Why has contract bargaining taken so long?
Why Has Contract Bargaining Taken So Long?
What can be done to ratify a contract on time? Despite some substantial victories, faculty have been understandably frustrated over the timeliness of our union’s negotiations with our District. During the past two contract cycles, contracts were signed more than a year late, leaving members frustrated and experiencing negative financial impacts.
What’s behind the hold ups? In this article we present some answers.
The stalling game
Typically the union gives the district a number of dates when our team is available, with the aim of scheduling several sessions ahead. The district then often takes several days (or longer) to respond, sometimes providing only one date out of the many offered. This cumbersome process then has to be repeated.
During most of our union’s history, the District used in-house staff to lead negotiations. However, in the last cycle they brought in attorney Randy Erickson as their chief negotiator on a contractual basis. He also works for other college districts and has less availability than would a full-time in-house representative.
What is the obvious solution? Hire a negotiator whose main priority is our district and schedule recurring weekly sessions at the same day and time. Until recently, the District opposed this suggestion. However, they have now scheduled regular Friday sessions beginning February 2025.
Late to the party and unprepared
Another recurring pattern has been that the District’s team doesn’t begin bargaining sessions at the agreed-upon times; often, they arrive on time but claim part of the joint union-district meeting time to meet privately and prepare for the session. Not coming to the table prepared to bargain at the agreed time limits and delays outcomes.
Impasse and false accusations
Impasse in bargaining takes place when both parties are unable to come to an agreement. In Fall of 2023, after the union made substantial movement from our original contract proposals on five separate proposals, the District continued to insist on the status quo. The union asked the District for another meeting to discuss negotiations. They responded by declaring impasse and a state mediator was assigned to the case. This dragged out the bargaining process much longer, until the union was able to schedule a meeting with the District and the state mediator. As we expected, we reached agreement in only one session.
Blocked communications with the Board of Trustees
In the past, the union had been able to speak with Board members during all stages of negotiations to inform them about faculty issues, to help the Board give direction to the District’s negotiations team. Most recently, when AFT officers followed this practice, the District filed an Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) claim against AFT, alleging that the union was trying to negotiate directly with trustees. As stated in the meeting requests sent to trustees, the purpose of the meetings was to share publicly available information with them. The District’s ULP filing created an additional unnecessary strain on the relationship between the District and the union which further affected negotiations.
Takebacks
In negotiations for the most recent contract the District’s chief negotiator scrutinized the existing contract for rights and language he considered the District should not have granted faculty previously. These were hard-fought provisions won by our union in past negotiations. This left the union needing to use bargaining time to fight to retain language already won, rather than moving forward, only further extending the timeline.
Lack of collaborative approach
Throughout the most recent negotiation cycle, the District’s team was often inflexible, not budging on union proposals for months or at all. For example, the union has tried to increase dual-enrollment faculty rights to “opt in” as well as to provide compensation for days worked outside of the SMCCD calendar. The District simply would not consider it.
Also, after our most recent part-time healthcare MOU (2024-2026), the District demanded to be reimbursed “100%” by the state for their incurred costs if the program could go forward after 2026. They refused to concede that potential errors on their part might cause that reimbursement to be compromised. For example, what if a state error resulted in only 99% of their costs being refunded.
Under the district’s previous chief negotiator, Laura Shulkind, brought in by the district after negotiations had stalled, the district took a decidedly more conciliatory approach to working with faculty with the result that negotiations concluded more quickly.
Availability of the Board
The Board of Trustees has the job of providing guidance to the district’s Chief Negotiator regarding the district’s priorities, while the union’s Executive Committee does the same for their team. In recent years the board began meeting less frequently and for shorter durations. This undoubtedly left less time for those important discussions. Just recently, the union learned the Board will meet more frequently to discuss negotiations so hopefully the trustees will be more available in the future to consult with the Chief Negotiator when needed.
Change is in the air?
During the summer, one trustee asked to meet with the union and expressed hopes for quicker contract resolution going forward. The union Presidents are now in regular conversation with the Chancellor to create a better facilitation to the negotiations processes to overcome the obstacles described in this article. The union shared the above experiences with both the Trustees and Chancellor in detail. Perhaps this contributed to the district agreeing for the first time to set a predetermined negotiations schedule for 2025.
Increasing union power through participation:
Stewards, Article Committees, Expanded Negotiations Team, and Observers
The union has sought to find other ways to expedite negotiations. One of these is to begin building a network of stewards (a site network of union members from each department) to run a strong contract campaign. The union won a grant for this work from the California Federation of Teachers (CFT) in May 2024. Opening up the negotiations process to include rank and file members as both participants and observers are other ways unions can move negotiations along more quickly. Consider how you can increase your union’s power by joining your colleagues as steward for your department by signing up here! bit.ly/AFT1493Stewards
The union also recently expanded our negotiations team by opening up those positions to members with a call out to all faculty. We welcomed four new members to AFT’s bargaining team – in addition to part-time faculty member Jennifer Van Sijll (College of San Mateo, Film Studies) who joined the team early in 2024 – these include Althea Kippes (Cañada College, Paralegal Studies), Gil Perez (College of San Mateo, Counselor) and Luis Zuniga (Skyline College, Music), expanding our full team to six members. In December our union will also welcome Chet Lexvold as AFT’s new Executive Director.
The new team represents the diversity of faculty roles (part-time, full-time, non-instructional) evenly across our three colleges. Beyond the merits of representation, this will help with necessary on-the-spot corrections of campus/division-specific information presented by the district during negotiations, reducing waiting times needed to gather missing information.
Also, at recent union forums and flex days and through the Fall 2024 bargaining survey, the union has invited members to join article committees to draft specific contract proposals. Building member participation in the contract process also builds member power, as members are the experts in the intricacies of their various work environments and understand how specific contract language might affect their ability to serve students. Sign up to join this work today! bit.ly/ArticleCommittees
In the last contract cycle, for the first time in recent memory, the union also invited observers (rank and file members) to sit in on negotiations virtually. By their presence, observers show support for their union’s demands and can contribute to conversations during the union’s caucus discussions. In the past, this practice helped members to better understand AFT’s obstacles to winning a fair contract and increased engagement and interest in the process. Sign up to observe February sessions here: bit.ly/ObserveBargaining2025
Key dates in the bargaining timeline for the next faculty contract
The union’s contract campaign for the 2025-2028 contract is underway! We are beginning to build out our contract proposals. Additionally, we have collected member ideas for demands in contract forums and flex day sessions and shared a bargaining survey with all faculty to collect their priorities.
The next steps relate to sunshining the union’s proposals. “Sunshining” is a term used to describe the process of releasing initial proposals in a public meeting during union negotiations.
Sunshining Schedule
|