UPM August 2000 newsletter.

At best, the pace of negotiations aiming to include the staff of the Children’s Center in the bargaining unit may be characterized as stately. More than two years have passed since the District and the UPM set out on this path with their original proposals, and in fact, a fair amount of ground has been covered. But at present, the big issues of salary and benefits have proved to be significant stumbling blocks.

The District, it seems, is trying to determine hourly rates of pay using private day care rates as the standard. The District’s salary "offer" has been characterized as nothing more than babysitters’ wages. We note that recent newspaper advertisements list starting hourly wages for an auto rack installer at $17 with benefits. An opening spot at Big 5 goes for $12 per hour with family benefits. Even In-n-Out Burger will pay more to a new recruit than at least part of the District’s offer to our Children’s Center staff. The UPM Bargaining Team, led by Paul Christensen, has pointed out that a more accurate basis for determining hourly pay rates would be the rates of children’s centers operated by other community colleges. Certainly, the cost of living in this part of the Bay Area would have to be a factor.

The District’s representatives in negotiations claim that this entire venture is too expensive. At first, when asked what current costs of operation are, in order to determine such a comparison, they replied that they really didn’t know. Bargaining on these matters certainly is not acrimonious, but progress along the path to resolution would be certainly hampered by such uncertainty. Subsequently however, the District did contact the UPM saying they were ready to discuss cost data.

The UPM is seeking, in addition to a fair wage for these educational professionals, retroactivity and a good affiliation with a retirement system. Both sides of the table know that the folks at the Children’s Center must be covered by a retirement system, but as yet no determination has been made about which system would be best and about how to initiate the coverage. In addition, matters of preparation time, assigned time, and unassigned time remain to be worked out.

Christensen met with his counterparts recently, and now that the District is able to discuss costs, we are hopeful that no major twists in the trail will further delay the progress. We’ll keep you informed.

Ponderings of the President

by Ira Lansing

You have hardly been back and here I am, already asking you for a favor. Oh, all right: welcome back, hope you had a good summer and are well rested. So much for social amenities. Now here is the situation. It is barely September, you are already scheduling for the spring of 2001 and I want you to consider what you will be doing in the academic year of 2001-02. Since UPM changed over to committee, etc. appointments on an annual basis a short while back, it is in the fall of 2000 that you must apply, and the Executive Council must appoint, for the positions to be held the following academic year. This assures that when you schedule in the spring for the fall you can indicate what your Union appointment will be. If you followed all of that you probably are qualified for some position! Let me try to talk you into pursuing it.

Over the past few years various individuals have asked for more specifics on the job duties and selection criteria for the various UPM appointments. Most of the positions have job descriptions in the collective bargaining agreement and/or in the UPM By-laws. However, it is important to emphasize certain characteristics of all of the jobs. This Union has long fought for individual academic freedom for all of its members in its most liberal interpretation (often characterized as if it is not illegal, immoral, insane or incompetent, you can do it in the classroom and are legally and contractually protected). Ironically this attitude does not apply when you work for UPM. As an employee of the Union you do not (in most instances) have the freedom to do what you please. You are a representative of the duly elected collective bargaining agent and as such must enforce the contract as approved by the membership, regardless of your personal opinions. Your actions may have legal consequences and could establish precedents. (However, your actions are protected by state and federal laws; plus the Union carries insurance for actions taken on its behalf, but we all have to live with the mistakes.) Every committee member acts in accordance with the contract and in consultation with other committee members and the Executive Council.

This results in at least two criteria that the Executive Council uses when making the appointments. First, to help with communication and awareness of issues, an effort is made to appoint one Executive Council member to many of the committees. This practices means that about 8 of the 20 or so positions would be filled by people already on the Executive Council (note that council members receive no compensation for those duties, so a committee appointment is not "double dipping" from a pay standpoint).

A second criterion is to appoint someone with a familiarity or expertise relative to the job. This may strike some of you as a Catch-22. How can you get experience for the committee if you need to have experience to be on the committee?! The answer to that is actually simple apprenticeship. Get your experience by "phasing" into a position. What does this mean in practice? Come to membership meetings and Executive Council meetings to find out what the issues are and to learn what all of the acronyms mean. Start on a less intense committee to get a feel for how the process works. What are "some less intense" positions? Given the previously expressed opinions, perhaps none. But in reality, committees like the Sabbatical Leave, Staff Development, or Health & Safety tend not to deal with matters that are too "hot and heavy" (yet are still extremely important). Even being on the collective bargaining team can be a good way to observe, learn and participate with a lot of guidance and help from other team members. Do not expect to be on the Workload Committee or the Professional Affairs Committee without ever having participated in some other sort of UPM experience (committee or otherwise).

All of this may sound quite restrictive or exclusive, and I am sorry if it does. However, as UPM president I am constantly reminded that the action – or lack of action – by one union representative can have long-lasting repercussions. The best interests of our membership and the direction given by the membership are always the basis from which any action is taken. Consequently we are always looking for people who are aware and supportive of the UPM positions. In return you can expect the United Professors of Marin to support you, train you and fairly compensate you for your work.

I had hoped that this particular column would be a resounding call to the members to participate, but I fear that I may have scared off, pissed off or intimidated most of you. Please don’t let that happen. Fill out the application, get your name out there, come to meetings. This Union cannot happen without your involvement and your input. We may not always agree, but eventually the result will be something that we all can support. I hope to hear from you if you have questions and to see you participating, even if it is as one of the crowd. Have a healthy and productive semester.

CAN YOUR RETIREMENT WAIT?

More STRS Pension Improvements May be Coming

The American Federation of Teachers reports that retirement improvements are on the horizon. Thanks in large part to the efforts of the "Retirement Coalition" in which CFT plays an important part, the current legislative session will bring significant increases in benefits to STRS recipients, effective for those retiring after next January. The AFT’s suggestion is this:

If you are planning to retire this year, you may want to defer drawing STRS until after January 1, 2001, if it is at all financially possible. Please talk to your Benefits Office for direction in this matter. In order to accomplish this, you do not have to change your retirement plans. You simply need to indicate on your paperwork that you would no longer be working for your school district as of your selected date, and would like to start collecting your retirements payments from STRS on January 1, 2001.

Do you remember your colleagues who retired in June of 1988? They were unable to take advantage of the major improvements made in STRS that year because the changes did not take effect until the following January 1, 1999. Don’t let that happen to you.

[The following article was published in California Teacher, Vol. 53, Number 5, June 2000]

This year may bring significant benefits for retiring teachers. If your retirement is nearing, hold on if you can. One bill, CFT-sponsored AB 821 (Correa, D-Santa Ana) changes the definition of final compensation, one of the three factors used to calculate STRS pensions. The other two factors are year of credited service and age at retirement.

The law now defines final compensation for teachers as the highest average annual compensation earnable during any three consecutive years of employment covered under STRS. While school and college districts and classroom teachers have the option to negotiate one-year highest compensation, few district have bargained this benefit due to its cost and the law’s exclusion of administrators.

Changing the definition of final compensation from a three-year average to one year generally results in a greater pension payment. What’s more, this change will provide teachers parity with the manner in which final compensation is determined for classified and state employee members of the Public Employees retirement System.

Another bill, co-sponsored by CFT, the "Rule of 85" (AB 1933, Strom-Martin, D-Santa Rosa) allows career teachers to retire earlier. Since the retirement allowance of STRS members is based on a two percent at age 60 retirement formula, the two percent factor is reduced for members who retire before they reach 60. This formula often creates a hardship for career teachers who entered the profession soon after finishing college. With AB 1933, CFT and other employee groups hope to provide these educators with a more equitable retirement formula that recognizes their lifetime work.

The Rule of 85 would allow an STRS member who is 55 years of age or older to retire with full retirement benefits if the teacher’s age plus years of credited service equals or exceeds 85.

Another retirement bill would give retirees more purchasing power during their retirements. Currently, retirees under STRS receive monthly allowance that are increased annually by two percent (simple not compounded) of the original allowance.

Over time, inflation erodes these retirees’ pensions. Those already retired under STRS are guaranteed their monthly retirement allowances will not all below 75 percent of the purchasing poser of their initial monthly retirement checks.

Unfortunately, this 75 percent level is inadequate for a sizable number of long-term retired educators. Because purchasing power payments are funded from a separate source (the Supplemental Benefit Maintenance Account), increasing the level of purchasing power protection would not affect the level of excess earnings available to fund other benefit increases. STRS estimates the SBMA funds are sufficient to pay the increased cost to maintain retirees at 82 percent of their original purchasing power for at least 30 years.

Membership Matters

This summer, we provided an AFT ad listing several group insurance programs available only to members of the AFT (which you are if you are a member of the UPM). This month, we highlight one such program… the Disability Income Plan.

This ad includes the AFT web site address. When you have an opportunity, go visit the site and check out other good benefits of membership.

			August 2000 Newsletter
	Treasurer's Report Remember that dues will increase in September. Here is the chart: THOSE PRESENTLY PAYING WILL PAY: I $8.48 $8.61 II 14.25 14.44 III 25.49 25.85 IV 39.49 39.85 V 62.74 63.46 Part-Timer’s Tenure Claim Last month, we reported that a part-time instructor had submitted to the District a request to be granted tenure based on a combination of instructional load and IR&D work. The article erroneously stated that the IR&D activity was committee work when in fact it was project work conducted during the academic calendar. This instructor had performed the required duties of IR&D projects in the past, during a time when classes were not in session but within the regular academic calendar nevertheless. More recently, the District told the instructor that a new project had to be conducted outside the academic calendar, either between spring and summer sessions or between summer and fall. The reason for conducting the project activities at such times is to ensure that the total load for a part-timer would not exceed the 60% threshold for tenure. It seems obvious that if IR&D project work now has to be outside the calendar to prevent his reaching the threshold, certainly this instructor’s prior IR&D projects conducted within the calendar give him the right to claim tenure.		The Long and Winding Road to Resolution At best, the pace of negotiations aiming to include the staff of the Children’s Center in the bargaining unit may be characterized as stately. More than two years have passed since the District and the UPM set out on this path with their original proposals, and in fact, a fair amount of ground has been covered. But at present, the big issues of salary and benefits have proved to be significant stumbling blocks. The District, it seems, is trying to determine hourly rates of pay using private day care rates as the standard. The District’s salary "offer" has been characterized as nothing more than babysitters’ wages. We note that recent newspaper advertisements list starting hourly wages for an auto rack installer at $17 with benefits. An opening spot at Big 5 goes for $12 per hour with family benefits. Even In-n-Out Burger will pay more to a new recruit than at least part of the District’s offer to our Children’s Center staff. The UPM Bargaining Team, led by Paul Christensen, has pointed out that a more accurate basis for determining hourly pay rates would be the rates of children’s centers operated by other community colleges. Certainly, the cost of living in this part of the Bay Area would have to be a factor. The District’s representatives in negotiations claim that this entire venture is too expensive. At first, when asked what current costs of operation are, in order to determine such a comparison, they replied that they really didn’t know. Bargaining on these matters certainly is not acrimonious, but progress along the path to resolution would be certainly hampered by such uncertainty. Subsequently however, the District did contact the UPM saying they were ready to discuss cost data. The UPM is seeking, in addition to a fair wage for these educational professionals, retroactivity and a good affiliation with a retirement system. Both sides of the table know that the folks at the Children’s Center must be covered by a retirement system, but as yet no determination has been made about which system would be best and about how to initiate the coverage. In addition, matters of preparation time, assigned time, and unassigned time remain to be worked out. Christensen met with his counterparts recently, and now that the District is able to discuss costs, we are hopeful that no major twists in the trail will further delay the progress. We’ll keep you informed. Ponderings of the President by Ira Lansing You have hardly been back and here I am, already asking you for a favor. Oh, all right: welcome back, hope you had a good summer and are well rested. So much for social amenities. Now here is the situation. It is barely September, you are already scheduling for the spring of 2001 and I want you to consider what you will be doing in the academic year of 2001-02. Since UPM changed over to committee, etc. appointments on an annual basis a short while back, it is in the fall of 2000 that you must apply, and the Executive Council must appoint, for the positions to be held the following academic year. This assures that when you schedule in the spring for the fall you can indicate what your Union appointment will be. If you followed all of that you probably are qualified for some position! Let me try to talk you into pursuing it. Over the past few years various individuals have asked for more specifics on the job duties and selection criteria for the various UPM appointments. Most of the positions have job descriptions in the collective bargaining agreement and/or in the UPM By-laws. However, it is important to emphasize certain characteristics of all of the jobs. This Union has long fought for individual academic freedom for all of its members in its most liberal interpretation (often characterized as if it is not illegal, immoral, insane or incompetent, you can do it in the classroom and are legally and contractually protected). Ironically this attitude does not apply when you work for UPM. As an employee of the Union you do not (in most instances) have the freedom to do what you please. You are a representative of the duly elected collective bargaining agent and as such must enforce the contract as approved by the membership, regardless of your personal opinions. Your actions may have legal consequences and could establish precedents. (However, your actions are protected by state and federal laws; plus the Union carries insurance for actions taken on its behalf, but we all have to live with the mistakes.) Every committee member acts in accordance with the contract and in consultation with other committee members and the Executive Council. This results in at least two criteria that the Executive Council uses when making the appointments. First, to help with communication and awareness of issues, an effort is made to appoint one Executive Council member to many of the committees. This practices means that about 8 of the 20 or so positions would be filled by people already on the Executive Council (note that council members receive no compensation for those duties, so a committee appointment is not "double dipping" from a pay standpoint). A second criterion is to appoint someone with a familiarity or expertise relative to the job. This may strike some of you as a Catch-22. How can you get experience for the committee if you need to have experience to be on the committee?! The answer to that is actually simple apprenticeship. Get your experience by "phasing" into a position. What does this mean in practice? Come to membership meetings and Executive Council meetings to find out what the issues are and to learn what all of the acronyms mean. Start on a less intense committee to get a feel for how the process works. What are "some less intense" positions? Given the previously expressed opinions, perhaps none. But in reality, committees like the Sabbatical Leave, Staff Development, or Health & Safety tend not to deal with matters that are too "hot and heavy" (yet are still extremely important). Even being on the collective bargaining team can be a good way to observe, learn and participate with a lot of guidance and help from other team members. Do not expect to be on the Workload Committee or the Professional Affairs Committee without ever having participated in some other sort of UPM experience (committee or otherwise). All of this may sound quite restrictive or exclusive, and I am sorry if it does. However, as UPM president I am constantly reminded that the action – or lack of action – by one union representative can have long-lasting repercussions. The best interests of our membership and the direction given by the membership are always the basis from which any action is taken. Consequently we are always looking for people who are aware and supportive of the UPM positions. In return you can expect the United Professors of Marin to support you, train you and fairly compensate you for your work. I had hoped that this particular column would be a resounding call to the members to participate, but I fear that I may have scared off, pissed off or intimidated most of you. Please don’t let that happen. Fill out the application, get your name out there, come to meetings. This Union cannot happen without your involvement and your input. We may not always agree, but eventually the result will be something that we all can support. I hope to hear from you if you have questions and to see you participating, even if it is as one of the crowd. Have a healthy and productive semester. CAN YOUR RETIREMENT WAIT? More STRS Pension Improvements May be Coming The American Federation of Teachers reports that retirement improvements are on the horizon. Thanks in large part to the efforts of the "Retirement Coalition" in which CFT plays an important part, the current legislative session will bring significant increases in benefits to STRS recipients, effective for those retiring after next January. The AFT’s suggestion is this: If you are planning to retire this year, you may want to defer drawing STRS until after January 1, 2001, if it is at all financially possible. Please talk to your Benefits Office for direction in this matter. In order to accomplish this, you do not have to change your retirement plans. You simply need to indicate on your paperwork that you would no longer be working for your school district as of your selected date, and would like to start collecting your retirements payments from STRS on January 1, 2001. Do you remember your colleagues who retired in June of 1988? They were unable to take advantage of the major improvements made in STRS that year because the changes did not take effect until the following January 1, 1999. Don’t let that happen to you. [The following article was published in California Teacher, Vol. 53, Number 5, June 2000] This year may bring significant benefits for retiring teachers. If your retirement is nearing, hold on if you can. One bill, CFT-sponsored AB 821 (Correa, D-Santa Ana) changes the definition of final compensation, one of the three factors used to calculate STRS pensions. The other two factors are year of credited service and age at retirement. The law now defines final compensation for teachers as the highest average annual compensation earnable during any three consecutive years of employment covered under STRS. While school and college districts and classroom teachers have the option to negotiate one-year highest compensation, few district have bargained this benefit due to its cost and the law’s exclusion of administrators. Changing the definition of final compensation from a three-year average to one year generally results in a greater pension payment. What’s more, this change will provide teachers parity with the manner in which final compensation is determined for classified and state employee members of the Public Employees retirement System. Another bill, co-sponsored by CFT, the "Rule of 85" (AB 1933, Strom-Martin, D-Santa Rosa) allows career teachers to retire earlier. Since the retirement allowance of STRS members is based on a two percent at age 60 retirement formula, the two percent factor is reduced for members who retire before they reach 60. This formula often creates a hardship for career teachers who entered the profession soon after finishing college. With AB 1933, CFT and other employee groups hope to provide these educators with a more equitable retirement formula that recognizes their lifetime work. The Rule of 85 would allow an STRS member who is 55 years of age or older to retire with full retirement benefits if the teacher’s age plus years of credited service equals or exceeds 85. Another retirement bill would give retirees more purchasing power during their retirements. Currently, retirees under STRS receive monthly allowance that are increased annually by two percent (simple not compounded) of the original allowance. Over time, inflation erodes these retirees’ pensions. Those already retired under STRS are guaranteed their monthly retirement allowances will not all below 75 percent of the purchasing poser of their initial monthly retirement checks. Unfortunately, this 75 percent level is inadequate for a sizable number of long-term retired educators. Because purchasing power payments are funded from a separate source (the Supplemental Benefit Maintenance Account), increasing the level of purchasing power protection would not affect the level of excess earnings available to fund other benefit increases. STRS estimates the SBMA funds are sufficient to pay the increased cost to maintain retirees at 82 percent of their original purchasing power for at least 30 years. Membership Matters This summer, we provided an AFT ad listing several group insurance programs available only to members of the AFT (which you are if you are a member of the UPM). This month, we highlight one such program… the Disability Income Plan. This ad includes the AFT web site address. When you have an opportunity, go visit the site and check out other good benefits of membership.