This update covers bargaining sessions held on June 14 & June 28, 2019
- Articles 3.64 and 3.13 (followup) Admin and FFAP agreed on changes to Article 3.64 to specify that non-bargaining unit members (i.e. casuals, classified employees) are eligible to apply for temporary AP/Faculty positions (this is current practice). FFAP proposed similar changes to Article 3.13, so that non-bargaining unit members would be eligible to apply for permanent internal job postings. Admin is resistant to this change because it would allow non-bargaining unit employees (e.g. casuals) to bypass the formal screening committee when applying for permanent positions. We settled on adding some language to 3.13 that would require managers to consult with faculty and APs in the affected department but would ultimately leave it to the manager’s discretion whether to limit internal applicants to current bargaining unit members. We hope for a T.A. to that effect during the next session.
- Article 25 Grievance Procedure FFAP is proposing contract language clarifying that members are entitled to bring grievances on issues that are not contract-related. FFAP also seeks to reduce the number of formal steps in the grievance process and clarify that the grievance timeline begins on the day the violation occurred OR the day on which the grievant became aware of the violation.
- Article 15 (followup) Regarding the tuition waiver for dependents of PT employees, Admin is seeking to add contract language reflecting a cap similar to the one affecting FT employees, who are capped at the “maximum number of credits required to obtain a two-year degree”. Admin claims this was an oversight that occurred while drafting the language in 2005 and that they enforce the cap for dependents of PT faculty regardless. FFAP submitted a counter-proposal acceding to the overall credit cap while also raising the per-term cap from 6 to 19 credits for dependents of part-time employees.
- Article 18.22 (followup) FFAP and management agreed that former employees who subsequently become PT instructors will be placed on a pay step based on accumulated hours in accordance with Article 18.23. Part time faculty who are rehired after a period of separation will be placed at the step they were on at the time of separation. (T.A. signed on June 28, 2019.)*
- Article 1.07 Regarding the definition of “business days,” both sides agreed that contract language does not need to be changed but FFAP would like the notes to reflect that where the contract references business-day timelines, these may be extended by mutual agreement.
- Article 19.212 Currently managers can request verification of illness or injury after five consecutive days of sick leave. Admin would like to reduce that to three days to be consistent with Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and Oregon Family Leave Act (OFLA). FFAP is concerned this could adversely affect employees with children who may be out sick with minor consecutive ailments (i.e. a cold or stomach bug migrating through a household.) Admin will consider clarifying that the consecutive days of leave should be per instance.
- Article 27 (followup) Admin is amenable to creating a separate article to address campus safety and willing to consider mandatory safety training for all employees. They are consulting with stakeholders and weighing the economic impact.
- Article 6.223 FFAP proposes striking Article 6.223 from the contract and aligning Developmental Education (DE) workload with Comp/Lit (Article 6.222), so that credit/conference hours are consistent and instructors are not disincentivized from teaching DE classes.
- Article 19 (followup) Admin is still trying to determine the economic impact of making the AP leave bank available to APs who are caring for a sick or injured family member. FFAP expressed frustration with the delay as the proposal was first presented on May 17.
- Article 9 (followup) Admin requested that a substitute “may be authorized” for instructor absences, instead of “will be authorized.” FFAP requested language reflecting that substitutes “or other alternative instructional modalities” may be authorized and that the record reflect that the instructor’s judgement would be honored. (T.A. signed on June 3, 2019.)*
- Article 6 FFAP is interested in addressing FT faculty workload imbalances – the fact that many FT faculty are overloaded with non-teaching duties. Both sides are interested in finding a way to assess workload and achieve a more equitable distribution of non-teaching duties, as well as increasing PT faculty involvement in non-instructional work.
*T.A. = Tentative Agreement, meaning both sides have agreed but the decision will not be put into effect until each side has voted to approve the final contract in its entirety.
Questions? Feedback? Contact the Bargaining team!
This update covers bargaining sessions held on May 3, May 17, and May 31
- Article 6.6 During a prior bargaining session, FFAP and Admin agreed to create a joint subcommittee to look at Faculty Department Chair training, onboarding, and performance assessment. Subcommittee members have been identified and they will bring recommendations in early July.
- Articles 3.64 and 3.13, Admin requested that contract language be changed to specify that non-bargaining unit members (i.e. casuals, classified employees) be eligible to apply for temporary AP/Faculty positions (this is current practice). At the same time, FFAP proposed changes to Article 3.13 so that non-bargaining unit members would be eligible to apply for temporary and permanent internal job postings. FFAP noted the college’s over-reliance on casual workers, and the fact that many of them should be AP positions.
- Article 6.111 Admin requested to adjust the language so that the FT faculty work year begins with fall term and ends with summer term. FFAP agreed as long as some exceptions could be made. (T.A. signed on May 17*)
- Article 5.6 Counselor Duties – updated to reflect current duties. (T.A. signed on May 17*)
- Article 5.5 Librarian Duties – updated to reflect current duties. (T.A. signed on May 31*)
- Article 19 – FFAP requests that the AP Leave Bank be made available to APs who are caring for a sick or injured family member. This proposal was presented on May 17, with a follow-up on May 31.
- Article 27 – FFAP would like to reexamine the language in Article 27 in light of recent, high-visibility acts of campus violence. FFAP is requesting changes to the Student of Concern reporting and communication process, as well as mandatory, compensated training for all faculty and APs on assessing and addressing the threat of violence in the classroom and on campus. FFAP would also like to remove “Safety” from article 27 (which also covers facilities and parking) and create a standalone article to address safety.
*T.A. = Tentative Agreement, meaning both sides have agreed but the decision will not be put into effect until each side has voted to approve the final contract.
Have you been affected by PCC Administration’s latest layoff notices or program closures? How has your students’ success been impacted? Your Federation urges all members to wear blue this Thursday evening at the PCC Board meeting. You can also sign up to speak at the meeting if you choose.
The uncertainty that has been placed on many of us is a huge distraction from our teaching or academic jobs. Instead of focusing on student issues, we are forced to begin searching for new employment and perhaps new healthcare providers. Many of us have decades of experience and will have to battle rampant age discrimination to find new work. It will require our full and immediate attention to replace the pending loss of income. Our focus will invariably shift away from student success.
Meanwhile the academic paths to student success have been obliterated without a plan in place to replace them. If a bridge needed to be updated, should it be blown up before the replacement plans have even been begun? Administration says they will map the student paths soon but they want to minimize the involvement of the existing experts in the field.
Please join us to tell the PCC Board how Administration’s decisions are affecting your students’ success. Wear blue and stay as long as you can! You can optionally sign up to speak at the end of the meeting. Testimony is limited to two minutes and we encourage you to focus comments on your own perspective and experience.
While the Board cannot change Administration’s policies, key PCC administrators and President Mark Mitsui will also be in attendance. It’s important that they see our support for our fellow members, especially as the difficult financial portion of bargaining negotiations is about to begin.
PCC Board Meeting (agenda)
Thursday, April 18, 6:30pm
PCC Sylvania campus, Room CC 233A & B
I hope to see you there in blue!
PCC CAWT Faculty
PCCFFAP Vice President for Part-Time Faculty at Sylvania
The March 1 bargaining session was the first time management and the federation addressed substantive issues affecting our members. (The first meeting on Feb. 1 covered bargaining ground rules, and the second on Feb. 15 was “housekeeping” or cleaning up non-controversial contract language.) Unless noted, no agreements were reached and the discussion will continue at a later date.
- Article 25.20 – Management sought clarification on the grievance timelines. After some discussion, all parties agreed to come back to the issue at a later date.
- Article 19.82 – Regarding closures for inclement weather, FFAP wants to change the contract language to require APs to make up the work as opposed to the time lost due to closures. As exempt employees, AP work should not be bound to a fixed schedule. Management was open to changing the language and we will return to the issue in a subsequent meeting.
- Article 18.22 – FFAP asks that APs who become PT Faculty be placed on Step 9, which is consistent with existing practice for FT Faculty who transition to PT. Because of the potential economic impact on the college, both parties agreed to table the discussion until economic issues are addressed over the summer.
- Article 18.94 – FFAP asks that PT counselors, librarians, and tutors be paid for their scheduled hours during closures. Management’s concern is that because their work is bound to the worksite, they would then be getting paid for not working. FFAP agreed to follow up with affected employees to see if working off site was a possibility, but regardless feel that these employees should be paid during closures. Will return to the issue when economic issues are discussed.
- Article 5.42 FFAP seeks clearer language around PT faculty, including those who live out of the Portland area and teach online, to determine if attending staff meetings virtually will meet the requirements outlined in Article 5.42. Everyone agrees this is part of a larger discussion around faculty who do not live in the Portland metro area, but FFAP would like to protect employees with this arrangement in the meantime, since the requirement is unclear, not tracked and only sporadically enforced. No agreement was reached but we will return to the issue.
- Article 6.6 FFAP would like to create and/or improve language on Faculty Department Chair training, onboarding, and performance assessment. This issue affects PT faculty since the FDCs control so much around class assignments and scheduling. We talked about creating a separate committee to make recommendations.
Questions? Feedback? Contact the Bargaining team!
Bargaining sessions were held on March 15, and 29. Prior to each bargaining session, management and the federation exchange a list of agenda items. The following update is organized into two categories: 1) Management agenda items, and 2) Federation agenda items. Unless noted, no agreements were reached and the discussion will continue at a later date.
1. Management Agenda Items
- Article 4 – Employment of Part Time (PT) Faculty, specifically regarding multi-year contracts (MYC) and assignment rights (AR). At issue is whether AR-holders have a right to the next available class once the MYC threshold is met.
- Article 5, Professional Duties. Management wants to work with the federation on enforcement of duties and responsibilities of Full time (FT) faculty, such as hours on campus, professional responsibilities.
- Article 6.111 Work Year, management wants to adjust the language so that the work year begins with fall term and ends with summer term. Federation agreed as long as some exceptions could be made.
- Article 6.223 Developmental Education instructor teaching load ranges from .78 to .96, with the balance up to 1.0 being assigned in the campus or center’s tutoring center. Admin wants to make the workload equitable between DE and Comp Lit. The federation will seek feedback from affected members.
- Article 9 Substitutes: Admin would like to stipulate that a substitute “may be authorized” for instructor absences, instead of “will be authorized.” This gives flexibility to use library assignments or D2L in lieu of substitutes. The federation agreed to this.
2. Federation Agenda Items
- Article 19.82 – (followup) Regarding closures for inclement weather, FFAP wants to change the contract language to require Academic Professionals (APs) to make up the work as opposed to the time lost due to closures. Management is open to changing the language and will submit proposed language to the federation in the near future.
- Article 18.22 – (followup) Federation asks that APs who become PT Faculty be placed on Step 9, which is consistent with existing practice for FT Faculty who transition to PT. Management clarified that Step 9 placement is for overload, while a former AP who subsequently becomes FT faculty would be placed based on their number of PCC teaching hours, consistent with other PT faculty placement.
- Article 5.42 (followup) The federation seeks clearer language around PT faculty, including those who live out of the Portland area and teach online, to determine if attending staff meetings virtually will meet the requirements outlined in Article 5.42. Everyone agrees this is part of a larger discussion around faculty who do not live in the Portland metro area, but the federation would like to protect employees with this arrangement in the meantime, since the requirement is unclear, not tracked and only sporadically enforced. The federation suggested using telecommuting agreements, which are year-to-year at the discretion of the Dean or manager, as a compromise. There was tentative agreement as this would protect employees in the short-term. The federation agreed to draft some language. On March 29, admin was amenable to the option of remote participation or other substitute for face-to-face participation, as long as it was up to the manager’s discretion.
- Article 6.6 (followup) The federation would like to create and/or improve language on Faculty Department Chair (FDC) training, onboarding, and performance assessment. This issue affects PT faculty since the FDCs have so much influence overclass assignments and scheduling. We talked about creating a separate committee to make recommendations. Both sides agreed to create a subcommittee with a clear charge and timeline.
- Student Accomodations: The federation seeks clarity on the role of non-instructional staff (counselors, disability services, identity centers, etc.) with regard to student complaints against instructors. The federation recognizes and wants to preserve the rights of students, but formal complaints, even when resolved, can have a disproportionate impact on PT faculty who may not be assigned classes as a result. The federation would like to see a formal process to resolve student concerns that does not involve the Dean as an option for resolving student concerns. The federation will propose contract language.
- There was a general discussion about MYCs and AR. Admin feels that the current system of awarding both is not sustainable. They prefer MYCs. The federation maintains that the current system is not providing PT faculty with enough job security, support, or a career ladder. We urge admin to work with us to build a better, more equitable system.
- On March 29, the federation introduced the idea of a higher maximum PT faculty workload that could take into consideration professional development and college service. This could enable faster step movement and/or priority of class assignments.
Questions? Feedback? Contact the Bargaining team!
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:
- Unequal pay for equal work!
- No clear career paths – no way for a “part-timer” to move up.
- 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 email@example.com OR firstname.lastname@example.org.
THANKS for all you do for all our students!