|
|
|
||
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
Home Page | |
|
Benefits | |
|
Forms | |
|
Committees | |
|
|
|
|---|
|
Contract | |
|
By-Laws | |
|
UPM Jobs | |
|
Salary Sch. | |
|
|
|
|---|
|
CoM Weather | |
|
Calender | |
|
Campus Events | |
|
|
|
|
|
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
C
O N T E N T S |
View the contract from this link. 1999-2000 Contract |
||
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ponderings of the President
by Ira Lansing Ponderings of the President Membership Matters A Reminder: You Can Donate Sick Leave Days |
Union to Counter File District Files Unfair Against UPM A short time after representatives of the UPM told managers that the faculty was about to file an Unfair Labor Practice Charge against the District, managers involved in bargaining filed their own charge. The issue on both sides is the disposition of approximately $1.9 million in  "reserved" P4E funds that the District has steadfastly refused to negotiate in good faith. The District took the offensive by complaining, essentially, that the UPM has acted unfairly by demanding to negotiate the procedures for determining the use of funds and the actual amount of the overall fund to use for faculty activities.It seems that the District's position is based on the idea that P4E money from the State is fully under the jurisdiction of management, to be used by Middleton in virtually any way he sees fit. Of course, managers long ago agreed that any use of the funds that would have an impact on the working conditions and salary of the faculty would be discussed by members of the Union/District Workload Committee composed of faculty and managers. Also, the District set up an advisory group that would screen faculty ideas for the use of some of the funds. But in the end, it was Middleton who could approve or disapprove of any project recommended by the group, and it was he who could merge projects and modify them without further input by faculty. And more than that, the recommended projects represented only a fraction of the total P4E fund. The remainder, says management, is to be spent in any way they see fit ... for parking lot improvements, for example. The District's position has generated a lot of dissatisfaction. The UPM has heard many complaints from faculty whose projects were not selected by Middleton and whose projects were modified or merged with other projects without consultation. Many faculty involved in the process have been stung by the District's "take it or leave it" attitude. Even the stated goals of the original advisory group excluded the interests of faculty, hearkening more to "the good of the whole, the community," thereby leaving out specific faculty representation. But the interests of the faculty are the center of UPM's responsibility. Thus, the UPM long ago demanded to negotiate P4E funds. This issue, in addition to the student complaint procedure, was the focus of our "reopeners," parallel talks during regular Contract negotiations. Immediately, the District balked. When the UPM was on the brink of charging the District with refusing to bargain P4E, managers brought the current faculty project proposals to the table and claimed thereby to be in active bargaining on the issue. Even though the UPM Bargaining Team has long ago tried to get the approved projects moving through the system, the District has not budged, so now even those projects have languished. Perhaps trying to set faculty against faculty, managers have said that the projects are stalled because of the UPM's insistence on negotiating P4E. That, perhaps, has been the most pernicious force of them all. In fact, the UPM has demanded to negotiate the use of the remaining funds and new funding. Specifically, union representatives have been at the table suggesting that little more than 50% of the funds from the State should be earmarked for faculty use, such as for conference leave and travel, curriculum development, outreach, and many other useful and creative endeavors developed by faculty. In addition, the UPM seeks the right to bargain the process whereby project activities are open to all faculty, uniformly fair in compensation. These demands are not new, nor are the procedures new. Indeed, mechanisms such as IR&D have been set up and have been operating for a long time in very similar arenas. But the District thinks the UPM is asking too much, so they've filed an Unfair with the Public Employee Relations Board (PERB). District negotiators claim that the UPM has made all Contract bargaining contingent upon bargaining the P4E matter, and, they say, that is against the law. So now, we will have to see if the law requires the District to bargain P4E or if managers are allowed to determine unilaterally the use of the funds and bargain only after the fact on the small amount that may have some impact on faculty. In the meantime, the UPM wonders why anyone would really believe that a handful of managers are more competent than are faculty to decide how "Partnership for Excellence" funds should be spent. Contract Bargaining Update Key Issues Await District Response The UPM Bargaining Team has recently presented the union's newest offer on several major issues that will help characterize Contract language for years to come. By the end of this month, District representatives will have come back to the table with their counter offers. A lot is at stake. Here are the positions UPM is taking on some key issues. The Freeway Flier Provision It is now possible for part-time teachers who work less than 50% time in community colleges to add together the work they do in various colleges and thereby become eligible for STRS benefits. At present, seven of the ten Bay Area colleges are already on board with this opportunity for their part time teachers. As you might imagine, College of Marin is one of those who does not allow it. The position of the UPM in this matter is that this arrangement shouldn't be part of overall negotiations; rather, the UPM has said to managers, "Just implement it." Part-Timers' Equalization College of Marin has received from the State about $375,000 to be used specifically to equalize pay between part-timers and full-timers. The money comes with the provision that the faculty and District must agree, in bargaining, on the meaning of "equalization." The UPM has taken the stand that "equal" means 100% pro-rata pay for part-timers, but the District has so far indicated that the current 80% pro-rata pay is "equal." UPM negotiators are suggesting that part-timers should receive a 100% rate based on all aspects of a faculty assignment, including office hours, unassigned time, and the like. The State has already taken the sting out of paying for some part-timers' office hours, so the impact of this idea shouldn't be so great. The UPM believes that 100% pro rata pay is the only way to establish "equalization" and to ensure the very best educational service to students. Part of the UPM's stand is to be sure that all time spent by faculty is paid equally, so even overload rates for full-time faculty would be upgraded to 100% as well. New Categories for Load are Proposed The UPM now proposes that the current designations for load (lecture, lab, practicum, etc.) be changed to three categories, labeled A, B, and C. Category A would be recognized on a one-for-one unit load basis, or 100%, in a way similar to the current "lecture" rate. Category B would be based on 83% of category A, and category C would carry 75%. The UPM thinks that these designations would help avoid many of the confusions and unit imbalances, especially for part-timers, that may be generated by the current system. The District is has so far appeared very reluctant to consider this new approach. Money, Money, Money It appears that the District is ready to accept the "average of the top three Bay Ten" approach to determining salary for faculty. But this readiness is based on the notion that the average should be calculated without considering the real salaries of faculty in the Foothill/DeAnza district. In that district, faculty can make as much as $12,500 more than what is evident on their basic salary schedule, an amount that if included in the averaging, could yield an 11-12% increase for us. Thus far, the District has claimed that including the two schedules of Foothill/DeAnza in the averaging would be too complicated. The amount that the District finds uncomplicated would yield a 5.58% increase, yet classified management increases already have hovered nearly 8%, and Middleton himself has been awarded a salary increase of significant proportions. Next month, the Press will detail the District's new offers and will further update the status of Contract negotiations. Keep your eyes and ears open. And read the related article in this edition of the Press regarding the salaries earned by faculty in the Tamalpais High School District. Interesting Comparison: Tam High School Teachers Make More Raoul Teilhet Scholarships |
Web Page graphics & design by Mike Godsey, windfind@sonic.nett
District Files Unfair Against UPM
the Woodward and Bernstein characters heard from their confidential informant, Deep Throat, in the movie "All the President's Men." He told them, "Follow the money." I had the benefit of following the money at the November meeting of the College Board of Trustees. At that meeting a few salary adjustments were announced. It was reported out of closed session that President Middleton was given a new four year contract, starting at $145,270 per year. What is especially interesting about this contract is that the salary is based on the median salary of college presidents in 17 community college districts throughout the state. Does that approach to determining rate of pay sound familiar? In addition, management employees received a 7.87% raise, effective July 1 of this year. Not far behind were supervisory and confidential employees, both of whom received a 7.5% increase, effective 9/1/01.
now is. Tam is a multiple-school district in Marin, and its salary schedule accommodates advanced degrees, years of service and units for professional development. But when you compare the salaries, one startling difference emerges. They make more. A lot more.
The report found: the percentage of classes taught by part-time faculty has increased from 40 to 47 percent since 1995; 67 percent of California's community college faculty teach part-time; part-time faculty have a significantly greater difficulty than full-time faculty getting retirement benefits and health insurance; and the current funding system provides a financial incentive for community colleges to employ part-time over full-time faculty.
The United Professors of Marin welcome John Hinds, new full-time member of the faculty and member of the UPM.