Negotiations Report #5

    See All Negotiations Updates   

 

 

March 11, 2025

The nuts-and-bolts of what happened on March 7, 2025, are below under Current Bargaining Report, but first:

Our reaction to the fourth bargaining session on March 7th, and what you can do

A personal observation from your (newish) Executive Director, who joined AFT 1493 in December 2024:

After I joined the union, I heard about the lengthy nature of negotiations in the last contract cycle.  There was even an article in The Advocate titled, “Why Has Contract Bargaining Taken So Long?”  I wondered that myself.  Having participated in 4 bargaining sessions with the District, though, I now understand why.  The linked article does a good job of explaining the many delay tactics the District engages in, and since I’ve covered the giant waste of time the District forced on us through the negotiation of ground rules in previous reports, I want to highlight a different tactic mentioned in The Advocate article: “Takebacks.”  So far, the District’s proposals have largely started from a point of taking away or reducing rights and benefits we fought hard for and won in previous negotiation cycles.  A related tactic is that the District will “offer” the bare minimum of what the law legally obligates them to provide, which isn’t an offer at all.  Similarly, the District will take what the law requires them to provide as a floor, and propose the floor as a ceiling/cap on our rights and benefits.  

My observation is that our union as a whole, from our rank-and-file members to our Executive Committee to our Negotiations Team, has been well-prepared and ready to bargain on the substance of our contract from Day 1 of negotiations.  But it takes two to tango, and it seems that we will have to continue to apply more and more pressure on the District in order to receive fair and equitable contract terms.

How can you help apply that needed pressure?  You can sign up to join us at a future negotiation session!  We had a huge turnout of observers on March 7th, and our next negotiation is March 21st, 1:30 pm-5:30pm.  You can also:

Current Bargaining Report

  • AFT Negotiation Team: Monica Malamud, Chet Lexvold, Althea Kippes, Jennifer Van Sijill, Gil Perez, Luis Zuñiga.
  • Also in attendance from AFT: Co-Presidents Tamara Perkins and Rika Yonemura-Fabian, and Observers Suji Venkataraman, Camille Kaslan, Teeka James, Lori Slicton, Sol Puenzo, Mandy Lucas, Julia Johnson, Katie Manbachi, and Elsa Torres.
  • From the District: Ellen Wu, Gerardo Ramirez, Julie Johnson, Richard Storti, Melissa Moreno, Joe Morello, Aaron McVean, David Feune.

Dual Enrollment (New Article)

AFT presented our first counteroffer to the District’s counter.  AFT brought back originally-proposed language that the article covers all Dual Enrollment and Off-Campus assignments (the District had proposed restricting the scope to just CCAP), and re-proposed much of our original proposal.  AFT accepted the District’s proposed language regarding IRS reimbursement for mileage to Dual Enrollment assignments, but also proposed language specifying that reimbursement applies to other off-campus assignments, and language that would provide for reimbursement and/or vouchers/prepaid cards, etc., for alternative forms of transportation for faculty who do not drive or own a vehicle.  On the “right of first refusal,” the District struck out that language, and AFT countered by requiring that DE assignments be offered to SMCCCD faculty first (as opposed to high school teachers).  Regarding evaluations, we brought back language the District had struck requiring that high school teachers be evaluated according to SMCCCD adjunct faculty evaluation procedures.

Reasonable Accommodation (Article 25)

AFT presented its first counter to the District’s counter, re-proposing language that the District must start the interactive process immediately.  AFT also proposed language that would require the District to provide a designated person/position, along with contact information, who a faculty member can contact to begin the accommodations process (this is provided by the District for student worker accommodations, but not for faculty accommodations, for some reason).  AFT also proposed language requiring the District to provide a written status update to the faculty member within 10 days, and language protecting the faculty member from being penalized should they be unable to perform duties due to a lack of an accommodation.  The District emailed a counter after the end of the negotiation session, which will be covered in more detail in the next report.

Grievance Procedure (Article 17)

The District presented a counter proposal that added another level of grievance to the process (a total of 5 grievance levels, instead of the current 4, and instead of the 3 proposed by AFT in its initial proposal), adding an additional level that would require grievance level I to go to the VP instead of the College President.  The District also proposed a takeback on arbitration, proposing that it reverts to “advisory” arbitration (currently, there is a mandatory binding arbitration pilot program in the contract, and AFT’s initial proposal included making this pilot program permanent).  The District struck out AFT’s proposed language which would have resulted in the grievance being resolved in favor of the grievant if the District failed to issue timely decisions in the process.  The District proposed language that would have required the grievant to present all evidence at Level I; otherwise, said evidence would not be considered in subsequent steps.

AFT presented a counter to the above, largely re-proposing its initial proposal of 3 grievance steps, with the third step being binding arbitration.  AFT countered on Level I by proposing that the grievance would be brought to the College President or designee, and countered the “any and all evidence” language from the District with “available” evidence at Level II.  AFT also re-proposed language that if the District doesn’t act timely, the grievance shall be resolved in favor of the grievant, pointing out that there is language throughout Article 17 stating that if the grievant doesn’t act timely, the grievant waives the right to grieve, and that timeliness requirement should be symmetrical.

Class Assignment for Full Time Faculty (Article 26)

The District made the identical counter proposal as the one they made on Feb. 28th.

Ground rules

At the end of the negotiation session, the District asked whether AFT had a counter on ground rules.  AFT presented its counter offer, with language regarding observers being the final issue.  AFT largely re-proposed language permitting employee observers consistent with the parties’ established practice, and essentially accepted the District’s proposal that SMCCCD Board of Trustees are allowed to join negotiation sessions, as well.

Leaves (Article 11)

The District emailed a counteroffer to AFT’s counter proposal after the negotiation session ended.  There will be more details in the next bargaining report, but one notable observation is that the District struck out AFT’s proposal for 1-month paid parental leave.

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