Frequently Asked Questions


Many faculty members have contacted AFT with questions regarding points made by Chancellor Galatolo in his recent e-mail to faculty.
These questions and their answers are below.


Question 1
: Is it true, as AFT reported, that most of our faculty salaries do not rank 3rd or 4th among the Bay Area community college districts?  The Chancellor’s e-mail shows that our salaries mostly rank in the top four among this group.

Yes, it is true. In fact, 68% (202 out of 297) of our full-time faculty members are at Step 12 or above on the salary schedule. The salaries in this range rank between 5th and 9th among the ten Bay Area comparison districts (the Bay Ten).  Our part-time faculty members rank between 5th and 7th in the same comparison group.  Therefore, for the majority of all faculty, our salaries do not rank within the top 3rd or 4th place in the Bay Area as the Chancellor claims.

Question 2:  What is the “Middle Step” that the Chancellor uses and why doesn’t the AFT use it when making salary comparisons?

The “middle step” refers literally to the cell in the middle—the center—of the salary schedule table. However, using the “middle step” is like comparing apples to oranges.  For example, our full-time faculty salary schedule has five columns and twenty-three rows, or steps, so its “middle step” is the cell on the 12th row in the 3rd column (MA + 45).  On the other hand, although Foothill’s full-time faculty salary schedule also has five columns, it only has thirteen steps, so its “middle step” is the cell on the 7th row of the third column (MA + 60).

We do not use the “middle step” in our comparative salary analyses because, as is readily apparent, it leads to comparisons between faculty with different experiences and academic preparations.  Thus, we believe the “middle step” ranking is a meaningless number.

Question 3: How did the Chancellor determine our faculty’s average salary ranking of 3.29?

The Chancellor simply averaged the ranks of the seven cells in the salary schedule on which he chose to base his comparison (1+3+2+6+2+3+3)/7 = 3.29).  This is a straight out average; it is not weighted, as it logically should be, by taking into consideration the number of people in each group. Because half of the steps the Chancellor uses in his salary comparisons are entry steps on the salary schedule, where we are competitive with other colleges in the Bay Ten, his “average” rank is a low number, giving the impression that our salaries are, in fact, competitive.  However, only 39 out of 297 full-time faculty members (13%) are on salary steps 1-6, and 13% does not mean “most.”

As we have mentioned before, most of our full-time faculty’s salaries rank between 5th and 9th among the comparison districts in the Bay Ten as 68% (202 out of 297) of our full-time faculty members are at salary step 12 or above.  Also, based on our data, the District’s rankings on most of the cells the Chancellor presents in his e-mail are actually lower than the rankings he reported.

Cell

MA

Step 6

MA Highest

MA + 60

Step 6

MA + 60

Highest

PhD

Step 6

PhD Highest

Actual Rank

2

5

3

6

3

8

You can see the full comparison study we prepared on our website (www.aft1493.org).

 

Question 4:  Is it true that only 12 faculty members (out of 297) are in the “PhD Highest” group and only 33 are in the “MA + 60 Highest” group?

Yes, that is correct; however, most of the other groups that the Chancellor uses in his comparison have even fewer faculty members in them. For example, as you can see in the table below, only four full-time faculty members are at “MA + 60 Step 6.”

Cell

MA

Step 6

MA Highest

MA + 60

Step 6

MA + 60

Highest

PhD

Step 6

PhD Highest

Number of faculty impacted

1

18

4

33

1

12

 

Question 5:  In his e-mail the Chancellor states that “since 2003/04, we have ‘formally’ benchmarked our faculty positions three times against the other districts in the Bay Ten and, once again in the current year.” Is that correct?

Benchmarking does not mean salary increases; it means that salaries were compared.  Although it is true that we periodically review the ranking of our salaries as part of  the negotiation process, these reviews have never triggered an automatic increase to bring faculty to the top three or four in the Bay Area, as they did with the administrators and academic and classified supervisors.

 

Question 6: The Chancellor claims that the District has never benchmarked the salaries of the academic and classified supervisors (the employee group whose salary schedule was recently increased). Is that true?

While these classified non-represented positions might not have been surveyed on a regular basis, each time the District has performed a salary survey for the CSEA bargaining unit positions that required adjustments, the appropriate supervisors also received those adjustments to ensure they would remain at a higher salary level than the employees they were supervising.  In addition, this group has always received at least the same total compensation (COLA and benefits) that faculty has received.

 

Question 7: The Chancellor claims that the salary adjustments for this group will only cost the district $55,000 in the current year. That does not seem like a lot of money. What’s the big deal?

That is a nice round number, but the District did not present any documentation to support this claim in the Board packet used to approve this decision.  Even if the figure is accurate, our projections indicate that in future years the cost will be much higher.  As we showed in the latest editions of the Advocate and the recent E-News, the salaries of some of these employees will increase by as much as 20% over the next four years as a result of these new adjustments.

It is important to remember that in 2007, when the Board “adjusted” the salaries of the top administrators, they claimed the cost would only be $122,000, but as we have documented, the salaries of some of the top administrators have increased by as much as 30% over the last four years, while faculty salaries have remained flat.

The real issue is not about the amounts of money, but about respect and equity; all employees deserve a fair wage for their labor. Faculty salaries must be increased to proportionate levels as those of administrators and supervisors, or any claims of equity in our District are patently untrue.

 

Question 8:  The Chancellor stated that of the other 9 districts in the Bay Area “7 experienced full-time layoffs, 6 experienced furloughs, 3 experienced benefit rate increases and 2 experienced salary rollbacks”.  How many of the other Bay Ten districts have experienced full-time faculty layoffs, furloughs, and salary and benefits rollbacks?

We had the same question. We asked the Chancellor for the details behind this claim, and he supplied us with the names of the districts.  We contacted the faculty unions in those nine districts to verify the information.  At the moment, eight of them have responded to our requests. Here are our findings:

Layoffs: None of the districts cited by the Chancellor have laid off full-time faculty.  Unfortunately, as in our District, many part-time faculty have lost their jobs.

Furloughs: Of the districts identified by the Chancellor, only one, Ohlone College, has implemented faculty furloughs.

Benefit reductions: Only one of the districts we’ve spoken with has experienced benefit reductions. Contra Costa faculty has agreed to contribute an additional $100 per month for medical benefits for one year; however this may stop within the next month as their district’s reserves have recently more than doubled.  The faculty in the Chabot-Las Positas district, currently in negotiations, has not agreed to a reduction in benefits as of our inquiries in the last week.

Salary rollbacks: At this point, none of the other districts in the Bay Ten have had a salary rollback.  Faculty at San Francisco City College experienced a 1% salary cut a few years ago, but that 1% was restored this year. CCSF faculty did lose a step advancement for one year.  San Jose City College had agreed to a 1% salary cut this year contingent on the district’s finances.  Because the district’s finances turned out to be better than expected, the salary cut never took place.

Finally, it is important to remember that our District asked the community to support Measure G specifically to avoid these kinds of draconian measures.  We are concerned that while the Board can come up with money to increase the salaries of the District’s managers and administrators, it insists that faculty salaries and benefit caps must remain flat. Our point remains: all employees should be treated with fairness and equity.