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