Monthly Archives: May 2025

May 2025 Workshops for PT Faculty: Flex Pay & Unemployment

Negotiations Report #12

    See All Negotiations Updates   

 

 

May 13, 2025

Some brief takeaways from our tenth negotiation session on May 9th:

  • Steve Lehigh, our union Treasurer, AFT representative to the District Committee of Budget and Finance, and Professor of Economics at CSM, made a compelling presentation regarding the District’s budget.  Steve’s presentation made it clear that our economic proposals (on compensation, benefits, load, etc.) are not only economically feasible, but wholly justified.

This Friday will be our last negotiation session until an end-of-semester break until June 12th.

You can also:

 

Current Bargaining Report

AFT Negotiation Team: Monica Malamud, Chet Lexvold, Jennifer Van Sijill, Gil Perez, Luis Zuñiga, Althea Kippes.  Also in attendance from AFT were Co-Presidents Rika Yonemura-Fabian and Tamara Perkins, and Observers Teeka James, Jessica Silver-Sharp, Steve Lehigh, Mine Kocak, Manny Delgado, and Lori Slicton.

From the District: Ellen Wu, Julie Johnson, Richard Storti, David Feune, Aaron McVean, Gerardo Ramirez.

Informal Complaints and Formal Misconduct Investigations (Article 23)

This was an article that the District sunshined (brought to negotiations), and after the District essentially accepted our previous counter except for some minor language edits, we informed the District we are ready to reach a tentative agreement (“TA”) on this article.

Compensation (Article 8)

First, we had our union Treasurer and Professor of Economics at College of San Mateo, Steve Lehigh, make a compelling presentation regarding the District’s budget.  You can view Steve’s slides here, and Steve’s verbal explanations really added context to drive home the fact that the District can not only afford to fund our economic proposals, but owes faculty members to make them whole from past, unjust compensation packages.  A few notes on the presentation:

  • Slide 2: the salary increase for faculty from Aug. 2020-Aug. 2024 was 16.40%, but inflation was 21.10%, meaning faculty suffered a net loss of 4.70% over that time period.
    0
  • Slide 4: the District’s savings from violating the 50% law over the past nine years is over $106 million.  The total of the next highest district out of compliance is less than $10 million.  In other words, our District is a massive outlier across the state in terms of how much less than 50% of its budget is committed to faculty.
    0
  • Furthermore, in slide 5, Steve showed that the portion of the District’s revenue committed to faculty has actually decreased over the past four years.
    0
  • Additionally, Steve verbally pointed out that the District has overfunded a pension fund while diverting revenue to capital projects even though the District has received hundreds of millions in bond funds for said capital projects.

Subsequently, our Chief Negotiator, Monica Malamud, presented our first counterproposal on Article 8, Compensation, which was effectively identical to our first proposal on this article.  We had a slight adjustment on 8.13 to propose paying FT counselors beyond the 175 days at the non-instructional lab rate, unit banking, or compensatory time.  On Multi-Modal and Multi-Level classes, we proposed increasing their load by 25% to accommodate courses not loaded at 1.0 FLC.  Finally, we explained there is no need for a study group in order to transition to load-based pay.

  • Previous study groups between the District and faculty have not been productive and have not reached actionable conclusions.
    0
  • We already surveyed our faculty across disciplines and made the appropriate proposal for Appendix F.
    0
  • The District’s objection that they need a study group to technically figure out how to implement load-based pay is not persuasive – that’s something for the District to figure out, and they can consult a large number of local districts that already pay by load.  There’s no need for the union or faculty to be involved in that process.

 

Safety Conditions of Employment (Article 16)

We presented our first proposal on this article, proposing an expansion of the District’s responsibility to provide safe conditions of employment not just at primary worksites, but anywhere faculty are performing their duties.  Other aspects of this proposal include:

  • Requiring emergency boxes on campuses, as some areas lack cellular service;
    0
  • Making it the District’s responsibility to eliminate, mitigate, and/or report on hazards, including workplace violence and climate-related hazards;
    0
  • Eliminating current 16.5, an “appeal process” which is unnecessary in light of our current grievance process;
    0
  • Inserting language referencing CA law that provides for employers seeking restraining orders on behalf of their employees;
    0
  • Regular safety trainings and trainings on mandated reporting requirements, including payment for PT faculty attending said trainings; and
    0
  • Making SMCCCD a Safe Workplace for Transgender Faculty, which would require the District, at the request of the faculty member, to work with the faculty member to make the workplace safe and respectful of their gender identity, particularly during their gender transition.

 

Summer Employment (Article 18)

The District presented their second counter on Article 18, which was identical to their first counter.  Their Co-Chief Negotiator, Ellen Wu, explained the District is fine clarifying which articles apply to summer employment, but is not interested in expanding which articles apply.

 

Professional Development “Leave” Program (Article 13)

The District presented their third counter, and we presented our third counter in the same session.

  • The District countered with status-quo 1% funding, which we countered again at 1.25%.
    0
  • The District accepted our “two consecutive semesters” language so a leave could encompass spring and fall semesters
    0
  • We agreed on language expanding who can participate in short-term project leaves.  Now, in addition to part-time faculty, tenured and third- and fourth-year tenure-track faculty, second-year tenure-track faculty will be eligible if they receive meets or exceeds in all categories of evaluations, and second-years can apply for said project leaves as soon as the Board of Trustees approves that they can advance to Contract II.

 

Part-Time Employment (Article 19)

The District agreed to provide one (1) update to the seniority lists prior to the end of the semester.

  • The District accepted our strikethrough of their proposal to remove part-timers from seniority lists for declining assignments two consecutive semesters.
    0
  • In the case of retirement, after we rejected their proposal to remove these faculty from seniority lists, the District proposed moving these folks to the bottom of seniority lists.
    0
  • The District re-proposed “sustained complaint” language as a reason to remove faculty from the seniority list.
    0
  • 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.”
    0
  • On 19.2.4 – Load – the District again proposed status quo “same or similar” language.

 

Retirement (Article 10)

We again proposed increasing the reimbursement amount in 10.1.3 to $1,000 from $450.

 

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!

In solidarity,

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

Negotiations Report #11

    See All Negotiations Updates   

 

May 6, 2025

Some brief takeaways from our tenth negotiation session on May 2nd:

After the big exchanges on compensation and load in the previous bargaining session, this shorter (3 hour) negotiation session was more focused on Professional Development Leaves and Summer Employment.  We’ll likely bring our first counter on compensation this Friday, May 9th, and you can:

You can also:

 

Current Bargaining Report

AFT Negotiation Team: Monica Malamud, Chet Lexvold, Jennifer Van Sijill, Gil Perez, Luis Zuñiga, Althea Kippes.  Also in attendance from AFT were Co-President Rika Yonemura-Fabian, and Observers Teeka James, Jessica Silver-Sharp, Mandy Lucas, Elizabeth Ingber, Richard Schulke, and Nathan Jones.

From the District: Ellen Wu, Julie Johnson, Richard Storti, David Feune, Aaron McVean, Gerardo Ramirez, Joe Morello.

 

Compensation (Article 8)

Since we received the District’s “costing” (estimated cost) of our initial proposal on compensation late last week and did not have time to analyze it prior to the negotiation session on Friday, we did not present a counter on compensation.

 

Reasonable Accommodation (Article 25)

After securing language requiring the District to respond within 10 working days to faculty inquiring about their accommodation request, we reached a tentative agreement on this article!

 

Part-Time Employment (Article 19)

We have essentially reached an agreement that the District must provide seniority lists to AFT by first census.  We re-proposed language requiring the District to provide one (1) update to the seniority lists prior to the end of the semester.

  • We did not accept the District’s proposal to remove part-timers from seniority lists for declining assignments in “two consecutive semesters,” nor in the case of retirement (the current contract allows three semesters of break in service).
  • On 19.2, we re-proposed that experience and qualifications “for a particular assignment” should be the language.
  • On 19.2.4 – Load – we countered their status-quo “same or similar” language with “at least the highest load offered in the previous two terms,” which is more specific and well-defined compared to the vague “same or similar” language.
  • The District had moved their proposed “sustained complaint” language from 19.1.3 to 19.2.4, which would make it a reason to deny an adjunct faculty load expectations not subject to grievance, and we rejected it again.  Their proposed language on this topic had actually gotten worse, as well, as their language: 1) wasn’t grammatically correct after they moved it (“does not have a sustained complaint against them…concerning under the District’s policies…;” and 2) expanded this to include “concerning conduct,” which is about as vague and ill-defined as possible.

 

Part-Time Healthcare MOU (Memorandum of Understanding)

After the District expressed strong opposition to incorporating our MOU into Article 9, we proposed amendments directly to the MOU.

  • Under “Eligibility to Enroll,” for Mixed Assignments we added “ancillary work” to both instructional and non-instructional assignment that can be counted to reach the 40% FTE threshold to qualify for healthcare.
  • We proposed adding Dental and Optical coverage under the same eligibility conditions as PTers qualify for Medical.
  • We proposed that in-District PT faculty could get the same reimbursement as multi-district PT faculty (reimbursement for premiums up to the “District’s most commonly subscribed family plan”).
  • We proposed quarterly reimbursement for medical premiums instead of semiannually.
  • Finally, we proposed removing all contingencies for the MOU so our faculty can have predictability and certainty with regard to their healthcare, and proposed sunsetting the MOU at the same time as our CBA we are currently negotiating (2028).

 

Summer Employment (Article 18)

The District presented their first counter on Article 18.  They did not accept our proposals that Articles 9 (Health and Benefits) and 19 (Part-Time Employment) apply, and put in specific sections of articles instead of entire articles (for example, “section 7.12” instead of Article 7).  We countered during Friday’s session and re-proposed that the entire articles to be applicable to summer because there are almost countless sections that apply to summer employment, and the District’s list was woefully incomplete (they admitted they only did a word search for “summer” and added those few sections that specifically had that word to the list).

  • The District also rejected our proposal to both expand paid office hours in summer to full-timers, and to simplify the formula to “hours taught/3.”  We re-proposed this again during Friday’s session, explaining that all faculty who teach in the summer should be paid for office hours.

 

Professional Development “Leave” Program (Article 13)

The District presented their second counter, and we presented our second counter in the same session.

  • The District accepted our proposal retaining 3 types of “leaves:” short-term, long-term, and what we are calling “semester-release” projects (formerly “extended leave”).
  • They countered with status-quo 1% funding, which we countered at 1.25%.
  • They brought back “academic year” language for semester-release projects, and we re-proposed “two consecutive semesters” so a leave could encompass spring and fall semesters, as each project is different and could encompass spring-to-fall.
  • The District proposed that instead of allowing both first- and second-year tenure-track faculty to participate in short-term project leaves (in addition to tenured and third- and fourth-years), that second-years be eligible if they receive meets or exceeds in all categories of evaluations.  We countered by proposing second-year tenure-track be treated the same as third- and fourth-years, meaning they are eligible if they meet or exceed expectations overall in their evaluation, and that second-years could apply for said project leaves as soon as the Board of Trustees approves that they can advance to Contract II.

 

Retirement (Article 10)

The District countered with status quo on 10.1.3.  They essentially accepted our language regarding how health plans chosen can cover spouses, domestic partners, and dependents, and added clarifying language that the portion of the plan that covers those dependents are at the retiree’s expense.

 

Informal Complaints and Formal Misconduct Investigations (Article 23)

The District essentially accepted our previous counter, and inserted language making it clear that an employee may not be charged based solely on anonymous claims that are not substantiated.

 

Benefits (Article 9)

Since we received the District’s “costing” (estimated cost) of our initial proposal on compensation late last week and did not have time to analyze it prior to the negotiation session on Friday, 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.

 

Grievance Procedure (Article 17)

We’ve reached a tentative agreement on this article!

 

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

AFT Members Pack the Board Room

AFT Members Go to the BOT (4/30/25): 1.5% Raise = Insult

After the District negotiators countered AFT’s compensation proposal by offering measly 1.5% raises annually over the next 3 years—this comes after the Board voted to give themselves a 5% raise in February—AFT members packed the board room on April 30, 2025, to let the trustees know how we feel about their offer.