Negotiations Report #19

    See All Negotiations Updates   

 

September 16, 2025

The main takeaway from our eighteenth negotiation session on Sept. 12th:

The District refused to bargain on Academic Freedom, didn’t bring counters on Compensation or Health Benefits, and forgot it was their turn to bring a counter on Workload.  The District has shown us, time and again, that if we want to win a fair and equitable contract, we need to flex our union power.

**Please attend a Watercooler Conversation this FRIDAY (9/19/25) at either 12 noon or 2:00pm to discuss our plans for Flex Day on October 8th, and executing the escalation of our Contract Action Plan in October.**

  • The Zoom link will be the same for both 12pm and 2pm: bit.ly/aft1493mm
  • Attendance is vital if you didn’t attend our AFT Membership meeting last Wednesday.  It is crucial that all our members understand and help execute our escalation plan for October.  If you cannot attend a Watercooler Conversation and were not at our Membership meeting last week, please contact your campus Chapter Chair to get up to speed:

As for the actual bargaining:

even after two massive actions at the Board of Trustees, the District still underperformed my lowest expectations (thus, our need to escalate our actions, starting with Flex Day on 10/8). Adding insult to injury is that Chancellor Moreno called all three unions (AFT, AFSCME, and CSEA) into her office last Monday and lamented that we aren’t being more collaborative with the District administration(?!).

On Friday, the District:

  1. Refused to bargain on Academic Freedom.  We presented our initial proposal on May 16th.  The District didn’t even acknowledge our proposal until September 12th (after several of our members spoke about this issue to the Board of Trustees on Sept. 10th); then finally told us the District’s position is that Academic Freedom is a “permissive” (“non-mandatory “) subject of bargaining, so the District isn’t going to bargain it.

This is a recurring theme, not just on Academic Freedom: the District doesn’t seem willing to give you anything more than the bare minimum required by law.  They are allowed to give you more than the bare minimum, of course.  They are allowed to protect your academic freedom, they are allowed to provide you paid parental leave, they are allowed to pay you fairly, they are allowed to ensure the safety and well-being of our transgender faculty, they are allowed to pay labs fairly and give our Math and English faculty manageable workloads, but they choose not to.  It’s really that simple.

 

  1. Didn’t bring counteroffers on Compensation, Health & Welfare, or initially on Workload.  We brought a counter on Article 6, Workload, on July 17th.  The District apparently forgot this and thought it was our turn to counter on Article 6.  It wasn’t.  So when we went to caucus on Friday, the District had to work on preparing a counter for Article 6, and what we received from them after caucus felt like a rushed, ham-fisted counterproposal that either completely forgot or conveniently ignored our presentation on the topics in Article 6 from July 17th.

On Compensation (Art. 8), the District claimed we didn’t “move” with our last counter (we did), so they weren’t going to counter.  They took the same position on Article 9, Health & Welfare.

If you want to witness this stuff first-hand, you can sign up to join us at a negotiation session, including this Thursday, 9/18, from 12:00-3:00pm.

And of course, don’t forget about Red Shirt Wednesdays!  Please contact me atlexvold@aft1493.org if you need a shirt.

 

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 Meredith Lanska, Mick Song, Lori Slicton, Christopher Branco, Ali Shokouhbakhsh, and Camille Kaslan.

From the District: Ellen Wu, Julie Johnson, Gerardo Ramirez, Aaron McVean, David Feune (late), and Max Hartman.

Safety Conditions of Employment (Article 16)

We presented our second counter proposal on this article.

  • Since the article generally provides for the safety and well-being of employees, we accepted their strikethrough of language about emergency call boxes;
  • We accepted status quo language about this contract article not being subject to arbitration;
  • In 16.5, we re-worded our proposed language about when a faculty member feels unsafe and needs to leave the classroom, using the “reasonable person” standard commonly used in the law.  Monica also shared guidance from Cañada that mirrors our proposed language.
  • We again proposed language reflecting the law where faculty can seek the District’s assistance in obtaining a restraining order when necessary; and
  • We again proposed our language regarding making SMCCCD a Safe Workplace for transgender faculty.

 

Hours of Employment (Article 7)

We presented AFT Counter #4 on this article.

  • On 7.6.1, we again brought back that for counselors, professional duties can be carried out at a time and place appropriate for the activity.
  • On Flex Days, we again rejected their insistence on a 3rd required flex day, proposed that we keep 2 required flex / status quo.
  • We accepted their “normal student contact hours” language even if we don’t like how it’s instructional-faculty focused language.  Monica explained that we’re only accepting it because in past practice (which will continue), these Flex activity options have been allowed/ approved for all faculty.
  • We again struck out the District’s addition of “Dean” from “approved” flex activities, as activities for Flex are not Dean-approved.  Monica shared the Senate Flex Memo pointing out these activities are “self-certified,” and also cited Title 5, Division 5 section 55724 of CA regulations, plus the District Academic Senate statement on Flex.
    • While activities must be submitted to the Dean, they do not have approval or disapproval power.

 

Academic Freedom (New Article)

As explained in the intro, the District did not present a counter to our proposal (from May) on this article, finally stating that their position is it’s a permissive, not mandatory, subject of bargaining, and they are choosing not to bargain on it.

Compensation, Article 8

  • The District didn’t bring a counter and claimed we didn’t move closer to the District’s position with our last counter, so they weren’t required to respond.  We strongly disagreed.  However, we want to see a District counter on compensation, so rather than get in a protracted battle over whether our previous counter was regressive, we amended our counter as follows:
    • Under 8.1.1 (“Year 1”), we proposed that all instructional salary schedules be increased by 7.25%, and 8% for instructional adjunct salary schedules.
    • Year 2: start “pay by load,” aka “pay by FLC”
      • 6.25% increase to all salary schedules
    • Year 3
      • 4.75% increase to all salary schedules

 

Article 9, Health and Welfare Benefits

  • Similar to what happened with Article 8, because we want to see District movement on Health & Welfare, we amended our counter as follows:
    • We proposed the District would cover 100% of single and 95% of premiums for two-party and family Kaiser plans.
    • Dental: we countered at $4,000.

 

Workload (Article 6 and Appendix D)

The District presented counter #3 on this article.

  • On 6.1, they again rejected language we copied and pasted from Appendix F that explains that although 30 FLCs is considered a full-time assignment, 28-31 FLCs are acceptable.
  • They proposed that changes to Appendix F would be effective no later than one calendar year after contract ratification.
  • They rejected our language about if ancillary work can be loaded, it must be reported to CalSTRS.
  • In 6.3 on pay for ancillary work, they accepted some of our language and revised other language: accepted “directed by the District” and “as defined by Appendix D-4,” but added this work must be “pre-approved by the District or the Dean.”  Monica questioned the District on this point again, pointing out appointments or elections to union or academic senate jobs do not require any approval from the District or deans.
  • On 6.6, the District added language that says for counselors, professional responsibilities are in addition to a minimum of the thirty scheduled hours per week.  They also again tried proposing a “minimum of” 2.5 hours per week in lieu of “equivalent.”
  • In A2, they struck out “mental health student club advising,” “receiving” clinical supervision for licensure, and “peer consultation.”
  • In A3, they brought back “on campus” language for scheduled counseling professional duties, but added some language about how if the scheduled professional duties are not on campus, then they can be at time and place appropriate for the activity.
  • On ancillary work, accepted our suggested language on program review, SLO, etc.
  • Struck out “work performed as a program coordinator” from the list of ancillary work.

 

Faculty Load Credit (FLC) Allocation (Appendix F )

We plan on bringing a counter on Appendix F this Thursday.

 

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