I wanted to let you know when the next MPCTA General Meeting is, and that’s Friday, March 25, from 1-3.
I also wanted to update you all.
A) SLO Assessment Pay
By now, you’ve read about the temporary agreement the District and Association negotiated (see attached). Here’s a couple of comments on that:
1) As soon as it was announced, one faculty member asked why a couple of her courses were not listed. I forwarded that email to the district team. Kiran checked up on that, and she soon discovered that the list the district had provided us since January was inaccurate. Essentially, we had been negotiating over an incorrect number or list of courses, a number/list provided to us by the District throughout our negotiations on this subject.
To Kiran’s credit, she immediately called me once she discovered the mistake. After conversation, it was decided that the pay for SLO assessment of “move the needle” courses would now extend further back in time from January 2016 to instead the date of the ACCJC letter of August 12, 2015 and continue to the end dates listed in the MOU (with the last deadline of June 17, 2016). So, once the new list is created, it will be sent to the division chairs, and work and pay will proceed per the MOU with the more accurate, new list.
2) Another faculty member asked – so basically why if two faculty teach the same course, why is it that the pay automatically goes to the full time faculty? Here’s an answer written by someone on our bargaining team:
This requirement in the MOU was fought for by members of the district. One member outlined her opinion that administration would rather have full time instructors perform the assessments due to them having a more comprehensive role at the school beyond teaching classes. Another expressed an administrative position that she would like such activities to become part of the professional duties of full time faculty in the long run, and administration’s quest to tag full time faculty with first is consistent with that goal. The Association members did attempt to have assignment of these assessments be left to the division chair, but we settled since the district had made a significant concession in actually paying any full timers for doing assessments. During the options part of the IBB process, district members voiced great reluctance in paying full timers at all.
Btw, if there is a particular situation in which the Division Chair feels the adjunct should get the pay instead, it doesn’t hurt to ask about it…..
3) Someone else mentioned to me wondering why only the “move the needle” courses and not all courses reflected upon in this time period would get pay attached. Again, we asked for greater numbers of faculty being paid for the instructor reflections – but this was as good as we could get.
That some full time are being paid at all for this extra work is a victory for the union. The district agreed more easily with our desire to give adjunct pay for this work – but it took quite a bit of discussion and pleas for us to convince them to agree to pay full timers for it, and that made this long process worth the wait, imo.
B) Salary Adjustment Formula
The Association believes that according to our salary formula, Article 16.8, faculty are due a salary adjustment, retroactive to July 2015. In our preliminary estimate, we believe the salary adjustment to be about 7% retroactive to July 2015.
We initiated the steps toward that salary adjustment with an email to the district on February 26 asking to meet with our VPAS Steve Crow in relation to implementation of the salary formula. We did not get a written response from the district, and still have not. But in the March 9 negotiation, Steve indicated the district believed the formula does not apply now, and the district desires to negotiate the formula, including negotiating the implementation of it.
After consulting with CTA, we have since written to the district that while we can negotiate going forward, since that is what the district wants to do, and neither side can tell the other what to negotiate for future contract, we will not negotiate the implementation of it for this fiscal year. The implementation of it this year is a contract obligation.
So, now we wait to hear from the district.
C) Professional Growth Grievance Issue
Since January 2015, when the district conceded the overload pay error, we’ve been waiting for the backpay owed to faculty paid on the wrong step due to those full time faculty being asked for professional growth proof. It’s been over a year, and now the district wants to meet with us to discuss the way the audit to determine backpay was done. Right now, we are waiting to hear back from the district as to when to meet to go over the implementation of that back pay.
D) Requested Information for bargaining
By law, the district must provide information requested by the Association. Last year, we had great difficulty obtaining information, and this led to much frustration. This year we’ve gotten some information, but not all. Right now, we are waiting for something called a scattergram; we have requested this since October 2015. We need it by the time we start negotiating compensation. We hope the district will get it to us by then. We’ve asked them again.
E) Peer Evaluator Pay
We just realized that according to contract, there is extra pay when one has to do multiple evaluations. Here’s the contract language:
17.3 Evaluation Pay
Regular unit members may be required to participate as peer evaluators for up to four (4) times per year as part of their normal duties. Each evening and off-campus evaluation shall count as two (2) of the four (4) evaluations. Additional evaluations shall be paid at the rate of one (1) hour for on-campus day evaluations and two (2) hours for off-campus and evening evaluations on the appropriate Hourly Certificated Schedule. Travel pay for off-campus evaluations shall be paid at the rate established in Article 21.
Let us know if the above applied to you, but you did not get the extra pay. If currently it is applying to you, be sure to get the extra pay due you by contract.
F) Scheduling Classes
The Association has been hearing lots lately about enrollment management as the scheduling process here at MPC is being revised and discussed. There have been voices expressing that, due to these changes, workload and other working conditions are deteriorating. While enrollment management and aspects of scheduling certainly fall under the purview of the academic senate, there are also aspects that relate to the union. In the latest report (2009) of the Academic Senate of the California Community Colleges (ASCCC), we read the following:
People have fought hard to give us the rights we have as faculty in this California Community College system. We’re supposed to have come a long way from the days in the 60’s and earlier when presidents of colleges, when making decisions, would “meet and confer” with faculty. Now, we have collective bargaining, and we have Academic Senate’s 10 + 1 where faculty either have primacy or there is mutual consent with the district on academic and professional matters. I hope MPC is not slipping away from what people have fought hard to gain. If administrative leaders simply meet and tell us (confer), then not only is Title 5 possibly violated, but our working conditions deteriorate further and further downward. The Association hopes faculty voices will actively speak out to prevent this loss of rights on this campus.
Email me at firstname.lastname@example.org or at email@example.com with any questions or comments.
And mark your calendar for the next MPCTA meeting on Friday, March 25, from 1-3.