Wait . . . what?

Posted: March 16, 2017 in Uncategorized

Last year, CCFT president, Debra Stakes, told all faculty and especially the part-time faculty (in writing), to vote for the across-the-board salary increase for all faculty–with no differential percent for part-time faculty–because the union would fight for a differential increase in October 2016. Other faculty repeated that mantra and said wait, wait, it’s coming.

  1.  October has come and gone with no change.
  2. In the January 26 Council of Reps minutes, update on negotiations (D. Stakes), the following was recorded (bolding and sarcasm added):

“Article 4:
Survey results showed that an across the board salary increase was the highest priority. B2 [part-time lecture] is currently at about 64% of B1 [full-time lecture]. (Whaaatttt?  Someone must explain this percentage to me).

“M. Tomes related that the priority that received the highest number of votes was to decrease the disparity between the B1 and B2 schedules. Possible step increases for part‐time faculty were discussed. Other salary proposals were discussed, as well as benefits increases. Any changes to B3 and B4 would mirror changes to B2. Discussion about required and paid for part‐time office hours. Discussion about increasing SLO compensation for part‐timers.

“D. Stakes indicated that there is about $600,000 to negotiate over this year. One‐half to two-thirds of part time faculty are probably below step 8. Adding pay for office hours on to B‐2 would increase that schedule by about 1%. . . .

“M[ark] Weber [said] all of the social sciences faculty said they could not support a greater percent increase to B‐2 [part-time salary] than to B‐1 [full-time salary].”  (Really, ALL?)

The question is this: why are members voting on the issue of parity or a differential pay increase for part-timers at all?  In an effort to get the contract ratification vote, the union promised part-time faculty last spring that it would fight for differential pay.  Putting it to a vote, especially where at least certain divisions, as the one noted above, are strongly anti-part-time parity, opens up the issue for discussion when it should have been a sure thing. And, beyond that, even with a vote, as noted above, the greatest priority was to decrease disparity between full and part-time faculty.  So, that must be the first priority in bargaining.  The elected leadership must make the tough decisions that they were elected to make and must keep the promises they made.  That must take precedence here.

Hold the union leadership accountable for a differential pay increase for part-time faculty.  Now.


Image  —  Posted: January 13, 2017 in Uncategorized

Quite a spectacular piece.  This film (11:48) is much less about Clinton than it is about the power and perseverance of women.


Image  —  Posted: July 28, 2016 in Uncategorized

Details Matter

Posted: May 17, 2016 in Uncategorized

Contract Notes

While you’ll be enjoying your retroactive check at the end of the month, you might want to take a look at the following for some clarity and perspective. The points were taken from a recent email from the union president.

1.) History of recent salary increases/negotiations:

2007-08         3% (Rossa)

2008-09         0% (Merzon)

New contract

2009-10         0%  (Merzon)

2010-11         0%      (“)

2011-12         0%      (“)

New contract

2012-13         0% (Merzon)

2013-14         0% (Stakes)

2014-15         1%; 1% (“)

New contract

2015-16         5% (Stakes)

2016-17           ?

2017-18           ?

So, that 7% spreads over two contracts:

The 2% increase for the 2012-2015 contract works out to 0.66% per each year of the contract.

The 5% increase for 2015-16 must be significantly enhanced in the following two years to make a decent annual increase for each year of this new contract, 2015-18.

2.) “The revised articles (4, 5, 6,7 and 10) will become part of our first new contract since 2008.” That can’t be the case. Contracts must be renewed every three years. So, this is confusing.

3.) Maybe someone can explain this to me:

“There is also just under $400K that will be distributed as a one-time stipend to all faculty as compensation for the extra workload for learning elumen and transitioning to Canvas.  The stipend will be distributed based on each faculty member’s highest percent workload between the Fall 15 and Spring 16 semesters. This distribution of the off-schedule money benefits part-time faculty and full-time faculty at the lower salary steps. “

We have been told that we were getting a 2% off-schedule increase (the above). I’m no mathematician, but no distribution that I can see gives anyone even close to 2% of $400,000. How does this benefit part-timers and other lower paid faculty more than it does anyone else? Again, I’m confused. If I’m enlightened, I’ll post the answer.

4.) While I along with other breeders are, I’m sure, happy to have the insurance pool continue, family insurance has increased from approximately $300 to $500 a month as a result of the new insurance tiers put forth by the union. So, even though the insurance pool helps, it does not cover the increase felt by families.

Just some things to think about . . . .

(Don’t want to miss a post?  Follow We’re What’s Left.)

The below statement was taken from the April 27, 2016 email from the CCFT president regarding one point of the recent contract ratification.

1) “Article 5 maintains the Workload Committee but removes the goal of setting FTES targets. The current college average workload goal of 15 FTES/FTEF is retained but acknowledges the ultimate goal of 17.5 FTES/FTEF.”

Check Article 5.8 of the contract for the language.

The memo from the Workload Committee last Friday, May 13, does NOT maintain the agreement that Debra Stakes told faculty would be maintained and is evidenced in the contract.

If the 18 or bust minimum is maintained, it is grievable because it violates the contract.

(Don’t want to miss a post?  Follow We’re What’s Left.)

Efficiency: P.S.

Posted: May 17, 2016 in Uncategorized

The below should matter to you, folks.  Most or all the points in the below memo did not occur.  Or, if they did, the findings were not distributed to all faculty.

One last note: The union has, by the EERA, full authority with the district, over the Workload Committee.  CCFT has given away half of its power to the Senate, who has no legal authority to it.  This joins the Sabbatical Committee and Evaluations (and perhaps others) as articles in our contract that should be fully under the purview of CCFT but whose powers have been shared with the Senate.

Separation of legal powers is a good thing.  Weakening of the union is not.  I would say the same thing to the Senate: maintain your jurisdiction.


From an email from the CCFT president on February 27, 2015:

The Workload Committee: The Union and Senate Presidents met and agreed on the faculty appointees to the Workload Committee. Their names have been provided to the President’s office and are on the official Committee roster along with the VPAA and the three academic Deans as the District representatives. Kevin and I met with Deb Wulff on February 6 to discuss in more detail how this committee would function. Dr. Wulff assured us that the Committee would move slowly and deliberately. The initial meetings this semester would focus on developing processes for the Committee to follow. They would review historical data in assessing the target FTES/FTEF for each Division. The Committee will wait for the recommendations from the Curriculum Committee Class Caps Task Force. It is unlikely that the Committee would implement or propose any significant changes before next spring.  At best, this should be a College wide effort and each Division would have plenty of time to assess themselves.”

(Don’t want to miss a post?  Follow We’re What’s Left.)