What the Administration Is Saying — and What It Means
This document is intended for union members to clarify the administration’s framing, understand the economic offer in real terms, and prepare for organizing conversations with colleagues and students.
This is about clarity, not outrage. The facts are strong on their own.
1. Mediation & “Commitment to Avoiding a Strike”
Administration Framing
“We remain committed to reaching agreements without a strike… additional mediation sessions provide meaningful opportunities to reach resolution.”
What Has Actually Happened
- FFAP requested more mediation sessions beyond the single session initially scheduled.
- In recent sessions, administration representatives have:
- Rejected proposals outright
- Declined to materially revise their economic offer
- Maintained the same structural increase position for months
- Zero-cost proposals were largely rejected.
- The union has documented bargaining conduct concerns and is prepared to file an Unfair Labor Practice (ULP).
Scheduling sessions is not the same as bargaining in good faith.
Progress requires movement. There has been none on core economic issues.
The administration’s public language emphasizes process. Our focus must remain on substance.
2. The “$20+ Million Cuts” & Reserve Strategy
Administration Framing
“We are preparing for an additional $20+ million in cuts next biennium and cannot responsibly commit to costs exceeding projected resources.” Described by the president as “ripping the bandaid off and adding salt to the wound.”
What the Numbers Show
- Final state funding reductions are not yet determined.
- The $20 million figure for the next biennium reflects increasing the Ending Fund Balance (EFB) from 9% to 12%.
- The administration has described this as necessary to operate in case of an emergency.
- A formal emergency must be declared by the state — something that did not occur even during COVID.
This is not a current deficit.
It is a choice to increase reserves.
Even in mediation, administration representatives indicated that had they anticipated possible state reductions earlier, they might have offered less than 0.35%.
That statement reveals the structural increase offer is not meaningfully tied to actual funding outcomes. The priority is protecting the reserve increase.
3. The 2009–10 Comparison
Administration Framing
“There are parallels to the 2009–10 bargaining cycle.”
Economic Context Matters
The 2009–10 cycle occurred:
- Immediately following the Great Recession
- In an extremely low-inflation environment (negative in 2009)
- Amid severe public funding contractions
Today:
- We are coming off multiple years of elevated inflation.
- Workers across sectors have experienced real purchasing power loss.
- Enrollment at PCC is reportedly increasing.
A 0% structural increase in a low-inflation period is not analogous to a 0.35% increase following sustained cost-of-living growth.
If members accepted 0.35% now, it would require roughly a 9% COLA next cycle just to maintain purchasing power.
4. Breaking Down the Compensation Framing
The administration bundles:
- Contractually guaranteed step increases
- Structural (COLA) increases
- Healthcare contribution adjustments
- A $500 one-time payment
This creates a larger aggregate number.
Each piece must be examined separately.
A. Step Increases
Facts:
- Steps are guaranteed under the existing contract.
- They occur regardless of this bargaining outcome.
- They are not COLAs.
- They do not protect purchasing power.
Most employees are hired below market rate. Steps move them toward competitive compensation over years of service.
The majority of PCC employees do not go up a step each year because they have either topped out or because they are PT faculty. However, the college still pads its budgeting as if each employee goes up a step each year.
Without adequate COLAs, the entire salary schedule erodes in real value.
Steps move you up the ladder.
COLAs keep the ladder from sinking.
B. Structural (COLA) Offer
Year 1: +0.35%
Year 2: +0.35%–0.50% (depending on state funding)
Even under the best-case scenario, the maximum increase is 0.50%.
C. Real Wage Impact
Using conservative inflation estimates:
Year 1 (0.35% increase)
| Inflation | Real Wage Change |
| 3% | –2.65% |
| 4% | –3.65% |
Year 2 (0.50% best case)
| Inflation | Real Wage Change |
| 3% | –2.50% |
| 4% | –3.50% |
Two-year combined impact (if inflation averages 3–4% annually):
- Total structural increase ≈ 0.70–0.85%
- Total inflation ≈ 6–8%
- Real purchasing power loss ≈ 5–8%
This is a real wage reduction.
Do not allow step increases to be presented as new compensation. They are already guaranteed and do not offset inflation.
D. The $500 Ratification Bonus
Facts:
- It is one-time.
- It does not increase base salary.
- It does not compound.
This does not address structural wage erosion.
E. Healthcare Contribution Changes
The college proposes increasing monthly contributions toward health insurance premiums and expanding HSA options.
Important considerations:
- Health insurance premiums have risen sharply.
- Many employees will still see increased out-of-pocket costs.
- HSA-eligible plans typically involve higher deductibles.
- HSAs shift financial risk toward employees.
Contribution increases do not necessarily equal reduced employee burden.
5. Scope of Bargaining
The mid-term reopener is limited to:
- Wages
- Benefits
This is per Article 33.4 of our contract and is purposefully broadly written. Wages and benefits include more than simply COLAs and health insurance premiums.
Scope limitations are not neutral — they constrain possible solutions.
6. Management Salary Reduction Comparison
Management and confidential employees are currently under a 1.58% salary reduction (four furlough days) which will continue through 2026/2027.
But their base salaries will not be reduced when the next raise for management and confidential employees occurs in 2027. Meaning this is not a permanent reduction.
Important context:
- Management employees do not receive steps because they are hired at or near market rate.
- Steps function as retention and market-alignment tools for union members.
Comparing furloughs to structural COLAs is not an apples-to-apples comparison.
7. What This Means Organizing-Wise
This bargaining round is fundamentally about:
- Whether base salaries will keep pace with cost of living
- Whether reserves are prioritized over instructional labor and student success
- Whether minimal structural increases become the new baseline
The administration’s communication strategy emphasizes:
- Misleading and inaccurate compensation bundling
- Reserve protection framed as inevitability
- Historical comparison without inflation context
Our conversations must emphasize:
- Real wage math
- Structural vs. step clarity
- Reserve choice vs. insolvency narrative