming negotiations dates:

  • Friday, September 2: 2-5 p.m.
  • Tuesday, September 20: 1-5 p.m.

 

August 3, 2022 Negotiations Session

AFT Negotiators:  Negotiators: Joaquín Rivera, Monica Malamud, Marianne Kaletzky; AFT Observers: Katharine Harer, Eric Brenner, Mandy Lucas;  SMCCD District Negotiators: Randy Erickson, Mitch Bailey, Julie Johnson, David Feune, Charlene Frontiera, Max Hartman

Summary:

On August 3rd AFT and the District continued to negotiate over AFT’s proposals for paid parental leave beyond that currently guaranteed by Ed Code, and for strengthening part-timer reappointment rights as set forth in Article 19 of our multiyear contract. The parties also discussed new articles proposed by AFT on disability accommodations and course scheduling for full-timers.

—–

At the most recent negotiations session, AFT and the District continued to negotiate over a number of articles including:

Article 11 (Leaves)

  • AFT is proposing that faculty have access to one month of fully paid parental leave before having to use sick days or take leave at partial pay.
  • Currently, the District only wants to furnish parental leave already guaranteed by Ed Code.
  • AFT has asked the District for information about how many faculty have taken parental leave over the past 3 years so that both parties can better understand how much AFT’s proposal would cost for the District.

Article 19 (Part-Time Employment)

  • According to our current contract, a part-timer is on the seniority list for a particular division from their first semester of work in that division. Every part-timer is entitled to receive an assignment for an upcoming semester that has the same or similar load as the assignment they had the previous semester before a less senior part-timer receives any assignment, unless certain special considerations apply. So a part-timer teaching 6 units in Fall 2022 is entitled to receive a similar load for Spring 2023 before a less senior part-timer in their division receives any assignment.
  • However, because the load a part-timer is guaranteed depends on their load the previous semester, if a part-timer loses part of their Fall 2022 assignment due to course cancellation or being bumped by a full-timer, they also lose their seniority rights to that portion of their load going forward. So a single semester of low enrollment can have permanent, negative consequences for a part-timer.
  • According to AFT’s current proposal, a part-timer would be entitled to receive a load at least equal to the highest load they have had over the past 3 semesters before a less senior part-timer in their division.
  • The District has offered a counter-proposal under which part-timers would be entitled to the same or similar load they had over the past 3 semesters. They have indicated that this would neither be the highest load of the past 3 semesters, nor an exact average. AFT will respond to the District’s counter in upcoming negotiations sessions.

Disability Accommodations

  • AFT has proposed a new article setting forth a clear procedure and timeline for faculty to request disability accommodations, and for the District to engage in an interactive process to determine appropriate accommodations. AFT proposed this article in response to the experiences of faculty who encountered significant delays in the process of requesting accommodations and being notified as to what accommodation the District could offer.
  • The District has indicated it does not want to specify a particular procedure, timeline, or appeal process for disability accommodations. District negotiators have said that the interactive process is ongoing, rather than a one-time decision, and therefore it doesn’t make sense to apply a timeline.

Class Scheduling

  • AFT has proposed a new article setting forth a process for full-time instructors to submit schedule preferences and specifying that deans shall not arbitrarily disregard faculty member’s preferences, and shall provide written reasons for denying schedule preferences if requested by the faculty member.
  • The District has shown some movement on this proposal and the two teams are continuing to discuss the specifics.

AFT and the District also reached Tentative Agreements on minor changes to Article 3 (Payroll Deductions for Union Dues) and Article 21 (Miscellaneous Provisions, including the procedure for opening negotiations on future contracts).

Next bargaining dates:

  • Wednesday, August 24: 1-5 p.m.
  • Friday, September 2: 2-5 p.m.
  • Tuesday, September 20: 1-5 p.m.

 

July 28, 2022 Negotiations Session

AFT Negotiators: Joaquín Rivera, Monica Malamud, Marianne Kaletzky; AFT Observers: Katharine Harer, Eric Brenner, Mandy Lucas; SMCCD District Negotiators: Randy Erickson, Julie Johnson, Mitch Bailey, David Feune, Aaron McVean, Charlene Frontiera, Joe Morello

Summary:

On July 28th AFT and the District negotiated over a number of contract articles, including Articles 7 (Hours of Employment), 11 (Leaves), and 19 (Part-Time Employment), as well as new articles AFT has proposed that cover class assignment for full-timers and disability accommodations for all faculty. Unfortunately, the District has continued to reject AFT’s proposals for a month of fully paid parental leave, stronger part-time reappointment protections, and the right for both instructional and non-instructional faculty to work a specified percentage of their hours remotely. The District also continues to reject AFT’s proposals for a clear timeline and process for disability accommodation, though they have shown some movement on our proposal for a consistent set of procedures for assigning classes to full-timers.

—–

On Thursday, July 28th, AFT and the District continued negotiations over a number of articles, including:

Article 7 (Hours of Employment):

  • AFT has proposed a contractual guarantee that all faculty have the right to work at least half their hours of employment remotely. On Thursday the District has refused this proposal and did not offer an alternate percentage of hours faculty can work remotely.
  • AFT has proposed that counselors should no longer have to schedule their “prof time,” as prof time is intended for counselors to perform duties to support students outside scheduled contact hours (similar to grading and prep time for instructional faculty). The District refused this proposal on Thursday.
  • AFT has proposed language defining online counseling as a modality of counseling. The District accepted this language.

Article 11 (Leaves):

  • AFT has proposed that faculty have access to one month of fully paid parental leave before beginning to use sick leave or partially paid leave.
  • So far, the District has rejected AFT’s proposal for a month of fully paid parental leave and has offered only the parental leave rights guaranteed by Ed Code: namely, that faculty may use accrued sick days for parental leave, and that after exhausting accrued sick days faculty shall be entitled to partially paid leave for a period not to exceed 5 months.
  • The District’s negotiating team has said that parental leave rights beyond those guaranteed by California law are unnecessary, as California has the strongest parental leave rights in the US. AFT negotiators pointed out that parental leave rights in the US lag far behind most of the world and argued that SMCCCD should be a model district in offering parental leave beyond that currently required by law. As AFT negotiators noted, many faculty may have a child shortly after starting employment in our District and have few if any sick days to use for parental leave.
  • AFT is also proposing that members of the faculty appointed or elected to public office have the right to 10 days of paid public service leave. The District refused this proposal, claiming that being paid by SMCCCD while serving as an officer of another public entity could present a conflict of interest.

Article 19 (Part-Time Employment):

  • According to our current contract, any part-timer is entitled to receive an assignment with the same or similar load as the one they had the previous semester before a less senior part-timer in their division receives an assignment. (The only exceptions are for special considerations set forth in the contract.) This provision is meant to ensure that part-timers who have shown a commitment to serving students in our District are able to count on continuing to receive a certain number of units. However, current contract language means that when a part-timer loses part of their assignment due to class cancellation or being bumped by a full-timer, they are no longer guaranteed to receive that portion of their load in the future.
  • AFT originally proposed adjusting the contract to say that a part-timer is entitled to receive an assignment with the highest load that they had in the past five years (rather than just the previous semester) before a less senior part-timer receives an assignment. This way, part-timers would not permanently lose their right to a particular load because they were bumped or had a class canceled one semester. After the District rejected this proposal, AFT proposed on Thursday that a part-timer be entitled to receive the highest load they had in the past three years before a less senior part-timer receives an assignment, a proposal the District again rejected.
  • AFT has also proposed removing the “or similar” language guaranteeing certain part-timers “the same or similar load” as in the previous semester, since it is unclear what constitutes a similar load. The District has rejected our proposal to remove the language.

New proposed article on disability accommodations

  • AFT has proposed contractual language setting forth a clear process and timeline for faculty to request reasonable accommodations for a disability, and for the District to respond. The District has so far indicated they do not wish to offer any process not required by Federal and California law.

New proposed article regarding class scheduling

  • AFT has proposed a new article setting forth a process for full-time instructors to request a schedule, including requesting particular days, times, modalities, and maximum number of preps. AFT has proposed language stating that administrators shall not arbitrarily disregard a faculty member’s preferences and, if a preference is denied, shall provide the reason for denial in writing upon request.
  • The District has accepted much of AFT’s proposal regarding schedule requests for full-time faculty, the fact that administrators shall not arbitrarily disregard faculty preferences, and the right to a written reason should the request be denied.
  • AFT has also proposed a clear timeline governing when administrators may cancel classes. The District has rejected this proposal.

Next bargaining dates:

  • Wednesday, August 3: 10 a.m.-4 p.m.
  • Wednesday, August 24: 1-5 p.m.
  • Friday, September 2: 2-5 p.m.
  • Tuesday, September 20: 1-5 p.m.

 

June 6, 2022 Negotiations Session

AFT Negotiators: Negotiators: Joaquín Rivera, Monica Malamud, Marianne Kaletzky; AFT observers: Trang Luong, Jacquie Escobar; SMCCD District Negotiators: Randy Erickson, Julie Johnson, Mitch Bailey, David Feune, Aaron McVean, Max Hartman, Joe Morello

Summary:

On June 6th bargaining teams representing AFT 1493 and the District arrived at a Tentative Agreement on wording modifications to Article 17 (Grievance Procedure). The parties continue to negotiate over a number of issues, including and AFT’s proposal for paid parental leave, AFT’s proposal to insert a disability accommodations process and timeline into the contract, and AFT’s proposal to add an article on academic freedom to the contract. The two teams also began negotiations towards a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on the effects of the recent change in the District’s indoor masking policy.

—–

Full Report:
At this negotiations session AFT and the District reached a Tentative Agreement on Article 17 (Grievance Procedure).

Regarding AFT’s proposal for a procedure allowing all faculty to anonymously evaluate administrators they work with, the District has insisted that the evaluation of administrators is outside AFT’s purview to bargain over, as they say a procedure to evaluate administrators does not have an impact on faculty working conditions. AFT disagrees, as faculty’s ability to give truly anonymous feedback on administrators directly impacts their experience working with those administrators. However, we have agreed to bring forward our proposal for true anonymous 360 evaluations through participatory governance bodies rather than through the contract.

AFT and the District continue to negotiate over a number of issues in the multiyear (July 2022-June 2025) contract, including:

  • Parental leave: AFT has proposed that faculty who are welcoming a new child to their family have access to a month of paid parental leave, after which they could use available sick time to continue to spend time with their child. The District has indicated that they do not want to offer parental leave beyond that already provided by California Education Code. (Ed Code allows faculty to use sick time for parental leave and, once sick time has been exhausted, to receive either 50% of their regular pay or the difference between their regular pay and the wages paid to a substitute, whichever is greater.)
  • Disability accommodations process: AFT has proposed adding an article governing how faculty with disabilities can access reasonable accommodations, including a timeline for the District to respond to requests for accommodation and an appeal process for faculty who are not satisfied with the initial outcome of the accommodations process. AFT believes we must have these provisions in our contract after hearing from faculty who have waited months to hear the outcome of an accommodations request. However, the District has indicated that they do not want to insert any rights regarding accommodation into the contract beyond those already guaranteed by ADA and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.
  • Academic freedom article: amidst increasing attacks on faculty around the country for discussing controversial topics with students, AFT has proposed adding an article to the contract guaranteeing faculty’s academic freedom. The District has so far refused to add this article.

AFT and the District also began negotiations towards an MOU on the effects of the District’s change in masking policy. Under the new policy adapted by the Board of Trustees on May 25, and effective June 1, indoor masking is no longer required when San Mateo County is in the Low (green) Community Level, as determined by the CDC. Because this change may be disruptive to students who signed up for classes or faculty who accepted assignments with the expectation that the District would continue to mandate masking at all levels, AFT has proposed:

  1. That each faculty member retain the right to require masking in their individual classroom or office, or while offering one-on-one services (for example, library services) to students and members of the public
  2. That the District allow any faculty member who requires an accommodation given the new masking policy to take part in the interactive process to determine a reasonable accommodation before beginning in-person work in Summer 2022 or Fall 2022
  3. That the District continue to set the minimum size for a class to be guaranteed to run at 10 students, rather than the Board Policy requiring enrollment of 20 students for a class to be guaranteed to run

So far, the District has rejected proposals 1 and 3, while offering accommodation only for faculty who need it due to a medical condition of their own, having a household member who is immunocompromised, or having a child under 1 year old. (The District’s proposal notably excludes faculty with children between 1 and 5 years of age, who are too young to be vaccinated against Covid, from those eligible for accommodation due to the new masking requirements.) AFT will respond to the District’s counter at our next bargaining session, which will take place Monday, June 13, from 1 to 4 p.m.

Upcoming bargaining dates:

  • Monday, 6/13: 1-4 p.m. (MOU on effects of changes in indoor masking policy)

 

May 26, 2022 Negotiations Session

AFT Negotiators: Negotiators: Joaquin Rivera, Monica Malamud, Marianne Kaletzky; AFT Obervers:: Katharine Harer:
SMCCCD District Negotiators: Randy Erickson, Max Hartman, Julie Johnson, Mitch Bailey, David Feune, Aaron McVean

Summary: After coming to agreement on two articles last session, AFT and District negotiators continued discussing a number of contractual articles during the session on May 26. Issues discussed include AFT’s organizational rights as a union; when AFT will receive information in the event of layoffs; whether a procedure for all faculty to evaluate administrators should be guaranteed by the contract; and specific provisions relating to part-time seniority and whether summer assignments should be offered according to seniority, as AFT is proposing.

—-

Full Report:
On May 26 negotiating teams representing AFT and SMCCCD held their third bargaining session towards a faculty contract covering July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2025.

The teams continued to negotiate on the following articles, all of which remain under discussion:

Article 2 (Organizational Rights):

  • The union will have at least 30 minutes to present at group orientations for new faculty. AFT is asking that only faculty and union staff be present during this time so that conversation can be open. The District has so far refused to agree to this provision.
  • AFT is asking for a contractual provision specifying that the union is allowed to make announcements during division meetings, as has been the custom in many divisions for a number of years. The District has so far refused to agree to this provision.
  • The District wants to keep the number of reassigned time units AFT receives to 36 per semester. AFT is arguing for an increase to 48 per semester based on the amount of work union officers are charged with carrying out.

Article 14 (Layoffs)

  • The contract currently specifies that the union will be made aware of the names of faculty recommended for layoff at the same time that those faculty receive notification that they have been recommended for layoff. Such information enables the union to verify that layoffs comply with California Education Code and contest those layoffs that do not. The District wants to change contract language to say that the union will only be notified of the names of faculty proposed for layoff once those faculty either request a hearing or waive their right to a hearing. Based on advice from legal counsel, AFT has not agreed to this change.

Article 17 (Grievance Procedure)

  • The District is proposing particular language to describe filings and discussions at each level of the grievance process, including describing discussion of a grievance at Level I as a meeting, describing the Level II discussion as a conference, and describing the Level III discussion as a hearing. AFT will offer a response to this proposal at the next negotiations sessions.

Article 18 (Summer Session Employment)

  • AFT is proposing that the seniority rules that govern part-time and overload assignments during the semester be made applicable to the summer as well. The District wants to maintain the status quo in which deans are free to make summer assignments however they want. Because we have not been able to make progress on this issue, both parties have agreed to put it in the parking lot for now and return to it later.

Article 19: Part-Time Employment

  • Currently, the contract does not specify how a faculty member’s exact seniority date is determined. The District is proposing to define a part-timer’s seniority date as their “first day of paid service.” AFT countered with a proposal to define a part-timer’s seniority date as the first day of the semester in which they begin paid part-time employment, so that a part-timer who starts a class on Wednesday is not automatically placed below a part-timer who begins the same semester but starts teaching on Tuesday. Under AFT’s proposal, ties between faculty who start part-time employment the same semester would be broken by drawing lots.
  • The current contract specifies that every part-timer is entitled to receive the same or similar load that they had in the previous term before a less senior part-timer gets an assignment (19.2.6), and that the division must make reasonable efforts to offer a part-timer the same or similar load as they had in the previous term if that part-timer has received two consecutive satisfactory evaluations, or had an assignment for six semesters with no negative evaluations (19.2.4). Under these provisions, a part-timer who has routinely had a certain assignment but then loses part of it one term no longer has claim to that assignment. (For example, a part-timer who is routinely assigned two classes but lost one in Spring 2022 due to a low enrollment cancellation is now only guaranteed to receive one class before a less senior part-timer.)To address this issue, AFT has proposed that language referring to load “in the previous term” be changed to “the highest load each part-timer ever had,” so that a part-timer who once received two classes will continue to have a claim to a two-class assignment—even if one of the classes occasionally gets canceled. The District has argued that this language is unreasonable, citing the hypothetical case of a part-timer who had their highest load 10 years ago and would now be entitled to that load under AFT’s proposal. In response, AFT has proposed that a part-timer be entitled to the highest load they have had within the past 5 years. The District will respond to this proposal at the upcoming negotiations session.

Article 21 (Miscellaneous Provisions)

  • The contract currently specifies that the District must enter into negotiations for the successor agreement (i.e., the next contract) no later than 6 weeks after the Board of Trustees meeting at which the union’s opening proposals are publicly presented. The District originally proposed replacing the 6-week deadline with the phrase “within a reasonable time”—a change that AFT refused. The District has now said they will agree to keep the 6-week deadline so long as both parties are responsible for meeting it, and so long as AFT submits the opening proposals by September 1st of the final academic year covered by the contract. AFT will offer a response to this proposal at the next negotiating session.

Proposed new article: Evaluation of Administrators

  • AFT is seeking to add a contractual guarantee giving all faculty the right to anonymously evaluate administrators they work with, just as all students are able to anonymously evaluate the faculty they work with. The District has so far refused to add this guarantee to the contract.

The parties will continue discussing the issues above at the upcoming negotiations session this Monday, June 6th, from 12-4 p.m.

Upcoming bargaining dates:

  • Monday, 6/6: 12-4 p.m.

 

May 19, 2022 Negotiations Session

AFT Negotiators: Joaquín Rivera (Chief Negotiator), Monica Malamud, Marianne Kaletzky; AFT Observers: Lorraine DeMello, Mandy Lucas, Rika Yonemura-Fabian;  SMCCCD District Negotiators: Randy Erickson (Chief Negotiator), Julie Johnson (new SMCCCD Chief Human Resources Officer), David Feune, Aaron McVean, Mitch Bailey, Max Hartman, Charlene Frontiera, Joe Morello

Summary:
AFT and the District have come to agreement on modifications to two articles of the faculty contract, while continuing to negotiate over provisions including those related to summer session employment and the evaluation of administrators. AFT is proposing that the seniority rules governing part-time assignments during the semester should also apply during the summer, while the District wants to preserve the status quo in which deans are able to offer summer assignments as they please, without regard for seniority. AFT is also proposing adding a contractual guarantee that all faculty will be able to anonymously evaluate the administrators they work with. The District has so far refused to add this guarantee.

—–

Full Report:
This past Thursday, negotiating teams representing AFT and the District held our second negotiations session towards a faculty contract for July 2022-June 2025.

AFT and the District were able to come to agreement on Articles 3 (Payroll Deductions for Union Dues) and 10 (Retirement). On Article 3, both parties agreed that AFT will indemnify the District for claims made by faculty for deductions made by the District in reliance on notification from the union, using language taken directly from Senate Bill 866 (2018), which the District referenced in its request for this provision. On Article 10, the District agreed to keep language regarding the criteria for participation in the Phase-In Retirement Plan in the contract, although both parties understand that the conditions of participation in the plan are ultimately set by CalSTRS and that should those conditions change, the new provisions will supersede the criteria in the contract.

The parties have also begun discussion on the following articles, which remain under dispute:

Article 1 (Recognition):

  • AFT is seeking to add language specifying that the District will not communicate directly with members about negotiations, as such communication constitutes an Unfair Labor Practice according to the California Public Employee Relations Board. The District has so far refused to add this language.

Article 2 (Organizational Rights):

  • AFT is asking to add language specifying that the union can make announcements at division meetings, as has been the practice in many divisions in the past. The District has so far refused to add this language.
  • AFT is asking for 24 FLCs of reassigned time per semester for union activities, whereas the District wants to keep the current allocation of 18 FLCs of reassigned time.
  • AFT is asking for language specifying that only faculty and AFT staff will be present during union presentations at group new hire orientations. The District has so far refused to add this language.

Article 14 (Layoffs):

  • The District is proposing adding language saying that names of faculty recommended for layoff will not be divulged to the union until the individuals have either requested a hearing or waived the right to a hearing. AFT is consulting with legal counsel on this proposal.

Article 17 (Grievance Procedure):

  • The District wants to change the language referring to formal grievance discussions from “hearing” to “appeal” or “meeting.” AFT does not agree with this change.

Article 18 (Summer Session Employment):

  • AFT wants seniority rules governing part-time assignments to apply during summer session, just as they apply during the semester. (Currently, during the semester, an adjunct with more seniority in the District generally gets priority over an adjunct with less seniority for classes they are both qualified to teach. During summer, however, deans can offer appointments however they want, without following seniority rules.) The District has so far refused to add this provision.

Article 21 (Miscellaneous Provisions):

  • AFT’s current contract contains the stipulation that the Board must enter into negotiations for the next contract within 6 weeks after AFT’s proposals are presented at a Board meeting. The Board is seeking to replace the 6-week deadline with the provision that both parties will begin bargaining for the next contract “within a reasonable time.” AFT does not agree with the removal of the 6-week deadline, which could allow the Board to delay the start of negotiations significantly.

Evaluation of Administrators:

  • AFT is seeking to add a contractual guarantee giving all faculty the right to anonymously evaluate administrators they work with, just as all students are able to anonymously evaluate the faculty they work with. As many faculty know, the current system of “360 evaluation” relies on only a few handpicked individuals to give the faculty perspective on how well administrators are doing their job and where they could improve. In addition to offering an incomplete picture of how administrators work with faculty, the current process also discourages even those faculty asked to participate from actually taking part, since their identities are known and they may fear retaliation.

We will continue discussions on these items during our next negotiations sessions, which will take place this Thursday, 5/26 from 10 a.m. to noon.

Upcoming negotiations dates:

  • Thursday, 5/26: 10 a.m.-12 p.m.
  • Monday, 6/6: 12-4 p.m.

 

May 4, 2022 Negotiations Session

On May 4, AFT and the District held our first negotiation session towards a faculty contract that will cover July 2022 through June 2025.

AFT Negotiators: Joaquín Rivera (Chief Negotiator), Monica Malamud, Marianne Kaletzky; AFT Observers: Eric Brenner, Lorraine DeMello, Mandy Lucas, Lori Slicton. District Negotiators: Randy Erickson (Chief Negotiator), Joe Morello, David Feune, Aaron McVean, Mitch Bailey, Max Hartman.

The District introduced their new chief negotiator, Randy Erickson of the Erickson Law Firm in San Diego. Erickson and his team presented proposed revisions to Articles 2, 3, and 10 of the current faculty contract.

  • Article 2: Organizational Rights (governs the rights of the union to speak with faculty and access information about faculty, as well as provisions like release time for union activities):
    • The District is proposing transitioning from sharing information about faculty with AFT through email to sharing it through a secure website.
    • The District is proposing language governing new employee orientations and AFT’s role in those orientations, including that AFT will be provided with notice of an orientation at least 10 days in advance where feasible, and that AFT will be provided 30 minutes to speak with new faculty at group orientations.
    • The District rejected our proposal to increase release units available for union activities from 18 per semester to 24 per semester.
  • Article 3: Payroll Deductions for Union Dues
    • The District is proposing language stating that membership and dues deductions are managed internally by the local, rather than by the District, and that the local is liable for charges brought against the District related to dues deductions where the District has relied on information provided by the local. The District’s proposal would not change the percentage deducted for dues or the process for becoming an AFT 1493 member.
  • Article 10: Retirement
    • The District is proposing removing language setting forth conditions for participation in the Reduced Workload Plan (also known as the Phase-In Retirement Plan). According to the District, because the conditions for participating in the Reduced Workload Plan are dictated by CalSTRS, having language on specific conditions in the contract might create a divergence between the CalSTRS conditions and the contract conditions and could make faculty confused as to whether they are entitled to participate in the plan. The District also proposed minor linguistic and grammatical changes to Article 10.

AFT will respond to the District’s proposals at our next negotiation session on May 20.

After the District presented their proposals, AFT presented all proposals contained in our sunshine document (termed as such because these proposals must be shared with the public, or “sunshined,” before negotiations begin). Those proposals include:

  • A fairer salary formula than the one that gave us a .52% raise for this year
  • Clear policies around class cancellations
  • Paid parental leave
  • Increased District contribution to full-time health benefits
  • Part-time pay parity (pay PT faculty at least 85% of what FT faculty make for the same amount of work)
  • Better healthcare options for part-timers
  • Guarantee that faculty can do a certain percentage of work remotely
  • Increased flexibility for counselors and the recognition of online counseling as a modality of counseling
  • Stronger part-timer appointment rights
  • Clear, expedient disability accommodation process
  • Contractual protection for academic freedom
  • Contractual provisions covering distance education
  • Clear policies on when faculty may be assigned to teach dual enrollment classes

Find more information on our proposals

View the full sunshine document (AFT’s complete initial contract proposals)

We look forward to sharing more information with you as the District responds to specific proposals and we begin in-depth negotiation on them.

Upcoming negotiations dates:

  • Thursday, May 19: 12-4 p.m.

 

Summer ’22 MOU re new SMCCCD masking framework

June 13-14, 2022 Negotiations Sessions

AFT Negotiators: Joaquín Rivera, Monica Malamud, Marianne Kaletzky; AFT observers: Katharine Harer, Teeka James, Rika Yonemura-Fabian; SMCCD District Negotiators: Randy Erickson, Julie Johnson, Mitch Bailey, David Feune, Aaron McVean, Charlene Frontiera, Max Hartman, Joe Morello

Summary:

AFT and the SMCCCD held negotiations on June 13th and 14th and were able to arrive at a Memorandum of Understanding concerning the effects of SMCCCD’s new indoor masking framework. The MOU will cover Summer 2022 only. It guarantees access to the accommodations process for faculty who may need accommodation due to the relaxation of masking requirements, either because of their own health considerations or because they live with someone who is immunocompromised or at higher risk of complications from Covid. The MOU also stipulates that the District will continue providing N95s as well as surgical masks.

AFT had wanted a wider-ranging MOU that considers the potential effects of the new masking framework on enrollments, as well as doing more to address the impacts of the new framework on faculty.

—–

Full Report:

On Monday and Tuesday, June 13th and 14th, negotiators representing AFT and the District bargained over an MOU to address the effects of the new masking framework adopted by the SMCCCD Board of Trustees at the May 25th Board Meeting. This framework makes indoor masking optional at SMCCCD when San Mateo County is in the green (low) community level, as determined by the CDC. Masks will still be required in the yellow and red levels. Currently, the County is in the yellow level.

Originally, AFT had proposed three measures to address the impact of the new masking framework on faculty:

  1. That individual faculty retain the right to require masks in their own classrooms or offices, or while interacting one-on-one with students or members of the public.
  2. That faculty have access to an interactive process to determine reasonable accommodations if the new masking framework puts them at risk given their own health conditions of if they have a household member who is immunocompromised or too young to be vaccinated, and that in either case faculty have the opportunity to go through the interactive process before beginning in-person work.
  3. That courses that achieve an enrollment of 10 students or more be guaranteed to run, since we don’t yet know the effects of less stringent masking requirements on enrollment.

Unfortunately, the District rejected most of our proposals out of hand, and we were unable to get much movement on proposals 1 and 3, with the District refusing to negotiate over minimum class size and rejecting even AFT’s proposal that faculty be able to request (rather than require) that students wear masks in their classrooms or offices. On proposal 2, the District wanted to reserve accommodations for faculty with medical conditions and those who live with a child under 1 year old or an individual who is immunocompromised; AFT was able to broaden the scope of accommodations to include all faculty with a household member who is medically documented to be at higher risk of complications from Covid. However, we could not get the District to agree to a set timeline by which the accommodations process must begin.

Because the District refused to negotiate over minimum class size, AFT agreed to limit the MOU to Summer 2022, rather than trying to extend it to Fall 2022 as we had originally proposed. We plan to negotiate a stronger MOU for Fall 2022—one that does more to address the impact of changing masking requirements on faculty, students, and enrollments.

The finished MOU for Summer 2022 includes just two provisions:

  1. The District will continue providing N95s as well as surgical masks to employees, students, and community members.
  2. Faculty will have access to an interactive process to determine if a reasonable accommodation is available if a) the faculty member themselves has a health condition that necessitates accommodation so they can continue doing their job amidst the new masking framework or b) the faculty member lives with someone who is immunocompromised, under 1 year of age, or medically documented to be at higher risk of complications from Covid.

In addition to settling the MOU, AFT and the District arrived at a Tentative Agreement on Article 10 of the multiyear contract, which covers the Reduced Workload Plan (also known as the Phase-In Retirement Plan). The District had originally wanted to stipulate that faculty could not file grievances on matters related to the Reduced Workload Plan; AFT got the District to agree that all of Article 10 will be grievable. AFT and the District also continued to negotiate over Article 2 (Organizational Rights) and a new article AFT has proposed on academic freedom. Negotiations on the multiyear contract will continue during the summer.

 

Spring 2022 MOU Negotiations Sessions Nov. 15th, 17th & Dec. 7th, 8th, 14th

December 14 & follow-up: Agreement reached on new MOU

AFT and SMCCCD continued negotiations towards a Memorandum of Understanding for Spring 2022 with a meeting on Tuesday, December 14, 2021. The parties then finished negotiations by email, arriving at an MOU just before the holiday. Click on the following link to view the complete Spring 2022 MOU or read the summary below.

Click here to view the complete Spring 2022 MOU on Coronavirus Pandemic Effects

AFT won a number of provisions significant to faculty; however, as always, we were unable to persuade the District to accept some of our proposals. The finished MOU includes the following provisions:

Health and safety:

  • N95 masks will be provided to faculty by the district upon request.
  • Faculty who are not vaccinated against Covid must participate in weekly Covid testing. The District will make testing available for free on each campus and provide testing kits to faculty for free.
  • For faculty teaching a class in-person, hybrid, or HyFlex who need to quarantine or care for a family member required to quarantine or isolate: these faculty may either pivot to online delivery or coordinate with their dean to find a substitute, at the faculty member’s discretion.
  • For faculty who need to take sick leave to care for a household member who contracts Covid-19 or a child who cannot attend school due to a Covid-19-related issue, and do not have sufficient sick time to cover the days they are out: the District will create a pool for faculty to donate their sick days to one another, similar to the catastrophic leave pool. The District will establish processes for faculty to donate and draw from the pool by January 13, 2022.
  • Ventilation and air circulation: faculty members concerned about the safety of their workspace may request an inspection, which will be provided. Faculty who work in spaces where ventilation and air circulation are found to be non-compliant with CalOSHA requirements will be provided air purifiers with HEPA filters.

Enrollment:

  • All classes, whether online or in-person, will not be canceled so long as they achieve a minimumenrollment of 10 students.
  • Faculty teaching classes that exceed 45 students on Census Day or 40 students on the last day to withdraw will continue to receive the same supplemental payas in previous Covid MOUs.

Workload and work location:

  • Full-time faculty will not be expected to perform more than 2 high-volume/high-demand professional duties. Faculty evaluations will not count towards the 2-duty maximum.
  • Non-primary professional duties (ex. committee work) may be performed remotely where allowable.
  • Full-time non-instructional faculty will work at least three days per week on campus, except as approved by their dean, with the option to work their remaining days remotely. Adjunct non-instructional faculty can work up to 50% of their assigned days remote if approved by managers based on program needs.
  • The backlog of evaluationsfor tenured faculty and continuing adjuncts will be handled as follows: faculty who were scheduled to be evaluated in Spring 2020, and were not evaluated that semester, will be evaluated in Spring 2022. Faculty scheduled to be evaluated in Spring 2021 will be evaluated in Spring 2023, and so on.

HyFlex:

  • Faculty may not be compelled to teach in HyFlex modality. Faculty who voluntarily teach in a HyFlex modality in Spring 2022 will receive compensation of eight hours per unit, paid at the special rate, for each HyFlex course taught. Faculty who are scheduled to teach HyFlex in the Spring 2022 semester may request not to teach the course.

With the emergence of the Omicron variant and the spike in Covid cases, faculty may be wondering if changes are on the horizon. AFT is committed to advocating for safe, fair working conditions for faculty and we will stay in communication as any news develops.

 

December 7 and 8, 2021

Negotiators: AFT:  Joaquin Rivera, Monica Malamud, Marianne Kaletzky
SMCCD District: Marie Billie, Mitch Bailey, David Feune, Aaron McVean, Joe Morello, Charlene Frontiera, Max Hartman

This Tuesday and Wednesday, December 7 and 8, AFT and the District continued negotiations towards a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) covering faculty working conditions in Spring 2022. At our previous negotiations sessions November 15th and 17th, AFT and the District came to agreement on provisions including a guarantee that all classes (online or in-person) that achieve a minimum of 10 students will not be cancelled; a continuing limit of 2 high-volume/high-demand professional duties for full-time faculty, with the exception of evaluations; and a provision that faculty may perform non-primary duties remotely where allowable. See more on the previous negotiations for the Spring 2022 MOU here.

At this week’s negotiations, we came to agreement on the following:

  • For faculty teaching a class in-person, hybrid, or HyFlex who need to quarantine or care for a family member required to quarantine or isolate: the District agreed faculty in these situations may either pivot to online delivery or coordinate with their dean to find a substitute, at the faculty member’s discretion.
  • For faculty who need to take sick leave to care for a household member who contracts Covid-19 or a child who cannot attend school due to a Covid-19-related issue, and do not have sufficient sick time to cover the days they are out: the District agreed to establish a pool for faculty to donate their sick days to one another, similar to the catastrophic leave pool. The District will establish processes for faculty to donate and draw from the pool by January 13, 2022.

Issues that remain under negotiation include:

  • Non-instructional faculty: AFT’s initial proposal included the provision that counselors be required to work no more than 2 days or 25% of their hours on campus. The District countered with a proposal for all non-instructional faculty that would require full-time non-instructional faculty to work at least three days on campus, and that would require non-instructional adjuncts to work at least 50% of their hours on campus. The District has not moved on this proposal despite several counterproposals on AFT’s part.
  • Faculty teaching HyFlex courses: our previous MOU stipulated that faculty who voluntarily teach HyFlex courses will have those courses loaded at 1.5 times their regular load. The most the District has offered is 3 hours per unit of pay at the special rate for faculty teaching a particular course in HyFlex for the first time. (For example, a faculty member teaching a 3-unit course in HyFlex for the first time would receive 9 hours of pay at the special rate.) As AFT has noted many times, HyFlex courses require more work each time an instructor teaches them, not just when an instructor is first adapting a course to HyFlex, so instructors teaching in HyFlex should receive additional compensation each time they do so.
  • Part-time healthcare stipend: The Fall 2021 MOU also provided that part-timers who were originally assigned a load of 40%, and whose load subsequently drops due to a class cancellation, will still be eligible for half the part-time healthcare stipend. We are fighting to maintain this provision; however, the District has been insistent that they will only pay part-timers half the stipend if they have classes cancelled due to State or County health orders (as opposed to cancellations because of enrollment issues or other reasons).
  • Air purifiers: AFT has proposed that the District provide air purifiers with HEPA filters for all faculty working in spaces where ventilation and air filtration do not meet CalOSHA and CDC guidelines. The District has indicated it only wants to follow CalOSHA guidance in this regard, rather than also issuing air purifiers for spaces whose ventilation and air filtration are not in accord with CDC guidelines.

We were not able to win the following provisions we initially proposed:

  • Class caps: the District refused to agree to any provision limiting class size—they would not even agree that classes that had their caps adjusted during the pandemic could keep those new adjusted caps. However, as noted above, we were able to maintain the provision that no class will be canceled if it has at least 10 students. We also were able to maintain provisions for large class pay beginning at 46 students on Census Day or 41 students on the last day to withdraw.
  • Universal masking requirement: AFT originally proposed that the District require universal masking until San Mateo County meets a set of specific public health criteria, which are more stringent that the criteria required by the County to consider lifting the indoor mask mandate. The District has indicated that it wishes to follow County guidelines instead. We did get District negotiators to agree to strike language saying that the District would follow County guidelines, meaning the Board is free to make its own policy prioritizing the safety of our community. District negotiators have also agreed that the District will make N95 masks available to all faculty upon request, and that surgical masks will be available to everyone in all buildings.

November 15 and 17, 2021

Negotiators: AFT:  Joaquin Rivera, Monica Malamud, Marianne Kaletzky;
SMCCD District: Marie Billie, Mitch Bailey, David Feune, Aaron McVean, Joe Morello, Charlene Frontiera, Max Hartman

Monday, November 15

On November 15, AFT and the District began negotiations for a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) governing working conditions in Spring 2022, when the District has planned a full return to on-campus instruction and student services. In addition to being our first negotiating session for the Spring 2022 MOU, Monday was also AFT’s first time negotiating with the District’s Interim Chief Human Resources Officer Marie Billie.

In advance of Monday’s negotiations, AFT had submitted a full proposal for the Spring 2022 MOU that contained provisions including those below. The District responded to some provisions by the end of today’s session and indicated that, for other provisions, they would have a response ready by our next negotiation session on Wednesday.

AFT’s opening proposal included:

  • Leaves:
    • Faculty will have access to the same family leave options that they had during Spring and Fall 2020.
    • Faculty who are scheduled to work on campus and have Covid symptoms, need to quarantine, need to care for a household member who contracts Covid, or need to care for a child who cannot attend school due to Covid-related reasons may either pivot to online delivery or take sick leave, at their discretion. Under AFT’s proposal, faculty who elect to take sick leave in these situations would not draw from their accrued sick days.
    • Faculty scheduled to teach online who contract Covid may take sick leave without drawing from accrued sick days.
    • Faculty who need to care for a household member who contracts Covid or a child who cannot attend school due to Covid-related reasons may draw from their sick days, as AFT’s multi-year contract already allows. If faculty in these situations do not have sufficient sick leave to cover the days they are absent, they may draw on a pool of sick days donated by other faculty.
  • Counseling:
    • Counselors may be required to work a maximum of 25% of their hours in person. No full-time counselor shall be required to work in person more than 2 days per week and no part-time counselor shall be required to work in person more than 1 day per week.
  • Instructional provisions:
    • Class size maximums adjusted during the pandemic will continue for Spring 2022.
    • All classes, whether online or in-person, will not be canceled so long as they achieve an enrollment of 10 students.
    • Part-time faculty who are assigned a course and then have it canceled will be compensated 15 hours at the special rate per course for time spent preparing.
  • Professional duties:
    • Full-time faculty will not be expected to perform more than 2 high-volume/high-demand professional duties.
    • Professional duties may be performed in-person or remotely, at the faculty member’s discretion.
    • The backlog of evaluations for tenured faculty and continuing adjuncts will be handled as follows: faculty who were scheduled to be evaluated in Spring 2020, and were not evaluated that semester, will be evaluated in Spring 2022. Faculty scheduled to be evaluated in Spring 2021 will be evaluated in Spring 2023, and so on.
  • Health and safety:
    • The District will continue universal masking in all indoor spaces until both of the following conditions are met:
      • 1) San Mateo County achieves a rate of transmission in the “Moderate” tier and remains there for at least 8 weeks and
      • 2) San Mateo County reaches a vaccination rate of 90% of the total population.
    • Faculty who are not vaccinated must participate in weekly Covid testing. The District must make testing available for free on each campus at days and times faculty are performing duties or provide testing kits to faculty for free.
    • Classroom capacity will be lowered by 35% for every classroom to avoid overcrowding.
    • HEPA filters will be provided to faculty who work in spaces where ventilation and air filtration are not adequate.
    • The District will make readily accessible online a detailed exposures list of dates, times, buildings, and rooms where a person who tested positive for Covid-19 was present, without providing identifying information of the individual who tested positive.
    • If a faculty member has an adverse reaction to a Covid vaccination and requires medical treatment not covered by insurance, the District will cover the expenses.

Wednesday, November 17

The District offered responses to some of AFT’s proposals during our negotiation session on Monday, and followed on Tuesday evening with an email response to the rest of the proposals. AFT then offered a counter-proposal to the District’s response during Wednesday’s session, with the District promising their next response by the beginning of our upcoming negotiation session on Tuesday, December 7th.

AFT and the District have come to agreement on the following protections for faculty:

  • All classes, whether online or in-person, will not be canceled so long as they achieve a minimum enrollment of 10 students.
  • Full-time faculty will not be expected to perform more than 2 high-volume/high-demand professional duties. The District added the provision that faculty evaluations will be excluded from the 2 high-volume/high-demand duties, which AFT has accepted.
  • Non-primary professional duties (ex. committee work) may be performed remotely. The District added the provision that this applies only where such duties are allowable to be performed remotely, which AFT has accepted.
  • Faculty teaching classes that exceed 45 students on Census Day or 40 students on the last day to withdraw will continue to receive the same supplemental pay as in previous Covid MOUs.
  • The backlog of evaluations for tenured faculty and continuing adjuncts will be handled as follows: faculty who were scheduled to be evaluated in Spring 2020, and were not evaluated that semester, will be evaluated in Spring 2022. Faculty scheduled to be evaluated in Spring 2021 will be evaluated in Spring 2023, and so on.
  • Faculty who are not vaccinated against Covid must participate in weekly Covid testing. The District must make testing available for free on each campus and provide testing kits to faculty for free.

Unfortunately, we were unable to win the continuation of FFCRA-style leave (which expired under Federal law at the end of 2020) or the reduction of each classroom’s capacity by 35%. The District also indicated they were unwilling to consider paying adjuncts for time spent preparing to teach classes that are subsequently canceled, as our current contract does not provide for prep pay. We hope to take this issue up in bargaining for our next multiyear contract.

The following issues remain under discussion:

  • On-campus hours for non-instructional faculty. AFT originally proposed that full-time counselors be required to be on-campus a maximum of 2 days per week, and that both full-time and part-time counselors have a maximum of 25% of student counseling appointments in person. The District countered with a proposal that all full-time non-instructional faculty be required to work on campus a minimum of 3 days per week (with the faculty member able to work the other 2 days remotely if they choose) and that part-time non-instructional faculty be required to work a minimum of 50% of their hours on campus, with the remainder remote if allowed by their dean. In response, AFT counter-proposed that full-timers be required to work on campus at most 3 days per week or 50% of their hours, while accepting the District’s proposal for part-time non-instructional faculty.
  • Class caps. AFT advocated for keeping language from previous MOUs allowing for the reduction of class caps through the process defined by District Academic Senate. The District indicated that they do not want to continue allowing reductions through this process. AFT has accepted that class caps will no longer be subject to reduction through the DAS process; however, where classes have already had their caps lowered during the pandemic, AFT is proposing maintaining the lowered caps in Spring.
  • Arrangements for faculty who need to quarantine or care for a household member who has to stay home. AFT had proposed that all faculty (instructional or non-instructional) who work in person and need to quarantine, or to care for a household member who needs to quarantine or a child who cannot attend school due to Covid-related reasons, may either pivot to online delivery or have the District appoint a substitute, without using accrued sick days. The District indicated that they are willing to allow these options in a narrower set of circumstances. AFT is advocating to have these arrangements available for all faculty who need them.
  • Pool for donating sick days. The District struck AFT’s language establishing a pool into which faculty can donate sick days for use by faculty members who need to care for a child or family member and do not have sufficient sick time. AFT is once again proposing to establish the pool, as it could give vital help to some faculty at no cost to the District.
  • Universal mask mandate. AFT proposed continuing universal indoor masking until San Mateo County meets the set of benchmarks we have specified (remaining in the Moderate transmission tier for 8 weeks and reaching a vaccination rate of 90% of the total population). The District has indicated that they want to follow the less stringent standards set forth by the County itself as minimums for considering repeal of county-wide indoor mask mandates. As AFT has argued, continuing universal indoor masking not only makes our campuses safer, but also provides more equitable treatment for students exempt from the vaccination requirement, who will have to continue wearing masks even if the county mask mandate is repealed.
  • HEPA filters. AFT proposed that the District provide portable air purifiers with HEPA filters for all faculty working in spaces without adequate ventilation or air circulation. The District’s counter-proposal specified only that faculty concerned about the safety of their worksite may request an inspection. AFT wants to ensure that faculty will have access to an air purifier if ventilation or air circulation are found to be inadequate.
  • Covid exposures list. AFT and the District are discussing the kinds of information that will be included on the Covid exposures list accessible online.
  • Medical expenses for reactions to vaccination. AFT and the District are discussing whether the District will cover medical expenses incurred by faculty who have an adverse reaction to a Covid vaccination, provided that those expenses are not covered by insurance.

Upcoming bargaining dates:

  • Tuesday, 12/7: 1-3 p.m.
  • Wednesday, 12/8: 9 a.m.-noon

 


Fall 2021 MOU Negotiations Session June 29th-30th

Negotiators/representatives present:
AFT
:  Joaquin Rivera, Monica Malamud, Marianne Kaletzky; AFT observers: Rika Yonemura-Fabian and Katharine Harer
SMCCD: Laura Schulkind, Mitch Bailey, David Feune, Aaron McVean, Max Hartman, Joe Morello, Charlene Frontiera

At this week’s negotiations, AFT and the District reached agreement on a Memorandum of Understanding for the Fall 2021 semester. The MOU contains special provisions for faculty work in the context of the pandemic and includes articles covering both remote and on-campus work. AFT and the District also stipulated that the conditions of the Spring 2021 MOU will continue to apply through the Summer 2021 term.  View the complete Fall 2021 MOU.

The Fall 2021 MOU contains the following new provisions:

  • Guarantees that the District will provide faculty with information confirming that all indoor spaces meet all Covid-19 public health requirements, that faculty concerned about the safety of their workplace are entitled to an inspection, that faculty will be provided with N95 masks if desired, and that faculty are not responsible for ensuring students’ compliance with Covid requirements.
  • A provision that the District will not compel any instructional faculty member originally scheduled to teach online to return to in-person teaching in Fall 2021. AFT sought to win the same protection for non-instructional faculty, but the District would not agree. However, we were able to obtain the stipulation that the District will support all faculty who do not yet feel comfortable returning to campus, whether instructional or non-instructional, by engaging in an interactive process to explore accommodations, including worksite modifications, flexible scheduling, and continued remote work.
  • Language protecting faculty’s right to conduct non-primary duties (ex. committee meetings) remotely and to hold office hours on campus or remotely, at their own discretion. Both of these provisions apply to faculty teaching on campus as well as those teaching remotely.
  • Provisions for a HyFlex pilot program. The District will choose courses that they think are likely to succeed in a HyFlex modality and invite interested full-timers to volunteer to teach those courses as HyFlex. For those faculty who volunteer, courses conducted in HyFlex will be loaded at 1.5 times those courses’ ordinary load. No faculty member will be required to teach in a HyFlex modality.
  • A guarantee that sections that achieve enrollment of at least 10 students will not be cancelled for low enrollment. Additionally, the District agreed that it will not cancel in-person classes any earlier than July 30, 2021. AFT proposed that the District should also be required to wait until July 30 to cancel online classes, but was met with the District’s steadfast refusal. However, we did win the provision that no classes will be canceled for low enrollment in the 10 calendar days prior to the start of the semester.

The Fall 2021 MOU also makes adjustments to the following provisions of the Spring 2021 MOU:

  • FFCRA leave: In their opening proposal, the District indicated they wanted to stop providing faculty with leaves according to the guidelines of the Families First Coronavirus Relief Act (FFCRA), which expired as a Federal law at the end of 2020, and which AFT and the District agreed that the District would continue providing in Spring and Summer 2021. FFCRA provides up to 12 weeks of paid leave for employees who cannot work due to being quarantined, experiencing Covid symptoms, caring for an individual under quarantine, or caring for a child whose school or childcare is closed for Covid-related reasons.

The District indicated they were no longer interested in offering leave provisions beyond those currently required by law. However, as AFT pointed out, leave to care for children who cannot attend school is more necessary than ever with some faculty scheduled to work on campus. The District ultimately agreed to continue providing FFCRA-style leave for Fall, with the adjustment that, for employees eligible for Emergency Paid Sick Leave (EPSL), the District will no longer pay the difference between the EPSL cap and the employee’s full salary during the 2-week EPSL period. Faculty caring for children whose schools or childcare centers are closed due to Covid will still be eligible for up to 12 weeks of leave at 2/3 pay, and may still supplement this pay with sick leave up to 100% of their regular pay rate.

  • Work from home stipend: AFT proposed increasing the work from home stipend and paying the full amount to all faculty, both full-timers and part-timers, who teach online. The District responded that they will no longer subsidize working from home since faculty can now use their offices to teach remotely. As AFT pointed out, however, many faculty share offices, making it difficult to teach an online course from a faculty office. Ultimately, the District proposed that some faculty will be offered exclusive use of an office, a classroom, or a conference room to teach their classes. Others will be designated as “assigned to teach from home.” Only those faculty “assigned to teach from home” will receive a $100 per month stipend. However, these faculty will receive the full amount regardless of whether they are full-time or part-time, and regardless of the percentage load they teach online.

Finally, the Fall 2021 MOU continues a number of provisions contained in earlier Covid MOUs, including the following:

  • Full-time faculty members will not be expected to engage in more than two high-volume/high-demand duties, including committee service, program review, curriculum development (excluding DE addenda), and SLO’s.
  • Counselors’ scheduled time for counseling appointments will be reduced to 21 hours per week, with “prof time” for tasks like maintaining records and following up with students increased to 9 hours per week.
  • Instructors who teach classes that exceed 45 students on Census Day or 40 students on the last day to withdraw will receive additional compensation. For each class, faculty will receive the following extra per-weekly payment, retroactive to the beginning of the semester:
    • 1 hour per week for each class with 46-57 students at census or 41-54 at withdrawal.
    • 2 hours per week for each class with 58-69 students at census or 55-69 at withdrawal.
    • Compensation at the large lecture rates set forth in the CBA for classes with 70 or more students.
  • Faculty will receive 6 hours of pay at the special rate to convert courses that have not previously been converted for remote teaching. Courses delivered remotely for part of Spring 2020 and courses that a faculty member began to convert during QOTL are eligible for conversion pay, provided the faculty member has not previously taught them entirely online.
  • Evaluations of tenured faculty and continuing part-timers will be “frozen” until in-person instruction resumes. Once in-person instruction resumes, deans will prepare a proposed evaluation schedule for each faculty member whose evaluation was delayed, which will be finalized after consultation with the faculty member and AFT.
  • Not teaching in Fall 2021—regardless of the reason—will not affect a part-timer’s position on their division’s seniority list.
  • Faculty who complete distance education trainings other than QOTL will receive compensation at the special rate, provided their dean has agreed that the training is appropriate, applicable, and necessary.

 

New 3-Year Contract Negotiations: July 2019 through June 2022:

March 25th Negotiations Session

Negotiators/representatives present:
AFT:  Joaquin Rivera, Monica Malamud, Marianne Kaletzky; AFT observers: Eric Brenner, Katharine Harer, Rika Yonemura-Fabian
SMCCD: Laura Schulkind, Cheng Yu Hou, David Feune, Aaron McVean, Charlene Frontiera, Joe Morello, Max Hartman

Today AFT and the District arrived at a tentative agreement on compensation and benefits—the final issue that remained outstanding for the contract we are currently negotiating. Today’s agreement means that negotiations for our new multi-year contract have come to a close, and we will soon be presenting our Executive Committee and our members with the full contract we have tentatively agreed on. We appreciate our members’ solidarity, persistence, and energy throughout this unusually long negotiations cycle. Working together, we were able to win, in addition to improvements in compensation and benefits, a pilot program to quantify how much service work full-time faculty are expected to do and compensate those who go beyond the expectation, new protections for faculty subject to investigations and discipline, a pilot program allowing the union to bring grievances before a third-party arbitrator whose award will be binding, new provisions for adjuncts regarding Flex days, and new provisions for counselors.

The compensation and benefits agreement includes:

  • Significant salary increases for all faculty for 2019-2020 and 2020-2021, with an additional increase for 2021-2022 to be determined based on San Mateo County property tax revenue. Raises will apply retroactively; we will share more information about exact percentage raises and the timing of checks for retroactive pay as soon as these matters are finalized.
  • A $600 per year increase in the semesterly medical reimbursement stipend available to part-timers. The part-time medical stipend will be $2105 per semester for calendar year 2020, $2705 per semester for calendar year 2021 and will increase to $3305 effective January 1, 2022.
  • New lab rates that assign .8 FLC per hour for all labs across the arts, sciences, and KAD.

The tentative agreement on compensation and benefits also includes a landmark set of provisions for instructional adjunct faculty. These provisions include:

  • Setting the District’s parity goal at 85%, meaning that adjunct instructors should make at least 85% of what similarly qualified full-timers make for the same work.
  • For adjunct instructors, an additional raise of 4% over and above the salary increase for all faculty for 2020-2021. The District has also allocated an additional $1.5 million for adjunct instructional raises in 2021-2022, which will similarly be given over and above the increase for all faculty in that year.
  • The creation of a new adjunct instructional schedule that includes all 5 educational columns and 25 experience-based steps available to full-timers. Adjunct instructors will have until September 30, 2021, to submit documentation of their educational qualifications, and the District will begin paying adjunct instructors on the new schedule at the start of academic year 2022-2023. The new schedule will be created by making Steps 1-11 on the 2021-2022 adjunct instructional schedule Steps 1-11 of the Master’s column on the new schedule, then building out the other columns and steps using the percentage differences between columns and steps on the full-time salary schedule. The following special conditions will apply:
    • Adjunct instructors with a Master’s, MA+45 units, MA+60 units, or PhD/EdD/JD will be placed into the column corresponding to that degree.
    • Adjunct instructors who do not have a Master’s, and who are on a 2021-2022 SMCCD seniority list, will be placed into the Master’s column.
    • Adjunct instructors who have been at Step 11 for at least three years will be placed at Step 14. All other adjunct instructors will be placed one step above their 2021-2022 step.
  • An ongoing commitment that, until SMCCD achieves parity for instructional adjuncts, the District will commit funds to closing the parity gap over and above the money it makes available for compensation and benefits improvements for all faculty. This commitment extends beyond the life of the current contract and will be in effect until the District reaches the parity goal of 85%.

We look forward to presenting our members with more information very soon. Thank you again for your support, advocacy, and organizing as we work together to achieve more equitable conditions for all faculty.

 

March 23rd Negotiations Session

Negotiators/representatives present:
AFT:  Joaquin Rivera, Monica Malamud, Marianne Kaletzky; AFT observers: Steven Lehigh, Jessica Silver-Sharp, Eric Brenner, Doniella Maher
SMCCD: Laura Schulkind, Mitch Bailey, Cheng Yu Hou, Aaron McVean, Joe Morello, David Feune, Charlene Frontiera, Max Hartman

Today AFT and the District continued working towards an agreement on compensation, including parity for adjunct instructors.

The two negotiating teams are very close to an agreement on compensation for adjunct instructors, including a new, “mirrored” salary schedule that gives adjunct instructors all 5 educational columns and 25 experience-based steps available to full-timers. The District and AFT have already agreed that SMCCD will start paying adjuncts on this new schedule at the beginning of academic year 2022-2023.  At the beginning of today’s negotiations, only three issues regarding the new schedule remained to be settled:

  • How the District will use the mirrored schedule to calculate when it has achieved the parity goal of 85%—a goal the two negotiating teams agreed on last month.
  • How adjunct instructors will advance steps on the new schedule once the District achieves parity. AFT and the District had already agreed that, until the District achieves parity, adjunct instructors will continue to advance steps as they currently do: that is, they advance one step for every year in which service is provided, regardless of whether they teach both semesters or how many FLCs they teach.
  • Whether the new mirrored schedule will be built using the single-column 2021-2022 adjunct instructional schedule as the Master’s column of the new schedule, or the Base column.

Today AFT and the District came to agreement on two of these three issues:

  • The method that will be used to measure when the District has achieved parity.
  • How adjunct instructors will advance steps once parity is achieved. The negotiating teams agreed that adjunct instructors will advance a step once they have accrued 18 FLCs (which they can accumulate indefinitely until advancing) or when they have taught for four semesters since their last advancement, whichever comes first.

The one issue outstanding is whether the existing column should become the Base Pay column of the new, mirrored schedule (as AFT has argued) or the Master’s column (as the District has argued). The District has promised to calculate the cost of making the existing column the Base rather than the Master’s column, but will not have that calculation ready by tomorrow. We have therefore canceled Wednesday’s negotiations and will meet for our next negotiation session on Thursday, March 25th, from 9 a.m. to noon.

Next bargaining date:

Thursday, 3/25 (9-12): compensation, including part-time parity

 

March 17th Negotiations Session

Negotiators/representatives present:
AFT:  Joaquin Rivera, Monica Malamud, Marianne Kaletzky; AFT observers: Kolo Wamba, Rika Yonemura-Fabian, Katharine Harer, Jesse Raskin
SMCCD: Laura Schulkind, Mitch Bailey, Cheng Yu Hou, Aaron McVean, Joe Morello, David Feune, Max Hartman, Charlene Frontiera

Today AFT and the District continued working towards an agreement on compensation, including parity for adjunct instructors.

Earlier this month, we saw major progress when District negotiators agreed to create a new salary schedule for adjunct instructors that includes all 25 experience-based steps and 5 education-based columns available to full-timers. (At the moment, adjuncts do not receive any additional compensation for their education, and have only 11 steps to recognize their experience, meaning that many max out on experience-based increases with decades left in their careers.) The District will transition to this new schedule in 2022-2023. Last month, the District also agreed to set a parity goal of 85%, meaning all part-timers should earn at least 85% of what similarly qualified full-timers earn for the same work.

At today’s negotiations, AFT and the District came to agreement on the amount of money the District will commit to parity, over and above existing Total Compensation Funds, in 2021-2022. The District had previously offered $1.25 million; today, District and AFT negotiators agreed the District will commit $1.5 million to parity in 2021-2022. This contribution is in addition to the $792,000 the District will allocate for parity in 2020-2021, and also in addition to the Total Compensation Funds the District will make available for all improvements to compensation and benefits for both full-timers and adjuncts.

AFT and the District continue to work towards agreement on the following:

  • Once 85% parity is achieved, how many FLCs of service should be required for adjuncts to advance a step: the District is proposing that adjuncts should be required to accrue 20 FLCs to advance a step, whereas AFT is proposing 15. The District and AFT have already agreed that adjunct instructors can accumulate FLCs indefinitely until they advance and that, until parity is achieved, adjuncts will continue to advance as they currently do: that is, they advance a step for any year in which they teach.
  • The precise method used to calculate parity and measure when the District has reached 85%.
  • How to construct the educational columns in the new schedule: the District is proposing that the one-column salary schedule for 2021-2022 become the Master’s column of the new schedule, whereas AFT is proposing that the single column become the Base Pay column.

Both negotiating teams are hopeful that we can reach agreement soon and have set aside 3 days this coming week that we are available for negotiations.

Next bargaining dates:

  • Tuesday, March 23rd (1-3): compensation, including part-time parity
  • Wednesday, March 24th (1-4): compensation, including part-time parity
  • Thursday, March 25th (9-12): compensation, including part-time parity 

 

March 9th Negotiations Session

Negotiators/representatives present:
AFT:  Joaquin Rivera, Monica Malamud, Marianne Kaletzky; AFT observers: Suji Venkataraman, Annie Corbett, Katharine Harer, Eric Brenner
SMCCD: Laura Schulkind, Mitch Bailey, Cheng Yu Hou, Aaron McVean, Joe Morello, David Feune, Max Hartman, Charlene Frontiera

Today AFT presented a counter-proposal on compensation for adjunct instructors. AFT’s counter asks the District to put more money towards parity for adjuncts. AFT’s counter also revises two aspects of the District’s proposal for paying adjuncts on a new salary schedule—one that includes all the educational columns and experienced-based steps available to full-timers—beginning in Fall 2022. Specifically, AFT is proposing:

  • That the District commit $1.75 million to part-time parity over and above Total Compensation Funds in 2021-2022. (The District had previously proposed committing $1.25 million above Total Compensation Funds to parity in 2021-2022. AFT and the District have already agreed that in 2020-2021, the District will commit $792,000 towards part-time parity over and above Total Compensation, and AFT will commit $264,000 from the Total Compensation Funds to raises on the adjunct instructional schedule before the union allocates these funds to other compensation improvements.)
  • That, after 85% parity is achieved, adjuncts advance a step once they have taught 10 FLCs. The District had proposed that adjuncts be required to teach 20 FLCs before advancing a step. AFT and the District have already agreed that adjuncts can accumulate FLCs indefinitely until they advance, rather than having a constrained time frame to reach the required number. AFT and the District have also agreed that, until 85% parity is achieved, adjuncts will continue to advance steps as they currently do: that is, they advance a step for every year they teach at least one class, regardless of how many FLCs they teach or whether they teach both semesters.
  • That the single-column, 11-step adjunct schedule for 2021-2022 become Steps 1 through 11 of the Base Pay column for the new salary schedule of 2022-2023, and that the other educational columns be built from there, using the same percentage increases from Base Pay that exist in the full-time salary schedule. The District has proposed making the 2021-2022 schedule Steps 1 through 11 of the Master’s column.

After hearing AFT’s proposal, the District went to caucus. They will present their response at the next negotiation session on Wednesday, March 17th.

Next bargaining dates:

  • Wednesday, March 17th (12:30-2): compensation, including part-time parity

 

March 4th Negotiations Session

Negotiators/representatives present:
AFT:  Joaquin Rivera, Monica Malamud, Marianne Kaletzky; AFT observers: Eric Brenner and Timothy Rottenberg
SMCCD: Laura Schulkind, Mitch Bailey, Cheng Yu Hou, Aaron McVean, Joe Morello, David Feune, Max Hartman, Charlene Frontiera

Today, after hearing AFT’s most recent proposal on part-time parity, the District agreed to give adjunct instructors all 25 experience-based salary steps currently available to full-timers, rather than the 11 that adjuncts currently have. Beginning in 2022-2023, instructional adjuncts will therefore have a full “mirrored schedule” with all the steps (to recognize experience) and columns (to recognize education) that full-timers have. The District also agreed that, until 85% parity is reached, adjuncts should be able to advance steps as they currently do: that is, they advance a step for every year they teach at least one class, regardless of how many FLCs they teach or whether they teach both semesters. AFT and the District have also agreed to keep the system of hourly pay for the period of the contract we are currently negotiating, while stipulating that once the contract is ratified the union and District will form a group to study the logistics of moving to load-based pay for adjunct instructors.

However, AFT and the District have yet to agree on how much money the District should commit to part-time parity.

AFT’s proposal, which the union presented at the beginning of today’s negotiation session, provides that:

  • The District should commit $2 million to part-time parity over and above Total Compensation Funds in 2021-2022. (The District had previously proposed committing $1 million above Total Compensation Funds to parity in 2021-2022. AFT and the District have already agreed that in 2020-2021, the District will commit $792,000 towards part-time parity over and above Total Compensation, and AFT will commit $264,000 from the Total Compensation Funds to raises on the adjunct instructional schedule before the union allocates these funds to other compensation improvements.)
  • In 2022-2023, the District should pay part-timers at 82% pro rata on the new mirrored schedule. Office hours should still be paid separately as parity has not yet been reached.
  • In 2023-2024, the District should pay part-timers at 85% pro rata on the new mirrored schedule.

In their response, the District increased their offer for 2021-2022 to $1.25 million over and above Total Compensation. However, the District indicated that, while they will commit to transitioning to the mirrored schedule for 2022-2023, they are not ready to make any other financial commitments beyond the life of the contract currently under negotiation, which will expire in Summer 2022. In particular, they are not willing to commit to paying at 82% parity in 2022-2023 or 85% parity in 2023-2024. Their position is that specific compensation amounts for these academic years should be negotiated in the next contract bargaining cycle.

AFT will present its response at the next negotiation session, which will take place this coming Tuesday, March 9th, from 2:30 to 5 p.m.

Next bargaining dates:

  • Tuesday, March 9th (2:30-5): compensation, including part-time parity
  • Wednesday, March 17th (12:30-2): compensation, including part-time parity

 

February 26th Negotiations Session

Negotiators/representatives present:
AFT:  Joaquin Rivera, Monica Malamud, Marianne Kaletzky; AFT observers: Evan Kaiser, Rika Yonemura-Fabian, Eric Brenner, Annie Corbett
SMCCD: Laura Schulkind, Mitch Bailey, Joe Morello, Aaron McVean, Charlene Frontiera, Cheng Yu Hou, David Feune, Max Hartman

Today, after the Board heard from 182 SMCCD faculty who wrote in support of AFT’s proposals for part-time parity, District negotiators agreed to move adjunct instructors to a new schedule with columns to recognize adjuncts’ education and more steps to compensate adjuncts for their experience. As with the District’s early February decision to set a parity goal of 85%, this step represents significant progress towards fair pay for adjuncts. The District has also increased by $1 million the amount of money they are offering for part-time parity over and above the existing Total Compensation Funds. This increased funding not only allows more equitable pay for adjuncts, but also makes more of AFT’s Total Compensation Funds available for improvements to salary and benefits for all faculty, both full-time and part-time, both instructional and non-instructional.

Throughout these negotiations, one of AFT’s core demands towards achieving part-time parity has been to move part-time instructors to a mirrored salary schedule—one that has all the steps and columns on the full-time salary schedule. As it is, the one-column, 11-step adjunct instructional schedule particularly disadvantages adjuncts who have taught for many years and those with education beyond minimum qualifications. To take one example, an SMCCD adjunct with 25 years of experience and a doctorate makes less than 55% of what an SMCCD full-timer makes for the same teaching. The difference is so pronounced because the adjunct has spent many years stuck at Step 11, and receives no additional compensation for their education.

For months District negotiators have refused to consider a transition to a mirrored schedule, claiming the bureaucratic burden would be prohibitive. Today, however, they agreed to give adjunct instructors all the educational columns available to full-timers and to add an additional step, beginning in 2022-2023. Specifically, the District’s proposal:

  • Would begin by adding $1,056,000 to the current adjunct instructional salary schedule in 2020-2021 and another $1 million to the current schedule in 2021-2022. Of these additions, $264,000 would come out of Total Compensation Funds made available to AFT for all improvements to salary and benefits, with $1,792,000 being allocated by the District over and above Total Compensation Funds. Together, these additions would result in an increase of 7-8% to current adjunct instructional compensation rates over and above any further improvements made possible by Total Compensation Funds.
  • Would transition to a new salary schedule in 2022-2023. This new salary schedule would offer part-timers all five educational columns full-timers have (Base/Minimum Qualifications, MA, MA+45 units, MA+60 units, and PhD/EdD/JD), with the same percentage difference between the columns. The District is proposing to create the schedule by making the 2021-2022 schedule the Master’s column of the new schedule, then adding the appropriate percentage increases for MA+45, MA+60, and PhD/EdD/JD.
  • Would create a Step 12, included on the 2022-2023 schedule, with a 3% increase over Step 11. The District has suggested that AFT negotiate further steps at a later date. The District has proposed a system in which adjunct instructors would advance a step after teaching 20 FLCs since their previous advancement. Adjuncts could accrue FLCs indefinitely until advancing a step.
  • Would preserve the current system of pay by hour. Although AFT has consistently proposed transitioning to a pay-by-load system, the District has indicated it is not open to transitioning to a pay-by-load system during the term of the contract under negotiation.

AFT will present its counter to the District’s most recent proposal at our next negotiation session this Thursday, March 4th, from 3 to 6 p.m.

Next bargaining dates:

  • Thursday, 3/4 (3-6): compensation, including part-time parity

 

February 16th Negotiations Session

Negotiators/representatives present:
AFT:  Joaquin Rivera, Monica Malamud, Marianne Kaletzky; Observers: Eric Brenner, Katharine Harer, Doniella Maher, Rika Yonemura-Fabian
SMCCD District:  Laura Schulkind, Mitch Bailey, Aaron McVean, Joe Morello, Charlene Frontiera, Max Hartman

Today the District presented a counter-proposal on adjunct compensation, and AFT responded.

At the last bargaining session on February 4th, the District agreed with AFT’s longstanding proposal to set a parity goal of 85% for SMCCD, meaning the District agrees that adjuncts should earn at least 85% of what full-timers make for the same work. AFT is grateful to the District for agreeing to set the 85% parity goal, which is a major step towards fair pay for adjuncts. However, AFT and the District have not yet agreed on how quickly parity should be reached, what funds should be used to achieve parity, and what salary schedule adjuncts should be paid on. 

SMCCD’s proposal:

The District again proposed today to keep adjunct instructors on their current salary schedule, which does not compensate adjuncts based on their education and does not allow them to progress beyond 11 steps. Under the District’s plan:

  • For 2020-2021, the District will commit $792,000 to parity beyond the funds currently available for all increases in part-time and full-time compensation and benefits, known as the Total Compensation Funds. This $792,000 will equal a 3% on-schedule raise for all adjunct instructors. In addition, the District is asking AFT to commit to a 1% on-schedule raise for adjuncts from Total Compensation Funds before it uses these funds for other purposes. The result is that adjunct instructors will receive a 4% on-schedule raise in addition to any other raise given across the board from Total Compensation Funds.
  • For 2021-2022 and all subsequent years until parity is achieved, AFT must commit to giving adjunct instructors a 2% on-schedule raise from Total Compensation Funds before it uses these funds for other purposes. Under this plan, parity would be achieved in about 9 years.

AFT’s proposal:

AFT has proposed that parity be achieved through the application of money beyond the existing Total Compensation Funds, particularly since SMCCD is a wealthy district in an area where property tax revenues continue to increase. AFT is also asking that the District prioritize moving adjunct instructors to a “mirrored schedule”: one that includes all the steps and columns available to full-time instructors. Today AFT proposed:

  • Accepting the District’s proposal for 2020-2021, including the $792,000 the District has made available beyond the existing Total Compensation Funds. Adjunct instructors would get a raise of 4% in addition to any other across-the-board raises made possible by Total Compensation money. This would bring the average adjunct instructor to about 71% parity.
  • For 2021-2022, bring adjunct instructors to 77% parity on the existing adjunct salary schedule. Use 2021-2022 to prepare for the transition to a mirrored schedule that includes all steps and columns on the full-time salary schedule.
  • For 2022-2023, pay every adjunct instructor on the mirrored schedule at 82% of what a similarly qualified full-time instructor makes for teaching the same load.
  • For 2023-2024, pay every adjunct instructor on the mirrored schedule at 85% of what a similarly qualified full-time instructor makes for teaching the same load.

Following the bargaining session, the District’s chief negotiator indicated that she needs to consult with the Board at the next available opportunity on Wednesday, 2/24 before responding to AFT’s proposal. The next bargaining date will therefore be Friday, 2/26.

Next bargaining dates:

  • Friday, 2/26: 3-5 (compensation, including part-time parity)

 

February 4th Negotiations Session

Negotiators/representatives present:
AFT
:  Joaquin Rivera, Monica Malamud, Marianne Kaletzky; AFT observers: Kolo Wamba, Eric Brenner, Michael Hoffman, Annie Corbett
SMCCD: Laura Schulkind, Mitch Bailey, Cheng Yu Hou, Aaron McVean, Joe Morello, David Feune, Max Hartman, Charlene Frontiera

At today’s negotiations, the District agreed to set a part-time parity goal—something SMCCD was originally supposed to commit to in academic year 2002-2003, when it first accepted funds from the state to help achieve part-time parity, but which the District has never done. The District also agreed with AFT’s current proposal to set the parity goal at 85%, meaning that part-timers should get paid at least 85% of what full-timers make for doing the same work. And the District noted that their own calculations show SMCCD part-time instructors currently making about 66.8% of what full-timers make for the same teaching—a figure that accords with AFT’s estimates. The District agreed with AFT that, based on this figure, SMCCD compares poorly with other Bay Area districts when it comes to parity for part-time instructors. (Part-time counselors and librarians are already at or above the 85% mark, which is why both the District’s and AFT’s proposals apply only to instructors.)

District chief negotiator Laura Schulkind noted that the District was taking a major step in agreeing to set a parity goal—and AFT agrees. However, we have yet to agree on the concrete steps the District should take to reach the goal.

District’s proposal for adjunct instructors:

AFT has consistently argued that parity can only be achieved—or even measured—if the District transitions from paying adjunct instructors by the hour to paying them by load, the way that full-time faculty are. Today, the District again rejected that proposal. Instead, District negotiators propose maintaining the current system of hourly pay, which compensates adjunct instructors based on contact hours only.

The District’s proposal would commit about $525,000 of District money beyond the existing funds from the Total Compensation Formula to giving instructional adjuncts a 2% on-schedule raise for 2020-2021, provided AFT allocates at least the same amount from the Total Compensation Formula for an adjunct raise that year. From there, the District proposal would require that AFT give instructional adjuncts at least a 2% raise every year from the money that the district makes available for all faculty compensation improvements (FT and PT salaries and benefits) until parity is achieved.  

AFT’s proposal for adjunct instructors:

AFT negotiators identified multiple shortcomings in the District’s proposal—especially the fact that, under the District’s plan, it will take 10 years for adjuncts to reach 85% parity. In addition, the District wants to maintain the system of hourly pay, which makes it difficult to compare adjunct wages with full-time annual salaries. The District is also proposing to calculate parity for every adjunct based on the Master’s column, a formula that fails to acknowledge that many adjuncts have education beyond a master’s degree. (Adjuncts with more education and experience have the lowest parity percentages, with some making as little as 55% of what similarly qualified full-timers make.) And under the District’s proposal, the adjunct pay schedule will still have only 11 steps—meaning that many adjuncts will “max out” on step increases decades before they plan to retire.

AFT has proposed instead that the District move all adjuncts to a “mirrored schedule” with every step and column that full-timers have—and that the District commit to achieving 85% parity, on that scale, by 2022-2023. AFT proposes the following plan to achieve parity:

  • For 2020-2021, maintain the system of hourly pay and use the District’s formula to compare adjunct and full-time pay. Pay every adjunct 75% of what a full-timer with a master’s degree makes for teaching the same load at the step the adjunct is currently on.
  • Pay adjuncts by load, on a mirrored schedule, beginning in 2021-2022. The District will require all adjuncts to submit documentation of education by March 31, 2021, in order to place every adjunct on the mirrored schedule. If adjuncts do not submit documentation, the District will place them in the column that corresponds to the minimum qualifications for their discipline. The District will place adjuncts on the mirrored schedule by June 1, 2021, and begin payment on that schedule with AY 2021-2022. That year, every adjunct instructor will be paid 80% of what a full-timer at the same step and column earns for teaching the same load.
  • Increase pay to 85% in AY 2022-2023.

The District is considering its response to AFT’s proposal. The District will present their counter-proposal at the next negotiations sessions on February 16th.

Next bargaining dates:

  • Tuesday, Feb. 16th: 2-4 (compensation, including part-time parity)
  • Tuesday, Feb. 23rd: 1-4 (compensation, including part-time parity)
  • Wednesday, Feb. 24th: 2-5 (compensation, including part-time parity)
  • Friday, Feb. 26th: 3-5 (compensation, including part-time parity) 

 

January 8th 2021 Negotiations Session

Negotiators/representatives present:
AFT
:  Joaquin Rivera, Monica Malamud, Marianne Kaletzky
SMCCD District:  Cheng Yu Hou (incoming SMCCD Chief Human Resources Officer), Laura Schulkind, David Feune, Mitch Bailey, Aaron McVean, Max Hartman, Joe Morello, Charlene Frontiera

Today the District presented a counter-proposal on compensation, including part-time parity and benefits for all faculty.

On compensation and part-time parity, the District maintained their previous offer of the Total Compensation Formula in which 80% of new property tax revenue is allocated to pay increases for the District’s employee groups (including administrators, faculty, and classified staff), and each employee group can choose how to allocate their share to improve compensation and benefits. The District’s previously presented compensation offer also includes off-schedule matching funds of up to 2% for adjuncts. Under this proposed provision, the District would offer a one-time bonus to match up to 2% any raise AFT gives part-timers. The District refused to address part-time parity in their current offer, with District Chief Negotiator Laura Schulkind indicating she thinks it is too late in negotiations to discuss parity. Instead, she said that if AFT agreed to settle the contract, the District would agree to reopen negotiations on the single issue of part-time parity within 30 days of contract ratification.

AFT responded by reiterating our demands for movement on part-time parity. AFT Chief Negotiator Joaquin Rivera noted that, although the District describes the current financial context as extraordinarily uncertain, property tax revenues in San Mateo County have increased significantly since the beginning of the pandemic. Furthermore, the District has a history of overestimating costs and underestimating revenue, with the District retaining $36 million more in 2019-2020 than they had estimated. Finally, administrators’ salaries have grown considerably in recent years, while faculty salaries–even for full-timers—have remained virtually flat.

AFT countered the District’s offer with a proposal for the District to:

  • Move adjunct instructors to a mirror schedule, meaning they would be paid by load rather than by the hour and get compensated for their education, just as full-timers are
  • Commit to a “parity goal” of paying every adjunct instructor 85% of what a full-timer with the same education and experience makes for teaching the same load
  • For 2021-2022, pay each part-time instructor 75% of what a similarly qualified full-timer makes for teaching the same load. Reach 85% in two years.

At the session, AFT and the District agreed to hold our next negotiations on January 19. However, after the session, the District Chief Negotiator indicated that she would not have the necessary direction from the Board to negotiate on the 19th, and proposed finding a date in early February instead. As we told members earlier this week, we have been frustrated by the continual difficulties in bringing the District to the table over the past few months. We very much hope the District will come to negotiations on the 19th and offer a response to our compensation proposal.

Next bargaining date:   1/19 (compensation and benefits): time TBA

 

December 23rd Negotiations Session (Spring ’21 MOU)

We are happy to report that AFT and the District agreed on a Memorandum of Understanding for Spring 2021 just as the winter holiday was beginning. The MOU sets forth working conditions for faculty as the SMCCD continues to deliver instruction and other services remotely.  [View full MOU here.]

MOU Highlights:

Crucially for many faculty, the MOU renews the opportunities for medical and family leave originally guaranteed by the federal government’s Families First Coronavirus Relief Act (FFCRA). FFCRA expired on December 31, 2020. However, under the new MOU, the District will continue to provide leave according to the following provisions:

  • To all employees:
    • Two weeks (up to 80 hours) of paid sick leave at the employee’s regular rate of pay where the employee is unable to work because the employee is quarantined (pursuant to Federal, State, or local government order or advice of a health care provider), and/or experiencing COVID-19 symptoms and seeking a medical diagnosis; or
    • Two weeks (up to 80 hours) of paid sick leave at two-thirds the employee’s regular rate of pay because the employee is unable to work because of a bona fide need to care for an individual subject to quarantine (pursuant to Federal, State, or local government order or advice of a health care provider), or care for a child (under 18 years of age) whose school or child care provider is closed or unavailable for reasons related to COVID-19, and/or the employee is experiencing a substantially similar condition as specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Secretaries of the Treasury and Labor.
  • To employees who have been employed by SMCCD for at least 30 days:
    • Up to an additional 10 weeks of paid expanded family and medical leave at two-thirds the employee’s regular rate of pay where an employee is unable to work due to a bona fide need for leave to care for a child whose school or child care provider is closed or unavailable for reasons related to COVID-19.

Faculty who have worked for the District for at least 30 days, and who have a child at home due to Covid-related conditions, will therefore be able to take up to 12 weeks of leave at two-thirds pay. Adjunct faculty are also entitled to leave at two-thirds of the pay they would have earned: the number of weeks of paid leave will be pro-rated according to each faculty member’s appointment percentage. And where FFCRA excluded faculty who had taken family leave in the past 12 months, our agreement with the District specifies that faculty who took leave in Fall 2020 may take it again in Spring 2021. AFT is grateful to all our faculty, especially faculty parents, who spoke out about the need for continued family leave.

The Spring MOU also contains these new provisions:

  • A monthly stipend for all faculty to defray expenses related to working from home. The stipend, which will be automatically paid to faculty, will be $100 per month for full-timers and pro-rated for faculty who hold a part-time appointment at SMCCD.
  • Compensation for distance education trainings other than QOTL that a faculty member takes, provided their dean has agreed that the training is appropriate, applicable, and necessary.
  • A guarantee that not teaching in Spring 2021—regardless of the reason—does not affect a part-timer’s position on their division’s seniority list.
  • Evaluations of librarians will give feedback on the evaluee’s use of both synchronous and asynchronous library instruction methodologies and technologies, with the provision that the feedback on distance education technologies will not negatively impact the evaluee’s final rating.
  • Evaluations of tenured faculty and continuing part-timers will be “frozen” until in-person instruction resumes. Once in-person instruction resumes, deans will prepare a proposed evaluation schedule for each faculty member whose evaluation was delayed, which will be finalized after consultation with the faculty member and AFT.

The MOU extends the following provisions of the Summer/Fall 2020 MOU:

  • Full-time faculty members will not be expected to engage in more than two high-volume/high-demand duties, including committee service, program review, curriculum development (excluding DE addenda), and SLO’s.
  • Counselors’ scheduled time for counseling appointments will continue to be reduced to 21 hours per week, with “prof time” for tasks like maintaining records and following up with students continuing to be increased to 9 hours per week.
  • Instructors who teach classes that exceed 45 students on Census Day or 40 students on the last day to withdraw will receive additional compensation. For each class, faculty will receive the following extra per-weekly payment, retroactive to the beginning of the semester:
    • 1 hour per week for each class with 46-57 students at census or 41-54 at withdrawal.
    • 2 hours per week for each class with 58-69 students at census or 55-69 at withdrawal.
    • Compensation at the large lecture rates set forth in the CBA for classes with 70 or more students.
  • Faculty will receive 6 hours of pay at the special rate to convert courses that have not previously been converted for remote teaching. Courses delivered remotely for part of Spring 2020 and courses that a faculty member began to convert during QOTL are eligible for conversion pay, provided the faculty member has not previously taught them entirely online.

 

October 22nd Negotiations Session

Negotiators/representatives present:
AFT:  Joaquin Rivera, Monica Malamud, Marianne Kaletzky
SMCCD District:  Laura Schulkind, Mitch Bailey, Joe Morello, David Feune, Aaron McVean, Max Hartman, Charlene Frontiera

At today’s bargaining session, AFT presented its counter-proposal on compensation and benefits. While accepting the District’s total compensation formula, AFT added to the District’s proposal specific provisions for part-timers, including:

  • Paying part-time instructors by FLC rather than by the hour. Hourly pay has long resulted in the dramatic undercompensation of part-time instructors, since they are not paid for prep time or grading.
  • Paying part-time instructors on a “mirror schedule” to full-time instructors beginning in the 2021-2022 school year—meaning that the adjunct salary schedule would include every column and step that appears on the full-time salary schedule. Previously, part-timers with a terminal degree and part-timers with many semesters of experience made less than 60% of full-timers with the same education or experience per FLC. The mirror schedule would pay every part-timer 80% of the corresponding full-time salary per FLC.
  • Specifying a parity goal of 85%, which the District would make a plan to achieve over two academic years.
  • For the 2021-2022 school year, paying part-timers 80% of the salary earned by a full-timer with the same education and experience, teaching the same load.

AFT’s proposal also included:

  • An increase in full-timers’ medical caps of $50 for individual coverage, $75 for two-party coverage, and $100 in family coverage each year, to be applied on January 1st of 2020, 2021, and 2022. Increases in later years would be applied on top of prior increases.
  • Increasing part-timers’ healthcare reimbursement maximum by $600 per semester in each of three years. The part-time reimbursement stipend would therefore increase to $2105 per semester effective January 1, 2020; $2705 per semester effective January 1, 2021; and $3305 per semester effective January 1, 2022.
  • Assigning labs .85 FLC per hour across the sciences, art and music, and PE and KAD.

District negotiators rejected AFT’s counter-proposal, saying that they did not have the authority to offer additional on-schedule compensation without first getting authorization from the Board of Trustees at the Board’s October 28th meeting. As a result, the parties canceled the negotiations scheduled to take place on Friday, October 23rd, and are currently working to find dates for further sessions.

October 19th Negotiations Session

Negotiators/representatives present:
AFT:  Joaquin Rivera, Monica Malamud, Marianne Kaletzky
SMCCD District:  Laura Schulkind, Joe Morello, David Feune, Aaron McVean, Max Hartman, Charlene Frontiera

At today’s bargaining session, AFT and the District agreed to revise the portion of Article 7 that covers the workload and working hours for librarians, and the District presented its latest counter-proposal on compensation and benefits.

Article 7:

In response to feedback from librarians, AFT asked to revisit the new language for Article 7 that the parties recently settled. The new Article 7 required that librarians spend 32.5 hours a week at an assigned or approved location “primarily providing librarian services to students” and 5 hours completing other professional duties. However, as AFT noted, librarians do a wide variety of work beyond interfacing with students. The District agreed to a broader definition of librarian duties that can be carried out during the 32.5 hours. Full-time librarians will also be required to complete a Professional Responsibilities Plan of 4 points per year in the other 5 hours of their workweek.

Compensation and benefits:

The District’s counter-proposal on compensation and benefits maintains the current Total Compensation Formula, in which 80% of new property tax revenue goes to employee salaries. AFT has long argued that a larger percentage of new revenue should be allocated to employee groups, especially if the District wants to make progress towards complying with the 50% law.

If AFT applied the entire proposed increase to compensation, the District claimed, faculty members would get a raise of 3.44% for 2019-2020 and 5.93% for 2020-2021. In its compensation proposal, the District also:

  • Offered to match, up to 1.5%, any salary increase given to adjuncts through the total compensation formula. In other words, the first 1.5% increase for part-timers would be doubled to 3%. District chief negotiator Laura Schulkind said this matching offer represented an outlay of about $400,000 on the District’s part.
  • Offered a one-time increase in medical caps of $50 a month (whether for individual, two-party, or family medical coverage) during COVID.
  • Maintained the current lab rate of .8, indicating they do not want to raise lab rates to .85.

District Chief Negotiator Laura Schulkind argued that even a 2.5% raise would make SMCCD highly competitive within the Bay 10. Schulkind also said that wages for part-timers compare well to other Bay 10 institutions—despite the fact that SMCCD part-timers make only 50-70% of what full-timers do for the same work, while other Bay 10 districts have parity figures of 85% or even 95%. As AFT Chief Negotiator Joaquin Rivera noted, “The part-timers do not compare well to the Bay 10…And the extra one and a half percent is going to do very little to close this gap.”

The AFT will present its counter to the District’s compensation proposal this Thursday, October 22.

Next bargaining dates:

  • Thursday, October 22nd, 1-5: compensation and benefits.
  • Friday, October 23rd, 1-5: compensation and benefits

 

October 7th Negotiations Session

Negotiators/representatives present:
AFT:  Joaquin Rivera, Monica Malamud, Marianne Kaletzky
SMCCD District:  Laura Schulkind, Mitch Bailey, Joe Morello, David Feune, Aaron McVean, Max Hartman, Charlene Frontiera

Today AFT and the District reached agreement on the application of the Summer/Fall MOU’s provisions for course conversion payment. The MOU provides compensation for all faculty members who convert courses from in-person to online instruction. Faculty are to be paid for 6 hours at the special rate for every Fall course they convert.

However, some administrators told faculty that the course they began work on during the Quality in Online Teaching and Learning training would not be eligible for payment—despite the fact that this exception is not specified anywhere in the MOU. District negotiators had initially taken a similar position, claiming that since faculty were paid to complete the QOTL course, and since the course was supposed to allow them to convert 80% of a class, they had already been paid for the work of converting one class. According to Laura Schulkind, the District’s chief negotiator, “We want to pay for every one of those activities, but we don’t want to pay for it twice.” At the close of last week’s negotiations, the District offered to give faculty 3 hours of compensation for the class they began work on during QOTL—an offer District negotiators framed as a compromise position.

Both last week and this week, AFT negotiators reiterated how difficult it was to complete the majority of the work of converting a class within the 25 hours of QOTL training. They also emphasized that the 6-hour-per-class payment does not in any way correspond to the amount of time required to convert a class for online delivery. In response, District negotiators agreed to pay faculty for the full 6 hours for the class they worked on during QOTL.

AFT and the District had also disagreed on whether the 6-hour payment should be awarded multiple times to faculty who teach concurrently scheduled classes. These classes include leveled classes (ex. Golf I, II, III, and IV, listed at Cañada as INDV 160.1, 160.2, 160.3, and 160.4) and distinct, separately listed courses that prior to COVID were scheduled to meet at the same place and time, but with different content for distinct groups of students. Despite the MOU’s language indicating that “course refers to each unique course as listed in the course catalog,” some administrators had refused to compensate faculty for each concurrently scheduled class.

At the previous negotiation session, District negotiators took the position that faculty who thought they had developed multiple online classes with meaningfully distinct content should petition their deans to be paid multiple times. AFT emphasized that we do not want to put faculty in the position of negotiating individually with their deans for fair compensation and working conditions: they should instead be protected by agreements negotiated collectively between our union and the District. Ultimately, the District offered to grant the conversion pay for each of the courses listed separately in the course catalog, while paying only once for course families in which courses are distinguished only by a decimal point added to the course number (like INDV 160.1, 160.2, etc.) and for courses that are cross-listed. AFT accepted this offer.

At the next bargaining session, AFT and the District will return to negotiating a multi-year contract. The major issues that remain unresolved in contract negotiations all relate to compensation and benefits, including discussions of part-time parity and lab rates.

Next bargaining dates:

  • Monday, October 19th, 12-5: compensation and benefits (including part-time parity and lab rates).
  • Thursday, October 22nd, 1-5: compensation and benefits (including part-time parity and lab rates).
  • Friday, October 23rd, 1-5: compensation and benefits (including part-time parity and lab rates).

 

October 1st Negotiations Session

Negotiators/representatives present:
AFT:  Joaquin Rivera, Monica Malamud, Marianne Kaletzky;
SMCCD District:  Laura Schulkind, Mitch Bailey, Joe Morello, David Feune, Aaron McVean, Max Hartman, Charlene Frontiera

At today’s negotiations, AFT and the District came to an agreement on Contract Article 7, which defines working hours for faculty.

The parties also began efforts to resolve disputes around the implementation of the Summer/Fall 2020 COVID MOU, particularly the application of its articles providing compensation to faculty who convert courses for delivery via distance education modalities.

District negotiators indicated that they hope to present a counter-proposal on compensation and benefits at the next negotiations, which will take place October 7th. Upcoming compensation discussions will also include negotiations about part-time parity and lab rates.

Article 7 (faculty workweek)

The newly settled Article 7 includes

  • Workweek for instructors: Instructors will be required to be on campus (or at another assigned or approved location) only during scheduled courses and office hours. This provision significantly reduces required on-campus time for many faculty: for instance, under the previous contract, a full-time faculty member teaching in-person was required to be on campus 25 hours per week, even if their course meetings and office hours took up less time. Full-time instructors will also be required to complete a Professional Responsibilities Plan of service activities totaling 6 or 7 points.
  • As agreed upon in special negotiations between counselors and counseling deans, as well as representatives of AFT and the District, full-time counselors will be required to be on campus (or at another assigned or approved location) for 30 hours per week. 22 of these hours will be devoted to scheduled counseling duties. 8 will be allocated to other professional duties (“prof time”). Full-time counselors will also be expected to complete a Professional Responsibilities Plan of no more than 5 points per year. Part-time counselors will be allocated one hour of prof time for every 3 FLCs of counseling duties.
  • Workweek for librarians: Full-time librarians will be required to be on campus (or at another assigned or approved location) for 32.5 hours a week—time they are expected to use primarily for providing librarian services to students. Full-time librarians will also be required to complete a Professional Responsibilities Plan of no more than 3 points per year. Librarians will not be expected to work more than 37.5 hours per week.
  • Workweek for nurses and faculty assigned to other duties: Full-time nurses and faculty assigned to other duties (including instructional designers) will be required to be on campus for 37.5 hours per week, unless another location is assigned or approved. These faculty will not be expected to complete a Professional Responsibilities Plan.

Application of MOU provisions for course conversion payment

After settling Article 7, AFT and the District discussed disputes that have arisen around the implementation of the Fall/Summer 2020 MOU, in particular those articles that provide compensation for instructors who convert courses for delivery via distance education modalities. The MOU specifies that faculty will receive 6 hours of compensation for each separate Fall course, as listed in the course catalog, that they convert to a distance modality.

First, instructors in some divisions have been told that the course they worked to convert during the Quality in Online Teaching and Learning training is not eligible for the 6-hour payment. District Chief Negotiator Laura Schulkind said that the District’s reasoning was that faculty were already being compensated for 25 hours of participation in QOTL training, and that the training was supposed to allow them to convert 80% of a course, so no further compensation was necessary for the work of converting that course. AFT negotiators pointed out that the structure of the QOTL training makes it difficult for faculty to do a substantial amount of work on course conversion during the 25 hours. Schulkind acknowledged that the District had heard from QOTL supervisors that some faculty finished the training with as little as 18% of a course complete. In response to this information, District negotiators offered to pay faculty for 3 hours of work on the course they worked to convert during the QOTL training. AFT will respond to this proposal at the next negotiation session.

Second, some instructors teaching distinct courses scheduled at the same time (for example, different levels of music that used to meet during the same period, and now have separate Canvas shells) have been told they will not be paid separately for converting each listed course. AFT’s position is that since MOU language specifies payment for each course as listed in the course catalog, and since an instructor has to create and manage a separate canvas shell for each, these instructors should be paid separately for distinct courses. Today the District proposed that faculty in these situations who think they deserve to be paid separately should petition the appropriate dean and grant the dean access to their Canvas shells. The Dean would have the authority to determine whether the shells for distinct classes are “truly different,” in Schulkind’s words, and therefore deserving of multiple conversion payments. AFT will also respond to this proposal at the next negotiation session.

Next bargaining dates:

  • Tuesday, October 7th, 9:30-2: MOU disputes. The District has also indicated they hope to present a counter-proposal on compensation and benefits. The compensation discussions will also include negotiations on part-time parity and lab rates.
  • Monday, October 19th, 12-5: compensation and benefits.
  • Thursday, October 22nd, 1-5: compensation and benefits.
  • Friday, October 23rd, 1-5: compensation and benefits.

 

September 16th Negotiations Session

Negotiators/representatives present:
AFT: Joaquin Rivera, Monica Malamud, Sandra Mendez (counseling faculty, Cañada), Arielle Smith (counseling faculty, CSM), Lavinia Zanassi (counseling faculty, Skyline), Marianne Kaletzky
SMCCD District: Laura Schulkind, Joe Morello, David Feune, Aaron McVean, Max Hartman

At today’s session, AFT and the District concluded their negotiations of counselors’ issues governed by Article 7 (“Hours of Employment”) and Appendices D and F. AFT also presented its counterproposal for the sections of Article 7 that cover working hours for instructors, librarians, nurses, and faculty assigned to other duties.

The tentative agreement on counselors’ issues is the product of several discussions over the past weeks between counselors at each of the three colleges, counseling deans at each college, and one representative each from AFT and the District negotiating team. Through those negotiations, the parties arrived at an agreement that includes the following:

  • Counselors’ hours: counselors will be required to be present on campus (or at another assigned or approved location) for 30 hours per week. 22 of these hours will be devoted to scheduled counseling duties. 8 will be allocated to other professional duties (“prof time”).
  • Scheduled counseling duties: the 22 hours of scheduled counseling duties per week will include scheduled or drop-in counseling appointments with students; group appointments; collaborating with instructional faculty or working with students in class; program coordination, student workshops, or case management activities so long as they are assigned or approved by the dean; counseling observations for evaluations; and additional activities that directly support students, as assigned or approved by the dean.
  • “Prof time” activities: activities to be completed during the 8 hours of prof time per week include maintaining records, following up with students, conducting research so as to provide students with correct and updated information, and attending meetings not part of the professional plan.
  • Provisions for part-time counselors: counselors with less than a full load will be allocated one hour of prof time for every 3 FLCs of counselor duties.
  • Definition of coordination duties: new language in Article 7 defines coordination, long an area of ambiguity for counseling faculty, as “any responsibilities of leading and organizing a program, initiative or project outside of the primary responsibilities of counselor duties.” The revised Article 7 also provides that coordination time shall be mutually agreed on by a counselor and their dean.
  • Professional Responsibilities Plan: each full-time counselor will be responsible for making and completing a professional responsibilities plan of activities totaling 5 points per year, according to the workload provisions agreed on by the District and AFT.
  • Appointment lengths and scheduling: new contract language provides that counseling deans and faculty will meet once a year to review “best practices, scheduling methods, use of technology and other strategies to support a collaborative scheduling approach.”

After coming to an agreement on workload issues specific to counselors, AFT presented our counterproposal on working hours for other faculty, including instructors, librarians, nurses, and faculty assigned to other duties. AFT’s proposal includes the following provisions:

  • Workweek for instructors: AFT’s current proposal specifies that instructors will be required to be on campus only during scheduled courses and office hours. Alternate locations may be assigned or approved (for example, for faculty teaching remotely). The proposal removes the previous contract’s expectation that full-time instructors be present on campus 25 hours per week.
  • Workweek for librarians: Language already agreed upon by AFT and the District specifies that full-time librarians will be present on campus (or at another assigned or approved location) for 5 hours a week—time they are expected to use primarily for providing librarian services to students. The District had previously offered language requiring counselors to complete a Professional Responsibilities Plan of 4 points per year. At today’s negotiations, AFT proposed that librarians’ Professional Responsibilities Plans be expected to total no more than 3 points per year. AFT also proposed re-inserting language from the previous contract specifying that librarians are not expected to work more than 37.5 hours per week.
  • Workweek for nurses and faculty assigned to other duties: AFT and the District have agreed on language specifying that full-time nurses and faculty assigned to other duties (including instructional designers) will be present on campus for 37.5 hours per week. (AFT’s current proposal adds the language “unless another location is assigned or approved.”) These faculty will not be required to complete a Professional Responsibilities Plan.

Next bargaining dates:

AFT and the District are in the process of scheduling future bargaining dates. Issues remaining to be settled relate primarily to compensation, including part-time pay parity, compensation for full-time faculty, and lab rates.

 

August 12th Negotiations Session

Negotiators/representatives present:
AFT:  Joaquin Rivera, Monica Malamud, Arielle Smith (counseling faculty and College Academic Senate President, CSM), Marianne Kaletzky
SMCCD District:  Laura Schulkind, Mitch Bailey, Joe Morello, David Feune, Aaron McVean, Max Hartman

At today’s negotiations, the District presented their counter-proposals on counselors’ issues and binding arbitration.

Counselors have long expressed the concern that the current system, in which many appointments are limited to 30 minutes, does not give them sufficient time to build trust with students, address student concerns, and complete necessary paperwork. They have asked that 45-minute appointments be made the standard.

Today, as in previous negotiation sessions, the District indicated that they are not open to specifying appointment times in the contract. Instead, the District proposed a system in which representatives from AFT and counseling deans will meet at the beginning of each academic year to discuss best practices in scheduling, scheduling methods and technologies, and “other strategies to support a collaborative scheduling approach.”

The District’s counter on counselors also proposes a new structure to define working hours for most faculty, including instructors, counselors, and librarians. The District indicated that they hope to give non-instructional faculty more of the autonomy that instructional faculty have. District chief negotiator Laura Schulkind explained, “I’m proposing an approach that simply treats all faculty the same…your time is simply divided between the time that you have assigned duties (that have to be performed on campus or in an assigned place) and unassigned time.” Under the District’s proposal:

  • Full-time instructors would have to be present on campus or in another assigned location only for their FLC and office hours (“assigned duties”), rather than for 25 hours a week. As specified by the workload article AFT and the District agreed on in the last negotiation session, they would also be responsible for completing service activities totaling either 6 or 7 points per year. Instructors could complete those service activities, as well as grading and course preparation, at “a time and place appropriate for the activity.”
  • Full-time counselors would have 25 hours a week of assigned duties, defined as scheduled or drop-in counseling appointments. They would also be responsible for completing service activities totaling 5 points per year. Appointment preparation, notes, and service work would fall outside the 25 scheduled hours per week.
  • Full-time librarians would have 5 hours per week of assigned duties, defined as providing librarian services to students. They would also be responsible for completing service activities totaling 4 points per year.
  • As in the current contract, full-time nurses and faculty assigned to other duties would have to be present on campus for 5 hours per week. They would not be responsible for completing any Professional Responsibilities Plan of service activities.

AFT chief negotiator Joaquin Rivera expressed concern that the definition of “assigned duties” for counselors would remove the flexibility some counselors currently have in determining how to use their 25 hours of scheduled time. Specifically, Rivera asked whether the District’s proposal still allows counselors to use some of the 25 hours for attending meetings or completing professional duties beyond appointments, as counselors at some colleges are now able to do.

Schulkind responded: “To make it clear, it does not. It is our expectation that counselors are spending 25 hours a week serving students.” She added that “I think a 25-hour counseling load leaves plenty of time in a full-time schedule to perform other professional duties.”

AFT negotiators are currently discussing the District’s proposal with members, especially counselors and librarians, and will present a counter at the next negotiations session on Friday, August 14th.

The District also presented a counter-proposal on binding arbitration. Currently, faculty have access only to advisory arbitration: grievances that are not resolved through informal discussions or formal hearings with administrators may be heard by an arbitrator, who will issue a recommendation; however, the final authority on whether to follow the arbitrator’s recommendation rests with the Board of Trustees. Under binding arbitration, the Board would be held to the arbitrator’s decision.

The current District offer allows for a three-year pilot program in which binding arbitration would replace advisory arbitration, with the following conditions:

  • Nothing related to the tenure review process would be subject to binding arbitration.
  • Grievances related to part-time retention and assignments would be subject to advisory arbitration only.
  • Other part-time matters covered in Article 19 of the contract would be subject to binding arbitration only if the part-timer concerned has received two consecutive satisfactory evaluations or has been given an assignment for eight consecutive semesters with no negative evaluations.
  • During the pilot program, a maximum of three grievances per year would be eligible for binding arbitration.

The AFT will respond to the District’s offer on binding arbitration in the next negotiations session.

 

August 5th Negotiations Session

Negotiators/representatives present:  AFT:  Joaquin Rivera, Monica Malamud, Marianne Kaletzky:
SMCCD District:  Laura Schulkind, Mitch Bailey, Charlene Frontiera, Joe Morello, Max Hartman, David Feune

Today AFT and the District reached a tentative agreement on a two-year pilot program in which a points system will be used to quantify the service work of full-time faculty.

While the District had for years rejected the union’s proposals for a framework to quantify work beyond essential teaching, library, and counseling duties, District negotiators indicated a month ago that they were ready to move forward with AFT’s idea of a points system. According to AFT’s proposal, particular service activities would receive points, with each activity worth between .5 points (attend Division meetings) and 4 points (serve on a hiring committee for a full-time position with more than 100 applicants). Each spring, every full-time faculty member would create a Professional Responsibilities Plan of activities with points adding up to a specified total. If AFT members ratify the contract that is currently being negotiated, the pilot program will be in effect during the academic years 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, with faculty making their first Professional Responsibilities Plans in the Spring of 2021 for the coming academic year.

For the past month, AFT and the District have negotiated over which activities should receive points, how many points each activity should receive, and how many points constitute a reasonable expectation for service work per year. On the last issue, AFT had originally proposed a range of 4-5 points per year, where the District had proposed 10 points.

At the opening of today’s negotiations, AFT chief negotiator Joaquin Rivera presented the results of the union’s survey of full-time faculty. The survey had a response rate of 59%, with 84% of respondents saying that 8 points—the District’s most recent proposal for an annual expectation—was too much work. The same survey showed that a slight majority (55%) of respondents thought 5 points was the right amount of work, with 33% saying it was too much and 12% saying it was too little. In response to an open-ended question asking how much service work they thought was reasonable, faculty gave a median answer of 4 points. Rivera explained that the union sees 5 points as adequate, but for the sake of moving forward with a very necessary pilot program, was willing to offer 6.

Following the presentation of the survey results, the District took time to caucus and returned with a proposal in which full-time faculty could make plans totaling either 6 or 7 points of service work per year. District chief negotiator Laura Schulkind explained to AFT representatives that “In the first instance, no faculty member has to create a plan that is more than 6 points. So I think that is to a large extent accepting your number.” In particular circumstances where, in Schuklind’s words, “there is a specific, time-sensitive need,” a dean can request a faculty member to go up to 7 points without any additional compensation. The framework also includes specific limitations on hiring and tenure evaluation committees: regardless of the number of total points, no faculty member can be required to serve on more than 2 hiring or tenure evaluation committees per year.

Faculty members who are requested and agree to undertake more than 7 points of service work in a year will receive additional compensation for every hour they spend on service work over the 7 points or will be allowed, in the first year of the program, to bank their points for the following year; the compensation will be at the special rate. Questions and disputes about the points system will be resolved by a Pilot Program Guidance Committee that will include representatives from AFT, District Academic Senate, Human Resources, and Educational Services and Planning.

The District indicated that it hopes to present counter-proposals on counselors’ issues and arbitration at the next negotiation session, which will take place on Wednesday, August 12th.

Next bargaining dates:

  • Wednesday, August 12th: 1-5
  • Friday, August 14th: 11-2.

 

July 30th Negotiations Session

Negotiators/representatives present:  AFT:  Joaquin Rivera, Monica Malamud, Marianne Kaletzky;
SMCCD District:  Laura Schulkind, Mitch Bailey, Max Hartman, Joe Morello, David Feune, Charlene Frontiera, Aaron McVean

AFT and the District continued their discussion of a points system to quantify faculty workload today. The points system, which would initially be implemented as a two-year pilot program, would assign point values to a number of professional responsibilities beyond essential teaching, counseling, and library duties. Each full-time faculty member would be expected to create a Professional Responsibilities Plan of activities adding up to a specified total.

At today’s negotiations, AFT and the District made progress towards agreeing on language to describe each point-earning activity and determining how many points each activity should earn. The lowest-demand activities on the list—like mentoring new faculty or assessing course or program SLOs—earn half a point. The highest-volume activity—serving on a hiring committee for a full-time faculty or administrator position with more than 100 applications—earns 4 points.

However, the two bargaining teams continue to disagree about how many total points each full-time faculty member should be expected to accumulate. AFT, who initially proposed the points system with an expected total of 4 or 5 points a year, contends that 5 points represent a reasonable amount of institutional service work; the union bargaining team noted that each point corresponds to a minimum of 15-20 hours of work, and about 87.5 total hours are available for service work in a year. (AFT used the example of an instructional faculty member who spends 15 hours in the classroom, 15 hours on prep and grading, and 5 hours holding office hours, leaving 2.5 hours for service in a 37.5-hour workweek.) The District argues that full-time faculty should be expected to perform at least 8 points of service work per year.

The bargaining teams will continue negotiating over workload Wednesday, August 5th. In order to represent our members’ interests as fully and accurately as possible, AFT is asking full-time faculty to fill out a 3-question survey indicating how many points they think constitutes a reasonable workload. We have circulated the survey by email and used texting outreach to encourage members to complete it by this Tuesday, August 4th, at 5 p.m., so we can consider your input for the next negotiation session. You can also access the survey through this link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/QWDXKJH.

Next bargaining dates:

  • Wednesday, August 5th: 10-1
  • Wednesday, August 12th: 1-5
  • Friday, August 14th: 11-2.

 

July 24th Negotiations Session

Negotiators/representatives present:  AFT:  Joaquin Rivera, Monica Malamud, Marianne Kaletzky:
SMCCD District:  Laura Schulkind, Joe Morello, David Feune, Mitch Bailey, Charlene Frontiera, Max Hartman

At today’s negotiations, AFT and the District continued to discuss using a points system to limit faculty workload. The points system, which would initially be implemented as a two-year pilot program, would assign point values to a number of professional responsibilities beyond essential teaching, counseling, and library duties. Each full-time faculty member would be expected to create a Professional Responsibilities Plan of activities adding up to a specified total.

AFT and the District made some progress towards agreement on which activities should receive points and how many points each included activity should receive. In addition, the District accepted AFT’s contention that faculty members cannot be required to go over the point total agreed upon by AFT and the District. The District also agreed that faculty who are requested by their deans to exceed the point total, and who agree to do so, should be able either to bank the extra points for the following year or to receive monetary compensation for each hour of additional work.

However, the parties continue to disagree about how many total points each full-time faculty member should be expected to accumulate. AFT had initially proposed a total of 4 or 5 points per year, while the District countered with an expectation of 10 points per year. At today’s negotiations, AFT chief negotiator Joaquin Rivera reminded the District that “one of the goals of this proposal is to put a cap on the workload of faculty that has been increasing dramatically for the past years…We still feel that 5 is on the high end, but it’s a reasonable amount to expect faculty to do.” The District responded by offering a total expectation of 9 points as well as a limit of two tenure committees or hiring committees per faculty member per year.

The parties will continue negotiating over workload at the next bargaining session this Thursday, July 30th. District chief negotiator Laura Schulkind has indicated that the District wants to come to an agreement on workload for all full-time faculty before talking specifically about counselors’ workload.

Next bargaining dates:

  • Thursday, July 30th: 1-4
  • Wednesday, August 5th: 10-1
  • Wednesday, August 12th: 1-5
  • Friday, August 14th: 11-2 

 

July 20th Negotiations Session

Negotiators/representatives present:  AFT:  Joaquin Rivera, Monica Malamud, Marianne Kaletzky;
SMCCD District:  Laura Schulkind, Joe Morello, David Feune, Mitch Bailey, Aaron McVean, Charlene Frontiera

At today’s negotiations, the District responded to AFT’s most recent counter-proposal on limiting faculty workload. AFT and the District had previously agreed to the idea of a points system in which professional responsibilities beyond essential teaching, counseling, and library duties are assigned specific point values, and each full-time faculty member is expected to create a Professional Responsibilities Plan of activities that add up to a specified total.

AFT had initially proposed a total expectation of 4 or 5 points per year, while the District proposed 10 points per year. While the two negotiating teams made some progress towards agreement about which activities should receive points and how many points each activity should receive, they continue to differ about what constitutes a reasonable total expectation, with the District holding to their expectation of 10 points in the counter-proposal they presented today. District chief negotiator Laura Schulkind argued that the counter-proposal nonetheless represents a reduction in the District’s expectations for faculty service work, as District negotiators have agreed to assign points to more activities than they had initially included.

AFT chief negotiator Joaquin Rivera responded that, even with the assignment of points for more activities, “When you consider the number of hours we’re talking with, 10 points is excessive. As I said last week, if we’re talking about 37.5 hours a week, that only leaves 2.5 hours for all these other professional duties.” (Rivera had previously given the example of an instructor who spends 15 hours in the classroom, 15 hours on prep and grading, and 5 hours holding office hours.) Schulkind replied that “I find it helpful to think about it not as a weekly thing but annually, what you’re contributing…These things fluctuate. These things don’t neatly fit into 2.5 hours a week. And they shouldn’t have to because you’re exempt employees, you receive a salary, you do the work that needs to be done…That doesn’t mean that the District can make unlimited demands on you, but it doesn’t mean that you hit a 37.5 hour week each week. You’re not hourly employees.”

AFT will present its counter to the District’s most recent proposal in the next negotiation session, which will take place this Friday, July 24th. In the meantime, AFT asked for clarification about a couple of provisions in the District proposal, including language around pay for faculty members “requested” by administrators to exceed the total—a possibility the District illustrated through the example of a need for a curriculum review that no faculty member had included in their Professional Responsibilities Plan. District language specifies that a dean can assign the duty to a faculty member who then has “sole discretion” to “determine what to delete” from their plan, but also that a faculty member might be “requested by the dean not to delete any activities,” in which case they would receive monetary compensation. AFT has asked the District to clarify whether a dean can require a faculty member to exceed the total points expectation if the faculty member doesn’t wish to, or whether the District simply means that faculty willing to take on duties beyond the expectation—and receive compensation for it—must have the arrangement approved by their dean.

Next bargaining dates:

  • Friday, July 24th: 9-12 (workload)
  • Thursday, July 30th: 1-4 

 

July 16th Negotiations Session

Negotiators/representatives present:  AFT:  Joaquin Rivera, Monica Malamud, Marianne Kaletzky;
SMCCD District:  Laura Schulkind, Mitch Bailey, Aaron McVean, Max Hartman, Joe Morello, David Feune, Charlene Frontiera

At today’s negotiations sessions, AFT presented their counter-proposal for a framework to limit faculty workload.

Background on workload negotiations:

For years, the District had rejected AFT’s efforts to quantify and cap faculty service work. At the July 10th negotiations, however, the District accepted in principle AFT’s proposal for a pilot program in which faculty and administrators would use a points system to limit faculty work beyond essential teaching, counseling, and library duties. AFT’s original proposal set forth a framework in which:

  • Each service activity earns between .5 and 4 points
  • 1 point corresponds to one hour of work per week for the year, and
  • Full-time faculty are expected to accumulate a maximum of 4 or 5 total points per year.

While the District agreed with some aspects of the points system, the framework they proposed on the 10th included a significantly higher total, with faculty members expected to accrue 10 points per year.

Today’s counter-proposal:

The counter-proposal AFT presented today aimed at a more reasonable limit on faculty workload. As chief negotiator Joaquin Rivera explained, 10 points of service work is simply too many given how much time most faculty members spend on essential duties. Rivera offered the example of an instructor who spends 15 hours in the classroom, 5 hours holding office hours, and 15 hours doing preparation and grading—meaning the instructor already works 35 hours per week before any other professional duties. AFT’s counter-proposal includes the following provisions:

  • A maximum expectation of 5 points of service work per year for each full-time faculty member.
  • Extra compensation or credit for the following year for faculty members who exceed the 5-point maximum.
  • A committee of representatives from the Academic Senate, AFT, and the Administration to settle any disputes that arise during the program’s two-year pilot period.

Following AFT’s presentation, the District indicated they were not yet ready to present their own counter, but that they thought the teams were close to an agreement on workload. The District will present their next workload proposal this Monday, July 20th. After discussions of workload and counselors’ workload, the District has indicated they hope to return to compensation issues.

Next bargaining dates:

  • Monday, July 20th: 9-12 (workload)
  • Friday, July 24th: 9-12 (counselors’ workload)
  • Thursday, July 30th: 1-4

 

July 10th Negotiations Session

Negotiators/representatives present:  AFT:  Joaquin Rivera, Monica Malamud, Paul Bissember, Marianne Kaletzky;  SMCCD District:  Laura Schulkind, Mitch Bailey, Charlene Frontiera, David Feune, Aaron McVean, Max Hartman

At today’s negotiations, AFT and the District agreed on an MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) that sets forth conditions for teaching and learning this summer and fall.

AFT and the District then resumed negotiations for the next multi-year contract. In these negotiations, the District accepted AFT’s proposal for a framework to limit faculty workload by quantifying service work. However, the parties disagree on the amount of service work that should be expected of faculty.

Read the full-text of the MOU here.

Key provisions of the MOU for Summer and Fall 2020 include:

  • A limit on faculty workloads: Full-time faculty will not be expected to engage in more than two high-volume or high-demand professional duties in Fall 2020. “High-volume/high-demand professional duties” include committee service, program review, curriculum development (excluding DE addenda), and SLO’s.
  • Reallocation of counselors’ hours: In view of the extraordinary demands the pandemic and the transition to distance education have placed on counselors, counselors will only be scheduled for 21 hours of counseling appointments per week. They will have 9 hours per week for other professional duties, including preparation for appointments and follow-up with students.
  • Compensation for course conversion: faculty will receive 6 hours of compensation at the special rate for each course they convert for delivery via online modality in Fall 2020. For courses that are converted and delivered only in summer, instructors will receive 3 hours of compensation at the special rate. Instructors who convert a course and deliver it in summer and again in fall will receive the remaining 3 hours of compensation in the fall, for a total of 6 hours.
  • Extra pay for courses with high enrollments: The District will compensate instructors who teach courses with either more than 45 students enrolled at census day or more than 40 students enrolled on the last day to withdraw.
    • For courses with either 46-57 students at census or 41-54 students on the last day to withdraw, instructors will receive 1 additional hour of compensation per week, retroactive to the beginning of the semester.
    • For courses with either 58-69 at census or 55-69 students on the last day to withdraw, instructors will receive 2 additional hours of compensation per week, retroactive to the beginning of the semester.
    • Courses with 70 or more students will follow the large lecture compensation rates set forth in the Contract (Article 8.14).
  • Provisions for faculty who see a need to reduce enrollment caps for their courses: Faculty desiring a reduction must have a conversation with their deans following the guidelines developed by the District Academic Senate, available here. Faculty who are not satisfied with the dean’s decision can appeal to the Vice President of Instruction. If the situation is still not resolved to their satisfaction, faculty should contact the union by emailing executive secretary Marianne Kaletzky at kaletzky@aft1493.org.

The Academic Senate originally set a deadline of July 9th for conversations with deans to occur—a deadline that is obviously no longer feasible. The District has agreed to adjust the deadline to two weeks from the date of the MOU’s execution. Faculty should conduct these conversations with deans immediately, and by July 24th at the latest.

The negotiations also offered significant progress towards a multi-year contract. After years of refusing AFT’s attempts to quantify faculty service work, the District indicated they are ready to accept a version of the framework AFT has proposed, which assigns point values to committee work and other service duties. The point system would limit faculty workload by specifying a maximum number of points full-time faculty would be expected to accumulate each year.

However, AFT and the District disagree about which activities should receive points, how many points each activity should receive, and how many points each full-time faculty member should be expected to accrue. AFT initially proposed a points system in which service activities range from  .5 points (for example, assessing course or program SLO’s, or mentoring a new faculty member) to 4 points (serving on a hiring committee for a full-time faculty position that receives more than 100 applications). Under AFT’s proposal, each full-time faculty member would create a Professional Responsibilities Plan each year, which would include a mix of activities whose point values total 4 or 5. The District has proposed a points system of activities ranging from .5 to 4 points in which each full-time faculty member would be expected to accumulate 10 points per year.

In view of the progress made today and AFT’s need for time to consider the District’s workload proposal, both sides agreed to cancel the negotiation session that had been scheduled for Monday, July 13th. The next bargaining day will be Thursday, July 16th.

Next bargaining dates:

Thursday, July 16th 2-5 p.m.

 

July 7th Negotiations Session

Negotiators/representatives present:  AFT:  Joaquin Rivera, Monica Malamud, Paul Bissember, Marianne Kaletzky;  SMCCD District:  Laura Schulkind, Mitch Bailey, Joe Morello, Charlene Frontiera, Max Hartman, David Feune

At today’s negotiations, AFT and the District made substantial progress towards settling a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that sets forth conditions for teaching and learning this fall. The two sides moved towards agreement on key issues including:

  • Instructional faculty workload – The District agreed to limit the expectations for committee service and other non-essential duties for full-time instructional faculty. Specifically, the District accepted AFT’s proposal that full-time instructional faculty should only be expected to perform two high-volume professional duties in addition to teaching this fall. Such duties will include committee service, program review, curriculum development (excluding distance education addenda), and SLOs.
  • Requirements for Fall courses taught in distance modalities – The parties agreed to give instructors greater flexibility for fall courses taught remotely. In particular, the District agreed to strike language that prohibited instructors from scheduling synchronous classes for more than 90 minutes. District negotiators also clarified that instructors may make adaptations for students who have difficulty accessing synchronous instruction as needed on a case-by-case basis, rather than having to implement such adaptations prospectively.
  • Counselors’ workload – AFT and the District agreed to reallocate counselors’ work time in recognition of the unique demands the pandemic has placed on counselors. For the fall semester, counselors will not be scheduled for more than 21 hours of counseling appointments per week. The remaining 9 hours per week will available for other professional duties, including follow-up and preparation for appointments.
  • Class caps and compensation for large classes: The District agreed to compensate instructors who teach classes of more than 40 students; however, while AFT proposed that the count be taken at first census, the District proposed the final day to withdraw (about 75% of the way through the semester). In response to AFT’s argument that by this date instructors will already have done significant work to support all students through the extra challenges posed by a large class, the District offered either to compensate instructors for more than 45 students at first census, or for more than 40 students at the withdrawal deadline. AFT and the District will discuss the issue further at the next bargaining session this Friday, July 10th.

The parties also agreed to formalize the process originally set forth by the Academic Senate for instructors to request reductions in enrollment caps, as well as adding an avenue for appeal. Any instructor who thinks a reduction in class size is warranted by Academic Senate guidelines should first discuss the issue with their dean. If the dean rejects their request, the instructor may appeal to the Vice President of Instruction, who must respond within five days.

The Academic Senate originally set a deadline of July 9th for conversations with deans to occur—a deadline that is obviously no longer feasible. The District agreed to adjust the deadline to two weeks from the date the MOU is executed.

The District and the AFT will meet this Friday with the goal of settling the MOU in the first hour of negotiations, then moving on to negotiations for AFT’s contract.

Next bargaining dates:

  • Friday, July 10th 1-5 p.m.
  • Monday, July 13th 1-5 p.m.
  • Thursday, July 16th 2-5 p.m. 

 

June 22nd Negotiations Session

Negotiators/representatives present:  AFT:  Joaquin Rivera, Monica Malamud, Paul Bissember, Marianne Kaletzky;  SMCCD District:  Laura Schulkind, Mitch Bailey, Joe Morello, Charlene Frontiera, David Feune, Aaron McVean

This bargaining session was again devoted to negotiations over extending the current MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) on the effects of the District’s response to COVID-19. At the end of the previous session, both AFT and the District agreed to arrive at today’s negotiations with the goal of settling an MOU. Unfortunately, substantial disagreements between the parties made this impossible.

Specifically, the AFT and the District continue to differ on key issues including:

  • Workload – The MOU for March – May of 2020 limited faculty work requirements to the essential duties outlined in Appendix D1 A for Instructors, D2 A for Counselors, and D3 A for Librarians. AFT maintains that the District must continue to offer workload reductions in response to the current context of distance education, which requires faculty to invest more time in helping students succeed.At the June 17th negotiations, District representatives promised to consult with campus administrators to determine which faculty duties were essential for the functioning of the Colleges through the pandemic. But at today’s negotiations, the District refused any reduction in faculty workloads and demanded that faculty return to all previously assigned duties for Summer and Fall, claiming that all faculty duties are necessary to allow the Colleges to continue to operate.
  • Class caps – As in previous negotiations, the District maintained that instructors who saw a need for a smaller class due to the challenges of distance learning should speak individually with their deans according to the guidelines developed by the District Academic Senate. In response to the AFT’s observation that an instructor would have no recourse if a dean rejected their request, the District offered the additional possibility of appealing to the Vice President of Instruction. The District also offered some compensation for faculty members whose courses exceed 45 students. However, the District continues to reject AFT’s contention that distance learning conditions necessitate more substantial reductions in class caps.
  • Counselors’ workload – The District rejected counselors’ proposal that a set percentage of their time be allocated to one-hour appointments, which would help them support students amidst the extraordinarily trying circumstances of the present moment. Instead, the District offered reduced overall time with students—a proposal which would reallocate appointment time to other professional tasks.
  • Requirements for Fall courses taught in distance modalities – With regard to Fall courses being delivered in distance modalities due to the pandemic, District negotiators insisted on requirements more rigid than the District Academic Senate guidance. Specifically, the District’s proposed language would prohibit instructors from scheduling synchronous meetings longer than 90 minutes. In addition, District negotiators insisted that faculty delivering instruction synchronously must also create materials for asynchronous learning, but could not clarify whether asynchronous lesson plans must be created prospectively for all courses or might be devised as needed on a case-by-case basis.

Next bargaining dates:

  • At the end of the session, District negotiators specified that they would not be available for the next negotiation session until the second or third week of July. AFT will announce the exact date to members when it is set. 
    UPDATE
    : On Friday, June 26, District and AFT negotiators agreed on the following bargaining dates:

    • July 7, 2-5
    • July 10, 1-5
    • July 13, 1-5
    • July 16, 2-5

     

 

June 17th Negotiations Session

Negotiators/representatives present:  AFT: Joaquin Rivera, Paul Bissember, Monica Malamud, Marianne Kaletzky;  SMCCD District: Laura Schulkind, Mitch Bailey, Joe Morello, Max Hartman, Charlene Frontiera, David Feune

In this bargaining session, AFT and the District continued negotiations over extending the current MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) on the effects of the District’s response to COVID-19.

The District moved towards AFT’s position on a number of issues, including:

  • Evaluations – AFT proposed that instructors teaching remote or online classes this Fall due to COVID be evaluated only on the content of their courses, not on their use of remote-learning technologies and methodologies. The District accepted that faculty should not suffer negative professional consequences due to the temporary need for remote instruction. They suggested that evaluators offer feedback to faculty on matters including their use of technology, but that faculty teaching online for their first full semester could not be rated as Unsatisfactory. AFT countered that both Needs Improvement and Unsatisfactory ratings should be off the table under the current circumstances, since both have negative consequences for faculty members’ future employment.
  • Faculty training from other districts – the District agreed to accept training in online teaching methodologies from other districts, recognizing AFT’s argument that adjuncts who teach in multiple districts shouldn’t be required to complete the same training multiple times.
  • FLEX day compensation – the District agreed that faculty completing a training on distance modalities other than the District’s required training may count the training time as FLEX time.
  • Workload – in response to AFT’s proposal that faculty workload this Fall be limited to the essential duties outlined in D1, D2, and D3a of the past contract, the District said they would consult with campus administrators to determine which duties they saw as necessary for the functioning of the colleges this Fall.

However, the AFT and the District continue to differ on a number of issues, including:

  • Class caps – AFT proposed that every course have its enrollment limit reduced by 25% so that faculty can give students the additional attention they need to succeed amidst the challenges of distance learning. District chief negotiator Laura Schulkind flatly rejected the proposal, describing the class size reduction as functioning “arbitrarily” and declaring, “We think that’s a sledgehammer when you need a knitting needle.” The District maintains that faculty who see a need for a reduction in class size should consult individually with their deans.
  • Counselors’ workload – Schulkind claimed that District negotiators were struck by the May 20th testimony of counselors, who described working through evenings and weekends to offer students guidance amidst the extraordinary stresses of the pandemic. Yet the District rejected counselors’ proposal to have a set percentage of their contact hours allocated to hour-long appointments, which would give them the time they need to discuss student concerns in sufficient depth. Schulkind said counselors’ proposal “seems very contrary to anything I’ve ever seen counselors ask for in the past, to ask that a contract lock in the time of their appointments…Usually, I’ve seen counselors who want a lower workload wanting a limitation on hours spent with students.” The District proposed instead that counselors’ assigned time with students be reduced by two hours per week, with the two hours reallocated to other responsibilities.
  • Compensation for course conversion – AFT had proposed that faculty be compensated for 10 hours of time for each Spring and Fall course they worked to transition from in-person to online instruction. The District countered by offering five hours of compensation. AFT chief negotiator Joaquin Rivera replied, “We feel that five is not enough. We feel that ten is not enough.” In response, the District offered six hours of compensation.

AFT and the District agreed to devote this Monday’s (6/22) bargaining session, originally slated to discuss workload issues beyond COVID, to trying to come to an agreement on the MOU.

Next bargaining date:

Monday, June 22nd – 2-5pm – MOU

 

June 12th Negotiations Session

Negotiators/representatives present: AFT:  Joaquin Rivera, Paul Bissember, Monica Malamud;
SMCCD District:  Laura Schulkind, Mitch Bailey, Joe Morello, Max Hartman, Charlene Frontiera, Aaron McVean

This bargaining session focused on extending the current MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) relating to the effects of COVID-19 measures.  While the District accepted many of the AFT’s proposals, there were several points of disagreements including:

  • Canceled / Suspended Classes – The district does not agree to compensating faculty for any for canceled/suspended classes as the District argued this does not apply anymore.
  • FLEX Day compensation for online training without pre-approval – The District will not agree to this citing it needs to be discussed with the Academic Senate.
  • Faculty Training from other Districts – Initially the District rejected accepting training of faculty from other districts, which particularly impacts Part Time faculty. After arguing that the District is requiring training for online instruction from faculty, and that this is a current practice, the District agreed to review and come back with language.
  • Compensation for Course Conversion – While the District acknowledged that transitioning classes online requires increased time and work from faculty, they claimed that paying faculty 10 hours at the special rate per course is cost prohibitive. They countered that faculty be paid at 5 hours at the special rate per course.
  • Distance Education / Online Instruction – AFT proposed maintaining this section, allowing faculty the discretion to decide the mode of online / distance education instruction. The District countered with language that they claimed is verbatim from the Academic Senate including requiring the use of Canvas as the primary point of access.
  • Workload – While the District had agreed to relieve faculty of certain workload duties in the Spring, they explained that this was temporary due to an emergency situation, and that faculty will need to resume all obligations in the Fall.
  • Counselors Workload – Following our last bargaining session which included presentations from counseling faculty from across the campuses, the District rejected and offered no counter to the counselors workload proposal to allow them more time to meet with students. They indicated that, “We think the current system is working well.  We do think that better consistency and communication across the colleges will be good.  I think there is an increased level of sharing of approaches across the colleges across the counseling deans.  We don’t see a need for a change…. we understand they have concerns, we read the language that has been proposed and what we are saying is we do not see a problem with relying on the current approach to local scheduling.”
  • Class Caps – The District rejected the AFT proposal to cap class sizes at 20 students per class arguing this is not feasible. They countered with language from the Academic Senate’s recommendations on class caps.  This involves individual faculty requesting from their deans a reduction in the class caps, includes criteria for deans to make determinations, but ultimately, leaves the decision with the deans.
  • Evaluations – The District countered that tenure-track faculty will undergo the regular evaluation process, which in the Fall will necessarily include their use of distance technology and online teaching methodology. They argued that “we are out of the emergency period, we are paying for 25 hours for robust training for anybody doing this work.  It seems inconsistent to us to pay for the training, but not be evaluated.”  The AFT countered that we are still currently in a crisis, and that faculty are being required to teach online, which, under regular circumstances, teaching online is voluntary.  The District agreed to re-evaluate their position.

Next bargaining dates:

  • Wednesday, June 17th – 1-4pm – MOU
  • Monday, June 22nd – 1-5pm – Workload/Compensation

 

May 29th Negotiations Session

Negotiators/representatives present:  AFT: Joaquin Rivera, Paul Bissember, Monica Malamud, David Conway (Legal Counsel); SMCCD District: Laura Schulkind, Mitch Bailey, Joe Morello, Max Hartman, Charlene Frontiera, David Feune, Mwanaisha Sims

During this bargaining session, the AFT invited our lawyer David Conway to present our counter-proposals on Investigations, Discipline, and Complaints.  Overall, our bargaining teams are very close to coming to an agreement around these topics.  Our goal with this language is to make articles as clear as possible for everyone – faculty members, union grievance officers, and supervisors.

AFT counters combined Investigations and Complaints into a single article.  Another additional change was to incorporate an Appendix with an Employee Notification Packet, for faculty under investigation, that would include the AFT Members Benefits of Representation Letter, Acknowledgement of Rights Form, Employee Notification Form, and Summary of Interview Subject Matter.  On Discipline, the goal of this counter is not to create major substantive changes to the language, but to provide clarifications, some technical changes, and refer back to relevant Ed Code.

The District will prepare counters on Investigations and Discipline, and the AFT will work on preparing the Appendix language for the Notification Packet.

Regarding the Summer and Fall 2020 MOU on the Effects of District Actions due to COVID-19 Pandemic, the District’s bargaining team indicated that they are not in a position to provide a lot of definite plans for the union to identify definite effects to bargain over.  Our AFT bargaining team indicated that we can prepare specific issues relating to the MOU and send them to the District.

The bargaining teams identified the following dates for additional bargaining sessions:

  • Friday, June 12th – 10am-12pm – COVID-19 MOU for Summer/Fall 2020
  • Wednesday, June 17th – 1-4pm – Workload and Compensation

 

May 20th Negotiations Session

Negotiators/representatives present:  AFT: Joaquin Rivera, Paul Bissember;  Counselors: Arielle Smith, Lavinia Zanassi, Jenna French, Sandra Mendez, Jacqueline Escobar, Kevin Sinarle;  SMCCD District: Laura Schulkind, Mitch Bailey, Joe Morello, Max Hartman, Charlene Frontiera, David Feune, Luis Escobar

The majority of this bargaining session focused on presentations from a variety of counselors from across the District on the counselors’ workload proposal.  The AFT then presented a counter on wages and compensation and concluded the session by reviewing the outstanding proposals.

Counselors’ Workload

Arielle Smith, Student Services Counselor and CSM Academic Senate President, opened up the counselors’ presentation by giving an overview of the workload issue and the steps that the AFT had taken to resolve the issue without success thus far.  Counselors provided context and shared their experiences arguing the need to allocate additional time for their appointments.  See below for some remarks from this presentation:

“We have had 30 minute appointments [resulting in] counselor burnout and lots of needs being unmet.  In student surveys, they say that they don’t have enough time…We also understand that there is a tension between providing sufficient access and providing sufficient time.  So, we thought the best way would be to have 45-minute appointments.”
 – Arielle Smith, Student Services Counselor at CSM

“I have heard from counselors at Cañada that 30 minutes are not enough.  There are certain points in the semester when everyone is slammed….We have to make the connection first with the students, and then we have to make notes.  It makes sense why the hour was helpful – 45 minutes with students and 15 minutes for notes – but we want to work with the district and settle for 45 minutes.”
Jenna French, Learning Disability Specialist/DRC Counselor at Cañada

“I saw the implementation of SARS and initially I liked it, but what happened was every counselor got boxed into 30 min appointments…The biggest complaint from students, which is out of counselors control, is not enough time with students.  We have to look at all the issues students are dealing with…Having more time would help a lot.”
Kevin Sinarle, Student Services Counselor at the Disability Resource Center at CSM

“The technical skills and knowledge to do this work, you can’t respond to one question in a 30-minute appointment…It’s our job to speak to the student to find out what else is happening…  We’re asking for 45 minutes, really, we should be asking for an hour and a half, but we will take 45 minutes.  The counselors that we are, we want to be there for our students, so I will work with them at night to make sure they get their needs fulfilled.  It’s recognition for the work that we are currently doing.  It’s not equitable for us, and it’s not right for our students.”
– Jacqueline Escobar, Student Services Counseling at Skyline

“The main issue we are all talking about is students first…if my student is sitting across from me and is trying to register for fall and they have issues with housing, we can’t say hold on, we are just doing the registration and not doing personal counseling.  We want to give them our best selves, they deserve it.  Even entering our virtual door is an issue, how do they log in, how do they connect to us?  We are the first point of contact whenever there is a crisis.  It’s multi-faceted and it’s important to consider.  45 minutes is way better than the 30 minutes we are getting now.”
– Sandra Mendez, Student Services Counseling at Cañada

I want to give them the time they need.  I may not need 45 minutes for everyone, but it allows us to develop the trust that we need to do our jobs.  We are only agents to help them do that.  They change their own lives.  We need to address students.  We want a relationship where students feel they are heard, they are part of the process.  I want to be empowering to them.  I’m imploring that this [proposal] be accepted, and not be rejected.”
– Lavinia Zanassi, Career Services Counseling at Skyline

Following the counselors presentation, the District’s Chief Negotiator, Laura Schulkind remarked, “I find this [presentation] very valuable. Thank you so much for taking the time to come … I would like us to have as a management team to go back and discuss what we’ve heard today … My job is to try to find common ground if possible.

Wages and Benefits

The AFT bargaining team presented the following proposal on Wages and Benefits:

Wage increases as follows:

– 2% effective with the beginning of the fall semester 2019
– If the assessed valuation of property, as determined by the San Mateo County Assessor’s Office Local Combined Roll prepared by the County Assessor’s Office, increases by more than 3% for 2019-20, 60% of the assessed valuation increase above 3% will be added to the 2.0% compensation increases stated above effective with the beginning of the fall semester 2019. For example, if the assessed valuation increases 8.0%, then 60% of the 5%, i.e. 3.0%, will be added to the 2%.

– Part-time faculty will be paid at 85% pro-rata.

Increase medical cap as follows effective 1/1/2020:

  • Single: $50.00 per month
  • 2-Party: $100.00 per month
  • Family: $150.00 per month
  • Increase part time faculty medical reimbursement $600 per semester effective January 1, 2020.

Outstanding proposals

Finally, the bargaining teams reviewed the outstanding proposals.

  • AFT will present counters on Discipline, Investigations, Complaints at the next session. AFT also owes a counter on Binding Arbitration.
  • The District owes counters on the FLC Allocation and Workload.

The next bargaining session is on Friday, May 29, 2020 2-4pm

 

May 13th Negotiations Session

Negotiators/representatives present:  AFT:  Joaquin Rivera, Paul Bissember, Monica Malamud;
SMCCD District:  Laura Schulkind, Mitch Bailey, Joe Morello, David Feune, Aaron McVean

At the previous bargaining session, the negotiations teams discussed the District’s counters on complaints and investigations.  At this bargaining session, we discussed workload and discipline.

District’s Counter-Proposal on Discipline

To start off the discussion, the District’s Chief Negotiator, Laura Schulkind, shared that previously, in another district, she had successfully reached an agreement on a discipline article in two sessions.  Schulkind then walked through their entire proposed article.  She expressed that “having standards and procedures in place helps everyone.”

Overall, the District’s counter-proposal represents an advancement in bargaining as it includes many of the aspects that the AFT had been advocating for: notice to faculty around discipline, due process rights to evidentiary hearing on charges, just cause, and progressive discipline.  In addition, their proposal defines and outlines formal and informal discipline.  The major issue that the AFT bargaining team brought up to the District is that their proposal leaves out part-time faculty.  The District’s team caucused, and came back to the table to explain that they would write up new language to include eligible part-time faculty “who have met the load assignment criteria set forth in Article 19.2.4” providing them with rights around dismissal. Review the District’s entire counter-proposal.

Workload

Following the discussion on discipline, the bargaining teams transitioned to talk about workload.  The AFT bargaining team reviewed the challenges around workload, and history and context, and explained the workload proposal.  Schulkind indicated that the idea of a professional responsibilities plan was an interesting idea but expressed concern that the AFT proposal lacks a mechanism that would allow Deans to hold faculty accountable to the plan.  Both teams agreed that there needs to be a collaborative process between faculty and deans when determining workload.

Extension of Coronavirus MOU and Upcoming Bargaining Dates

Following the workload discussion, the AFT’s bargaining team informed the District’s team that we need to discuss extending the MOU for the summer and fall and find additional bargaining dates.  We also agreed to have counselors come to the next bargaining session on May 20, 2020 to present on their workload proposal. 

 

May 1st Negotiations Session

The AFT and District bargaining teams met on Friday, May 1, for the first contract negotiations session following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. We had negotiated a successful MOU in two sessions, and now our bargaining teams are back at the table to focus on the contract negotiations, which have been going on now for 15 months. At Friday’s session, the district prepared counter-proposals on informal complaints and formal Investigations.

Overall, our AFT bargaining team found that the district’s counter-proposals covered our main priorities that we outlined in our previous proposals: it provides for notice to the union around investigations, rights to union representation in investigatory meetings, union rights to investigatory information, and it includes links to current and appropriate district policies. The new district negotiator, Laura Schulkind, indicated that the investigations language she created comes from another district, where she had negotiated the same language.

Schulkind explained that, “We considered [this contract language] positive for both the union and the district… Faculty have concerns that informal complaints, become invisible until it comes to discipline and that’s not fair. So, the union should receive notifications so they happen in a fair way. Once things rise to the level of formal investigation, I think faculty protections should be higher.”

Furthermore, Schulkind argued that with more formalized notification that is provided to faculty, there tends to be less grievances and disputes. “I see this as a useful tool for both sides, to have heightened notice to faculty. I do not see it interfering with investigations.”

In past negotiations sessions, the AFT argued that faculty should have their rights protected, treated with dignity, and that there should be mutual respect for a fair process. Schulkind agreed, stating that the District needs to “remind administrators that when we investigate faculty, they are presumed innocent.”

Finally, the district’s counter-proposal includes additional language around investigations of allegations posted to social media. This language also came from a case in another district, which Schulkind argued allows districts to outline policy and provide protections for faculty.

At our next session on May 13, we plan to discuss workload and compensation, including part-time pay parity. We were not yet able to have a discussion on a new COVID-19 MOU, but we will bring this up at the next session. At our May 20 session we will focus on the Counselor Workload issue.

Our upcoming bargaining dates are:
• Wednesday, May 13, 9-11am,
• Wednesday, May 20, 12-2pm 
• Friday, May 29, 2-4pm

 

April 6th: Highlights of MOU on Effects of District Emergency Actions  due to COVID-19 pandemic

We have reached a final agreement with the District on the MOU.
CLICK HERE TO LEARN ABOUT FACULTY RIGHTS UNDER THE MOU AND GET ANSWERS TO FACULTY QUESTIONS.
Below are highlights of all of the key relief measures.

  • The relief measures outlined in the MOU last until the end of the semester (May 30, 2020)
  • Faculty will maintain their salary and benefits throughout the Spring semester. Faculty will be fully compensated for cancelled or suspended classes.
  • Emergency Leaves –In addition to the leaves guaranteed under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), Faculty will be granted the following types of leaves:
    • Emergency Paid Sick Leave (EPSL) – Faculty who meet the FFCRA eligibility [1] to receive EPSL shall receive their regular rate of pay until the end of the semester. This leave is for faculty who are quarantined, advised to self-quarantine by a health care provider, or are experiencing COVID-19 symptoms and seeking a medical diagnosis.  This also includes any faculty who have had classes canceled this semester.
    • Emergency Paid Sick Leave (EPSL) to care for family members – Faculty who meet the FFCRA eligibility criteria to receive EPSL at 2/3 pay [2], shall be paid their full rate of pay for 10 days. This leave is for faculty who are caring for a family member.
    • Emergency Family and Medical Leave (EFML) – Faculty who meet the FFCRA eligibility [3] to take the EFML at 2/3 of their regular pay for up to 12 weeks may use accrued leave to bring faculty up to 100% pay for the full 12 weeks. This leave is for faculty with children who have had their schools closed due to COVID-19.
  • Workload Adjustment – For the rest of the semester, faculty shall be limited to only required duties and responsibilities outlined in Appendix D1 A for Instructors, D2 A for Counselors and D3 A for Librarians. Faculty with coordination duties will do their best to continue their coordination and will be provided flexibility to continue performing these duties to the best of their abilities.
  • Reimbursement – Faculty shall receive reimbursements for incurred expenses for conferences not attended or cancelled. In addition, the district will reimburse faculty for preapproved expenses incurred as a result of teaching online.  If members need additional equipment to work remotely, they shall inform their immediate supervisor, and the District will procure and provide the necessary equipment.
  • Flexibility around Online Instruction and Academic Freedom – Faculty will retain academic freedom and the mode of online instruction will be left up to the instructor.
  • Compensation for migrating classes online – All faculty will receive their regular pay as if March 12, 13 and 16 had been instructional days. All faculty shall receive up to ten (10) hours of additional compensation at the special rate, without prior approval, in recognition of transitioning to online instruction (and the procedure for claiming this additional compensation will be announced shortly). For adjunct faculty who did not benefit from the preparation days when the District canceled classes on March 12, 13, and 16, they will receive additional compensation in an amount equivalent to 100% of their regular pay received for each class taught on Tuesday March 10 and/or Wednesday March 11.
  • Evaluations –
  1. Tenure Track: evaluations proceed as scheduled, but faculty are not evaluated on their methodology or use of distance technology, and student surveys are limited to course content.  (Note:  tenure track evaluations are typically completed by now)

Tenured and Part-Time:  If the classroom observation has NOT been completed, evaluations are postponed.  If classroom observation has been completed, evaluee decides if evaluation continues or is postponed; if postponed, portions completed do not have to be repeated.

Footnotes

1.     a. Subject to a federal, state or local quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19;

b. Advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19;

c. Experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking a medical diagnosis;

2.  Is caring for an individual subject to an order described above, or is experiencing any other substantially-similar condition specified by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

3.  An employee may take EFMLA leave only when they are unable to work because they must care for the employee’s child who is under the age of 18 years, if the child’s school or place of care has been closed or the child’s care provider is unavailable due to an emergency related to COVID-19

 

March 30th Negotiations Session on MOU on COVID-19 Measures

Negotiators/representatives present:  AFT:  Joaquin Rivera, Monica Malamud, Paul Bissember;
SMCCCD District:  Laura Schulkind, Mitch Bailey, David Feune

The AFT and District’s bargaining teams met on Monday afternoon to discuss an MOU around the COVID-19 measures.  This was the first meeting with the District’s new Chief Negotiator, Laura Schulkind.  We had a very productive meeting and we want to share that the District has accepted most of our proposals.  We will be meeting again on Weds. 4/1 to continue this discussion with the goal of finalizing the MOU

Next bargaining session: Wednesday, April 1, 1-2pm

 

February 25th Negotiations Session

Negotiators/representatives present:  AFT:  Joaquin Rivera, Paul Bissember, Monica Malamud:
SMCCCD District:  Mitch Bailey, Joe Morello, Aaron McVean, Max Hartman

At the start of negotiations, the District’s bargaining team indicated that they are finalizing their counter on Discipline and will bring it back to the next session.  On investigations, the AFT bargaining team asserted that ALL investigations should be covered by this language, not just issues of discrimination/harassment.  AFT will bring a counter to reflect this position at the next session.

The rest of this session focused on FLC Lab Rates, and Workload – including a discussion on the counselor’s workload proposal.

AFT Counter on FLC Lab Rates

AFT countered to increase the District’s proposal of 0.8 FLC for the Sciences, Art, Music and KAD labs to to 0.85.  This would allow for an increase to all of the proposed lab rates and have them be the same.  AFT also presented a counter on the Coach’s issue.  AFT agreed to the District’s proposal to make this change effective Spring 2021 and also agreed to appointing a committee to study further increases for the other lab classes.

Workload

While we are making some progress on the FLC Labs and Investigations/Discipline, the bargaining teams are still far from an agreement on Workload.  The District’s team argued, “We have been consistent that work is different from one division to another, and to put a hard box is impractical and unhelpful, it removes the flexibility from the deans and faculty from coming together…You want everything or nothing, and that is not reasonable.”

The AFT’s team responded, “We want a comprehensive proposal.  We’ve been dealing with this for years now, and we need to define what is a reasonable expectation for this extra amount of work.  It’s not just hiring or tenure committees, there’s a lot of other things that faculty do that take time.”

The District did update their previous proposal and explained they had made a mistake with their numbers.  Instead of a .05 FLC for serving on more than 3 Tenure-Track Review or Hiring Committees (the only non-instructional work that the District is proposing for some compensation) they meant 0.75 FLC.  They indicated that they would provide written language to reflect this change.

Counseling Workload

AFT provided feedback to the District from CSM Counselor Arielle Smith who reviewed the District’s proposal with the AFT bargaining team.  Here are three concrete needs coming from Counseling faculty:

  • Define how ‘coordination’ is being used – this has been used inconsistently across the District.
  • Include counselors working as part of grant-funded programs in the contract to ensure their rights are protected.
  • Clear and consistent workload expectations for counselors.

AFT would like to invite counselors to an upcoming negotiations session focused on this topic so they can voice their concerns directly about the district’s proposal.  The District’s team indicated an openness to this concept.

 

February 18th Negotiations Session

Negotiators/representatives present:  AFT:  Joaquin Rivera, Paul Bissember, Monica Malamud
SMCCD District:  Mitch Bailey, David Feune, Joe Morello, Aaron McVean, Max Hartman, Charlene Frontiera, Mwanaisha Sims

At this bargaining session the District prepared a counter proposal on the counselor’s workload issue, FLC Lab Rates, and the AFT presented a counter on discipline.  Our bargaining teams also discussed investigations and binding arbitration.

Discussion on Investigations/Complaints

The District’s bargaining team has reaffirmed that they want to limit any policy on investigations to only harassment and discrimination.  The AFT’s team argued that the contract language should cover any and all types of incidences when faculty are being investigated.  The District indicated that there is current Board policy around HR Personnel investigations and confirmed that they will send this policy to the AFT team to review.

AFT Counter Proposal on Discipline

In the AFT’s counter to the District’s last proposal on discipline, we added language to outline informal discipline processes, and rejected the District’s language to exclude Part-Time Faculty from disciplinary procedures.  The District will review and submit a counter.

District Counter Proposal on Counselor’s Workload

In a shift from their previous position of outright rejecting the AFT’s proposal on counselor’s workload, the District presented a counter proposal which removed much of language of the initial AFT proposal.  Their proposal maintained language around ‘flexibility’ for peak times, and the limits to Drop-In scheduling, while rejecting 45-minute appointments.  In addition, they added language to the counselor to student ratio section: “the District shall maintain a ratio of at least one FTE counselor per 495 students.”  Finally, their proposal removed language on coordination.  The AFT explained that defining coordination was important as counselors are seeking clarity on how coordination is being used across the district.  AFT will bring this proposal to counselors and discuss next steps.

District Counter on FLC Lab Rates

The District had previously indicated that there was not enough money to increase the FLC Lab Rates, and have now presented a counter to increase the Art, Music, and KAD lab rates from 0.7 to 0.8, and that other lab rates would remain the same.  In addition, they would still like to form a committee to study further increases for other labs and to examine the FLC proposal for the Coaches as well.  The proposed increases would be effective starting in Spring 2021 as the District indicated that they are currently preparing schedules.

Binding Arbitration and Workload

The District rejected the AFT’s last proposals on Workload and Binding Arbitration and countered that they are maintaining their previous position on this issue.  Read the February 5th Bargaining Report for details on Binding Arbitration.  On Workload, here is the ‘enforcement’ part of the District’s proposal and you can find more details on their most recent proposal which they are maintaining here.

Next bargaining session: Tuesday February 25 1-3pm. 

 

February 10th Negotiations Session

Negotiators/representatives present:  AFT:  Joaquin Rivera, Paul Bissember, Monica Malamud;
SMCCD District:  Mitch Bailey, David Feune, Joe Morello, Aaron McVean, Max Hartman, Charlene Frontiera

The District prepared responses on the following issues: Discipline, compensation and adjunct parity, counseling workload and grievance, and FLC Lab Rates.  The AFT brought back to the table counter proposals on Investigations, Binding Arbitration, and Workload.

 

AFT Response on Workload

At the last negotiations session, the District requested a formal response on workload.  The AFT formally responded that, “AFT rejects the District’s proposal on workload.  We propose the implementation of our point system for a trial period of 3 years.”  There was no further discussion on this issue.

 

District Counter on Discipline

The District took AFT’s proposal, reviewed, took out Ed Code language, defined some items that AFT had outlined including Just Cause, informal discipline, and disciplinary steps.

The AFT immediately noted that the district’s proposal excludes part time faculty and would not be subject to the grievance process.  The District’s team responded that they “don’t see these two groups (Full-Time and Part-Time faculty) going through the same disciplinary procedures.”  Regarding grievances, their rationale for carving this out from the grievance process is that current Ed. Code relating to discipline would bring disputes to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), and our grievance process brings disputes to an arbitrator which could provide two contradictory rulings.   AFT argued that it is important to establish a disciplinary process for ALL faculty and that the grievance process would allow us to settle issues at the lowest possible levels, and resolve them informally without necessarily going to an outside arbitrator or ALJ.  The District encouraged AFT to include these questions/responses in a counter.

 

AFT Response Binding Arbitration

AFT agreed to part of the District’s proposal that would qualify Part-Time Faculty for arbitration cases who have received two (2) consecutive satisfactory evaluations or have accumulated 8.  In the AFT’s counter, we rejected the exclusion of article 19.2 (Assignment and Retention), and the 9 FLCs minimum requirement for adjuncts to be included or that the 8 semesters to qualify have to be consecutive.

 

AFT Response on Investigations

The major difference between the investigations proposals centers on the question of whether the District needs to provide specific (AFT) or general (District) information on the complaint.  Additionally, the District’s proposed that the information provided to the union around investigations be limited to discrimination or harassment issues.  The District responded that these investigations are very prescriptive and have different processes than HR investigations.  AFT argued that there needs to be a policy in the contract on ALL faculty investigations, regardless of the content.  AFT expressed a willingness to change the language to include “sufficient and relevant” information which would be in alignment with a recent California Public Employees Relation Board (PERB) ruling.

 

District response on compensation and part time pay parity

On the Total Compensation Formula, the AFT had countered that 100% of new money, instead of 80% which the district maintains, be allocated to employee groups.  The current Total Comp. formula shrinks the total funding that employee groups receive over time.  In addition, AFT proposed defining Part-Time Pay parity in the contract at 85% and mirroring the Full-Time Faculty salary schedule.

The District proposed maintaining the Total Comp. Formula as is.  The District rejected defining Part-Time Pay Parity in the contract.  However, in their proposal, the district proposed matching up to 1.5% of the Total Comp. allocation that goes to Part-Time Faculty for this year (2019-2020) which would be incorporated into the salary schedule going forward.  So if 1% of the Total Comp allocation goes to Part-Time Faculty, the district would match an additional 1% (1.5% the District would match 1.5%, 2%, the District would give 1.5% etc.)

 

FLC Lab Rates

The District understands that the AFT was clear that we need movement on this issue to move forward.  They indicated a willingness to look at the FLC lab rates and will come back with a specific proposal to discuss.

 

Counselor Workload

While we had a lengthy discussion on the Counselor Workload issue, the District expressed that their answer to the AFT proposal on Counselors’ Workload was still NO.  AFT expressed a frustration with the District over how this issue has been handled.  First, back in March 2019, HR had indicated that it would make sense to recalculate the load and update the language through negotiations.  When AFT brought the Counselors’ proposal to the bargaining table back in September 2019, the District’s bargaining team rejected the AFT proposal and offered NO counter proposal.  Finally, the AFT filed a grievance in December 2019 and the District dismissed the grievance, and suggested that it go back to the bargaining table.  At this session, the District’s team suggested waiting ONE YEAR after implementation of the new CRM system to open up the workload item through the negotiations process.  At this point, why should we take the District’s word that they would negotiate on this issue then, when this is the way things have been handled?  At the end of the session, the District agreed to bring a written proposal at the next bargaining session.

At the next bargaining sessions the District will bring to the table a counterproposal on the Counselors’ Workload issue and the FLC Lab Rates.  AFT will come back with a counter on Discipline.

Next bargaining sessions: February 19, 10-12pm and February 25, 1-3pm

 

 

February 5th Negotiations Session

Negotiators/representatives present:  AFT: Joaquin Rivera, Paul Bissember, Monica Malamud;
SMCCD District: Mitch Bailey, David Feune, Joe Morello, Aaron McVean, Mwanaisha Sims, Max Hartman

At this bargaining session, the District presented counter proposals on investigations and binding arbitration.  Additionally, we had a discussion on Progressive Discipline. AFT presented counter proposals on the Distance Ed MOU and the FLC lab allocation.


AFT Counter to MOU on Distance Education

At the last bargaining session, the district proposed a ‘technical’ change to the MOU eliminating the $1,500 stipend for faculty participating in Distance Ed trainings, and instead paying faculty at the special rate.  The problem is that this would result in a decreased amount for many faculty participating in these trainings.  AFT argued that if this is simply a ‘technical’ change, we should ensure their proposal doesn’t decrease the current agreed upon amount of $1,500.  Therefore, the AFT proposed $60 per hour or the special rate, whichever is higher – this way faculty would receive at least $1,500 for Distance Ed trainings.  The District will look into this and get back to the AFT.


District Counter Proposal to Complaints Against Members and Investigations

We had a good discussion on the topic of investigations, and we are getting closer to an agreement here.  The District is conceding to AFT language on the mutual respect for a fair investigative process.  They still want to limit the information provided to the AFT to ‘general’ instead of ‘specific’ complaints.  The AFT argued that according to a recent Public Employee Relations Board (PERB) ruling, the district should provide specific relevant information.    The District disagrees with this PERB interpretation, but will review and get back to the AFT.  AFT also requests that a new notice about the complaints be issued if the District has new information prior to the investigatory interview.  AFT will return to the table with a counter proposal.


AFT Counter Proposal on Faculty Load Credit (FLC) Lab Allocation

In response to the District’s counter proposal on FLC Lab Allocation, which would not change anything and refer the issue to be studied by a committee, AFT proposed an increase in the FLC for Sciences, Art, Music to 0.9 (the initial proposal was 1.0).  The AFT proposal also included an increase for the Tier 1 and Tier 2 Sports of 0.8FTE (12FLC) and 0.75FTE (9FLC) respectively.  In addition, AFT would agree to the district’s proposal to appoint a committee to study further increases to these allocations as well as other lab classes.

The District said that it did not have enough information to change any FLC allocations for labs right now and that AFT’s request to increase lab FLCs may not be fair to faculty.  AFT reminded the District that AFT’s initial proposal came from discipline faculty, and that faculty representatives took the time to come to negotiations to present on this issue.  The District responded that they require more time to study this issue.  AFT said that we could dedicate more bargaining sessions to this issue, and spend more time looking at the specifics.  The District said they could be open to this, but rejected the AFT proposal.


District Counter Proposal on Binding Arbitration

The previous AFT proposal for an MOU on Binding Arbitration was to include Part-Time faculty.  The District agreed to include Part-Time faculty, but with two stipulations:  (a) the MOU would apply only to Part-Time faculty who have received two (2) consecutive satisfactory evaluations and have been given an assignment of at least nine (9) FLCs per semester for eight (8) consecutive, and (b) the following topics would be excluded and not eligible for binding arbitration: assignment and retention.  AFT argued this is a very high threshold to meet and would exclude the vast majority of Part-Time faculty and issues.  AFT will prepare a counter proposal.


Next Bargaining Session: Monday, Feb. 10th

We will be meeting next Monday for our next bargaining session from 1:30-3:30pm.  The AFT asked the District to respond to our Part-Time Pay Parity proposal and about the Counselor’s workload grievance.  The District agreed and will prepare a response for Monday.

 

January 16, 2020 Negotiations Session

Negotiators/representatives present: AFT:  Joaquin Rivera, Monica Malamud, Paul Bissember;  SMCCCD District:  Mitch Bailey, David Feune, Joe Morello, Charlene Frontiera, Aaron McVean

Today we held our first bargaining session of the Spring 2020 semester.  AFT presented a counter to the district’s last proposal on Binding Arbitration, and we also gave a presentation on our Part Time Pay Parity proposal and how it would move the district in the right direction around the 50% law.  The district proposed a technical change to the Distance Education MOU stipend.

Distance Ed MOU

The district proposed changing the existing contract language around the Distance Ed MOU which grants faculty a $1,500 stipend for participation in distance education trainings.  Their proposal would change payment of a flat stipend for a 25-hour course to paying faculty at the hourly special rate for online education trainings that could go beyond the 25 hours.  Our bargaining team confirmed that we would review this proposal and follow up with them.

Binding Arbitration Pilot

AFT presented a counter to the district’s recent proposed Binding Arbitration 3-year Pilot.  The district’s proposal left out binding arbitration rights for Part-Time faculty, so the AFT’s counter added the following language to include adjunct seniority rights:

“issues under Article 19 will be eligible for binding arbitration for part-time faculty members that have received two (2) consecutive satisfactory evaluations or has been given an assignment for six (6) semesters with no negative evaluations.”

Part Time Pay Parity and the 50% Law

AFT presented updated information we received from the district relating to Part-Time Pay Parity and the 50% law (requiring that no less than 50% of district’s general expenditures go to classroom instruction).  Firstly, we reminded the district that it has been in violation of the 50% law for the past 5 years (in the 2018/19 academic year SMCCD was at 42.24%).  In addition, the district has never defined Part-Time Pay parity.  As reported in The Advocate October 2012 issue, the state of California had asked all community college districts to “define, through the local collective bargaining process, a parity goal…the goal would be the percentage towards which negotiators try to move in future negotiations.”  In order to move us closer to compliance with the 50% law, and fulfill the mandate from the state to define parity in our contract, AFT urged the district to support our Part-Time Pay Parity proposal which would establish parity at 85%.   Here are the numbers we received from the district:

  • Increasing part-time from 60% to 85%, at a cost of approximately $10.6 million, would increase the District’s compliance by approximately 6.8%
  • Increasing part-time from 65% to 85%, at a cost of approximately $7.9 million, would increase the District’s compliance by approximately 5%
  • Increasing part-time from 70% to 85%, at a cost of approximately $5.5 million, would increase the District’s compliance by approximately 3.5%

Compensation

We discussed compensation at this session as well.  The district wants to maintain the current Total Compensation Formula with 80%, while the AFT countered 100%.  AFT explained that the current formula would continue the downward trend with regards to the 50% law, and that we need to see if the district agrees to Part Time Pay Parity before our union can agree to the Total Compensation Formula proposal.

Upcoming Bargaining Sessions

Our teams agreed to discuss at our next bargaining session Investigations, Workload – which includes FLC Lab Rates, and Discipline.  See below for the upcoming scheduled sessions:

  • Wednesday, January 29th from 10am-12pm
  • Wednesday, February 5th from 10am-12pm
  • Monday, February 10th from 1:30pm-3:30pm

 

Summary of Negotiations: August – December

At each negotiation session, different issues are slated for discussion. Here’s an update by issue as to where we are now.

WORKLOAD EQUITY FOR ALL FACULTY

The District’s latest proposal on workload failed at meeting the most basic recommendations outlined in the Workload Committee’s report. For full time faculty, the District proposed that division deans and full-time faculty should assign faculty to committees and other professional responsibilities, thereby bypassing the role of the Academic Senate. They also propose a new and onerous requirement: faculty must submit an annual workload report for review by their dean to determine if their work has met (still unspecified) expectations.

The District is willing to allow that faculty who serve on a third tenure-track hiring committee or tenure review committee can earn miniscule credit totaling 0.05 FLC.

The District has agreed to put in writing that they will compensate part-timers for work they are directed to complete by their supervisor.

Status: AFT has rejected this proposal


EQUITABLE LOAD FOR LAB CLASSES

Based on feedback from Music, Art, Physical Education and Science faculty and the need to establish parity around load calculation, AFT proposed increasing the FLC for these labs up to 1.0 over the life of the contract. On October 30 the District proposed to set aside AFT’s proposal in order to study the issue for one year. AFT pointed out that the District had made the same offer regarding Workload, and no positive progress had resulted.

Status: AFT has rejected this proposal


PAY EQUITY FOR NON-INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY

After hearing from counseling faculty about inconsistencies in how the Special Rate is used, AFT proposed eliminating the use of the current Special Rate and using the current Lecture Rate for any activity involving student contact and the current Lab Rate for those not involving student contact. The Counselors made their case to the District during September negotiations around this issue and counselor workload.  The District rejected this proposal.

Status: Although the District initially said they would work with AFT to come to a resolution, they rejected the counselor’s proposal completely and offered no counterproposal. AFT has filed a grievance over the counselors’ workload issue on Dec. 5 and will continue to work with counselors to improve working conditions.


ONE MONTH PAID MATERNITY/CHILD BONDING LEAVE

AFT requested that the District grant one month of paid maternity and/or child bonding leave to members.

Status: The District rejected AFT’s proposal.


COMPENSATION: SALARY, BENEFITS & PART-TIME PARITY

AFT proposed that part-time faculty be paid at 85% of full-time salaries, considering the same number of steps and columns in the salary schedule. We demonstrated that over the past 10 years, the District has overestimated expenditures while underestimating revenues. (For example, last year $11 million set aside for academic compensation was not spent on faculty). The District has ample resources to allocate to faculty compensation.

Status: We are waiting for the District to cost out AFT’s proposal.


INVESTIGATIONS / PROGRESSIVE DISCIPLINE

During November, in a productive discussion on faculty investigations, AFT and the District moved towards an understanding that the AFT needs to be notified of investigations with sufficient time and information to represent faculty meaningfully.

Status: We’ll continue working with the District to ensure that language guaranteeing this be included our contract.

Also in November, AFT continued to explain the need for clear language and policy around just cause and progressive discipline that would apply to any discipline measures faced by faculty. Status: The District will review AFT’s counter to discuss at the next bargaining session.


BINDING ARBITRATION

The District proposed a limited binding arbitration on terms that would exclude part-timers and almost all categories likely to be arbitrated.  AFT countered that we would only exclude tenure review decisions from binding arbitration.

Status: District rejected most recent AFT proposal on Binding Arbitration.


PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT: IMPROVED PROCESSES & INCREASED FUNDING

District rejected Academic Senate/AFT Proposal on Professional Development to increase PD funds, broaden faculty eligibility for PD, and establish clear guidelines on how these funds should be used, in order to put limits on PD funding being used for District/college initiatives.  They instead proposed changing the composition to PD committees to include more administrators.

Status: AFT has rejected this proposal


We have reached Tentative Agreements on the following items:

  • List of unit employees and job information.
  • Academic year begins on the first day of instruction or flex day
  • Part time faculty will be paid for their attendance on flex days.

 

November 26th Negotiations Session

The November 26 bargaining session focused on workload, progressive discipline, investigations, part-time pay parity, and we also presented information about the district budget.

Investigations, just cause and progressive discipline

AFT presented a counter proposal on investigations, focusing the need for the union to be notified about any complaint about a faculty member with specific information about the complaint.  Next, we explained the need to have clear language and policy around just cause and progressive discipline that would apply to any discipline a faculty member may face.  The district’s bargaining team expressed general agreement with this sentiment and will review our counter to discuss at the next session.

Workload

On workload, the district has agreed to put in writing that part-time faculty will be compensated for work they are directed to complete by their supervisor.
On the workload issue for full-time faculty, the district has proposed that division deans and faculty assign faculty to committees and other professional responsibilities — thereby ignoring the role of the Academic Senate. The district’s most recent proposal also requires faculty to submit a workload report each year, which the dean will review in order to determine if each faculty member’s work has met (still unspecified) expectations. Faculty who serve on a third tenure-track hiring committee or a third tenure review committee, “above and beyond what is expected of a reasonable workload”, will earn a 0.05 FLC.

The district’s workload proposal fails to define a “reasonable workload” or what “meeting expectations” means, while maintaining punitive measures for faculty who do not submit a newly-proposed report or do not fulfill an unspecified workload. It only offers a meager fraction of FLC for working on a third tenure-track hiring committee or a third tenure review committee within the same year, while providing no mechanism to address any other workload issues.

Compensation

Our discussion then focused on compensation by reviewing an analysis of the district budget.  Through our presentation, we demonstrated that over the past 10 years, the District has been overestimating expenditures, while underestimating revenues.  From 2011 to 2018 the revenues have increased 83% and the expenditures have increased only 58%. Last year alone, the difference between overestimated expenditures and underestimated revenues was around $32 million. In particular, in 2018-2019 the district estimated academic salary expenditures at $72,668,634, but only spent $61,572,227, resulting in over $11 million that was actually set aside for academic compensation but not spent on faculty.

Part-time pay parity

Finally, on part-time faculty pay parity, our analysis indicates that, depending on where an instructional adjunct faculty is on the salary scale, they are paid anywhere from 54.87% to 71.71% of a full-time faculty members’ salary.  We have proposed that part-time faculty be paid at 85% of full-time salaries, considering the same number of steps and columns in the salary schedule. We are still waiting for the district to cost out this proposal. We know that our proposal will have a cost, but we have also shown that the district has ample resources that can be allocated to faculty compensation.

 

November 5th Negotiations Session

At this week’s bargaining session, we discussed Investigations and Progressive Discipline. 

We had a very productive discussion on faculty investigations as we moved towards an understanding that the AFT needs to be notified of investigations with sufficient time and enough information to provide meaningful representation for faculty.

Regarding progressive discipline, however, the district rejected our proposal citing existing Ed Code language. We countered that Ed Code only applies to dismissal, and does not include any language on progressive discipline.


October 30th Negotiations Session

At the October 30 session, the District’s bargaining team emphasized the need to take items off the table so we can focus on the major issues – the first item they proposed to go was the FLC Lab rate proposal. They proposed forming a committee to study the issue for a year and coming back with a recommendation. Our AFT team reminded the district that this is what had happened with our workload proposal from the last round of bargaining and here we are continuing to fight for workload equity!

After having discussions around workload and part time pay parity, the district agreed, for the first time, that adjunct faculty should be paid for required work. In addition, their team had previously expressed a difficulty in calculating parity pay and said it has to be cost-neutral. Following our discussion, they agreed to come back to the table with a proposal and would work on costing out this proposal. We asked that they put it in writing for next week’s (Tuesday, Nov. 5) bargaining session!

 

October 8th Negotiations Session

Negotiators/representatives present: AFT:  Joaquin Rivera, Monica Malamud (by phone), Sue Pak (CFT), Paul Bissember; SMCCCD District:  Mitch Bailey, David Feune, Joe Morello, Max Hartman, Charlene Frontiera

At this bargaining session, we received responses regarding the Counselor caseload proposal, and on reassigned time for AFT business.  In addition, we had discussions on Part Time parity, and Faculty complaints and investigations.  Finally, we presented a counter proposal on Binding Arbitration.

Counselors’ Caseload Proposal

At our last bargaining session, counselors presented their proposal to update contract language to reflect current duties and responsibilities, while setting a clear limit on counselors’ caseloads.  The district’s bargaining team indicated that they would work with the AFT to come to some resolution on this issue.  Unfortunately, the district’s team outright rejected the counselors’ proposal and offered no counter.  The district’s team explained that, “the counseling deans do not feel comfortable making changes because they feel like we need more information.  There are a lot of new initiatives like guided pathways and CRM and if we commit to language about specific counseling appointment times…we could be doing ourselves a disservice.”  Furthermore, they claimed that things are working well now between counselors and deans and they need more data before making any changes to the contract. 

Our AFT bargaining team expressed our frustration at the district’s response to the counselors’ proposal.  Regarding the fact that there are new initiatives, our AFT bargaining team stated, “Things are constantly changing in education, but if we take this approach, for things to settle to put things in the contract, we may never get there.  Right now it’s the CRM, but in 2 years it could be another program.”  We also asked the district’s bargaining team what kind of timeline they expect to gather more data and resolve the issue.  They couldn’t give us any sort of timeline, but alluded to changes that could take years.

We reminded them that this proposal originated from a current and ongoing violation of the contract relating to counselors appointment times and that we had brought this issue to HR leading to a commitment to resolve this through contract negotiations.  One member of the district’s bargaining team stated that the current practice is not violating the contract.

The district’s chief negotiator concluded, “If we had to make a decision today, we would be able to live with the current contract.”  They may be able to live with the current contract, but counselors have made it clear that changes need to be made.  We informed the district’s team that we would bring this back to counselors and work with them to develop next steps.

Faculty Complaints and Investigations

While we had a good back and forth discussion about contract language relating to Faculty complaints and investigations, the district’s team explained that whatever we decide on, they would want it to exempt it from the grievance process.  Our team argued that if this language is not subject to a grievance process, it would be useless as there would be no way to enforce any negotiated procedures.

Reassigned time for AFT

Our last proposal for reassigned time for AFT organizational activities, we proposed to increase to 16 FLCs, the district responded 14, and they indicated that they could settle at 15.

Binding Arbitration

We submitted a counter proposal on binding arbitration that would change the proposed pilot period from 2 to 3 years upon ratification.  And instead of excluding almost all of the contract, as the district originally proposed, we countered that we would only exclude tenure review decisions from binding arbitration and set a cap of the number of arbitration cases to 3 per year.

Compensation – Part Time Parity

The remainder of the meeting focused on discussing our compensation proposal to set Part Time pay parity at 85%.  The district responded that it is too difficult of a task to cost this out as they would have to place every Part Time member on the salary scale (based on years of experience and level of education etc.).  They indicated that they would not want to guess on a number and that in order to agree to this they would want it to be cost neutral.  The district’s team asked why 85% and our AFT Chief Negotiator explained that he actually calculated the instructional work of Part Time faculty is around 87%, but we are bargaining 85% to make progress towards parity.  This discussion led to an important conversation about workload.  The district’s team expressed skepticism that part time faculty do 87% of full time faculty work, to which we replied that full time faculty are overworked and that we need to set a limit.  We asked them what percentage they believe Full Time faculty should dedicate to non-instructional work and they were unable to provide an answer.

Next bargaining sessions:

  • Wednesday, October 30, 1-4pm
  • Tuesday, November 5, 1-4pm

 

September 11th Negotiations Session

Negotiators/representatives present:AFT: Joaquin Rivera, Monica Malamud (by phone), Paul Bissember, Arielle Smith (CSM), Jacqueline Escobar (Skyline), Martin Bednarek (CSM), Lavinia Zanassi (Skyline), Nick Martin (Cañada), Daryan Chan (Cañada);
SMCCCD District: Mitch Bailey, David Feune, Joe Morello, Max Hartman, Luis Escobar, Krystal Duncan

At today’s bargaining session, we invited counselors from across the district to give a presentation on a proposal to update contract language relating to counselors’ duties and responsibilities and caseloads. In addition, the district’s bargaining team invited counseling deans from across the district to attend this session. Counselor Arielle Smith from CSM led the presentation, with her colleagues sharing their experiences, providing feedback, and answering questions from the district’s bargaining team.

Context and Goals

Before getting into the contract proposal, Arielle provided an overview of the process leading up to today’s bargaining session which included meetings with David Feune and Harry Joel from HR alerting them of contractual issues relating to counselors’ workload across the district, meetings with counselors across the district to discuss the issues, surveys to gather feedback on possible solutions, and meetings and communications with counselors and deans, to develop the proposed contract language. The goal of this proposal is to update the current contract language to reflect the actual work that counselors are doing, while setting a clear limit on counselors’ caseloads.  

Counselors’ Contract Proposal

The three main sections of the contract which the counselors’ proposal addresses are: 1) 7.6 – Workweek for Full-Time Counseling Faculty, 2) Appendix D2 – Duties and Responsibilities of Counselors, and 3) Appendix F – Faculty Load Credit (FLC) Allocation.  (Click here to read the counselors’ proposals for these three sections.)

The proposed workweek section does not include changes to hours, but rather, seeks to clarify the current practice of allocating 1 hour of ‘professional time’ for every 5 hours of counseling for both part-time and full-time counselors: “Hours are prorated on a 5-1 ratio for regular or part-time counselors…meaning that for every 5 hours of scheduled professional duties, the counselor is given 1 additional hour for other professional duties time at the same pay rate.” CSM Dean of Counseling Krystal Duncan indicated that they began offering this ‘Prof Time’ this year at CSM to the part-time counselors, a practice that is also being done at Cañada College, but not at Skyline.

Arielle explained that the current contract language is very formulaic around the FLC allocation in Appendix F. The counselors discussed how to come up with a load calculation that is appropriate for the work that counselor do. They decided to provide a simple FLC conversion in Appendix F and have Appendix D2 explain what the load is by outlining the duties and responsibilities; “Counselor load to FLC conversion: Every 6 hours of counselor load time per week equals 3 FLC. Every 2 hours of counselor load time per week equals 1FLC.”

Finally, Arielle presented on proposed changes to Appendix D2 – Duties and Responsibilities of Counselors. She indicated that the majority of this comes directly from the current contract, with some changes to clean up and clarify the language, while adding duties that are not currently listed. In order to resolve the issues relating to caseloads and student appointment times, the counselors proposed the following language: “Counselor load will be calculated using a standard of 45-minute appointments during the 25 hours of scheduled counselor duties. 85% of appointments will be 45 minutes of longer. The remaining time can be assigned flexibly with either 45-minute appointments and/or 30-minute appointments by mutual agreement between the counselor and the dean. Outside of peak times, no more than 10% of total counseling faculty will have drop-in as their primary assignment.”

This section of the proposal seeks to get at the root of the caseload issue by allocating more time (45 minutes instead of the current practice of 30 minutes) for counselors to see students. The counselors explained that currently they see anywhere from 45 to 50 students a week, and that with this proposal they would see 33 to 38 students per week. In order to better understand this proposal, the following are a sample of quotes from the counselors themselves sharing their stories and experiences from this meeting:

“How do we set some parameters that are appropriate for counselors in doing our jobs that are ethically and pedagogically sound, while also not creating a quota system. Having percentages and hours on the grid is the best work around on this.” – Arielle Smith, CSM

“The question I ask, and my fear with short appointment times, is ‘Am I ever going to see this student again? This is not an efficient way to retain our students. Figuring out this appointment issue is really important to holding onto our students.” – Nick Martin, Cañada

“I’ve been at Skyline since ’94. With all the complexities of the work we do, I’m amazed at what we can do in the 30 minutes, but I still need more time. As a senior counselor, I’m pretty efficient, but it’s still not enough time.” – Jacqueline Escobar, Skyline

“I can’t ethically let a student mention something that I need to address as a counselor just because there is a 30-minute appointment limit and just focus on paperwork. That’s what keeps our students here; someone helping them with their goals and classes but also listening.” – Martin Bednarek, CSM

“Our work is about the relationship you develop, the connection you make. All those hours, all that time we spend, the student feels like they can share intimate details…Things are very different now for students. 45 minutes is not asking that much. Our students now take in so much information and can’t assess it all. There is an engagement, a relationship, that we need to have transformative interactions with students.” – Lavinia Zanassi, Skyline

Following the counselors presentation, the district’s bargaining team indicated that they may have more questions, and that they would work with the AFT to come to some agreement on this issue. The next bargaining session is set for October 8th from 1-4pm.


August 28th
Negotiations Session

Negotiators present:  AFT: Joaquin Rivera, Monica Malamud (by phone), Paul Bissember;
SMCCCD District:  Mitch Bailey, David Feune, Joe Morello, Max Hartman, Charlene Frontiera

During this bargaining session the AFT bargaining team received the district’s proposal on binding arbitration, and we discussed study abroad faculty benefits, new faculty orientations, discipline, district communications with members around contract bargaining, and large class size.  We asked about the status of our AFT part time pay parity proposal, set at 85% of full time faculty’s salary.  They informed us that they would cost this out and get back to us.

District’s Binding Arbitration Proposal

The district presented a 2-year pilot program for a limited form of binding arbitration.  Their proposal would only extend to full time permanent faculty, excluding part-time and non-tenured faculty, and would exclude the following areas from binding arbitration:

  • Tenure review process
  • Faculty evaluations
  • Layoffs
  • Transfers and reassignments
  • Any matters pertaining to non-permanent employees including pay, benefits and hours.

While the district’s team emphasized that anything we get on binding arbitration is a win for our union, our AFT team indicated that this proposal excludes 2/3 of our membership and seems to exclude more than it includes.

Close to Agreements

We discussed several items in Article 2: Organizational Rights where our bargaining teams are close to reaching agreements.  Additionally, we are ready to agree to language around study abroad health benefits as the district confirmed that faculty members participating in these programs would be covered by the international insurance that students receive.  We are also close to an agreement on new faculty orientations.  The district’s team expressed a commitment to helping new part-time faculty become involved and engaged in the campus community and to share resources with them.  Our AFT bargaining team proposed language that would help ensure new part-time faculty receive orientations, if they are made available by the district, and that they be paid at the special rate for participation in orientations.

Counselors Caseload Presentation up next

We reminded the district that our next session, on September 11, would focus on the counselor caseload proposal.  Our bargaining teams agreed to dedicate the first hour of the next session to this proposal and that we would have 3-6 counselors, from across the campuses, present on this topic.  The district’s team indicated that they would invite other Counseling deans to this session.  After hearing from counselors who expressed interest in sitting in on this session, our AFT bargaining team asked if we could invite counselors to attend – the district bargaining team denied this request.


August 21st
Negotiations Session

Negotiators present:  AFT: Joaquin Rivera, Monica Malamud (by phone), Paul Bissember
SMCCCD: Mitch Bailey, David Feune, Max Hartman, Joe Morello

Our bargaining session began with a greeting from  SMCCCD Acting Chancellor Mike Claire who indicated that while he is not involved with bargaining, he wanted to stop by and wish us well in our contract negotiations.  Next, we heard from the district’s bargaining team that they had a counter to our proposal on Progressive Discipline.  Our AFT bargaining team reminded the district that we are still waiting for their written counter to our binding arbitration proposal.  They indicated that they will have that prepared for the next session.  Additionally, our AFT bargaining team asked clarifying questions about the district’s counter to our proposal on investigations/complaints and presented new language to ensure that the AFT receives a copy of faculty complaints.

Progressive Discipline

The district’s team presented their counter to our proposal on Progressive Discipline, indicating that they tried to keep most of our original language, but made some changes to keep in line with Ed Code.  Read the complete language of the district’s counter here.  Additionally, they said that they want to ensure that the contract language is clear and transparent, so that faculty know what the process is.  The district’s proposal defines progressive discipline by creating 3 main categories of discipline with varying disciplinary measures:

  • Informal Discipline – verbal or written warnings which would not end up in faculty’s personnel file.
  • Improvement Plan – also known as PIP (Performance Improvement Plan), which gives faculty 90 days to “correct deficiencies related to unprofessional conduct and/or unsatisfactory performance.” This would be placed in faculty’s personnel file, but could be temporary. The faculty member would have an opportunity to write a written response to the improvement plan.
  • Formal Discipline – “issued for ‘just cause’…and includes written reprimand, suspension without pay, or dismissal, the documentation of which shall be placed in the faculty member’s official personnel file.”

The faculty member would have the right to respond in writing within 10 days of being disciplined.  The district’s language also outlines grounds for discipline, which was taken from Ed. Code, ‘just cause,’ and grievability.  There were 2 key issues that our AFT bargaining team found with the district’s proposal:
1) it excludes Part-Time faculty, and
2) the entire section is not subject to grievance procedures.
Regarding the Part-Time faculty exclusion, we were told that this is because Adjunct faculty are ‘at-will’ employees, to which our AFT team countered that they should still have rights and due process.  The district’s team did not have a clear reason for the grievance issue but said they will look into it and get back to us.

Finally, we informed the district that we plan to invite CSM Counselor Arielle Smith to present on the counselor caseload language proposal at the Sept. 11 bargaining session.  Additionally, we outlined our goals to work towards finalizing the following issues at the next bargaining session on Wednesday, Aug. 28: investigations and progressive discipline, binding arbitration, Part-Time salary schedule and new faculty orientations, and Study Abroad health benefits.


July 24th
Negotiations Session

Negotiators present:  AFT: Joaquin Rivera, Monica Malamud (by phone), Paul Bissember;
SMCCCD: Mitch Bailey, David Feune, Max Hartman, Charlene Frontiera, Joe Morello

At today’s bargaining session, the bargaining teams had discussions on proposals relating to investigations, binding arbitration, and workload.  Our AFT negotiations team expected to receive a response from the district on our progressive discipline proposal, but the district’s team did not yet have this prepared for today’s session.

Investigations

The district’s team acknowledged the importance of this topic for our union, and indicated that they have been working over the past year to remedy the problems relating to how the district had handled investigations in the past few years.  They presented a counter proposal that can be viewed here.  Their counter maintained much of the same language from AFT’s initial proposal, and included proposed edits to incorporate language relating to state regulations (i.e. Ed code, and PERB).  Significantly, the district’s counter would remove language requiring notification of investigations be given to the AFT.  The AFT bargaining team expressed the challenges of representation if our union were not to be notified of faculty complaints, and indicated that this lack of notification may go against a recent PERB (Public Employment Relations Board) ruling pertaining to this issue.  More detailed information regarding this case (Contra Costa Community College District PERB Decision No. 2652E) can be found here.

Binding Arbitration

The district’s bargaining team indicated that the Board of Trustees would entertain a proposal relating to binding arbitration that would 1) sunset in 2 years, 2) only pertain to full time Tenured Faculty (excluding part time, non-tenured, and full-time temporary faculty), 3) apply to a limited set of contract articles, and 4) put a cap on the number of cases that could be brought to arbitration.  We asked the district’s bargaining team to provide us with a counter proposal in writing relating to this topic.

Workload

The district’s bargaining team informed us that their position has not changed since the last session, even though they had told us that they were open to writing new language to make their proposal less punitive.  They affirmed their position that their goal is to balance workload.  Our bargaining team restated that the district’s proposal fails to meet the recommendations put forward in the workload committee report by not establishing a reasonable workload, not setting a workload limit, and by not offering compensation for adjunct faculty for non-teaching activities nor full time faculty who work beyond what is defined as ‘reasonable.’

Upcoming Bargaining Dates

Our teams have agreed to meet to continue negotiations on the following dates after the start of the school year: Wednesday, 8/21; Wednesday, 8/28; Wednesday, 9/11.


June 24th
Negotiations Session

Negotiators present:  AFT: Joaquin Rivera, Paul Bissember, Monica Malamud (by phone)
SMCCCD: David Feune, Max Hartman, Charlene Frontiera, Mitch Bailey, Joe Morello

This negotiation session focused on two key issues: the Lab FLCs and Workload.  Regarding the Lab FLCs, the district indicated that in order to phase in the lab FLC increases that the AFT proposed, “we have to first agree that we are there, which we are not.”  The district’s bargaining team maintained their position to form a study session to look into the issue.

The bargaining teams then discussed the workload issue for the remainder of the negotiation session.  The AFT team argued that the district’s proposal failed to set a reasonable expectation of workload, it puts all of the power in the hands of the deans, it offers no compensation for faculty who are working beyond reasonable expectations, and it establishes punitive measures, including withholding professional development funding, release time, and overload for faculty who do not comply with the district’s proposed requirements.  Furthermore, the district proposal fails to address how adjuncts would be paid for work that falls outside of their teaching and related duties, which was an important recommendation of the SMCCCD Workload Committee Report (see report).

One of the key points that the district continued to bring up is that there is a need to ‘balance’ the workload among all of the faculty.  However, their proposal fails to establish a concrete expectation of a reasonable workload which, therefore, would make it impossible to balance workload across the faculty.  In addition, the district’s team questioned the “arbitrary assignment” of values for the AFT’s proposed point system, without offering any counterproposal to determine values for the duties that faculty take on outside of their classroom work.  This represents another clear recommendation from the Workload Committee Report that the district’s proposal fails to address.  Here is the language from the report relating to these recommendations,

“There was a recognition by the committee that there is a need to define a reasonable workload…In order to work toward establishing a reasonable workload, there should be a value placed on specific duties and responsibilities, and a maximum expected value for full-time faculty to engage in each semester.”     

Another main point that the district focused on, is the need for deans to have more of an active role in working with faculty in a collaborative manner to address the workload issue.  One section of their proposal states,

“At the end of each academic year, each dean…will hold a mandatory division meeting with full-time faculty, provide a list of professional activities requiring faculty participation…in the coming academic year; the dean and the division faculty will work together to assign faculty as needed for those duties that have been identified.

However, there is nothing in the contract that would limit a dean from doing this now at a division meeting (without the need of mandating an additional division meeting).  While the AFT bargaining team’s proposal meets the recommendations put forth in the workload committee report, the district’s proposal would instead implement punitive measures on faculty while failing to address the report’s recommendations.  Following the discussion, the district did acknowledge that, “We did not want our proposal to be seen as punitive and we’re open to the idea of coming up with new language to make it less punitive.”

The bargaining teams have agreed on additional negotiations sessions planned for July 18, 24 and 25.


June 18th Negotiations Session

Negotiators present:  AFT: Joaquin Rivera, Paul Bissember, Monica Malamud (by phone), Arielle Smith (Counseling, CSM);  SMCCCD: David Feune, Max Hartman, Charlene Frontiera, Mitch Bailey

At this round of negotiations, our AFT bargaining team invited Counselor Arielle Smith from CSM to present on how the union’s proposal to change the pay rate structure would impact counselors. The AFT proposed eliminating the current ‘special rate’ and utilizing instead the current lecture rate for activities involving student contact and the current lab rate for activities not involving student contact.

Smith explained that, “Counselors have felt like a second class faculty for a long time.  Many times counselors aren’t included when we talk about faculty.  Counselors and librarians are the only ones in the contract who are paid at a lower rate.  The only reason that’s been given is because we don’t teach in a classroom.  However, just because the setting where we interact with students is different, doesn’t make the work we do any less valuable.  Given the assignment and structure of how these institutions operate, it is necessary for counselors to work outside of the regular semester.  We are working as long as the campuses are open.  We need coverage for winter and summer.  We acknowledge that our role is different than instructional faculty, but it is not less valuable.  Counselors have felt that since we get paid less, we are seen as less valuable.  Changing this pay would say yes, we as a district recognize that we value your work and that it plays an important role for our students.”

The district’s bargaining team responded that “If you’re just looking at the bottom line, what our adjunct counselors get paid is pretty reasonable, especially compared to other districts.  I think right now our counselors are benefiting from the current rate.  While symbols matter, the dollars and cents matter too.”

AFT Counter-Proposals on Workload & Lab FLCs;
Salary Comparisons of Bay 10 Districts

Following the discussion around the pay rate proposal, the AFT’s bargaining team offered counter proposals  to workload (see workload counter proposal here), the lab FLC (see lab FLC counter proposal here) and shared an analysis of salary comparisons of the Bay 10 community college districts (see Bay 10 salary comparisons Excel file).  In response to the district’s rejection of AFT’s proposal to reduce faculty teaching load from 15 to 12 units, the AFT proposed a ‘point system’ where faculty would be expected to do 4 or 5 points and they would be compensated if they exceed those points (see workload proposal here).

Regarding the lab FLC proposal, the AFT disagreed with the district’s response to set up a committee to study this issue.  Acknowledging that since there is a cost to the initial proposal, we countered that lab FLC increases be phased in over the life of the contract, increasing the rates by 0.1 the first year, and bringing the final lab FLCs to 1.0 after 3 years.

After the union presentation, the district offered responses to AFT proposals relating to travel health insurance for faculty participating in study abroad programs, maternity/child bonding leave, large class size, and class assignment cancellations.  The district was not prepared to discuss the outstanding issues of binding arbitration and investigations.

Regarding the travel health insurance, the district reported that faculty should already be included in this benefit, and if they weren’t, the district would be able to ensure that faculty be covered.  For the large class size proposal, the district rejected reducing the limit of what is defined as a large class from 70 to 40, but would decrease the increments for additional compensation above 70 students down from 25 to 15 students (i.e. instead of receiving 3 hours of additional compensation for teaching 70-94 students, this would change to 70-84 students for 3 hours).   For class cancellations, the district indicated that this is currently covered by Board policy (BP 6.04) and therefore, does not need to be included in the contract.

Finally, it is the district’s position that the current federal/state laws and district benefits around Maternity/Child Bonding Leave is sufficient and has rejected the AFT proposal to grant one month of 100% paid leave.  As a reminder, per the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the district would pay 50% of the faculty’s salary after sick leave is exhausted for the first 30 days of leave.  Following 30 days, the faculty member would go on ‘disability leave’ and would be paid at 2/3 their salary for up to 6 or 8 weeks.  The district explained that based on numbers from the past 2 years, there is an average of 13 faculty members who have taken maternity/child bonding leave per year.  They calculated that the AFT proposal for one month of paid leave would cost $126,000.

The next bargaining session has been set for June 24th.


June 12th
Negotiations Session

Negotiators present:  AFT: Joaquin Rivera, Paul Bissember, Monica Malamud (by phone)
SMCCCD District: David Feune, Max Hartman, Charlene Frontiera, Mitch Bailey, Joe Morello

During this round of negotiations, the district’s bargaining team responded to the AFT proposals around Full Time Temporary Faculty Hires, Faculty Load Credit (FLC) rates for labs, and Workload, as described below.

For the Full Time Temporary Faculty Hires, the district proposed to use the current evaluation process for tenure-track faculty.

Regarding AFT’s proposal to increase the FLC for lab rates, the district’s bargaining team responded that they would like to do a study of the issue in order to find the best solution.  They indicated that they would form a group comprised of faculty and district appointed members to develop a recommendation.

District Counter-Proposal on Workload

Finally, in response to AFT’s workload reduction proposal, the district presented a proposal asserting that “the issue of workload is not one of reduction…but one of balance and distribution of professional responsibilities.”  Click here to see AFT’s original workload reduction proposal and the district’s full counter-proposal. Here are some key points to the district’s proposal:

  • Mandatory division meetings for Full Time faculty for deans and faculty to assign professional activities.
  • Yearly Workload Reports to be submitted by all Full Time Faculty members.
  • Progressive Discipline for Full Time faculty who fail to submit workload reports, or who do not participate in assigned professional activities.
  • Professional development funding, overload or reassigned time could be taken away from faculty who do not fulfill this workload requirement.

While the district’s workload proposal does take aim at trying to balance the distribution of workload among faculty, it would institute punitive mechanisms that penalize faculty, increase workload by adding additional meetings and reports, all the while failing to determine what is a reasonable workload for faculty and excluding any compensation mechanisms for faculty who go beyond what is reasonable.

 

May 30th Negotiations Session

Our AFT bargaining team had been preparing for a full day of bargaining which had been scheduled for Thursday, May 30th, but the district’s bargaining team canceled this session citing the need to fully cost out the union’s proposals.

Our bargaining team is waiting for the district to respond, or provide counter proposals, to a number of our initial proposals including (the following list includes abbreviated forms of the initial proposals.  The complete proposals can be found here):

  • Compensation
    • Salary and medical benefits for full-time faculty, and medical stipends for part-time faculty to increase at the same percentage as increase in property taxes
    • Pay part-time faculty on a salary schedule that mirrors the salary schedule for full-time faculty, with parity set at 85%
  • Article 9: Health and Welfare Benefits – The District will provide travel insurance for faculty teaching in the District Study Abroad Program.
  • Article 11: Leaves of Absence – One month of paid maternity and/or child bonding leave.
  • Article 6: Workload – Reduce Full Time faculty’s teaching load from 15 units to 12 units, with 3 units to be dedicated towards professional activities.
  • Article 8.14: Large Class Pay – A large class for the purpose of additional compensation…is defined as having 40 or more students (currently set at 70).
  • Article 17: Grievance Procedure – Add binding arbitration as the last step of the grievance procedure
  • Appendix G: Evaluations – Determine how are full time temporary faculty evaluated.
  • Class Cancellation – Scheduled classes shall be cancelled only after written notification by the appropriate administrator/designee is sent to the instructor.
  • Complaints Against a Unit Member – If a student or other person files a complaint about a unit member, the District shall notify the unit member and AFT in writing within five (5) working days of its receipt of the complaint.
  • Investigations of Unit Members – Mutual respect for a fair investigative process.
  • Just Cause and Progressive Discipline – A faculty member shall not be reprimanded, suspended, or dismissed without just cause.

There are several other issues still being discussed, with the district and AFT considering counter proposals.  Our next bargaining sessions are set for 6/12, 6/18, and 6/24.


May 23rd
Negotiations Session

Negotiators present:  AFT:  Joaquin Rivera, Monica Malamud (by phone), Paul Bissember
SMCCCD District:  Mitch Bailey, David Feune, Joe Morello, Max Hartman

At this bargaining session, the AFT negotiations team received a few counter proposals from the district, a response to our workload proposal from the May 22nd bargaining session, and a discussion around outstanding issues.  Most of the discussion focused on proposals relating to new faculty orientations, pay and allowances, professional development (PD), and workload.  While there was movement at the table around providing new Part Time Faculty with orientation opportunities, the district rejected outright our PD and pay and allowances proposals.  Towards the conclusion of the meeting, after the AFT’s bargaining team asked when we could expect counters to the various outstanding proposals, the district’s bargaining team indicated that they have to cost out many proposals and estimated that they should have this completed by June 12th.

Here are some highlights from this bargaining session:

What’s with the special rate?  After hearing from faculty about the lack of clarity, and potential discrepancies on how the special rate is used for non-instructional activities, the AFT proposed eliminating the current special rate and use the current lecture rate for any activity that involves student contact, and the current lab rate for activities not involving student contact.  The district found “no compelling reason to change the status-quo and does not agree to this edit.”

District Rejects Academic Senate/AFT Proposal on Professional Development.  The district rejected an AS/AFT collaborative proposal to increase PD funds, broaden faculty eligibility for PD, and establish clear guidelines on how these funds should be used, in order to put limits on PD funding being used for district/college initiatives.  The AFT argued that if these initiatives are priorities for the district, they should allocate district funds and not use the faculty’s PD funds.  In addition, our team argued that there hasn’t been enough money at the colleges to pay for sabbaticals, to which a district bargaining team member responded, “I understand there’s not enough money, and there will never be enough money.  It’s a question of priorities.”

District Surprised by Workload Proposal – The district’s bargaining team responded that it was surprised by the AFT proposal to reduce a Full-Time Faculty’s teaching load from 15 units to 12 units, with 3 units to be dedicated towards professional activities.  The AFT argued that we are trying to get at the root of the workload issue by reducing the teaching load, and establishing clear expectations and compensation for the many indirect instructional activities that faculty do to make the colleges function.  The district has yet to offer any counter proposal or alternative to address the ongoing workload issue.

Upcoming Bargaining Sessions: We have several upcoming bargaining sessions scheduled for May 30th, June 12th, June 18th, and June 24th.

 

May 16th Negotiations Session

Negotiators present:  AFT:  Joaquin Rivera, Monica Malamud (by phone), Paul Bissember
SMCCCD District:  Mitch Bailey, David Feune, Joe Morello, Max Hartman, Charlene Frontiera

Faculty Presenters on Faculty Load Credit (FLC) Allocation and Athletics Coaches’ Proposal: Amir Esfahani (Art), Rebecca Alex (Art), Michelle Hawkins (Music), David Meckler (Music), Tim Tulloch (Athletics), Doug Hirzel (Science)

In this bargaining session, the AFT and the District bargaining teams signed Tentative Agreements (TA) on a few proposals, and our AFT team presented several counter proposals to outstanding issues.  The majority of the session, however, was dedicated to faculty presentations on the FLC allocation proposal.

Here are some highlights from this bargaining session:

Reminder to the district: Pay Part Time faculty for their work! AFT Chief Negotiator Joaquin Rivera shared a copy of a Jan. 29th 2018 email from the Vice Chancellor, Human Resources and General Counsel reminding deans that adjuncts “cannot volunteer to do work that they would normally be paid to do.  If you have adjuncts in your Division that are doing work at your direction, let’s make sure that they are all being paid accordingly.”   

Tentative Agreements (TAs) reached on several articles including Article 2 Organizational rights, Article 7.2 Definition of Academic Year, Article 8.5.1 Pay and Allowances, and Article 14 Layoffs.  In a preliminary victory for Part Time faculty rights, the district agreed to pay Part Time faculty for participation in flex activities, regardless of whether or not they would normally be scheduled to teach on the day of the week on which the flex day falls.  You can review the specific language on these proposals on our AFT website.

AFT Counter Proposals – Our AFT bargaining team continues to prepare counter proposals while we wait for responses and counters from the district.  In this session, we focused on two main topics: workload, and salary and benefits.  Regarding workload, we proposed a reduction in the FT teaching workload proposing that a FT faculty workload consists of a) 12 teaching units and b) 3 units of indirect instructional activity like curriculum development, program review etc.  Regarding salary and benefits we proposed that 1) salary, medical cap, and Part Time medical benefits be increased by the same percent increase as the property taxes in the district.  Additionally, we proposed that Part Time faculty be paid by FLC, including the same steps and columns that are used in the Full Time salary schedule, instead of by an hourly basis.

Faculty presentations on FLC allocation and Athletics Coachs’ Proposal – We had several faculty representatives from Art, Music, Athletics and Science present for the majority of the meeting on the proposal to increase FLC labs to 1.0 and a proposal from the Athletics coaches.  The faculty had around 15-20 minutes to present and make the argument for the lab FLC increase.  The presenters emphasized the need for parity among disciplines, and explained how the current load calculation is outdated and does not take into account new teaching and learning methods.  Additionally, they articulated the need for an increased FLC to reflect the increased workload over the years.  Many presenters also made the case for how an increase in load would not negatively impact Part Time faculty (with many adjuncts signing onto the proposals coming from Art and Music in particular).  The District’s bargaining team went back and forth asking questions, and focused in on how if the load were to increase, the Deans may have to cancel classes.

The next round of bargaining is scheduled for Thursday, May 23 from 10:00am to 1:00pm in the District Office.


May 1st Negotiations Session

Negotiators present: AFT:  Joaquin Rivera, Monica Malamud (by phone), Paul Bissember

SMCCD District:  Mitch Bailey, David Feune, Joe Morello, Max Hartman

In this bargaining session, the AFT bargaining team received responses from the district on several of our initial proposals including leaves, Faculty Load Credit (FLC) allocations, and class size.  The session included a discussion on these issues, as well as a presentation of AFT counter proposals.

Article 11 – Maternity/Child Bonding Leave

The first topic we discussed focused on faculty leaves.  In particular, the district responded to our initial proposal of 1 month paid Maternity/Child Bonding leave.  First, the district reviewed the current maternity leave policies based on FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act).  They gave a hypothetical example of a faculty member, early in her career who has not yet accrued much sick leave.  For the first 30 days of the leave, the faculty member needs to exhaust all of their sick leave.  So, if a faculty member has accrued 5 sick days, she would use up those sick days, and then the district would pay 1/2 of her salary for 25 days (per FMLA).  After 30 days, she would go on ‘disability’ and receive 2/3 pay for 6 to 8 weeks.

We acknowledged this current practice, but expressed the need to have paid maternity leave.  Our team responded that “we’re one of the few industrialized countries in the world that do not have maternity leave” and that our proposal of one month paid leave is minimal compared to other countries and would help faculty who are planning to start a family.  In addition, we urged the district to consider this proposal and explained that they could be a leader among the community college districts by providing this benefit for faculty.  The district’s team indicated that solving a national issue is outside the scope of these negotiations and that they currently have a very generous set of benefits and are not inclined to give one month paid maternity/child bonding leave.

Appendix G – Faculty Load Credit (FLC)

Based on the feedback from faculty from Music, Art, Physical Edu, and Science and the need to push for parity around load calculation, AFT proposed increasing the FLC for these labs up to 1.0.  The district responded that they could consider an incremental change, depending on the class, but moving the FLC up to 1.0 would be a big jump that would increase their costs substantially.  They also made the argument that increasing the FLC would only hurt part timers as deans would have to reduce class offerings for those who went above 67%, and that their pay would not increase.  Our team responded that these allocations have not changed in 30 years, even as the amount of work has increased significantly.  We also pointed out that if Part Time faculty were compensated based on FLC, and not by hour, then an increase in FLC for the lab schedule would value their work higher than it currently is.  Additionally, in our counter we proposed a change to coaches’ load based on a document that they put together.  Finally, we proposed bringing faculty from these disciplines to the May 16th bargaining session to speak to this issue and the district agreed.

Article 8 – Class Size

There was a brief discussion on our class size reduction proposal.  The district asked why 40 students per class is the magic number for a class size, which we responded why is the current limit of 70 the magic number?  The district indicated that they cannot concede to 40 but that they are looking into this to see if there is room to negotiate a different cap.

District Communications with Members and Investigations

The district indicated that they completely disagree with the union on the issue of district communications around bargaining with bargaining unit members.  They said they would follow the law, but that the district has the right of free speech as do employees.  Regarding the investigations, the district has not yet come up with a counter to our proposal.  However, they acknowledged that this issue is a priority for our union and will work on having a response by May 16th.

Article 8 – Part Time Pay for Non-Instructional Work + Pay and Allowances

Our bargaining team informed the district that they haven’t yet responded to our proposal for Part Time Faculty to be paid for participation in division meetings and other non-instructional work.  We reminded them that one of the findings from the Workload Committee Report was that Part Time Faculty should be paid for all the work they do.  The district responded that they would look into this.  They did indicate that they would like to clean up the contract language relating to Part Time pay, Article 8.8, to remove all language relating to Full Time Faculty.

As part of the AFT counter proposal, we proposed a big change relating to Article 8 – Pay and Allowances.  We’ve heard from Faculty that the ‘special rate’ has been used inconsistently and that there isn’t a clear definition of when this should be utilized.  So, we proposed that we have only two types of pay rate used for Part Time Faculty and Full Time Faculty overload: (1) Faculty who work on any activity that involves student contact be paid at the current lecture rate, and (2) and the current lab rate would be used for activities not involving student contact.  This would eliminate the current ‘special rate.’

Article 13 – Professional Development (PD)

Following the district’s rejection of our proposal to increase PD from 1% to 2%, we put together a counter proposal with collaboration from leaders in the Academic Senate.  We proposed allocating 1% towards short and long-term projects, and another 1% that would go specifically towards extended leave and sabbaticals.  Additionally, we are proposing that all faculty be eligible for PD funds.  Moreover, given the pressures that faculty have been facing to utilize PD funds for district/statewide initiatives and software/data management trainings, we outlined unacceptable uses of PD funds.  The colleges should be providing funding for these activities outside of PD funds.  Some examples include trainings around: Guided Pathways, Dual Enrollment, Basic Skills, Canvas, Sales Force, and TracDat.  Finally, during our last discussion on PD, the district indicated that all of the campuses had PD money left over so they didn’t see a need to increase PD.  However, in this session, our Chief Negotiator submitted evidence that both CSM and Cañada have run out of PD money.

Upcoming Bargaining Dates

We had initially planned our next bargaining date on May 7th, but the district canceled this session.  Here are our upcoming bargaining dates:

  • May 16th, 9am-12pm
  • May 23, 10am-5pm
  • June 12, 1pm-5pm
  • June 18, 10am-5pm
  • June 24, 10am-5pm

 

April 11th Negotiations Session

Negotiators present: AFT: Joaquin Rivera, Monica Malamud, Paul Bissember;
District
: Mitch Bailey, David Feune, Joe Morello, Charlene Frontiera, Max Hartman (by phone)

Scheduling upcoming bargaining dates

During this round of bargaining, we began by establishing upcoming bargaining dates.  We agreed on the following dates for our next negotiations sessions:

  • May 1, 1:00pm-5:00pm
  • May 7, 12:00pm-2:00pm
  • May 16, 9:00am-5:00pm

District responds to AFT proposals

For the rest of the session, the District’s bargaining team presented a document responding to our initial bargaining proposals.  Firstly, the District requires more time to respond to several of our initial proposals.  They indicated that they should be able to offer counter-proposals to the following items by May 3:

  • 7: Communication with members
  • 8: Part-Time Salary Schedule
  • 14: Large Class Pay
  • 9: Maternity/Child Bonding Leave
  • 17: Grievance Procedure
  • 18: Summer Session Employment
  • Appendix G: Evaluations
  • Class Assignment – Class Cancellations (new language)
  • Complaints against a unit member (new language)
  • Just Cause and Progressive Discipline (new language)

District accepts some AFT proposals

Next, there were some proposals which the union proposed clarifying edits, or updated language due to changes in state/federal law that the District found acceptable.  Click here to review these proposals.  These proposals include:

  • 4: List of unit employees and job information
  • 2: Definition of Academic year
  • 5.1: Pay and Allowances – Two years of service at Step 23 are required for advancement to Step 25
  • 14: FMLA and CA Family rights act (CFRA) Benefits
  • 1: Layoffs

In addition, there was a positive response from the District regarding our proposal around Article 7.11.2.1 which would grant part-time faculty pay, at the special rate, for attending flex day activities that fall on days that a part-time faculty member is not scheduled to teach.

District rejects numerous AFT proposals

There were a number of AFT proposals that the District rejected altogether and offered no counter-proposals at this time.  See below for those articles relating to the AFT proposals, along with brief notes to provide context, which the District rejected:

  • 5: Workweek for Full-time Instructional faculty – AFT proposed removing the hourly requirement for faculty to be present on campus. Currently, full-time faculty are required to be on campus for 25 hours per week.
  • 9: Health and Welfare Benefits – The union proposed language for faculty teaching in the District Study Abroad Program to receive medical insurance that goes beyond emergency care. In the discussion on this issue, the District made it clear that this was not a question of money, as there are not many faculty who teach in this program. They argued that teaching a study abroad course is a choice that faculty make, not a requirement, and, therefore, the District should not have to provide this additional medical coverage for faculty.
  • 6: Public Service Leave – The District rejected this proposal indicating that it represents a limited scope (only 2 members affected) and that the District receives no direct benefit from and has no interest in this “personal, elective employee activity.”
  • 19: Part-Time Employment – In an effort to strengthen part-time faculty seniority and load rights, and to follow recent California state law (AB 1690/SB 1379), the union proposed edits in Article 19 to base part-time faculty’s class assignments on the highest load ever assigned to them. The District rejected this proposal.
  • Appendix F: Faculty Load Credit (FLC) Allocation – Our union has heard from many members from the Sciences, Art, Music and Physical Education/Athletics to prioritize increasing the FLC for these classes. While the District disagreed with the AFT proposal, citing that “it is not consistent with the Carnegie Unit allocation for such assignments,” AFT bargaining team members responded that the Carnegie unit is not relevant to this issue; it’s a question of parity and compensation.  Additionally, there are several other community college districts that already have language like this in place.
  • XX: Additional Faculty Rights – Evaluation of Administrators – The District responded to our proposal that it “finds no compelling rationale for including additional language relating to this matter as it does not relate to traditionally-bargained issues such as employee wages, benefits, hours, or working conditions.”

District counter-proposals

Next, there were additional AFT proposals that the District disagreed with, but provided counter-proposals.  See below for these counters along with a brief explanation:

  • 8: Employee orientation – The District proposed the following additional language to our proposal – “the union will participate in these new employee orientations in a structure, time and manner agreed to by the District and the Union prior to such orientation.” We discussed the need to review current practices around new faculty orientations. Additionally, we discussed ways to involve new part-time faculty employees (i.e. through flex days, online orientation, etc.) who do not currently participate in District orientations.
  • Compensation – The District proposed to maintain the current total compensation formula for one year – if we do not reach an agreement by the expiration of the contract. We have sent out a survey to get feedback from members on how our union should allocate compensation (i.e. salary, benefits, part-time parity, etc.)
  • Article 13: Professional Development Funding – The District rejected our proposal to increase funding from 1% to 2%. In addition, they proposed language to change the composition of the Professional Development committees to 3 members appointed by the Academic Senate and 3 members appointed by the administration.  This change would increase the number of administrators on these committees and decrease the number of faculty members.

March 7th Meeting

In the round of bargaining held on March 7th, faculty and administration members from the District Workload Committee–Anne Stafford, Doniella Maher, and Aaron McVean–provided a presentation on their workload report and answered questions from the bargaining teams. The Committee members shared the history and formation of the Workload Committee and described the two major challenges of how to determine what is a reasonable workload and how to compensate faculty who exceed a reasonable workload. Following the hour-long discussion with Workload Committee members, the District’s bargaining team proposed ending the meeting citing the need to work with their team to work on the union’s proposals.

Highlights from the Workload Committee presentation:

• Workload committee received a high response rate after surveying the faculty indicating a strong interest in this issue.
• The committee operated in a consensus model. Due to diverging perspectives within the committee, the workload report’s recommendations were not as specific as committee members would have liked them to be.
• Many faculty have reached a breaking point due to workload with many feeling demoralized, discouraged, and others talking about moving and retiring early.
• AFT and Academic Senate members are working together to try to identify specific recommendations of how to resolve issues relating to workload.
• The District currently does not have any proposals on how to remedy workload issues.

Key priorities/suggestions from the faculty members on the Workload Committee:

• Faculty need more time to do their work. Suggestion that compensation for excessive work can be made through release time and/or banking time.
• Contract expectations are vague which have led to new tasks being included as part of a faculty’s workload. Need to clarify faculty responsibilities.
• Suggestion to increase in FT faculty hires to help redistribute workload, especially tasks coming from state mandates. (District rejected this suggesting citing low enrollment).
• Use Dean’s assessment of non-teaching responsibilities to document issues of faculty who do not participate in division work. Faculty evaluations are related to teaching and the Dean’s assessment is about other duties. However, faculty not participating is not a major issue. We were informed that Kathy Blackwood from the District acknowledged that this is a small problem.

While there are many important issues to resolve through these negotiations, there is limited time until our current contract expires (June 30, 2019). We have been actively working to schedule as many bargaining sessions as possible between now and then. Please stay tuned and reach out to us to learn more and get involved! We’ll need your voices, feedback, and active support to win a contract that can make improvements to these many challenging issues.



February 28th Meeting

The bargaining teams met again on February 28th. During our second bargaining session, the District began by addressing workload. Firstly, they recognized that workload is a big, ongoing issue for faculty. Mitch Bailey indicated that they would like to invite members of the Workload Committee, both faculty and administrators, to the following bargaining session to answer questions around workload and share ideas on how to resolve this issue.

The rest of the bargaining session included some preliminary responses to AFT’s proposals. For the most part where contract language needed to be updated to follow new state laws (i.e. new employee orientation, elimination of agency fees etc.) or clarified to incorporate current practices, the District made general indications that they could agree with our proposals. These include proposed language changes in the following articles:

• 2.4 List of Unit Employees and Job Information
• 2.7 Agency Shop
• 7.2 Definition of Academic Year
• 8.5.1 Pay and Allowances
• 9 Health and Welfare Benefits
• 14.1 Union will be notified of potential layoffs

There were other AFT proposals that the District indicated a willingness to consider but wanted to continue to discuss and/or do more research. These included demands around reassigned time for union business, flex day pay for part time faculty, tuition reimbursement, extended sick leave, maternity/child bonding leave, professional development funding, full time temporary faculty evaluations, and complaints/investigations.

Finally, there were several AFT proposals that the District either expressed concerns about or did not want to consider at this point (although AFT negotiators will continue to raise these proposals in upcoming bargaining sessions.) These included proposals around:

• 1.7 District Communication with Members
• 7.5 Workweek for Full-time Instructional Faculty
• 8.14 Large Class Pay
• 11.16 Public Service Leave
• Article 17 Binding Arbitration
• Appendix F – Faculty Load Credit (FLC) Allocation
• Academic Freedom

Our bargaining team expressed a willingness to engage in discussion and review any counter proposals around any and all of these issues to work towards a resolution. During that negotiations session, the District had not prepared any contract language in response to our initial proposals.


 

February 7th Meeting:

On February 7th, AFT 1493’s negotiations team–Joaquin Rivera, Monica Malamud, and Paul Bissember–had their first bargaining session with District negotiators–Mitch Bailey (District Office), David Feune (HR) Charlene Frontiera (CSM), Joe Morello (Skyline), Max Hartman (Cañada)–on a new three-year contract (July 2019 to June 2022.)  The meeting consisted in AFT Chief Negotiator, Joaquin Rivera, presenting the union’s initial proposals point by point while engaging in questions and answers from the District around specific proposals.  Our bargaining team emphasized our union’s goals of addressing issues around workload, part time equity, salary and benefits, class size, leaves of absence, professional development, grievance procedures, faculty load credit allocation, evaluations, class assignments, academic freedom, investigations, and disciplinary procedures.

Following our bargaining team’s presentation, the District’s Chief Negotiator, Mitch Bailey, then presented their initial proposal.  While they offered nothing specific, they indicated that they are willing to hear and discuss our proposals and priorities, and importantly, they did not propose any takeaways from the current contract.  Bailey stated, “We value faculty.  We want to have a collegial relationship.  We have limited resources.  We want to follow our student-centered mission.”



January 2019

In preparing to begin faculty contract negotiations, the union conducted a survey of District faculty on areas that could be improved or added to our contract and what should be priorities in negotiations. In total, 187 faculty members completed the survey and the survey responses were used to help develop AFT’s initial contract proposals for the new round of negotiations. See a summary of faculty responses to the Negotiations Survey.

The bargaining team used the survey responses, along with outstanding issues from previous negotiations, and new issues that had arisen since the previous negotiations, to develop AFT’s initial contract proposals for the new round of negotiations.

See our Spring 2019 Opening Day flyer summarizing AFT’s negotiations priorities.