Faculty News notes Sept 15, 2014

September 15, 2014

(Updated 9/25/2014)

Secretary’s Report:  Union Meeting in Review, from Secretary David Maruyama

The questions bounced around from topic to topic and back again, so I have attempted to coordinate the discussion under topics, rather than as the questions were individually raised, to avoid redundancy.

            The meeting began with a request from the membership for a written explanation, a brief, of what the union is asking the district for in negotiations.  That will be provided in the negotiations update.  It should be noted that the contract that is currently under discussion is the last year of the 2010 –2013 contract.  During that time, the state was facing serious fiscal problems, with the result that neither COLA nor growth money was available from the State. In 2013, a modest COLA of 1.57% became available, and a 1.43% growth factor also became available.  Districts that experienced growth in 2011-12 were eligible for growth money in addition to COLA; we were not eligible as we had not achieved the growth target.  Some districts were able to negotiate a 3% increase for 2012-13; while others were only able to get the 1.57% increase.  We are still trying to get the district to respond to our proposal.  (The 1.57% is about $268,000.)

            A more important issue for some faculty was the cost of the health care; it was suggested that full family health care should not bankrupt the members.  If Los Angeles and Long Beach can provide family healthcare at a cost of $187.00 per month out of pocket expense for a PPO plan, we should be able to get plans that do not require an out of pocket expenditure of over $1200/month for family care.  The Benefits Committee will meet during the first week in October.  The problem is that Keenan does all of the negotiating for benefits for the district.  Special Trustee Tom Henry indicated to the past Academic Senate President and the past Union President that Keenan could be pushed with the threat of losing our business. It was recommended that a strongly worded letter be sent to the Health Benefits Committee from the faculty.

            The contract requires that a copy of the contract be provided to every union member, and an additional 100 copies be provided to the organization (Article 4.6, Federation Rights).  The contract stipulates “copies”—not an on-line access.  The District has not provided hard copies to new faculty members, nor has it provided the union with the required 100 copies which was intended for distribution among the part-time members.

            A question was once again raised as to why, if we teach El Camino’s curriculum, we are paid different rates than ECC faculty.  Although we are a center of El Camino’s and teach ECC’s courses, we remain a separate district; this separation allows our district to have its own business function,  its own budget, its own debts, in accordance with AB 318 which allowed Compton to exist under a partnership agreement.  Essentially, we function like sub-contractors for ECC’s curriculum. 

Up until the ECC district negotiated a 1 year contract, followed by a 3-year contract extending to 2016—both of which went to impasse, mediation, and fact-finding before a resolution was reached, our full-time salary schedule maxed out at less than $2,000 difference; the ECC full-time schedule contains “holding patterns” of between 5 and 10 years when there is no step increase.  ECC’s mid-career faculty would not see any increase in their salary rate until they have provided the years of service in that holding pattern.  The only increase a faculty member in that position could get would be the negotiated increase.  Compton fortunately abandoned that kind of salary schedule over a decade ago.  Every year, you see a minor raise of 1.4% for each year of service.  Part-time salaries at Torrance, however, far exceed ours—by about 30%. 

            Another question was raised about the 50-% law which requires that districts spend a minimum of 50% of their adjusted budgets on instruction.  “Instruction” includes salaries of classroom teachers (full and part-time), the hiring of teachers, and the district had a deficiency of $500,000 approximately.  This is money that must be returned to instruction.  The District hired faculty with almost one half of that money; the balance was $268,000, the same amount as the COLA for 2012-13.  The District claimed that it had spent the COLA money on the increase of $2,000 (from $10,000 to 12,000) for the health care benefit. 

            It was suggested that the negotiating team ask for 8% for the 2014-16 contract. This is the amount that Torrance faculty had been offered before they went to impasse, after which they settled for 5% over 3 years. (That 5% is the estimated COLA –without growth—for the next three years.)

            The district wants the faculty to support the bond issue.  The consensus was that any support of the bond should be withheld unless the union had some positive movement at the negotiating table.  The union’s Vice-President indicated that the CEO has stated to him that we wouldn’t have a contract.

            It was suggested as a job action that faculty slow down work on committees, and on El Camino’s accreditation committees.  With regard to the bond, it was noted several times that people were more important that buildings.

            At the end of the meeting it was agreed that  two surveys would be developed and distributed to full and part-time faculty:  one to pursue different benefit providers based on the needs of the faculty, and another on whether the faculty will support the bond or not.  While 3 motions were made during the meeting, none was seconded, as there was a general acclaim for the ideas being advanced:  to give a letter to the health benefits committee, to provide no bond support, and to have a survey vote next week.

Secretary’s Up-date: 

            Attached please find the letter to the Health Benefits Committee members as requested during the union meeting.

President’s Report:  from Jose Villalobos

            We have received information from the Business Office on the amount of money that the District pays to Keenan and Associates for the management of our fringe benefits (health insurance, life insurance, etc.):  $83, 870.30.  Imagine what this amount could do for the fringe benefits of 100 faculty.  Of course that would require that the Health Benefits Committee take a leadership role in communicating directly with providers.

            Incidentally, we will be looking into new plans that are being provided by Anthem Blue Cross.  These PPO and HMO plans are based on the Kaiser model and have been touted as significantly less costly than the traditional Anthem Blue Cross plans.  We hope to have some concrete information available for the first meeting of the Health Benefits Committee in early October.

            We have a date established for the next negotiating meeting:  Friday, September 26, at 1 p.m.  This was apparently the first available time that the District team could meet, and it was one of the times that the team members had indicated their availability.  Until we report out from that meeting, the union’s position on support of the bond is neutral.  In other words, at this time, we advise neither support nor opposition to the bond. 

Survey Results:  In the last Union meeting it was suggested that the union should conduct a survey asking the members for their input on what the union should be negotiating. An online survey was sent September 15. The faculty had until September 19 to complete the survey (48 people completed the survey). The survey contained four questions. The results are below.

1. Which of the following negotiation topics are of the most importance to you? Rank them in order of importance.

·       Full Time Salary Schedule     50%

·       Health Care                             32%

·       Part-time Salary  Schedule     16%

·       Division Chairs                      2%

2. If available, what type of Health Insurance would you prefer?

·       PPO    51%

·       HMO   49%

3. Which of the following best describes your situation?

·       I’m single and the district pays for my insurance                           37%

·       I’m single and I have to pay for my spouse’s health insurance     11%

·       I’m single and I have to pay for my spouse’s health insurance as well as for my children health insurance                                                                                             22%

·       I don’t use the District’s Health Insurance                                      20%

·       Other                                                                                                    10%

4. What would you like the union to negotiate in your behalf?

The answers were all over the place, but the most prevalent were:

·       Better Health Insurance Options

·       Better pay for full time /part-time faculty (raise from 5% to 15 %)

All these results will be taking into consideration for the negations of the 2013-2016 contract.

Treasurer’s Report:  from Dovard Ross, CCCFE Treasurer

            Our CCCFE dues are currently $800.00/year, paid tenthly at $80.00/month.  You might be interested in how the dues are broken down among our affiliate organizations:

                        AFT  (American Federation of Teachers):  $218.76 annually or $21.88 tenthly

                        CFT:  (Calif. Federation of Teachers):        $522.00 annually or 52.20 tenthly

                        Calif. Federation of Labor:                          $8.40 annually or $0.84 tenthly

           

                        Occupational Liability Insurance                 $4.20 annually or 0.42  tenthly

             

The local (CCCFE) retains  $46.64/ full-time member annually, or $4.66 tenthly.

            CFT defines full per capitas (each member’s dues payments) as the amount paid by a person earning more than $26,000/year;  AFT defines full per caps as the money paid by a member earning more than $18,000. Both organizations recognize full per caps as dues paid by a member earning more than the lowest salary on the salary schedule;  in our case, that would be more than $49,349.

            Half  per caps are paid for .part-time members:  for AFT, half per caps apply to a person earning more than $14,000, but less than $18,000.  For CFT, the rate applies to members earning less than $26,000, but more than $14,000.

            There are also quarter per caps and one-eighth per caps. Quarter per caps are for those part-time members.  The income cap for quarter dues is $14,626, and for 1/8 dues is $ 8,880.  The latter amount is used for affiliate members who pay dues to another CFT local.

On Grievances: from Jerome Evans

            We currently have four grievances at the first stage against Human Resources. We do not have a date for the first level grievance meeting on any of these matters. One of these grievances is a CCCFE collective grievance on behalf of all members.  It pertains to the Human Resources Office’s failure to inform faculty of any changes to existing policies, of failure to notify faculty of when policies go into effect, etc.  Similarly, the Office of Human Resources has not provided new employees with copies of the contract, nor has that office provided the union with additional copies of the contract, claiming that because the contract is posted on line, the contractual obligation has been met.  The union disagrees and will be filing on this matter as well.

 Additionally, we have one grievance that is at the Vice-President’s office, awaiting the response at that level, and another at the final stage, awaiting a response from Special Trustee Tom Henry. 

Some advice about grievances:  a grievance is a violation of a specific article or section of the contract.  A grievance does not exist because an administrator has not done what the faculty member wants or hopes to achieve—unless what the faculty member wants is specifically protected by the contract.  If your feelings have been hurt or your sensibilities offended, you probably do not have a grievance, as a grievance refers to a specific article in the contract that protects your rights, duties, and responsibilities.  My door is always open to anyone who feels that he or she has—or may have-- a grievance.  My office is in E 31 and my office extension is 2588. 

Yes, OUR UNION is online.

Follow the CCCFE Faculty Union Website for updates on State and Local topics.

http://www.cccfefaculty.org/