Monthly Archives: May 2025

Union Advocacy in the Courts

Long Beach City College faculty win landmark ruling for adjunct faculty pay 

By Jessica Silver-Sharp

In February of this year, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Stuart Rice ruled that Long Beach Community College (LBCC) District adjunct faculty must receive pay for all hours worked outside the classroom including lecture prep, grading and meeting with students. (Read the full case here.)

 

L to R: Karen Roberts & Seija Rohkea. Photo by Sofia Hopkins, Long Beach City College Viking News

Back in 2022, Long Beach adjunct faculty members Karen Roberts (Art History) and Seija Rohkea (Art) filed a lawsuit over LBCC’s failure to pay adjunct community college faculty at the legally required minimum wage. Their case laid out in detail the extensive and time consuming duties beyond paid class time that adjunct faculty regularly work for free.

In 2024, the lawsuit was expanded to a class action to apply to the 900 other impacted adjunct faculty in the district. According to an article from Inside Higher Ed, Judge “Rice stayed the decision pending further proceedings, so it doesn’t go into effect immediately. A similar lawsuit is under way in Sacramento County, brought by adjuncts against 22 community college districts, as well as the state community college system and its Board of Governors.”

AFT 1493 applauds the Long Beach union activists from their CHI local for their courage and more than three years of perseverance in fighting for just wages for themselves and their colleagues. We hope this lawsuit will have far reaching positive consequences for Californa’s approximately 37,000 adjunct faculty! 

 

Editor’s note: This article is based on an article from the California Teachers Association (CTA) California Educator on April 7, 2025. Read the full article here.

 

Faculty Speak Out at San Mateo Community College District Board Meeting

By Tamara Perkins


Following an AFT Solidarity Social where faculty gathered in the nearby College Vista Clubhouse on April 30, 2025, union members donned their red t-shirts and made their way to the the San Mateo Community College District Board of Trustees meeting to voice deep concerns about faculty compensation, benefits, workload equity, and the district’s ongoing non-compliance with state laws.


Addressing Compensation and Retention

Faculty en route to the April 30, 2025, meeting of the Board of Trustees

A focal point of the meeting was the inadequacy of 1.5% raises recently offered to AFT in bargaining, which many faculty members argue are insufficient in an era of rising living costs. “If the district is serious about its commitment to education, to students, and to the community, they must demonstrate their commitment to the people who were closest with students, who are focused on their success, and who work tirelessly each day to inspire them,” stated Dr. Carl Lafata (Author, retired Police Officer, and Administration of Justice faculty, Skyline College). “I was placed on the highest possible pay step for newly hired faculty, but that salary is nearly $4,000 below San Mateo County’s low income threshold for a family of two.” Faculty emphasized that fair pay isn’t just about individual fairness; it directly impacts faculty retention, quality of education, and the college’s standing in the community. 

AFT Co-President Rika Yonemura Fabian kicked off their comments by commending the Board for approving binding arbitration after a successful pilot. They then broke down the District’s egregious disregard for the 50% law and how this has hurt and continues to exploit faculty. “In the past ten years, over $88 million that should have come to classroom instruction, salaries, and benefits went somewhere else.” 

As a crowd of faculty members held signs in solidarity behind them and around the room, they continued: “The rate of compliance of SMCCCD with the 50% law is the lowest in the California Community College system. This 1.5% raise proposal pushes us further away from the 50%.” Chancellor Moreno appeared to be listening carefully, but one Board member, John Pimental, walked out during the co-president’s statement. (For more information on this topic, see Dr. Yonemura Fabian’s Spring article in The Advocate, Why do faculty need raises?)


AFT Co-President Rika Yonemura Fabian addresses her comments to the Board, April 30, 2025

Advocating for Pay and Benefit Parity

Part-Time faculty member and AFT Co-President Tamara Perkins (Film Studies faculty, College of San Mateo & Skyline College) echoed the call for equity, reaffirming AFT’s contract proposal to establish pay/load parity and comprehensive benefits, including 100% district coverage for family health plans—full reimbursement that the district currently receives from the state. “The district says benefits are too expensive,” she pointed out, “but they are already reimbursed 100% [by the state] for their part-time healthcare costs. Denying these benefits is like throwing away free money.” A brief personal story shared by a faculty member highlighted the financial strain of limited coverage, especially for solo parents balancing teaching and family responsibilities.


Workload and Compensation Equity

Nadia Biglari (Chemistry faculty, Skyline College) emphasized the importance of recognizing lab and lecture work as equally demanding. Currently, districts like LA Community College and West Valley have achieved parity in lab/lecture workloads, while SMCCCD lags behind. She stressed that the nature of labs and lectures requires significant preparation and work, often more than other instructional formats. “Lab-heavy faculty may feel undervalued, leading to burnout, lower performance or attrition.” Professor Biglari also stressed the importance of workload parity and instructional quality connected with college and program accreditation. Her final point echoed what so many faculty shared about the importance of fair compensation. 

Dr. Deborah Garfinkle (English faculty, College of San Mateo & De Anza), highlighted the unfairness of the current per-hour pay system for adjuncts. She stated that most districts in the Bay compensate adjuncts on a per-load basis, and even “less wealthy districts are paying faculty justly.” 

“At De Anza College, there’s no confusion or disparity,” noted Garfinkle, “online and traditional courses are compensated by the same load figure.” She urged the District to “do the just and moral thing to end the unfair system of compensation for adjunct faculty that doesn’t reflect our community values.”

Dr. Katie Hern (Skyline College English faculty), shared an astounding statistic about her Division. “In the last three years, 58% of Skyline literature classes were taught by a single adjunct faculty who lives out of state.” Due to a novel clause in SMCCCD’s contract, the elevated workload of Composition classes is recognized at 1.25, but only if you teach four classes –  the equivalent to a full load. This clause “disincentivizes full time faculty from teaching Lit classes”, Hern noted, and “part-timers never receive this workload recognition.” Getting to the crux of the issue, Dr. Hern questioned the Board. “How are we supporting our English majors, if we’re not even teaching the classes where we would be mentoring them through their programs?”


Addressing Ancillary Work and Accreditation Needs

Camille Kaslan (Chemistry faculty, Cañada College) read comments by her colleague in Biology, Distance Education Coordinator Nada Nekrep about the district’s handling of ancillary duties—such as governance and other non-instructional work—and how ambiguous definitions are impacting faculty like herself, whose essential work as Canãda College Distance Education (DE) Coordinator supports accreditation and compliance. 

“These coordination positions aren’t supplemental,” Nekrep’s comments urged, “They’re essential to the functioning and integrity of our colleges.” She explained that her DE coordinator role is more important than ever, noting that over half of our classes are online, and more than half of our students take online classes. She noted our District’s recent and sudden policy shift to count non-instructional coordination work toward California’s 67% instructional work cap on adjunct faculty as different from the initial and recent terms of agreement for these types of roles. “We’re being asked to step aways from work that sustains our campuses and supports our students,” her notes emphasized.

Prof. Nekrep also shared the exceptional nature of her experience as DE Coordinator: “I’ve been able to devote myself to one campus community and catch a break from my formerly exhausting commutes of over 500 miles per week.” This ability to focus on her coordinator position has allowed Nekrep’s work to streamline distance education, and support Cañada’s recent POCR (Program Oversight and Curriculum Review) accreditation, and is playing a key role in preparation for the upcoming RSI (Regular and Substantive Interaction) accreditation for distance education. The delay in negotiating these issues threatens faculty careers and college accreditation. “In short, coordination work must be included in the definition of ancillary work that is exempt from the 67% work cap.”


Support for Immigrant and International Students and Faculty

Public speakers also joined the call for systemic change. Tim Shively, president of the Foothill-DeAnza Faculty Association and the Bay Faculty Association, shared the recent collaboration with our SMCCCD faculty on a petition calling on our Community College Districts to protect international students. Shively noted that Foothill-De Anza Chancellor Lee Lambert is in support and both speaking with Chancellor Moreno and working to unite the Region 4 CEOs. Shively called upon our Board of Trustees to “Use your positions. Use your privileges to stand up and speak out against the horrible menace that threatens the very premise of higher education.” (See President Shively’s article in this edition, “The Time is Now”). Tatiana Irwin (History faculty, College of San Mateo) echoed this message.

The petition, which was delivered to the Board that evening, has received hundreds of signatures demanding action on the international student situation, emphasizing legal support and greater transparency on student protections.  


The Fight Continues 

AFT leadership has requested and awaits the district’s detailed budget breakdown while continuing to fight for a fair contract before it runs out on June 30, 2025. However, the speakers’ collective message was clear: faculty deserve fair pay, equitable benefits, workload parity, and recognition for their essential work—especially when the resources are readily available. AFT and its members will continue to advocate for policies that prioritize educators and uphold the integrity of public education.

The Case for Capping Calculus Courses

Mathematics Faculty Presents Case for Capping Calculus Courses

by Jessica Silver-Sharp

Professor Helena Almassy, Cañada College

In April, AFT proposed reduced class maximums for Calculus I & II classes (detailed in Appendix F in our contract). In support, Cañada College mathematics faculty member Helena Almassy joined our union’s April 18, 2025, bargaining session with the District. In the role of “faculty expert” on behalf of Cañada College Math Department/STEM Division and with feedback from Skyline and CSM Math departments, Helana presented a strong case for reducing calculus course enrollment from 40 to 26 students.

As she spoke, the District’s chief negotiator Ellen Wu tried to limit Helena’s presentation, asserting that her comments were taking too much time. At one point Helena was muted without warning. Monica Malamud reminded those in attendance that it was her prerogative as AFT’s Chief Negotiator to decide how best to allocate our union’s speaking time for our proposals. Monica explained the reasons behind and the precedent for AFT to bring in experts like Helena to educate the District’s team: that teaching and disciplines may have changed significantly since they received their higher education training, thus updates from experts were essential to understanding our union’s proposals.

0

Currently, Cañada College calculus classes are capped at 40 students

To set the stage for her arguments, Helena continued, sharing details of her teaching load and current enrollment numbers in three calculus classes: Business Calculus (Math 241) – 33 students; Calculus I (Math 251) – 26 students, and Calculus II (Math 252) – 35 students. She explained to the District’s negotiators,

“My teaching style is student-centered. 80% of the time and activities I present are done in groups. Many of my colleagues across the district [also] incorporate some form of group work. During class my goal is to visit all groups to get a sense of comprehension of the material. However, [with larger classes] it has felt increasingly overwhelming to try to visit all the groups; ultimately I have to manage visiting only some of the groups each day.”

0

Gaps in knowledge: SMCCCD students generally not prepared for calculus

Helena laid out the additional challenge that most current students are not quite ready for calculus and present a range of gaps of preparation. “Even students who have recently completed precalculus have a lot of gaps…that act as a barrier to their success in Calculus 1. So much material is covered in precalculus (Math 225) that not all the gaps…are filled by the time students get to Calculus 1.”

To make matters worse, students who took math courses in high school during the pandemic need even more help with algebra, required for success in calculus.

She referenced her Cañada mathematics colleague Sumathi Shankar’s explanation that students are also coming to calculus with fewer math and study skills than before AB705 went into effect and resulted in students needing to be placed in transfer level math classes.

AB1705, which emphasizes direct placement of STEM students into calculus classes for which they might not be ready (rather than pre-calculus or trigonometry), has also exacerbated the problems of readiness and increased teaching workloads.

0

Strategies to adapt cannot alone solve the problems

To address larger class sizes, Helena explained how she has enlisted embedded tutors in her classrooms. “Currently, I have two embedded tutors per class. However, not all faculty have the luxury of hiring embeds. And hiring tutors won’t solve the issue of large class size. Tutors also struggle with the large class sizes.” From one embedded student tutor:

“When the class is very large… greater than 30 students, it’s hard to go around to each group and make sure that they’re fully understanding the material. It’s also hard to focus when there’s so many students talking around you, which I think makes it harder to tutor.”
– S., student and embedded tutor at Cañada College

0

Further arguments for smaller classes to reduce workload

Helena also explained how using evidence-based, non-traditional teaching strategies such as interactive work, collaboration (groups), and engaging (think-pair-share) strategies that contribute to student success, also consume increased time and effort. Instructors can enact those strategies much more efficiently in smaller classes. She quoted a tutor:

“Students benefit from smaller class sizes because they get more individualized help from the professor/tutor, the group work dynamic is better because it’s easier to know your classmates in a small class, and I think students are able to focus more on the learning because there are less distractions.”
– – S., student and embedded tutor at Cañada College

0

Calculus courses are foundational to our students’ education

Helena also explained to the District that “Calculus courses like Business Calculus (Math 241), Calculus 1 (Math 251), Calculus 2 (Math 252) are prerequisites for many courses across STEM and non-STEM majors alike. These courses are foundational to students as they begin their path towards finishing their AA degree or transferring. These are gate-keeping classes and increasing the success rate of students is important. Decreasing the class size is one of the ways to do this.” All three campuses (CSM, Skyline and Cañada math departments) agree on calling for smaller class sizes.

 

Our union is stronger when rank and file faculty members like Helena and Sumathi contribute to negotiations with arguments to back our proposals. Our union extends a special thanks to Helena for standing with the union to present such compelling information based on her recent, real world experiences in the classroom and feedback from colleagues. ❤️

Deborah Garfinkle

Letter to the Editor: Deborah Garfinkle (May 2025)

Deborah Garfinkle

Prof. Deborah Garfinkle

May 11, 2025

Dear Editor, 

Below is a statement I delivered to the Board of SMCCD on April 30, the day before I and other strong union members turned out in force to protest the assault on labor, democracy and public education that is threatening all of us who believe in justice and truth. It’s a statement I should have never had to write, because the ethics of my argument are so patently clear.  

On April 30, I was not able to give the entirety of the below statement because speakers at Board meetings are allotted a scant three minutes to advocate for our right to equal pay for equal work. Part-time faculty are given little recognition, acknowledgment or credit in a district that champions equality for students out of one side of its mouth, but now, on the other, lawyers up, using highly paid attorneys to do its collective bargaining who foot drag and draw out negotiations to maintain an unjust status quo at great cost to our bottom line and our unity as a community. Out of the mouths of these highly paid mouthpieces, our call for equal pay for equal work, load and 85% equity, has been flatly denied. 

On this May Day, I stand in solidarity with all AFT 1493 members, full and part time, to demand that the District stop pretending that we are equal in the catalogue but not on the pay scale because it’s convenient and profitable for them to do so.  So profitable that they’re more than happy to pay big gun lawyers to do their negotiating instead of putting their money where the equity is – in just compensation for part-time faculty to recognize the equality that everyone on campus – all faculty, classified staff, students and, yes, even administrators so rightly deserve. 

Thank you for sharing my comments to the Board with our membership. 

–Deborah Garfinkle

 

Dear members of the board,

My name is Dr. Deborah Garfinkle, I am an award-winning writer and translator, a former Fulbright Scholar who has served as part-time faculty in the English Department at the College of San Mateo for over eighteen years. I have also served on the faculty of De Anza College for almost twenty-two years. 

Now more than ever with public education under attack, our college and district have been a powerful force in advocating for and promoting the values of equality and equity in education, to ensure students’ right to quality education no matter their origin, race or social class. Today I’m here to ask the Board and the district to finally pay adjunct faculty by load instead of instructional hour. I urge you to do the just and moral thing to end the unfair system of compensation for adjunct faculty that does not reflect our community’s values. Each time part-time faculty, who make up the majority of faculty in the district, step into the classroom and are paid an hourly wage, we prop up a system that falsely implies that part-time work begins and ends with that 50 minute instructional hour and that our labor doesn’t equal that of our full-time colleagues’ and that we stop teaching once we cross the classroom’s threshold. 

This inequality persists because of the illusion that our faculty, with the same skills and qualifications, are as one instead of grossly divided by employment status. I always say we are all equal in the classroom. No student can tell  whether we are full or part-time – they haven’t a clue because nothing in the catalogue indicates that when you sign up for Professor X, you’re getting someone who can’t serve you fully because they’re not paid fairly. Like my student wanted me to be his Honor’s Program advisor but didn’t know I was part-time. I had turn him down because I couldn’t accept compensation that was, according to my full-time colleague, “just a token thank you, far from where it should be–but it’s something.” When the District embraces this illusion of equity, it robs passionate, highly-qualified educators with their right to equal pay for equal work that most of us have fought tooth and nail for, only not when it comes to our divided faculty. Without load, there is no way to set a coherent parity figure to compare the salary schedules. To do so is akin to comparing fresh-picked Granny Smiths to bargain bin leftovers. 

I could remind the Board in my meager three minutes of the 20-30 minutes I spend per student essay to provide meaningful feedback that will pass RSI muster, video overviews and lectures, revising my Canvas website, and all the other feedback I give to students beyond the 3 units and office time I’m paid for. I could point to the lack of transparency when it comes to how many hours I’m paid each month, or why I’m paid 1.7 hours less each semester for online teaching only because the Ed Code says I can be. At De Anza College, there’s no confusion or disparity; online and traditional courses are compensated by the same load figure (usually .125 of full-time)

I could also argue the unfairness of not being given a paid holiday even though it’s a dirty secret that instructors, no matter how or what they teach, never have a day off, because weekends and days off are when we catch up on all the things we have to do for student success that we don’t have time to do while we’re in the classroom. I put in an equal commitment to student learning no matter the modality. That means I work every day from the weeks before the semester begins when I’m not yet under contract to the first moment I publish my course at 12 AM the day a semester begins all the way until the moment I finish grading my final essay. Year round, I work off the clock at revising and refining my Canvas course to make it a powerful tool for learning. When the Board and District willfully choose to ignore the depth and breadth of adjunct faculty labor because of this illusion of equity, they cynically betray the very values of equity and justice that drives our mission as a community. 

SMCCD is an outlier in the Bay Area in paying faculty by instructional hour. At De Anza College, I have been paid according to load since I began teaching there in 2003. West Valley College, San Jose/Evergreen, City College of San Francisco, College of Marin all have load based pay. Other less-wealthy non-basic aid districts in the Bay Area have been able to make the switch to load based pay, like San Jose/Evergreen where I used to teach. It not only can be done, it should have been done long ago. And I shouldn’t have to stand here arguing for what we all know is right. No one should work for free. 

In this climate targeting public ed, we cannot afford to pay lip service to equity. SMCCD needs to side with its better angels, the ones we  bring with us every time we open the door to our students’ hearts and minds.

Thank you.  

In solidarity with all those past and present who have joined in solidarity to uphold the rights of workers to organize.  

Negotiations Report #13

    See All Negotiations Updates   

 

May 20, 2025

Some brief takeaways from our twelfth negotiation session on May 16th:

We were hopeful the District would make proposals on economic issues and show some willingness to move.  The opposite occurred.  The District made the exact same proposal on compensation that they previously made: a 1.5% annual raise for full-time faculty and non-instructional adjuncts, and 2% annually for instructional adjuncts. They also continued to reject load-based pay for instructional adjuncts. Further, the District has yet to make counter proposals on other economic proposals we presented on April 18th, namely, Workload (Article 6 and Appendix D); Benefits (Article 9); and Load (Lab/Lecture parity, Appendix F).

The District keeps reminding us during negotiations that economic issues are part of an “overall economic package,” so if they offer more in one area (compensation, for example), they may offer less in another (benefits, as an example).  However, until the District makes counters on the important economic proposals outlined above, we are unable to negotiate on economic issues because we have yet to see the “overall economic package!”

We currently have two negotiation sessions scheduled on Thursdays in June: June 12th and June 26th from 12-4pm.

Sign up to join us at a future negotiation session!  Our next negotiation is Thursday, June 12th, 12:00 pm-4:00pm.

 


Current Bargaining Report

AFT Negotiation Team: Monica Malamud (Chief Negotiator), Chet Lexvold, Gil Perez, Luis Zuñiga, and Althea Kippes.  Also in attendance from AFT were President Rika Yonemura-Fabian and Observers Jessica Silver-Sharp, Kolo Wamba, Elinor Westfold, Helena Almassy, Michael Hoffman, Julia Johnson, Camille Kaslan, Teeka James, and Nathan Jones.

From the District: Ellen Wu (Co-Chief Negotiator), Richard Storti (Co-Chief Negotiator), David Feune, Joe Morello, Gerardo Ramirez, Julie Johnson, Aaron McVean.

 


Academic Freedom (New Article)

We presented our final “first proposal,” proposing a new contract article enshrining the right to Academic Freedom in our contract.  Monica first presented a resolution and a white paper from the Academic Senate for the California Community Colleges (ASCCC) in support of academic freedom and its inclusion in faculty contracts, and then the SMCCCD Academic Senate resolution in support of enshrining academic freedom in the AFT 1493 contract with the District.  Monica further pointed out that all of our neighboring districts in the area have academic freedom in their contracts, along with a majority of community college districts across the state.

View our Academic Freedom proposal here.

 


Part-Time Employment (Article 19)

We presented our third counter on this article, the District presented their fourth, and we presented our fourth.

  • In the case of retirement, the District proposed moving these folks to the bottom of seniority lists after a six-month separation, and we countered with a twelve-month separation.
  • The District re-proposed “sustained complaint” language (for harassment and/or discrimination) as a reason to remove faculty from the seniority list.  We mostly accepted this language but struck out their language exempting findings of a sustained complaint from our grievance process.
  • The District continues to reject our proposal that experience and qualifications “for a particular assignment” should be the language in 19.2.1, citing “management’s right to assignment,” and we keep re-proposing it.
  • On 19.2.4 – Load assignment – the District insists on status quo “same or similar” language, and we keep making efforts to make this more defined, proposing “same load as offered in the previous term,” and after that was rejected, “at least 97% of the load last offered.”

 


Compensation (Article 8)

As outlined in the introduction, the District essentially made the same offer as they previously made on this article.  Some minor notes on the District’s counter:

  • On PT pay for canceled classes, we had proposed that part-timers be paid for canceled classes, and the District countered with the bare minimum required by the law, which is that the District “should” pay part-timers “whenever possible” in these instances.
  • They don’t want to change “class” to “column” on 8.4 because “class” is defined in the contract and referenced in other parts of the contract.
  • They continue to reject an almost word-for-word proposal we had made referencing CA Labor Code 221 about the District’s ability to claw back money in the case of an overpayment.
  • They rejected our addition of “non-instructional” to 8.6, but when pressed by Monica, they essentially said yes, that phrase belongs, but “maybe it should go at the top” (in the heading).
  • The District made a bunch of excuses as to why they want a study group on moving to pay-by-load before making this change, including a preposterous accusation that we were engaging in regressive bargaining by proposing to strike something agreed to in a previous contract cycle.
  • On 8.12, the District struck out our proposal to add “professional duties” as duties paid for part-time counselors in this section.

 


Professional Development “Leave” Program (Article 13)

The District presented their fourth counter.

  • The District countered with status-quo 1% funding again, and this is the last sticking point on this article, as we had proposed 1.25% previously, and Monica pointed out that we can’t move on this point because we have yet to see the full economic package the District keeps alluding to.

 


Retirement (Article 10)

The District presented their second counter and so did we.  Later, the District told us that their third counter would be identical to their second one, but they did not pass it across the table.  The District is sticking with $450 as the reimbursement amount in 10.1.3, which has been that same amount since at least 2006.  We proposed $1,000 which would just be in line with inflation.

  • The District did clarify that to the extent that $450 is over what it costs to cover the retiree, then yes, a spouse/domestic partner can be covered up to that $450/month. But dependents are covered at the retiree’s own expense, which they cited as “district practice.”
  • We proposed changing this district practice so the district contribution could be used to cover dependents, as well, and the District rejected that again.

 


Summer Employment (Article 18)

Since the District insists on listing specific sections instead of articles, we explained that we cannot present a counter on this article because it would reference sections that are currently being negotiated, so we’re setting it aside for now.

 


Safety Conditions of Employment (Article 16)

The District did not present a counter to our proposal on this article.

 


Part-Time Healthcare MOU (Memorandum of Understanding)

The District did not present a counter on this topic.

 


Benefits (Article 9)

We did not present a counter on Benefits.

 


Dual Enrollment (New Article)

We did not present a counter on this article.

 


Hours of Employment (Article 7)

The District did not present a counter to our proposal on this article.

 


Workload (Article 6 and Appendix D)

The District did not present a counter to our proposal on this article.

 


Faculty Load Credit (FLC) Allocation (Appendix F )

The District did not present a counter to our proposal on this.

 


Leaves (Article 11)

The District did not present a counter to our proposal on this article.

 


Reasonable Accommodation (Article 25)

We’ve reached a tentative agreement on this article!

 


Grievance Procedure (Article 17)

We’ve reached a tentative agreement on this article!

 


Informal Complaints and Formal Misconduct Investigations (Article 23)

We’ve reached a tentative agreement on this article!

 

In solidarity,

Chet Lexvold
Executive Director, AFT 1493
lexvold@aft1493.org