Monthly Archives: August 2023

August 2nd 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.

Data and Rationale for Load Factor Equity for Lab and Lecture Courses

• View Lecture-Lab Ratio Percentages in California Community Colleges
• View Rationale for Load Factor Equity for Lab and Lecture Courses

 

LECTURE-LAB RATIO PERCENTAGES IN CALIF. COMMUNITY COLLEGES

The following data was collected in October 2021 by Cuesta College Federation of Teachers from California community college district HR web sites and collective bargaining agreements, with some more recent updates. The determination of faculty loads in some districts’ contracts can be difficult to interpret and there may be some errors present in this draft. (Links from district names show relevant contract language. * designates Bay 10 districts.):

Categories for comparison are:

  • Equal Lecture/Lab Loading (100% load factor for lab)
  • 76-99% lecture/lab loading
  • Primarily 75% lecture/lab loading
  • Less than 75%

 100% load factor—equal LECTURE/LAB LOADING FACTOR

  1.     Cerritos College (100% for those qualified as “extensive labs” and 75% all others)
  2.     Contra Costa CCD* (100% for Labs for which “the instructor devotes the major portion of the course time to the supervision of students who are working on laboratory experiments and exercises”)
  3.     El Camino College  (100% for “extensive labs with prep and grading, 75% all others)
  4.     Glendale College  (lab = lecture, except KINA+ECE 66.7%, load for art, CTE, nursing is 16-24 hrs/week)
  5.     Foothill-DeAnza CCD* – some labs are 100%, others 75%
  6.     Kern County CCD
  7.     Los Angeles CCD (9 colleges)  (all lab=lecture, but CTE, nursing, activity classes have 15-21 hr workloads)
  8.     Lake Tahoe (100% FT?/85% PT?)
  9.     Miracosta College (science labs 100%, art studio 83%, skills 75%, activity 68%)
  10.     Mt San Antonio College (“Teaching labs” 100%, others 75%)
  11.     Napa College (100% all labs–was upgraded from 100% science/75-83% other)
  12.    Palomar College (100% science, art, lang, Kine, Rec, some CTE 83-75%, fitness 50%)
  13.    Riverside CCD – Sci = 100%, other lab/activity = 75%
  14.    San Jose-Evergreen CCD* 100% science/health labs, others 75%
  15.    San Diego CCD – (100%) ALL LABS
  16.    Santa Clarita CCD (Canyons) 100%
  17.    Santa Monica (100%)  There are “load factors” but can’t find them
  18.   Santa Rosa Junior College  (100% for labs with experiments and written work, 80% for clinical, art/music, 75% for skill   development with no written work)
  19.   South Orange County CCD – (5/6 for activity/studio lab, penalty for small classes, summer/overload rate capped at 65-80$/classroom hr)

75%-99% LECTURE/LAB LOADING

  1. Allan Hancock College (94%)  GB:  93.75 or 88.23%, page 149, 18.3
  2. Antelope Valley (confusing, 67% lab if 25% or mostly lab, lecture rate if >60% is lecture, and 82.5% lec-lab combos if teaching between 25%-60% lec and rest is lab)
  3. Barstow College (85% science)
  4. Butte College (79%)
  5. Cabrillo College (80% science, 75% non-science, 100% nursing)
  6. Chabot CCD* (87.5% for labs that “involve grading a minimum level of ‘professional quality’ lab reports or the equivalent”)
  7. Chaffey College (90% science/60-90% other)
  8. Citrus College (85% science, 65% other)
  9. Coast CCD (Coastline, Golden West, Orange Coast Colleges) 90%
  10. College of Marin* (Sci/Art = 83%, tutoring lab 75%, clinical 70%, activity 67%)
  11. College of the Redwoods  (80% lab, 83% clinical, 70% drop-in lab)
  12. College of the Sequoias  (lab 80% Activity 70%)
  13. College of the Siskiyous (85% science/70% “activity” labs)
  14. Feather River College (90% science/71% other)
  15. Grossmont-Cuyamaca CCD (Grossmont, Cuyamaca Colleges, 88%  17 hr/week for lab)
  16. Long Beach City College  (90% lab, 100% clinical)Los Rios CCD (American River, Cosumnes, Folsom Lake, Sac City Colleges, 80% lecture/lab parity for nursing, allied health, chemistry, physics, physical anthropology, geology, and geography, 75% other
  17. Monterey Peninsula College (83.35%)
  18. Peralta CCD* – (80%)
  19. Rancho Santiago CCD – (90%)
  20. San Bernardino CCD
  21. San Diego CCD – (83%)
  22. San Francisco City College*  (85% Most Sciences, ENGR, ARCH, N/AH, Clinical Labs in Allied Health, 75% other)
  23. San Joaquin Delta College (80%)
  24. San Mateo CCD* – (80% most “academic” labs)
  25. Santa Barbara (80%)
  26. Southwestern College (80%/Nursing FT load is 35 hours)
  27. Victor Valley College (83%)
  28. West Hills CCD – 0.75% for lab activity hour, 100% for lab hours
  29. West Valley – Mission CCD* (83.5% for STEM and Health Occ) (71.5% for CTE, CompSci, Music, Art, Graphic Des, Hospitality, and some non-credit) (62.5% for language labs, older adults)
  30. Yosemite CCD – 80%, some labs can go above 80%
  31. Yuba CCD – (85%)

75% LECTURE/LAB LOADING

  1. Gavilan College (75% science/others 65-75%)
  2. Imperial Valley College  75%
  3. Lassen College 75%
  4. Mt. San Jacinto College 75%
  5. North Orange County CCD – 75%. Clinical is at 100%
  6. Palo Verde College  (clinical is at 80%)
  7. Pasadena City College 75%
  8. Rio Hondo College 75%
  9. Shasta College (75%)
  10.  State Center CCD – 75%
  11. Taft College
  12. Ventura CCD – 75% sci lab, nursing, math lab; and 67% others

<0.75% LECTURE/LAB LOADING

  1. College of the Desert  67%
  2. Copper Mountain College (67%)
  3. Hartnell College (66.7%)
  4. Merced College (66.7% lab, 80% clinical)
  5. Ohlone College* (71%)
  6.  Sierra College (70%)

UNDETERMINED

  1. Mendocino College

RATIONALE FOR LOAD FACTOR EQUITY FOR LAB & LECTURE COURSES

In 2016, AFT 2121 (CCSF) researched the issue of load factors for lab courses compared with lecture classes in preparation for negotiating new contract language that would move City College to assigning equal credit for teaching lab courses and for teaching lecture courses. Below is an abbreviated version of the extensive rationale for supporting equitable load factors for teaching lab and lecture courses:

Rationale:
1. The District and AFT 2121 have previously agreed to work towards the goal of reaching equity between labs and lectures. Article 20.A.3.1.1 of our contract states: “considerable discussion has taken place regarding the comparability of load factors between classroom/lecture and laboratory instruction, particularly in the science-related disciplines, that this matter of inequity needs to be addressed incrementally over time, and that it is the intent of the parties to work towards that end.”

2. The State of California reimburses the college at the same levels for lecture and lab classes. It is inherently unfair to not pass this funding on to the faculty.

3. The current multipliers make no sense. Some departments have 0.67 multipliers, some have 0.75 multipliers, and others have 0.85 multipliers. Even within some departments, labs sometimes have mismatched load factors. These numbers do not reflect a real difference in the work load. Faculty across all departments need to be treated equitably. This proposal resumes progress towards equity.

4. Load factors are intended to account for the work faculty do outside the classroom. Labs are given smaller load factors because they are presumed to be less work than lecture. This is erroneous. Labs frequently involve working directly with students, monitoring safety, and complicated set-up. The idea that labs are somehow less work is an artifact of an older university system in which higher-status professors lectured and associate professors and graduate students worked directly with students.

5. The idea that we can clearly name modes of instruction is outdated. Modern pedagogy mixes modes and blurs this distinction. Lecture classes frequently include small group work, discussions, and hands-on activities. Labs often include whole-class “lectures”. Labs often have exams, homework, and outside work, just like “Lecture”. It simply doesn’t make sense to say that all labs or all lectures will be taught in one particular way. They both require the same amount of (hard) work.

6. All over the country, colleges are moving away from the outdated idea that labs and lecture should be paid or valued differently, and toward an understanding of modern pedagogy and equity. In the 13 two-year colleges in the Wisconsin State Community College system, 100% of them give science labs a multiplier of 1.1, more credit than a lecture.

7. Other California community colleges are improving their load factors, and some have achieved real equity between lecture and lab. See Lecture:Lab Ratio Percentages in California Community Colleges above. Los Angeles CCD, the largest district in the state, has a load factor of 1.0 for all labs. Likewise Palomar College (San Diego County) pays all of their labs at the same rate as lecture. And De Anza-Foothill Community College District also recently moved to 1:1.

8. Professional societies and academic leaders agree that lab and lecture should be weighted equally. CCSF has a reputation for academic excellence – if we want to maintain our high standards we should not discount the professional advice of our peers:

ACTION UPDATE: WHY DOES THE DISTRICT WANT TO MICROMANAGE COUNSELORS?

Each of our weekly messages include a quick survey on your thoughts about the current District and AFT proposals on an issue by issue basis (see Negotiation FAQs).

After reading this Action Update, let us know your thoughts regarding the District’s stance on counselors’ rights and any feedback you have on our union’s proposal.

 

 

FACT: This past Wednesday, AFT proposed contract language that allows counselors to carry out “prof time”—their 8 hours per week of preparing for appointments, updating records, and following up with students–at a time and place of their choosing. 

AFT also proposed that when students choose to schedule virtual counseling appointments, counselors should be able to conduct those appointments remotely.

FACT: The District rejected BOTH of AFT’s proposals, with District Chief Negotiator Randy Erickson saying: “The location of where paid services go—that’s management’s decision.”

In other words, the District wants deans to be able to force counselors to be in their offices to take remote appointments. They also want to control where and when counselors do non-student-contact work such as email follow-up with students.

FAIRNESS?

As AFT negotiator Monica Malamud pointed out at Wednesday’s Board meeting, the District’s insistence on dictating where counselors carry out their work creates inequities among faculty. 

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.

Why is the District treating counselors differently?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EQUITY! SMCCCD counselors share their thoughts about the District’s insistence on controlling where they do prof time and where they take remote appointments:

“We (counselors) pour our hearts into the work we do with students. As faculty, we live by a professional and ethical code. When the District forces us to come into the office to write an email, it shows a lack of respect and trust for counseling faculty and diminishes our spirit.

This issue is akin to teaching online/hybrid classes and holding remote office hours; it would be absurd to require faculty to be in their Skyline office for those activities. We should have autonomy, as faculty, to carry out our responsibilities where we see fit.”

—Lorraine DeMello, FT counselor

 

“Our lives have shifted just like our students and having the flexibility to perform our duties remotely (how we currently operate) has been just as effective. Having to commute many hours to work, just to be in the office for zoom appointments all day is irrational.”

—Brianna Clay, FT counselor

 

“As an adjunct living far from Skyline College, and required to be in-person 50% of my assigned hours, I have to squeeze in 9 in-person hours to save on gas. If I have to be back 100% in person, I’ll have to work two 9-hour days. But, on an average 15 back-to-back student meetings in one day, only four would opt for in-person counseling.”

—PT counselor

 

Many students like the flexibility of zoom counseling appointments and it helps me to more quickly respond to students’ needs. Online faculty instructors are trusted to provide the same quality instruction as in-person courses from off campus, why aren’t counselors trusted to do the same?

– Kevin Sinarle, FT counselor

Each of our weekly messages includes a quick survey asking your perspective on proposals made by both AFT negotiators and the District. Please click the “Take Survey” button at right to share your thoughts. Every bit of feedback helps us act strategically to win a fair contract!

ACTION UPDATE: SMCCCD LAB RATES ARE SHAMEFULLY LOW

Each of our weekly messages include a quick survey on your thoughts about the current District and AFT proposals on an issue by issue basis (see Negotiation FAQs).

After reading this Action Update, let us know your thoughts regarding the District’s stance on Lab Rates and any feedback you have on our union’s proposal.

FACT: SMCCD offers laboratory courses taught by faculty across math, science, technology, kinesiology, athletics, dance, music, art, auto tech, cosmetology, and allied health fields.

FACT: Currently, these faculty receive between 70 and 80% of the credit per lab hour that faculty receive to teach sections designated as lecture.

FAIRNESS: At least 19 California community college districts give faculty in some disciplines 100% equal credit for teaching lab as teaching lecture.

Los Angeles CCD, Napa CCD, and San Diego CCD are among the districts that give faculty across all lab-based disciplines the same credit for teaching an hour of lab as an hour of lecture.

Lab rates are a work in progress for our union. We’re aware that raising lab FLCs could put some part-timers over the 67% cap with their current teaching loads. Our union has been actively working with our statewide union, CFT, to raise the cap on part-time load to 85%. Our negotiating team has also proposed paying part-timers by load so they can benefit from increased lab FLCs—unfortunately, the District continues to refuse. If you are a part-timer or full-timer concerned about the impact increased lab FLCs could have on part-timers in your discipline, please complete the linked survey so we can contact you to work together on the issue.

EQUITY: If the District truly cares about equity, it must compensate faculty fairly for the time and effort they put into labs to improve student learning outcomes.

Members like you have shared their thoughts on the lag in lab pay at SMCCCD:

“Labs are the heart of the scientific process, and to teach them well requires adaptive and creative curriculum design, active engagement with students during the lab, and personalized feedback on long-form student assignments such as lab reports and notebooks. 

Compensating faculty for only 80% of lab time reflects an outdated ‘cookie-cutter’ expectation for how labs are run.”

—Alex Wong, FT Physics Faculty, CSM

“Lab time is challenging…it involves lecturing, checking notebooks, experimenting, [and responding to] possible disasters—even if they are as simple as a beaker breaking.

At [other colleges I teach, like] De Anza, the lab pay is equal to lecture pay. Equality in lab and lecture pay makes me feel valued and inspires me to use the lab time for more than just the experiment of the day.”

—PT Chemistry Faculty, Cañada College

“Students in Astronomy lab classes participate in hands-on experiments using telescopes, spectrometers, and other equipment, and gain critical thinking and collaborative skills.

Lab classes involve setting up and taking down equipment, and much more interaction and grading than lectures, and they should be paid at least the same as lectures.

The District has a history of supporting equity in other aspects of academia and should do the honorable thing by establishing equitable pay for lab and lecture classes.“

—Elisha Polomski, FT Astronomy Faculty,   CSM

Each of our weekly messages includes a quick survey asking your perspective on proposals made by both AFT negotiators and the District. Please click the “Take Survey” button at right to share your thoughts. Every bit of feedback helps us act strategically to win a fair contract!

ACTION UPDATE: FACULTY SOUND OFF ON DISTRICT’S STALLING – YEAR 2 WITHOUT A CONTRACT

Elizabeth Ingber, Skyline faculty member, shared their thoughts after attending a contract bargaining session on Wednesday, August 8.

“Attending negotiations provided insight into the dialogue between our union and the district and revealed the degree of patience needed throughout the process. One can start to understand just how much time and prepared effort it takes to come to agreements. 

Since we hope to advance our faculty’s needs with every new contract it is important to support our union’s negotiating team so that we can continue to improve working conditions for current and future faculty… Attending negotiations can show the district and our team that faculty are paying attention and are not indifferent to the results.“

Read to the end of this message to see what other members have to say about the District’s stalling tactics.

Each of our weekly messages includes a quick survey on your thoughts about the current state of negotiations. After reading this Action Update, click the “Take Survey” button on the right to share your perspective with our negotiating team.

Every bit of feedback helps us act strategically to win a fair contract!

FACT: On May 4, 2022, AFT and the District held our first negotiation session.

FACT: Despite holding day-long bargaining sessions on August 2nd and August 11th, this week we will enter our second academic year without a contract.

FAIRNESS? While we’ve made progress on salary and benefits, the District has completely refused to move on our proposals on:

  • Lab rates
  • Remote work
  • Parental leave
  • Part-time rights in summer

Little progress has been made on dual enrollment.
EQUITY= A timely fair contract! Members like you have shared how the District’s continual stalling has negatively impacted their lives.
Adjunct Working Conditions

“The opportunity cost of delayed payment in this current economic environment impacts every area of my life, and I had to teach more over the summer in order to cover my bases instead of getting some much needed time off.” 

— English PT faculty, CSM

District Hypocrisy & Loss of Faith

“…I am having to adjust my life considerably to be able to make it to the next paycheck. The district is demonstrating a non negotiation tactic that is a cause for me to mistrust the district… how can [faculty] create a safe and trusting environment for our students [if] the district will not create that for the faculty?” 

— FT Dental Assisting faculty, CSM

Remote Work & Lab Pay

“The lab rate of pay, and the ability to work remotely are big issues for me. I have a long commute and am a caregiver for my dad at home, so I really appreciate being able to work remotely… it would be nice to have this privilege of working remotely set into the contract language. 

For the labs, it is truly unbelievable that science labs are not paid at the same rate as lecture. The work generated by a science lab is tremendous…”

— FT Biology faculty, CSM

You, too, can attend our next contract negotiation sessions! Please add your name to the following Negotiations Sign-Up Sheet and a fellow AFT member will reach out to you shortly!