Archive for March, 2017

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.

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