The
Union Press
Newsletter for the Faculty of the Marin Community College District American Federation of Teachers, Local 1610
College Forms on-line | Back to Home Page
1997 Newsletters: January Feburary March April May
C O N T N T S |
Start the Academic Year Off Right Attend the General Meeting of the Members Luncheon "Fall Flextime" On Monday, August 18th from 12:00 to 1:30 in Fusselman Hall |
District folks have yet to propose much specific language, their discussion sounds unproductive. Pessimism pervades their outlook, and entrenchment characterizes their position.
Articles
|
Contract Bargaining Begins District Opens with Negative Bid Negotiations for a new Contract have begun in earnest, and indications suggest that the road to agreement will be long and rough. Representatives from the UPM and the District have met three times to date, and despite the fact that the District folks have yet to propose much specific language, their discussion sounds unproductive. Pessimism pervades their outlook, and entrenchment characterizes their position. During the three meetings, the two sides discussed dates for negotiations, orally explained the general ideas behind their positions, and at least in the case of the UPM, presented proposed Contract language. At the top of the list of issues are, of course, wages and fringe benefits, but other matters, including workload and adjustments to the salary schedule, have also been put on the table. Thus far, most of the District's participation in discussions has been to react to the UPM proposals. In the area of wages, the UPM is proposing a change in the way the average salaries of the top three Bay 10 schools is distributed across our salary schedule. Because other districts' salary schedules rarely match our own in numbers of columns and steps, we have tried in the past at least a couple of methods of calculating the averages and applying them to our sixteen-step schedule. The UPM is seeking a more mathematically "correct" method of distributing the averages to make the process accurate and fair. In addition, the UPM seeks to add four steps to the current schedule in order to bring salaries more in line with those of other districts in the state. At other schools with higher top steps, instructors earn more than we do, considerably more in some instances. With adjustments in the salary schedule, both part-timers and full-timers would have a chance at some upward mobility. The UPM is also looking to establish a kind of stipend for part-timers conducting office hours. Up to now, part-timers are not compensated for office hours, but as we've learned, many part-timers meet students for office hours, and in the instances where no office hours are provided, students suffer. Our demands for changes in fringe benefits are modest. We want the District to pick up the additional costs associated with the small increases experienced in health, dental, vision, and other benefits. The impact of the District's assuming the extra costs amounts to very little more than the extra $20 cost of the Kaiser family plan. Also, the UPM wants to allow some non-credit instructors to combine their credit and non-credit work for the purposes of determining the 60% workload required to have fringe benefits kick in. The District's Reaction The District's response to all this is to say that the college would be bankrupt if even more modest versions of the UPM offers are adopted. The District is claiming, "We don't have the money." It's an old refrain, of course, but particularly out of tune in an era of increased State revenues and increases in CoM enrollments [see Ira Lansing's "Ponderings" in this edition of the Press]. So what was the District's reaction, more specifically? Get ready for this one: no change in the salary schedule, no compensation for part-timers' office hours, no increase in the coverage of fringe benefits, and strangest of all, an abandonment of the "average of the top-3 Bay Ten" method of calculating our salaries. Without presenting any specific language, the District is suggesting that we settle for an average of 85% of the Cost of Living Adjustments for this year and last year. In other words, they want us to take 85% of last year's COLA and 85% of this year's COLA and average the two to determine a salary increase. Estimates of such a method show that our increase would hover in the 1/2 of one percent to one percent range. So how would you like an increase of less than one percent, eh? Other UPM Positions Beyond wages and fringe benefits, the UPM is interested in issues relating to workload and priority hiring. First, the UPM seeks to implement the "agreement" regarding lecture and lab hours. The issue of hours emerged years ago with what has become known as the "Monroe Grievance" that sought a more equitable treatment of lab hours, variously figured as a percentage of a lecture hour for calculating an instructor's load. The original grievance became the basis of negotiations between the UPM and District, negotiations that led to an agreement that was later undermined when Middleton nixed his own people's settlement. The UPM has put the terms of that agreement on the table in this round of talks. The terms specify different rates for different emphases on lecture and lab in a course. Thus, when a course is primarily lecture but involves some lab, the lab component may represent 80% of a lecture hour, for example. At present, the District has not responded to UPM's offer. Second, the UPM wants to establish a kind of method for priority hiring of long-term part-timers when a full-time position becomes available. At present, a part-timer working in the District for 5 or more years automatically has the right to an interview for a full-time position. The UPM wants to add to this by assigning a priority to such a part-timer who ranks otherwise equally with other candidates for the position. The District's reaction to this offer has been a tentative expression of worry about its effect on affirmative action. The District's Other Issues The District is interested in talking about the "transfers and assignments" portion of the Contract. At the heart of their position is the notion that voluntary transfers should be restricted, that the District should have the right to refuse an instructor's voluntary transfer if certain conditions prevail. Of course, the District's position jeopardizes one of the most significant features of our Contract: the means by which faculty may maintain competency in teaching areas in the event of a layoff. A lot of people may have forgotten that voluntary transfer rights were hard won during the negotiations after the 1984 layoffs. At that time, faculty agreed to rather restrictive bumping criteria as long as there were means to maintain competency in other areas; thus, voluntary transfer rights were instituted in the Contract. Further, the District is seeking to increase the hours a Physical Education teacher works. At present, an instructor must give express consent to an assignment demanding more than three consecutive hours of work. The District is looking to increase that time to 4.5 hours of lecture in a row and 6 hours without a break for lab activities, activities that the vast majority of PE instructors are assigned. Interestingly, this is the only issue for which District representatives provided concrete Contract language to the UPM during recent bargaining. The District also wants to deal with evaluations and student grievances in Contract talks. It seems that they are seeking a greater administrative involvement in instructor evaluations and more punitive procedures as well. Their position is hard to determine as yet, however, because they have not provided UPM representatives any language as yet. Similarly, the District seeks to review the language regarding student grievances and perhaps to modify that language, but again, we have received no wording from them. So where are we in Contract negotiations? In a nutshell, the District wants substantial takebacks in return for no money and no increases in fringe benefits. What an offer! Well, it's early in the process, but everyone reading this summary should be ready to understand the consequences of the District's positions, to support the UPM's principles, and to stand firm. We may be in for a long one. |
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka," but "That's funny." -Isaac Asimov
Truth comes out of error more easily than out of confusion. -Francis Bacon Articles |
by Ira Lansing I have a favor to ask from all of you. By now you should be well entrenched in your intersession break. Most of you, hopefully, are far removed from the pressures and hassles of the every day semester. At this time you do not need relief from the stresses of your job, you do not need this column to be humorous and uplifting (it may still be that, however), a sort of mental distraction. So here's the favor I ask: next time you see me, provide me with a humorous distraction; I may need it. What is going on? There is the potential for things to get weird around here (they're not already?). Just look around you, and I don't mean just in the District. We have a professional athlete biting off another's ear ("I snapped" was the explanation). In a different arena, the president pro tem (Bill Lockyer) of the California Senate kills a piece of regulatory legislation (relating to gambling) that he himself just introduced earlier in the session and was supported by his party (I changed my mind, perhaps meaning I received donations from an opposing group). You might rightly respond by saying this is not unusual behavior. What did you expect from a convicted rapist and a politician (those are two different people this time)? OK, how about these more local circumstances: top District administrators tell the Board of Trustees and union representatives that, even though summer enrollment is up over last year, even though fall enrollment to date is up over last year, even though the State will be funding the college with more money than last year, we are in worse shape than last year. In fact, 1997-98 will be the bottom of a declining period (at least it is the bottom). Remember, I teach mathematics; I am a fairly rational and logical person. Something is not adding up here. Calm down, you say. These are District administrators, a close cousin to politicians. It is part of their job to tell you there is less money. OK, OK, then how about this one. We-that's you and me collectively as UPM-are being sued for $7,000,000 (that's $$millions$$ folks!) in a federal civil rights suit. Pretty bizarre, but don't panic too much. Just about every trustee and administrator is also named in this suit by a disgruntled ex-employee who says his civil rights were violated by a wrongful termination. Wait a minute-UPM did not hire, UPM did not fire. What is going on? Remember, I teach mathematics; I am a fairly rational and logical person. Something is not adding up here. Sure, our attorney will take care of this, and UPM should be removed as a charged party, but it still extracts numerous costs. All of the above incidents have me worried. C. W. Nevius wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle about the Tyson-Holyfield fight. He said "This [the biting incident] is just another reminder that boxing is the crazy uncle of professional sports, a screwball carnival tolerated with a wink and a sleazy smirk." I sure hope that our District and UPM are not becoming the crazy uncle of professional politics and the legal system. Less than complete professional behavior, honesty and integrity cannot, and should not, be tolerated. There is too much that we all need to do and accomplish to allow this sort of behavior to intrude. The coming months will see the bargaining team meeting with representatives from the District. As we have done in all negotiations in the past, UPM will inform you and seek your direction on all matters that come to the table. If at any time you, as a unit member, feel uninformed, disenfranchised or misdirected, let me know! I am quite reachable and would be more than willing to spend time with you to listen (more than once if necessary) or clarify (hopefully once would do it). We can only accomplish what you want us to accomplish, and we can only do so with your support. On the sidebar I leave you with two relevant thoughts from famous people. May you return refreshed and enriched. |
...we battled long and hard to be sure that the District would comply with the "75 25" ratio. It now is apparent that few other colleges were as diligent as CoM in implementing this law Articles |
Legislation May Adversely Affect College of Marin The UPM received a letter from Joan Lisetor alerting us to a couple of State legislative issues that need the attention of faculty. She writes, "President Middleton asked me to make you aware of some things happening in Sacramento. We need faculty support to pull in some discretionary funding, which we urgently need. Also we are seeking an amendment to correct an unintended oversight in proposed legislation that would adversely affect College of Marin. "Discretionary Funding: At the suggestion of Senator Burton's aide, Judy Arnold, we are organizing a letter writing campaign appealing to Senator Mike Thompson, chair of the Budget Committee, to maintain the $18 million General Apportionment Increase category in the State Committee budget proposal." At this point, Lisetor suggests that the UPM urge its members to join a letter-writing campaign to help ensure the increase in funding. Then, the letter continues with the second issue, regarding the ratio between the number of full-time faculty and part-time faculty at a community college. This issue is familiar to us since we battled long and hard to be sure that the District would comply with the "75 25" ratio. It now is apparent that few other colleges were as diligent as CoM in implementing this law, and Sacramento, in its infinite wisdom, wants to increase funding to schools not in compliance so that the ratio may be achieved. Lisetor continues, "The problem is that since College of Marin is one of the very few colleges which have complied with the 75% - 25% ratio before special funding was allocated for its implementation, we would be penalized. Colleges that did not comply would be rewarded with funding. We are asking the senator to amend the proposal and apply the same formula to colleges that have met or exceeded the ratio as it is using on colleges that are below the 75%." If a letter-writing campaign is deemed necessary, we will alert you to the process. |
So now we are able to draw a close on this long-standing complaint. At last we are able to report that fairness and equity, the two principles ardently sought by your UPM representatives, finally reach the light of day.
|
It really is over. In the May edition of the Press, we reported that negotiations to determine salary placement for all incoming members of the faculty had come to an end with an agreement that had yet to be signed pending some sidebar language. Now, the sidebars are in place, and the parties have signed the new Contract language. The sidebars that delayed the signing, making this announcement somewhat anticlimactic, had to do with two long-standing members of the faculty who the UPM always maintained had not been properly placed on the salary schedule. These were not the ex-managers who had illegally been given top ranking; rather, they were faculty who were short changed in their initial placement. Members of the UPM reading the Press for the last six years may be less familiar with their situation because the outrage surrounding the managers' treatment had attracted attention away from their case. They were not forgotten, however, by the UPM. In the settlement sidebars, both individuals have been placed properly on the salary schedule and both have received some back pay representing their improper placement status since 1993, the date of the initial PERB decision in the case. Because of the nature of the settlement, members of the faculty who were on an improper salary step since that date can be placed as high as step 10. So now we are able to draw a close on this long-standing complaint. At last we are able to report that fairness and equity, the two principles ardently sought by your UPM representatives, finally reach the light of day. |
The suit stems from a series of incidents that occurred in the early 1990's and that finally led to his dismissal on the grounds of sexual harassment. Articles |
$7 Million Suit Against the UPM Larry Jordan, a former member of the faculty here at the College of Marin, has once again sued the UPM, but this time the suit has been filed in Federal court. The UPM, however, is not alone, for along with the UPM appear about 17 other defendants and "does" 1 through 15. Jordan has cited, among other complaints, deprivation of civil rights, deceit, negligence, fraud, breach of contract, and intentional infliction of severe emotional distress. The suit has been filed in the U.S. District Court, and the UPM is obligated to respond to it. The suit stems from a series of incidents that occurred in the early 1990's and that finally led to his dismissal on the grounds of sexual harassment. During that time, Jordan grieved the various actions taken against him by the District, and he sued in court as well. Along the way, he included the UPM as defendant, but in every case, the judge dismissed the charges against the UPM. This time, Jordan asserts that the actions taken against him were based on the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the UPM and the District and that such a basis is illegal. In the complaint, Jordan writes, "[The UPM] intentionally and knowingly agreed to collective bargaining agreement language which purported to waive constitutional and statutory rights of its faculty members, and then refused to appear and defend its members when defendant district purported to act under terms of the CBA rather than state law." The UPM believes the charge is frivolous and expects that it will be thrown out once again, but you never know. We will keep you informed. |
Articles |
Cash Flow Report 4/1/97 to 6/30/97
|
Download it all with bibliographic information automatically transferred. Articles |
The semester has ended; you've calculated the grades and turned them in on time, and the summer months stretch out ahead. Now, as a Union member, you can finally take advantage of some of the personal benefits membership in the UPM affords. Maybe you can now turn to that purchase of a personal computer you've been planning, or perhaps you'd like to explore the Web for class materials. The American Federation of Teachers' AFT PLUS program can help in those endeavors. If you are a member of the United Professors of Marin, you are ipso facto a member of the AFT and thereby eligible to take advantage of the PLUS program. Still not at member? Just fill out the form below and send it to the UPM office. Union Members are eligible for a 20% discount and a two-week free trial with Infonautics Corporation offering access to nearly 800 magazines and journals, more than 150 newspapers, two international newswires, two thousand classic books, thousands of photographs, hundreds of maps, poetry, and art. The service features a database containing material from Archive Photos, Reuters, Simon and Schuster, World Almanac, Times Mirror, and Compton's New Media. Download it all with bibliographic information automatically transferred. For info, go to |
Articles |
Have you been mulling over the question of whether to join the United Professors of Marin? Or have you intended on submitting your application but put it off as the semester got off the ground? Now is a good opportunity to join your colleagues and to become eligible for the benefits of membership. Many times, faculty at the College of Marin assume that they are members of the UPM simply because they teach or counsel students or because each month an amount of their paycheck is set aside as a representation fee. But membership in the UPM is not automatic; it takes a conscious decision and an application to become a part of the organization. As a member of the faculty "unit" rather than of the union, you gain from being represented by the UPM, but you have neither voting rights nor eligibility for benefits that the State and National organizations make available to members such as group medical, disability, dental, and auto insurance plans; discounted computers and online services; access to legal advice; discounted subscriptions, travel services, and mortgages; and many other benefits. And the kicker is that your full participation in the matters that most count to faculty, as well as your access to these benefits, costs no more than what you are already paying in representation fees as a non-member! To become a member, simply fill out the form shown below and send it in care of the UPM via intercampus mail. Title Regular Price AFT Price Business Week 46.95 37.95 Esquire 15.94 9.95 Forbes 57.00 38.00 Fortune 57.00 28.50 George 15.94 9.97 Gourmet 20.00 15.00 Life 35.00 17.50 MacUser 27.00 14.97 Money 35.95 19.00 New Yorker 39.95 19.98 Rolling Stone 25.95 17.95 Sports Illustrated 78.97 39.75 Time 59.94 29.97 Village Voice 53.00 39.95 Wine Enthusiast 23.95 11.99 |
Articles
|
Academic Calendar and Flex 1997-98(Revised) Before you pin up the calendar that was published in last month's edition of the Press, take note that it has been revised (and corrected, too!). The major change to note is that the first day of fall classes will be one day earlier than originally planned, and the Wednesday before Thanksgiving will be an intersession day with no classes scheduled. Academic Calendar and Flex 1997-98 The District and the Union agree to the following Academic/Flex Calendar for 1997/98: Summer Session, 1997 Session I June 16 - July 25 (Only classes which are scheduled for Fridays will meet on July 25) Session II July 7 - August 1 (Only classes which are scheduled for Fridays will meet on August 1) Fall Semester, 1997 August 12, 13, 14 (Tu, W, Th) Non-Mandatory Flex-time August 15 and 18 (F, M) Mandatory Flex-time August 19 (Tuesday) Classes Begin August 29 (Friday) Census Date September 12 (Friday) First Drop Date September 19 (Friday) Last Day to Request CR/NC October 10 (Friday) Midterms Due November 14 (Friday) Last Drop Date November 26 (Wednesday) Intersession Day - No Classes December 13 (Saturday) Last Day of Classes Before Finals December 15 (Monday) First Day of Finals December 20 (Saturday) Finals End January 5 (Monday) Final Grades Due in Admin & Records Spring Semester, 1998 January 13, 14, 15 (T, W, Th) Non-Mandatory Flex-time January 16 (Friday) Mandatory Flex-time January 20 (Tuesday) Classes Begin January 30 (Friday) Census Date February 17 (Tuesday) First Drop Date February 20 (Friday) Last Day to Request CR/NC March 13 (Friday) Midterms Due April 24 (Friday) Last Drop Date May 15 (Friday) Last Day of Classes Before Finals May 16 (Saturday) First Day of Finals May 22 (Friday) Finals End May 22 (Friday) Commencement May 27 (Tuesday) Final Grades Due in Admin & Records School Holidays Summer 1997 Fall 1997 Spring 1998 *August 30 (Sat) January 19 (Mon) July 4 (Fri) September 1 (Mon) February 13 (Fri) *November 8 (Sat) *February 14 (Sat) November 10 (Mon) February 16 (Mon) November 27 (Thurs) *April 11-17 (S - F) November 28 (Fri) May 25 (Mon) *November 29 (Sat) * This is for the Academic Calendar only; holidays for classes taught on Saturdays only. |
Web Page graphics & design by Mike Godsey, windfind@metro.net
| Hot Links: | Under Costruction This section will help you find useful links. I find it especially useful to cut and paste information from articles into my lecture notes. |
Ponderings of the President