In negotiations this afternoon, the AFT 2121 negotiations team presented District negotiators with the memo below. Some time after, they countered with a slightly less draconian proposal than those presented over the last several weeks, including retracting their proposals to cut sabbatical pay and eliminate parking reimbursement, as well as indicating some willingness to reconsider gutting reemployment rights for part-timers. Unchanged are the major takeaways in cuts to salary and benefits and the ability to cancel classes regardless of size, among others. While this shows some of the first movement from District negotiators, we remain deeply concerned about the move to degrade working and learning conditions at the college.
* * * * *
March 18, 2013
To: Jeff Sloan, Chief Negotiator, City College of San Francisco
Fr: Chris Hanzo, Executive Director, AFT Local 2121
Re: AFT Response to District Proposals
1. The District contract proposals would re-create a disposable labor force at CCSF, de-professionalize the faculty, shrink the full-time faculty core, and degrade the quality of education at CCSF. We reject the proposed elimination of reemployment (modal load) requirements in making assignments, the proposed elimination of the 20 student class size minimum, downgrading full-time salaries, cuts in pro-rata pay and attack on pay equity.
2. The District’s compensation proposals would lower full-time salaries at CCSF to at or near the bottom of the Bay Ten community colleges, drive more faculty out of the college, undermine CCSF’s ability to attract and retain faculty, and provide quality education. AFT rejects the unilateral and proposed permanent wage reductions made by the District including the 5% plus 10% salary reductions for full-time and pro-rata wages respectively, elimination of tenure review pay, cut in sabbatical leave pay, cut in office hour pay for part-time faculty, parking charges, etc.
3. A much greater cost of health coverage is already borne by CCSF faculty compared to other community colleges, and District proposals regarding health coverage costs would further increase this disparity. AFT opposes District proposals to transfer a major portion of the cost of health and dental care onto the backs of faculty and to shift away from our model of subsidies designed to keep viable multiple medical plans (Kaiser and Blue Shield) for faculty.
4. We demand a return to collective bargaining at CCSF, with transparency and accurate processes and budget information, and the restoration of our voice in CCSF budget priorities including the eight-year sustainability plan, how Prop A and other monies will be spent on bolstering reserves, technology, and maintenance, and over a fair share of new revenues for sustaining and improving faculty compensation and working conditions.
5. We continue to need specific, timely and accurate CCSF Unrestricted Budget information related to faculty costs to assess the District’s proposals and to be able to construct and cost-out AFT’s proposals that more directly addresses the question of faculty costs at CCSF compared to other community college districts.
6. OPEB – We have long been interested in a plan to help sustain retiree health benefits and we are open to a measured plan that begins to address future costs of these benefits. We likewise understand that this is an item of concern in maintaining accreditation and for the long-term fiscal health of the District. AFT continues to assess the District’s proposal of joint faculty and District contributions to a retiree health benefit trust received only weeks ago.
7. Decades of improvements in compensation and working conditions have helped professionalize the faculty at CCSF and strengthen our ability to provide quality instruction and service to our students. The District’s rationale for the proposed rollback in compensation and the lifting of contractual restrictions (to provide “management flexibility”) in assignment and scheduling is to reduce costs. We reject the notion that protections against arbitrary and capricious behaviors are obstacles to effective planning and scheduling at the College.