Know Your Rights! Discipline for Faculty and Academic Professionals

For the vast majority of employees at PCC, discipline is an issue that never comes up. But what if you suddenly find yourself under the microscope? What if your supervisor asks you to attend a meeting and you get the feeling you could be “in trouble”?

Disciplinary procedures are governed by Article 22 of our contract. There are three key provisions in Article 22:

  1. “Just cause” is the only reason for discipline to be imposed;
  2. Discipline must be progressive, meaning that (depending on the severity of the conduct) an employee gets a chance to correct behaviors before more severe sanctions are imposed;
  3. Discipline is limited to FOUR, and only four, sanctions upon the employee:
    1. Written warning;
    2. Disciplinary probation (doesn’t apply to PT faculty);
    3. Suspension without pay (doesn’t apply to PT faculty without assignment rights);
    4. Dismissal.

You have a right, under a provision in law known as Weingarten rights, to have a union representative present whenever any aspect of the discussion could lead to discipline. A standard reply you can give under Weingarten is:

“If this discussion could in any way lead to my being disciplined or terminated, or affect my personal working conditions, I respectfully request that my union representative, officer, or steward be present at this meeting. Until my representative arrives, I choose not to participate in this discussion.”

The PCC administration maintains that a manager, in consultation with HR, can decide independently whether any action, such as an MOE, is disciplinary, and as long as that action is not specifically called out in Article 22, then you have no right to representation during any conversation about your employment or working conditions. We disagree!

Note that the scope of your Weingarten rights is broad: you have a right to have a union rep present if the conversation could in any way lead to discipline OR lead to a change in your working conditions.

What we’ve noticed over the years is that HR seems to be running a shadow disciplinary system which relies on the MOE. As long as it’s “just an MOE,” they are effectively saying, then “whatever we do is NOT disciplinary and the union has no right to be involved.” But if you’ve ever been subjected to the MOE process at PCC, you’ve probably felt it was pretty punitive. And if an MOE says that it could serve as the basis for future discipline, then that MOE, we contend, *is* disciplinary, in which case you have a right to union representation during any part of the process.

Here are some rules of thumb:

  • If you have a good relationship with your supervisor and you feel comfortable talking about your work, then you probably have nothing to worry about.
  • But if you are having a conversation with a supervisor and you feel the conversation is starting to stray into uncomfortable territory—especially about things you are doing that are unsatisfactory (or you are NOT doing what you’re supposed to be doing) and what might happen if you don’t correct your behavior—then you should stop the conversation and say you’ll resume the conversation once your union rep is present.
  • Your supervisor can always spell out expectations, but when things start to feel “formal,” consider invoking your Weingarten rights—especially if the magic words “Memorandum of Expectations” are communicated at any point.
  • You CANNOT be disciplined for invoking your Weingarten rights or any union rights. These rights are protected under the law, and the employer will get in serious trouble for stopping you from exercising them.

One reason we’re so concerned about the MOE “shadow disciplinary process” at PCC is that MOEs have been used in place of the disciplinary process that the PCC administration agreed to follow, and just because an employee was given an MOE, this did NOT stop the employee from being dismissed (fired). We have a case going to arbitration soon that will make this very point—that PCC administration did NOT follow the disciplinary process; they moved from an MOE directly to dismissal, without establishing just cause and without following progressive discipline.

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact anyone on your Executive Council or give your Federation office a call at x4178 or x4180.

Yes to Equitable Student Success — Guest Post

PCC’s mission is accomplished at the edges of the organization, when students succeed in classes. 62% of class sections are taught by PTF across our primary campuses.

PCC’s foremost opportunity to positively impact equity in student success comes where students spend the most time; in classes taught by part-time faculty. Part-time faculty, whose contributions to equitable student learning opportunities and experiences seem unrecognized in the district.

This group has a primary set of responsibilities in delivering on PCC’s mission. They are underpaid, under-supported, under-recognized, under-benefited, and have limited mobility and advancement opportunities. They are not treated equitably.

Yet, the successful path to equitable student success goes right through the classroom, though the current campaign seems to be starting elsewhere.

These are the recognitions I’m hopeful of in negotiations:

1) The mission of PCC is realized at the edges, where educational opportunity lives, where students and instructors meet.

2) Part-time faculty teach most class hours. Most of students’ educational experience at PCC experience is with PTF.

3) Part-time faculty are in less-equitable employment circumstances than any other class of employees. Our pay is low, our employment is at risk, and most of us don’t receive benefits. Earning below a living wage and income insecurity is a difficult situation for many.

4) When better supported and motivated, part-time faculty can have the biggest impact in improving on the delivery of PCC’s mission.

PCC seems to regard PTF as a regulated workforce to be administered and negotiated to preserve the financial status quo. The administration doesn’t seem to see that PTFs’ concerns for equitable employment reflect the greatest opportunity for PCC’s success.

Part-time faculty: Inequitable employment. PCC’s best resource and opportunity to positively influence equitable student success.

The author has been a part-time instructor for 15+ years

 

Is there a topic you’d like to see covered on the PCCFFAP website? Are you interested in submitting a guest blog post? Contact VP for Communications Michelle DuBarry at michelle.dubarry@pccffap.org.

Respect — Just a Little Bit

Between negotiation sessions, a Federation team meets monthly with the administration to discuss contract issues as they arise. The hope is to prevent issues from piling up between the official bargaining every two years. These are called “Contract Administration Meetings.” (CAM, for PCC acronym collectors!) The Federation Grievance Committee tracks problems we hear from members, and meet before CAM to prioritize the issues and plan strategy for bringing our members’ concerns forward. The administration team also adds items, and the agenda reflects the concerns of both teams.

Bargaining over wages and benefits took longer than usual in 2017 – at least in part because the administration team was willing to put a good deal of research and thought into the Federation request for equal pay for equal work. But that means our first CAM of 2017-18 wasn’t held until February 2018.

Our Grievance Committee voted to put delivery of a report on the “students of concern” process as it impacts “part-time” faculty as our highest priority for CAM. 294 instructors responded to a survey sent in Spring 2017 asking about their familiarity with the process for reporting concerns with student behavior, and any experiences they had from using it.  We then conducted in-depth follow-up interviews over the summer. A draft of the report was widely circulated for comments during Fall 2017. The final report was presented to the administration at the February CAM. You can read it here.

As background, since the Umpqua Community College shooting in  2015, administrators in community colleges have taken extra steps to address the question “could that happen here?” At PCC, 4 new Academic Professional positions were created — the student conduct and retention coordinators — and the process for reporting “students of concern” was revised and streamlined. Training has been held at inservice events and through the TLCs to help familiarize faculty and academic professionals with the process. Since campus safety is a shared concern, Federation leaders have applauded these measures.

But many “part-time” members contacted the Federation, asking for help, over the past two years. We discovered that the lack of onboarding for “part-time” instructors, their marginalization in faculty committees, and pervasive insecurity about future employment meant that the measures the administration had put in place were not adequate to keep us safe. Concerns were presented at nearly every CAM session since Winter 2016. Our concerns did not lead to any changes, however. So we decided to devote many, many hours to the survey and interview process, to document the problem.

We believe our survey shows problems that present serious threats to the safety of all PCC students and staff. In a time of “evidence-based educational practice” and President Mitsui’s desire to make PCC a “learning organization,” we hoped our report would be received with an open mind by the administration team. That did not happen.

The administration team was — to quote the descriptors used by members of the Federation team who were present —  belittling, disrespectful, dismissive, and condescending.

The report documents the pervasive trepidation “part-time” instructors feel at voicing their sense of unsafety and concern “out of fear of repercussions from the administration” (to quote a response to our survey). The administration response to the presentation of our report was a dramatic display of the very kind of concern documented in our report. It was as if the administration wanted to punish any “part-time” employee who dared to question DOIs and Division Deans by being sure to put us back in our place.

We take the tone of the administration response to itself be evidence of the findings of our survey.

The administration did, however, have two substantive responses:

  • The descriptions used in the survey for “students of concern” was too broad, making the results invalid. (A footnote has been added to clarify the source of the description used.)
  • A counter-claim: the Administration has successfully created a “culture of reporting” at PCC.

No evidence was given for the counterclaim. We believe the survey shows the administration team is simply mistaken about the success of their work, at least as it relates to the majority faculty. The administration has made a wonderful start, which we applaud. But there is major work left to do to ensure staff and student safety.

Several Federation team members said they believed the behavior of one of the administrators in CAM amounted to bullying. We also heard from many people who made the time to attend bargaining sessions over the summer that they believed the administration team were disrespectful and bullying toward members of the Federation team. We will be consulting experts on bullying in the workplace before the next CAM and negotiations to try to ensure the important work done stays mutually respectful.

Most chilling was a remark made in reference to our request for mandatory and paid training for the majority faculty. One administrator mentioned training was offered at in-service. When asked how many “part-time” instructors attend “part-time” inservice events, he said very few — but if “part-timers” who opted not to attend have a problem with students then that is “on them.”

The teacher of the Umpqua Community College class who was killed, along with 8 students, was reported to be an “adjunct.” I do not believe that it would be an adequate consolation to the families of the dead that the administration had offered an optional training which the teacher had failed to attend. Safety is a mutual obligation. We must all do our part. The part of the administration is to design and implement a system of training and support for the majority instructors that they are not afraid to use, lest there be employment repercussions.

Additional items discussed at the February CAM included:

  • a review of the current practices relating to students who threaten faculty members, a problem brought forward by two “full-time”faculty. The administration team was respectful and agreed to look into making changes.
  • a long and stalemated conversation about the scope of Weingarten Rights, which guarantee Union representation when discipline is possible.

We need to find a way to make these meetings more consistently collaborative and productive. A start would be an agreement to treat each other with respect — just a little bit.

What Do We Want with That Equal Pay?

PCC administration did not completely accept our proposal for equal pay for equal work for PCC faculty in our 2017 wage re-opener — though it was a happy surprise that they were willing to explore it! And they agreed to add two new pay steps, so that “part-time” faculty will have 11 steps in the 2018-19 year (instead of 9.) This compares to 17 pay steps for “full-time” faculty.

Before agreeing to full pay parity, the administration members of the bargaining team suggested we create a joint Administration/Federation committee to study the issues ahead of the next full bargaining in 2019, with the hope we could work out a next phase of movement toward pay parity in those upcoming sessions.

We need your input to help craft a Federation position. Here is a summary of some of the issues we expect to discuss.

  • Using national data as well as results from past PCC surveys, the Federation estimates that 80% of “full-time” faculty work is instructional and 20% is service to the college and community. This is what the Federation has used to determine what “equal pay for equal work” would mean. “Part-time” instructor pay should be based on 80% of “full-time” pay, divided by teaching load. But is this the right ratio? Over the past 10 to 15 years, faculty have been tasked with additional quasi-administrative tasks, including program review and program assessment. While some funds have been made available to pay “part-time” faculty to participate, it has not been much. Members of the administration have explained that these responsibilities are expected to fall into “full-time” faculty job expectations, without additional pay. Has that  practice changed the allocation of time spent on direct instructional labor for “full-timers”, or has it just added to the number of hours in a “full-time” instructor’s work week? What ratio should we use?

 In previous surveys and conversations with “part-time” instructors at PCC, we identified 3 separate categories of concerns:

  1. Unequal pay for equal work!
  2. No clear career paths – no way for a “part-timer” to move up.
  3.  Marginalization of “part-timers” who often are made to feel they are not welcome as equal participants in SAC tasks, are shut out of many opportunities for professional development, have low representation in faculty governance (compared to our numbers), and have incredible skills and experience that remain under-utilized – foolish, given the current pressures on Higher Ed and a need for “all hands on deck” to meet them. This will be exacerbated with the goals of the YESS initiative.

Should we try to address some of these other concerns along with equal pay? So, for example, would we be willing to agree to equal pay if it came with increased requirements for participation in SAC work, or to serve on various committees? These are complex trade-offs, and the Federation will need your input in deciding what to agree to.

  • Currently, full-time faculty tend to complain that there are no uniform expectations for full-timers to participate in non-instructional work across the district. As a result, a few full-timers tend to do LOTS of committee work, and a larger number tend to do very little. This is increasingly felt to be unfair, and an ongoing source of resentment and bitterness. Our contract specifies that committee work (etc.) is to be delegated by the Division Dean. (See article 5.2). If we change any expectations for “part-time” faculty participation, as part of a move to pay parity, the current inconsistent practice for “full-timers” will come under new pressures. What are the benefits and drawbacks of creating more uniform expectations and enforcement for faculty participation in committees, mentorship, governance, etc?

It is heartening that administrators are willing to talk in detail about what pay parity would mean here at PCC. This is an exciting opportunity! We need to engage as many of our bargaining unit members in thinking about what would be best for each of us, our work relationships, and the students we hope to serve. Will you share your thoughts?

You can leave comments on this blog OR email your ideas to shirlee.geiger@pccffap.org OR frank.goulard@pccffap.org.

THANKS for all you do for all our students!

Fall 2017 Membership Meetings

Please join us at the Fall Membership Meetings. All of the meetings are from 12 to 1 PM.

  • 10/17/17 Tuesday Willow Creek #107
  • 10/19/17 Thursday Cascade Student Union 203/204
  • 10/23/17 Monday SE Campus Community Hall
  • 10/24/17 Tuesday Rock Creek TLC Building 7 #116
  • 10/26/17 Thursday Metro Building 2
  • 10/30/17 Monday Sylvania ST 108
  • 11/1/17 Wednesday Downtown Rose Room
  • 11/3/17 Friday CLIMB #306

Agenda

  • Contract Details and Update
  • Faculty/AP and Classified Breakout Sessions
  • Your Questions and Issues
  • Hot Lunch at each meeting

Click the link below for the brochure.

Member Fall 2017 Meetings

Final Note on Bargaining

President's MessageDear Colleagues:

I wanted to send a quick note to let everyone know that the PCC Board of Directors ratified the Tentative Agreement of our wages and benefits reopener at their September 21 meeting. (For a summary of changes for Fall 2017 to Summer 2019, click here.) While we didn’t get everything we were hoping for, we are confident that we can build on some of the wins in this agreement to continue our push for better pay and working conditions across employee classes. It’s time to start planning for 2019!

I’d like to thank the 100+ people who attended the bargaining sessions. It was somewhat of a new process for the federation, and one that paid off enormously as the administration could see that we were organized, unified, and ready to stand up and fight for a fair and reasonable settlement.

Lastly, keep an eye out for upcoming campus and center meetings. We’ll be meeting at the four campuses, along with Willow Creek, Metro, Downtown Center, and CLIMB, between October 17 and November 3. I hope to see many of you there and to hear from you about the issues most important to you.

Wishing everyone a happy and productive fall term.

In solidarity,

Frank Goulard, PCCFFAP President
frank.goulard@pccffap.org

A Tentative Agreement — with Real Gains

President's MessageColleagues,

After more than five months of negotiating, the PCC Federation of Faculty and Academic Professional​s (PCCFFAP) and PCC Federation of Classified Employees (PCCFCE) joint bargaining team reached a tentative agreement with the PCC Administration team at 8pm on Friday, September 15th.  This agreement is for the two-year reopener for wages and benefits from summer 2017 to summer 2019 for our collective bargaining agreement (CBA).

The budgetary challenges were great. The state is funding community colleges at a meager 1.8% annual increase for the upcoming two years​ while PERS employer rates are increasing at double-digit amounts for the upcoming several biennia.

We didn’t get everything we wanted. Yet, with your support–we had over fifty members of the two unions observe negotiating sessions over the summer–and the hard work of our negotiating team, we made important gains towards equity of pay for employees–and towards greater stability for many of our most vulnerable members.  And some of the provisions I detail below truly are stepping stones to accomplish more in the next negotiations in 2019.

The short story: we fought and won

  • a COLA for all employees each year;
  • new top steps for APs and PT Faculty;
  • greater support for PT Faculty participation in the essential work of running the college;
  • increased funding towards health insurance caps.

Again, it’s not everything we want–or everything we deserve. But given the conditions, we believe it’s a fair settlement.

Below, I’ve broken down each of the major changes. For now, I offer a huge thanks to our negotiating team. When you see them or if you wish to email them, please do extend your thanks for their dedicated and passionate work! The FFAP team included Allison Gross, Peter Seaman, Shirlee Geiger, and Frank Goulard. The FCE team included Jeff Grider, Cherie Maas Anderson, and Elisabeth Garcia Davidson. We also thank federation support staff Michael Cannarella, who will be retiring soon. On the administration team were Lisa Bledsoe, Cheryl Belt, Jim Langstraat, Eric Blumenthal, Jessica Howard, and Kurt Simonds.

And again, thank you to our more than fifty members who, for the first time, actively played a part in each session to make this new contract. Their support was truly transformational for our union.

The Changes

COLA (Cost Of Living Adjustment):

These adjustments are in addition to the regular step increases for all members who are on steps.

For FT Faculty, AP, and Classified:

  • 1.25% first year (2017-18)
  • 2% second year (2018-19)

For PT Faculty:

  • 2% first year
  • 2% second year

NOTE: With all of the above groups of our employees, along with all administration employees, there is a 1% rollback each year (2017-18, 2018-19) in our salary schedules, for a total of 2% rollback over the next two years.

Why? In PCC’s 2013 negotiations, in addition to our COLAs and steps, we had agreed to accept an additional 1% COLA to our salary schedules for each of the following four years (2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17) due to the Oregon Legislature passing into law PERS retiree cuts. Those retiree cuts increased available state dollars to community colleges. We also agreed at the time, that if this legislation was overturned by legal challenges, that we would take a reduction of 1% for the next full biennium. Soon thereafter, the Oregon Supreme Court did rule to overturn the legislation, thereby restoring retiree benefits. Therefore that triggered the aforementioned 1%/year rollback to our salary schedules, slated for the 2017-2019 biennium. So we are now rolling back that additional 1% that we had gained in 2013.

New Top Steps

For APs and Classified, a new top step (in addition to deleting Step 1). The new top step will be phased in over two years for APs in October 2017 (a half-step 1.75% increase) and October 2018 (the remaining half-step increase of another 1.75%)

For Classified in July 2017 (retroactive, a half-step 1.5% increase) and July 2018 (the remaining half-step increase of another 1.5%).​

For PT faculty, two new top steps. This moves their existing 9-step salary schedule closer to the 17-step FT faculty salary schedule. This is one of the most monumental changes in our contract. Along with these two new steps is an agreement for a joint faculty and administration task force to begin work in Fall 2017 to thoroughly analyze PT faculty work and compensation with an eye towards equity with FT faculty. This will be done in advance of the next contract negotiations, which will start January 2019.

For now, a new step 10 will be in effect in October 2017. Those PT faculty who have taught 3200-3599 hours will be placed on step 10. Then in October 2018, those who have taught at least 3600 hours will be placed at step 11. These steps, like the FT faculty steps, are 3.5% apart.​

Faculty Department Chairs in CTE and Counseling programs will receive additional points in their calculation to determine release and stipend. This should result in most chairs receiving additional release to meet the growing  demands of their programs and students.

PT faculty pay for essential college meetings, including SAC inservice day and other SAC meetings​, will double. They had been paid stipends of $25 for up to two hours, $50 for over 2 hours and up to 4 hours, and $100 for over 4 hours and up to 8 hours. This was roughly $12.50/hr, not even including the preparation or travel time for these meetings–and would soon fall short of Portland minimum wage.

We made the case for our professional PT faculty to be paid at a more professional wage. Now the stipends will be:

  • $50 for up to 2 hours
  • $75 for up to 3 hours
  • $100 for up to 4 hours
  • $150 for up to 6 hours
  • $200 for up to 8 hours
As before, a PT faculty member must make sure with their dean, chair, TLC director, or SAC chair that a particular meeting is pre-approved for this pay.

The college cap contribution towards the health insurance premium for FT employees will increase about 3.5% each year, depending on the choice of self only, self plus spouse/partner, self plus child(ren), or family coverage. That is closely in line with the rise in PCC’s Kaiser and Moda group plan costs.

The college cap contribution towards the health insurance premium for PT faculty remains at 65% of the FT self-only cap. It will likely increase from $474.50/mo to almost $490/mo​. But we were able to garner some extra financial assistance for PT faculty who select self plus spouse/partner (or children), or self plus family. For those two group selections, instead of a $490/mo cap, it will be about a $640 cap and $790 cap, respectively.

There will be an increase to the PCCFFAP Health Insurance Trust from $36,000/yr to $40,000/yr. This is the fund that helps PT faculty who do not qualify for PCC health insurance and pay their own full premiums on the marketplace. This pays out about $100/mo to those eligible PT faculty who apply.

Classified will now have a markedly better PCC early retirement program. The eligible ages will now match the FT faculty and AP ages of 58 to 65. Classified will have a choice between a stipend or support on health insurance premiums, for 4 years or until age 65, whichever comes first. This was a big step for Classified to finally begin to have a similar early retirement program as FT faculty and AP.

Next Steps

Because this is a wage re-opener and not the full contract negotiation, there is no vote by membership necessary. The PCC Board takes the next step of a ratification vote on the reopener this Thursday Sept 21, 7:30pm, at their monthly meeting at Rock Creek. After that approval, the reopener provisions will take effect October 1, 2017, with the CBA’s end date of June 30, 2019 for Classified and August 31, 2019 for Faculty and APs.

As many of you have heard me say before, you start negotiating your next contract the minute your last one is signed. Please, let me–and all of our Executive Council members–know what you think about this settlement. We are already gathering ideas for the next negotiation.

Take care,

Frank

Frank Goulard
President, PCC Federation of Faculty and Academic Professionals​

Can you help by attending a bargaining session on Monday 9/11 or Wednesday 9/13?

Colleagues,

Our negotiations with the administration team since Spring have been based on two principles:

  • Portland Community College employees should be able to afford to live in Portland and the Portland Metro area.
  • PCC should compensate employees with equal pay for equal work.

Neither of these principles is complicated or hard to understand. But neither can be achieved in just one bargaining cycle. We will need to come back over and over, to insist on these basic values.

We have two negotiations sessions scheduled next week: Monday, September 11 (9am-2pm) and Wednesday, September 13 (9am-12pm). We continue to need to make some progress on these priorities. The most important thing you can do is attend one, or both, of next week’s sessions and help us move towards an agreement. Your attendance shows the administration that these basic values matter, and that PCC employees care about one another. If so, sign up to attend the next meetings at the CLIMB Center.

In this cycle, we asked for a 4% cost of living increase — modest compared to what is needed in the Portland area according to this research.  The administration team has so far refused to offer any cost of living increase, instead talking about a 1% one-time lump sum payment. Obviously, the size of the offered payment is a problem, but the deeper issue is that a one-time payment does nothing to meet the basic principle. Workers should be able to afford to live where they work. The cost of living in Portland is on a steep increase with no sign of leveling off anytime soon, driven by rising housing costs!

After surveying you to gather our FCE and FFAP members’ concerns, we focused on two inequities in this cycle — underpayment to “part-time” faculty and disparities in the retirement programs for classified staff as compared to full-time faculty and academic professionals. (To see how steep the pay inequities are for instructors, go here.). While the administration team has so far been willing to talk about these issues, our members need more than talk. We need at least some movement to ameliorate these longstanding inequities.

Your negotiations team appreciates how many of you have already attended sessions and engaged in this process. We need your continued engagement in this process and hope you sign up to attend bargaining sessions next week.

In solidarity,

Shirlee Geiger, Bargaining Team Member

Bargaining Update: New Proposal and New Meeting Dates

Dear Colleagues:

Your FFAP and FCE Joint Bargaining Team (JBT) met with the administration team on August 22nd and 24th at the CLIMB Center. The Federations made an alternative proposal and the admin team has agreed to cost it out. The JBT is now hopeful that a framework for the contract can be agreed upon soon, even though we are still significantly apart in dollars.

The admin team also made some more funds available for the contract because of proposed FSLA regulations not being implemented at the Federal level.

Finally, new meeting dates were set:

  • Monday, September 11 9am-2pm
  • Wednesday, September 13 9am-pm

Interested observers are encouraged to sign up to attend the next meetings at the CLIMB Center. Observers get to provide immediate feedback to the JBT during caucuses and after the meeting. Your attendance is not only valuable as a show of solidarity, but it also helps to spread the word to your colleagues about the negotiations.

Here are some things you can do right now:

  1. Sign up to attend the next bargaining session right now! (The deadline to sign up for the  September 11 meeting is Wednesday, September 6)
  2. Please Button up!
  3. Attend upcoming PCC Board Meetings
  4. Wear a Transparency T-shirt, available at the Federation office.
  5. Spread the word to your colleagues!

Yours in solidarity,

Will Mahoney-Watson
Acting FFAP VP of Communications, on behalf of your Joint Bargaining Team
(Frank Goulard, Allison Gross, Peter Seaman, Michael Cannarella, Shirlee Geiger, Jeff Grider, Cherie Maas-Anderson, Elisabeth Garcia Davidson)

Bargaining Update: Late Cancellation Last Week

Dear Colleagues:

Your FFAP and FCE Joint Bargaining Team (JBT) was scheduled to meet with the administration team on Friday, Aug 11th at the CLIMB Center. At 5:38pm on the 10th, we received an email from admin. They apologized for the late notice and said they had to cancel the meeting because simply put, they weren’t ready. They said they had been working on various costing options and needed more time to put together a proposal.

The JBT had to spring into action to notify all participants and observers that the meeting had been cancelled. Unfortunately, not everyone received the notifications and some observers showed up to the CLIMB Center Friday morning.

While this late cancellation caused us some undue inconvenience, we are hopeful that this is a positive sign. Admin has yet to present an official proposal, so it would be a constructive step to receive one at the next meeting, scheduled for 9am on Tuesday, Aug. 22nd.

That’s the day after the eclipse and traffic is expected to be fierce. Interested observers should plan on arriving much earlier than the normal 8:45 meeting time in case of traffic delays. The Federations will provide some breakfast munchies for the early arrivers.

Interested observers are encouraged to sign up and attend the next meetings on Tuesday, Aug. 22nd and Thursday, Aug. 24th at 9am at the CLIMB Center. Observers get to provide immediate feedback to the JBT during caucuses and after the meeting. Your attendance is not only valuable as a show of solidarity, but also helps spread the word to your colleagues about negotiations.

Many of you have expressed frustration about the slow progress in bargaining this summer. While we are working hard and hoping for the best, we are also starting to plan for the possibility that the academic year will begin without a settlement. If this happens, we’ll be asking you to get more involved to help us move forward. We continue to believe that there are resources in the budget for a fair and reasonable contract.

Here are some things you can do right now:

  1. Sign up to attend the next bargaining session right now! (The deadline to sign up for the Aug. 22nd meeting is Thursday, Aug. 17)
  2. Please Button up!
  3. Attend upcoming PCC Board Meetings
  4. Wear a Transparency T-shirt, available at the Federation office.
  5. Spread the word to your colleagues!

Yours in solidarity,

Will Mahoney-Watson
Acting FFAP VP of Communications, on behalf of your Joint Bargaining Team
(Frank Goulard, Allison Gross, Peter Seaman, Michael Cannarella, Shirlee Geiger, Jeff Grider, Cherie Maas-Anderson, Elisabeth Garcia Davidson)