Full‐time Faculty Association Negotiations Update On Jan. 11, representatives from the College and the Full‐time Faculty Association met with a mediator as a part of the process to settle contract negotiations. From the College's perspective, these discussions are centered around establishing compensation and benefits that are closer to the average of comparator colleges. (Currently, the Full‐time Faculty Association receives pay and benefits that are far above what their peers at comparator colleges receive.) In the first offer of the mediation, the College sweetened its Oct. 20, 2010 package, moving toward the Faculty Association in several areas, including the following: •
The College offered to increase the daily salary rate of full‐time faculty by 3.33 percent. This would be accomplished by reducing the number of contract days from 180 to 174. Over three years, this has an economic value of about $1.2 million. This is in addition to the College’s Oct. 20 proposal that offered COLA (Cost of Living Adjustment) increases of between .26 percent and 2.95 percent for steps 2 through 12 (the College offered to eliminate steps 13 and 14). The College improved its medical proposal for future retirees to match the proposal tentatively agreed to by the Classified Employee Association, increasing the monthly subsidy from $350 per month to $525 per month, plus a 5 percent annual increase in the subsidy, worth $91,004. The College offered to increase its Extra teach and Summer Teach pay proposals by $108,800 (7.6 percent) and ($301,703) 14.7 percent, respectively.
In total, the College sweetened its proposals by over $1,700,000. In response, the Association moved toward us with a one‐year COLA freeze and a slight increase in insurance contributions for a total of $864,130. While the Association's movement represented progress, the Association is unwilling to consider any movement toward the College’s position that would bring their compensation more in line with other colleges with respect to Extra Teach, Summer Teach and future retiree medical benefits. Disappointing also was the Association’s unwillingness to allow the College to utilize part‐time instructors more, even if it did not result in any fewer full‐time faculty. In other updates from the session, • •
There appeared to be agreement on some of the non‐economic issues with regard to grievance and contract maintenance. The College proposed a solution to the pending unfair labor practice charge and step increase timing issue in exchange for language that would protect both parties from intentional delay by the other. • The language in the College’s proposal matches the language tentatively agreed to by the Classified Employee Association. However, the Association not only rejected the College’s overture, it then introduced completely new proposals that are counter‐productive toward any possible agreement.
We hope to make more progress at the next scheduled mediated session, Jan. 26.