Contract Violation: Workload Committee Decision

Posted: May 17, 2016 in Uncategorized

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.)

  1. cuestailos says:

    Are you confused between students in class and ftes/ftef? In a lecture course, 18 students is approximately 9 ftes/ftef. Not sure how that violates any part of the cba. Please explain.

    • mimmsy123 says:


      The VP wrote,” The SLOCCCD target for FTES/FTEF is 15.00, which is below the statewide standard of 17.50. As part of the ongoing effort to address declining enrollments and to improve efficiency, and being funded as a “stability year”,(sic) Academic Affairs will be following the guidelines below for the course scheduling and offerings during Fall 2016 and Spring 2017: Courses are expected to have a minimum enrollment of 18 students.”

      What she is saying the committee has to do for “efficiency” is to change those figures in the contract. By establishing 18 students as a minimum, she is hoping to change the ratio agreed upon in a revised article just ratified by members.

      We created the workload committee with the first contract in 1996, so, yes, I am quite familiar with the issue. There are two issues here, though. One is the Committee’s decision to alter targets as established in the contract. If not, why would the VP refer to the target figures and her desire to improve efficiency? The second is the imposition of an 18-student minimum and my perception that the chosen figure appears arbitrary: once a class goes below 15 students, the district, in essence, has to subsidize that class at a part-time rate. An 18-student minimum pads the coffers.

      How do you explain what is being proposed, then?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s