We have finally reached a tentative contract agreement. A basic report of the settlement is provided below. Complete details of the agreement and the ratification process will be forthcoming very soon.
- All faculty will receive a 3.25% increase on their salary schedules retroactive to the Fall 2016 semester, plus an additional 1% off-schedule payment.
- All faculty will receive a 1.75% increase on their salary schedules effective in the Fall 2017 semester.
- A cost-of-living increase for 2018-19 will be calculated based on county-assessed property value increases released at the end of June 2018.
- Effective Fall semester 2016, additional steps will be added at the top of both full-time and part-time salary schedules (where our District’s salaries compared least favorably to other Bay 10 districts). Steps 24 (same as step 23) and 25 (3% above step 24) will be added to the Regular Faculty Salary Schedule 80 (full time faculty) and step 11 (3% above step 10) will be added to the Adjunct Faculty Salary Schedules.
Effective January 1, 2017, full-timers’ monthly medical benefit cap will be
- Single: $789.00 (no change, but fully covers Kaiser payments),
- Two-Party: $1319.97 (increase of $107.97)
- Family: $1703.41 (increase of $134.41)
Effective Fall semester 2017, the adjunct faculty medical benefit stipend will increase from $1000 to $1505 per semester.
Effective January 1, 2018, full-timers’ monthly medical benefit cap will be
- Single: $825.00 (increase of $36.00, fully covers Kaiser payments)
- Two-Party: $1394.97 (increase of $75.00)
- Family: $1828.41 (increase of $125.00)
Two flex days with required on-campus attendance, four will remain flexible. For 2017-18, there will be one required day in Spring 2018 (January 12, 2018). For 2018-19, there will be one required day in Fall and one required day in Spring. Those days will be set with the approval of the academic calendar for that year (which AFT negotiates).
- The No-Strike clause was removed.
- Three non-economic re-openers per side, including workload, will be negotiated for 2017-18, and three more items will be negotiated for 2018-19.
The Fact Finder’s Report
The process was considerably delayed because the Fact Finder’s report was not issued until about two months later than expected. During the interim, our AFT negotiators continued efforts to reach a fair agreement with the District, but were unsuccessful until the Fact Finder’s report was released with recommendations for a settlement.
The Fact Finder believed that the District’s total compensation offer was reasonable. However, when comparing our District’s compensation to other Bay 10 districts, he looked only at faculty salaries rather than comparing total compensation packages, including the cost of benefits. Therefore, the Fact Finder found that our District’s faculty salaries, when looked at separately from benefits, compare well with salaries among the Bay 10.
District refuses to accept Fact Finder’s recommendation of binding arbitration
Ultimately, AFT negotiators agreed to accept the Fact Finder’s report, but the District refused to accept one important recommendation in the report which supports a Union proposal: The Fact Finder stated that binding arbitration (as a final step to the procedures used for processing grievances) would “provide the parties with a more ‘standard’ system of processing grievances,” and he also acknowledged that the data shows that binding arbitration is the standard practice in Bay 10 districts.
At the Wednesday, August 9, Board of Trustees (BOT) meeting, AFT 1493 President Monica Malamud made a statement to the Board. She said the following: “The AFT is very disappointed that the District did not accept all of the recommendations made in the fact finding report.” Monica specifically addressed the District’s refusal to accept the Fact Finder’s binding arbitration recommendation, saying that
“It was very upsetting for us to be informed that the BOT is against binding arbitration–
- despite the fact that it was recommended in the Fact Finding report
- despite the fact that it is the general standard in community college districts, in particular, in the Bay 10, which is the cohort of CCDs that we use for our comparisons, and
- despite the fact that four of you (trustees) stated both in oral interviews and in writing that you would support binding arbitration when you were running for the position of trustees. The union takes the candidate endorsement process very seriously, and we will consider this when making endorsements in the future.”
As a reminder, we will be having a ratification vote early in the fall semester. Please be sure to watch your email for further details of that process.
Please let us know if you have questions. Thank you for your continued support.