Negotiations Report #16

    See All Negotiations Updates   

 

July 15, 2025

Some brief takeaways from our fifteenth negotiation session on July 8th:

This was a fairly short negotiation session because the District asked for a start time 90 minutes later due to a scheduling conflict, so neither party was able to present a counter to anything proposed during this session.

Overall, this means we’ll likely make little-to-no progress on economic issues before Fall semester.

So what do we need to do this Fall semester?

  • If we want to win a fair and equitable contract, we need you!  The District has made it clear they won’t even give you basic cost-of-living raises unless they are forced to.  Our power at the negotiation table lies in our ability to act collectively together outside of the negotiation room, and that means organizing to flex our muscles together this fall!  Please contact me at lexvold@aft1493.org so we can discuss how you can get involved.
    0
  • You can also sign up to join us at a future negotiation session.  Our next negotiation session is Thursday, July 17th from 12:00pm-4:00pm.  We are working on scheduling negotiation dates for the Fall semester, as well.

Current Bargaining Report

AFT Negotiation Team: Monica Malamud (Chief Negotiator), Chet Lexvold, Gil Perez, and Luis Zuñiga.  Also in attendance from AFT were President Rika Yonemura-Fabian and Observers Lori Slicton, Mick Song, Donna McCabe,.

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

Workload (Article 6 and Appendix D)

The District presented its second counter on this article.

  • On 6.1, we are still negotiating on when changes to FLCs in Appendix F (lab and composition load) would take effect after agreement is reached.  The District proposed a max of 1 year “except as mutually agreed by the parties.”
    0
  • On whether the District will report time spent on ancillary duties to CalSTRS (which would allow CalSTRS to determine if that time counts), the District struck out our language, reasoning that whether it’s “reportable” is entirely up to CalSTRS.  This seems to be a misunderstanding of what we are asking for – we are asking the District to report it to CalSTRS, understanding CalSTRS will ultimately decide whether that time is creditable.
    0
  • The District struck out our proposal that if ancillary work can be loaded, it shall count for benefits eligibility.
    0
  • For Professional Responsibilities of instructional faculty, the District re-proposed substituting the current language, “the equivalent of 2.5 hours per week”, with  “a minimum of 2.5 hours per week” (the current contract language was negotiated in the previous contract cycle, as a way to cap time spent on professional responsibilities for instructors when the pilot point system program ended).

 

Appendix D:

  • The District accepted our proposal of the new Appendix “D2-A2” specifically for personal counselors, who have different duties than academic counselors.  However, the District struck out “mental health student club advising” as a required duty of personal counselors; we had included it because it was in the job description.  The District explained that this is a voluntary task, even if this means that a campus may no longer have a mental health student club.
    0
  • In D2-A3, the District again proposed language to require that counselors perform their professional duties on campus unless an alternative location is approved by their dean, versus our proposed “at a time and place appropriate for the activity,” mirroring the language in the current contract applicable to instructional faculty.
    0
  • For the new “ Appendix D4 – Ancillary Work,” the District pulled language from the Education Code regarding the definition of Ancillary Work, but also accepted our proposal that the list of ancillary work be non-exhaustive (“includes, but is not limited to” language).
    0
    The major conflict in the list of Ancillary duties remains whether or not “work as a program coordinator” is ancillary (our position) or is not (District’s position).
    0
  • 0On Ancillary work, generally, the District keeps proposing that it must be “directed by the dean” to qualify as Ancillary to be compensated, which doesn’t make sense for several categories of ancillary work, such as serving on the Academic Senate, appointments by Academic Senate, elected work for AFT 1493, etc.

Safety Conditions of Employment (Article 16)

The District presented their first counter proposal on this article.

  • On 16.1, they accepted some of our language increasing the District’s responsibility to provide safe conditions of employment not just at primary worksites, but also in transit, adding “in District-provided vehicles.”
    0
  • They struck out our language requiring emergency boxes on campuses, because they did not know what they were – we clarified we meant emergency call boxes;
    0
  • They mostly struck out our proposed language regarding the District’s responsibility to eliminate, mitigate, and/or report on hazards, including workplace violence and climate-related hazards, reasoning the law already requires the District to do what we were asking for;
    0
  • They accepted our elimination of current Article 16.5, an “appeal process” but brought back existing language stating that this contract article is not subject to arbitration;
    0
  • They struck out our language about a faculty member being able to leave the classroom if they feel unsafe;
    0
  • They struck out our language referencing CA law that provides for employers seeking restraining orders on behalf of their employees, reasoning that it’s already in the law;
    0
  • They struck out our language regarding providing regular safety trainings and trainings on mandated reporting requirements, including payment for PT faculty attending said trainings, again saying the trainings are already required by law; and
    0
  • They struck out our language regarding making SMCCCD a Safe Workplace for Transgender Faculty.  Instead, they proposed a broad statement regarding non-discrimination and prohibition of harassment of all protected categories at the end in a new section 16.9.

Article 9, Health and Welfare Benefits

We presented our first counter to the District’s counter on Article 9.

  • We had originally proposed the District would cover 100% of premiums for all CalPERS options, now countering 100% for all Kaiser plans, including two-party and family plans (not just single)
    0
  • Dental: the benefit has been stuck at $2,000 for a long time, and it’s inadequate. We had first proposed $7,000, the District countered at $2,000, so we countered at $5,000.
    0
  • Consistent with our proposal on Ancillary work in Article 6/Appendix D, we proposed that any ancillary work that can be loaded shall be counted towards a PT faculty member’s eligibility for benefits in the PT Healthcare MOU.

Faculty Load Credit (FLC) Allocation (Appendix F )

Because the District rejected all of our proposed changes to Appendix F and proposed less flexibility regarding what constitutes a full-time load, we countered with the same language as our first proposal.

Hours of Employment (Article 7)

We presented our second counter on this article.

  • We accepted current contract language on “a minimum of” in 7.6.1, such that FT counselors would work a minimum of 22 hours for counseling duties and a minimum of 8 hours for professional duties.
    0
  • In 7.6.1, we brought back our language for counselors performing professional duties, which is that they “will be carried out at a time and place appropriate for the activity” to mirror the language for professional duties for instructional faculty in our current contract.
    0
  • On 7.7 for FT librarians, we thanked the District for accepting our proposed language that any credit bearing classes taught by FT librarians would be considered overload.
    0
  • On 7.11 regarding Flex Days, we brought back current contract language regarding how many flex days are required.
    0

    • We again had some areas of agreement on 7.11.2 regarding flex days for PTers, but continue to work on language to be inclusive of all faculty, and we brought back our language about being able to do flex days on different days if a dual enrollment assignment interferes.

Academic Freedom (New Article)

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

Part-Time Employment (Article 19)

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

Summer Employment (Article 18)

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.

Dual Enrollment (New Article)

We did not present a counter on this article and told the District since there has been so little movement on it by either party, we are setting it aside for now.

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