Negotiations Report #3

    See All Negotiations Updates   

 

 

February 25, 2025

The nuts-and-bolts of what happened on February 21st are below under Current Bargaining Report, but first:

Our reaction to the second bargaining session on Feb. 21st, and what you can do

We continue to be disappointed in the District’s actions after they promised to bring a new and more collaborative approach to this round of negotiations.  Through two negotiation sessions, the main change the District has made is spending the majority of our valuable negotiating time on procedural ground rules instead of negotiating the substance of our contract.  Despite our long and well-established practice of having faculty observers attend negotiations with the District dating back to at least 2020-21, the District is attempting to ban our faculty observers from negotiation sessions.  Which begs the question: why don’t they want you at the negotiating table?

In good news, our Chief Negotiator, Cañada faculty member Monica Malamud, pushed through the District’s attempts to limit our conversation to ground rules, and presented multiple substantive contract proposals to get the material negotiations started.  We were also able to get the District to agree to nearly all of our counter proposals on ground rules, with the one notable outstanding issue being faculty observers. We will keep fighting for your right to join us at the table.

Speaking of employee observers—you can sign up to join us at a future negotiation session! Next one is Feb. 28, 2025.  You can also:

 

Current Bargaining Report

AFT’s Negotiations Team: Monica Malamud, Chet Lexvold, Althea Kippes, Luis Zuñiga, Gil Perez, Jennifer Van Sijill.  AFT Co-Presidents Rika & Tamara in attendance, along with VP Jessica Silver-Sharp.

Observers: Elinor Westfold, Alberto Santellan, Teeka James, Tim Maxwell.

Ground rules

Our second session of contract negotiations with the District occurred on February 21st.  At the end of the Feb. 7th negotiation, AFT had submitted our counterproposal to the District’s proposal of 19 ground rules, striking out the majority of the District’s overly prescriptive rules with the exception of core logistics.  On Feb. 21st, the District introduced a new argument regarding proposed ground rule #7 that would bar AFT members from attending negotiations.  The District argued observers are not allowed at bargaining sessions “by law.”  We did not agree, and requested citations to the legal authority the District was relying on.  The parties exchanged multiple counter proposals on ground rules, and near the end of the bargaining session, the District accepted nearly all of our changes, with the major exception being ground rule #7, where the District re-proposed language banning employee attendees at bargaining sessions.  After returning from caucus, the District also told one of AFT’s faculty attendees to leave the negotiation session. AFT did not have time to submit another counter on ground rules, so there remains no agreed upon ground rules.

 

Class Assignment for Full Time Faculty (Article 26)

Despite the stalling tactics of the District through ground rules, AFT was able to present proposals on Article 26 (“Class Assignment”) and a new contract article on Dual Enrollment.  AFT’s proposal for Article 26 addressed class reassignment as necessary to keep Full-Timers’ full load in case of class cancellations.  The article would require the District to seek agreement from the affected faculty member prior to an alternative reassignment.  AFT’s proposal also sought to clarify that faculty receive two full years to make up an underload, starting the semester following the underloaded year.  The District presented a counteroffer that removed the requirement that the District seek agreement from faculty prior to reassignment, and also would have effectively reduced the amount of time to make up an underload from two years to one.  AFT countered by proposing reassignment could only occur in FSAs in which a faculty member typically teaches, and if that is not possible, reassignment to teach a course for which they have “minimum qualifications” could only occur through agreement from the faculty member.  AFT also re-proposed that the make-up time for an underload should be two full academic years.  The District has not provided a counteroffer on this proposal at this time.

 

Dual Enrollment (New Article)

For Dual Enrollment, AFT proposed a new contract article giving faculty members the right of first refusal for SMCCCD courses taught at local high schools.  The article also addresses credentials, and would make duties outside of our contract optional (such as workdays outside of the SMCCCD Academic Calendar, facility-specific duties, etc).  The proposal also provided for compensation for said duties, and either reimbursement for mileage or for other transportation between two worksites.  Finally, the proposal includes compensation for Professional Development specific to the Dual Enrollment assignment.  The District has not provided a counteroffer on this proposal at this time.

 

Leaves (Article 11)

The District proposed changes to Article 11, Leaves.  There were three main changes.  On 11.3, Family Illness Leave, the District proposed changes mirroring language from the California Labor Code, but included a new restriction, which would effectively limit employees to using 5 sick days in a calendar year for Family Illness Leave.  For 11.4, Bereavement Leave, the District proposed five days of paid bereavement leave (currently, it’s three days for in-state and five days for out-of-state).  The District also proposed a new section, “Reproductive Loss Leave,” which simply reflects the passage of a new California law, SB 848.  It provides for up to five days of leave of absence without loss of salary following a reproductive loss.  AFT did not have an opportunity to present a counteroffer to this proposal on Feb. 21, 2025.

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