by PTFA President Jennifer Rueda
It’s been a tough 18 months. There is nothing I’d like more than to settle the contract. However, we can’t do that if it means losing our seniority rights. We are not asking for new rights; we are just asking that the rights we have now are not eroded. We are not asking too much. However, according to the college, its needs conflict with these particular rights (article 16 of the contract).
We have listened with respect and an open mind to the colleges issues with article 16. We then added some language that would give the college a little more flexibility when assigning classes. The college continued to inject language that erodes our rights. So… we proposed various ways in which we could have some protection from an errant department chair or dean.
The college has not accepted our creative solutions. We have even met with a professional arbitrator four times. We believe the college is going to declare an “impasse”. If that happens, (and I’m sure it will) each side will present one final proposal. If an agreement is not reached, the college will “impose” its last and best offer. There will be a cooling off period, then we return to bargaining.
We need to come together. This is your contract, and it reflects your needs, wants and values. Your union is very strong. I mean it! It’s got your back and mine. When we decide to come together in a job action (e.g. picketing, addressing the board of education, letters to the editor), we are POWERFUL.
There are, of course, other issues in the contract, in addition to Article 16. These will be addressed in a future bargaining update. Please continue to watch for bargaining updates.
I particularly love the specific addition to their language in ART 16: "informal evaluations" would be one of the criteria used to determine if an instructor would be rehired for the subsequent term.
ReplyDeleteAdmin has refused to add language defining this whimsical term, meaning that it could be anything from gossip overheard as a Dean walked by a cluster of smokers to a different Dean not liking an instructors shoes.
Note that actual teaching is covered in a different article -- so this is NOT connected to an instructor's teaching ability.
Jennifer,
ReplyDeleteCan you specify what needs the college is referring to when you say, "...according to the college, its needs conflict with these particular rights (article 16 of the contract)?" I'd like to hear more specifics like the example that Leslie gave above about language and issues that we are up against.
Thanks,
Margaret Mallatt
This is a hard one to be specific on, since they are not particularly specific: We are up against a team led by someone who wants to assign classes "Holistically"(Lundy Bargaining Meeting Dec 9, 2010) and "If the stars align, in the best of all possible worlds, they (our members) might be offered the class. (Leslie Ormandy’s bargaining meeting notes December 09, 2010)
ReplyDeleteWe differ on "informal evals"(AKA Drive-bys) being used as a deciding factor when re-hiring for subsequent terms. They are married to this. We have tried to talk them out of it, tried to get them to define the term, and offered to throw new-hires under the bus, allowing "informal evals" to be used for members with under three terms of employment by the college (no, I didn't like the idea either, but I'd like to settle the darn contract.
We see our hiring as pretty continuous -- sort of permanent status part-time once we've attained year two. They do not. They see us a fired and rehired each term -- which indeed we really are if we look at the language of term-to-term honestly. There is a vast difference in outlook there though. If I consider myself "fired" at the end of every quarter, would I have the same amount of connection to the college?
Their drive is to "match instructors and classes in a manner that optimizes the educational programs." Again, with no defining HOW this will be determined. By Drive-bys? By the "Stars aligning" just right? How is one WR 121 so different from any other that suddenly, I, as the instructor, no longer can be "matched" to a class in a manner to "optimize the educational program." (And define the educational program...."
Continued in next post, if you want to continue reading.
Continued:
ReplyDeleteART 16B 1: Course Schedules
We differ again. They stress the term-by-term nature of our assignments, and stress that their offer of a class is in NO way an employment contract. It is just "an expression of their assignment plans based on info available at time of the assignment." BUT they retain the right to cancel that "assigned" class for any reason, at any time.
WE are trying to maintain language of current practice (most departments) of making a good-faith effort to assign a replacement class to the cancelee the subsequent term. They do not see why they should do this. We are clearly term-by-term; hence no employment guarantee is appropriate, not even a good-faith effort of trying to make-whole the canceled individual.
They also stress once more in ART 16B5: the perilous nature of our employment. "Part-time faculty are employed on a term-by-term."
Again from Leslie's Bargaining Notes, Dec 9, 2010:
Brett: I am confused. The college is saying that … yes we agree that competence and dedicated experience are to be rewarded – but on the other hand you are saying that “if the stars align” == they will be allowed to have the classes.
Liz: you may be interested in job security. But it is more secure than I am willing to do. The college assigns classes on a term by term basis. There are things which are really important to us in how we make assignments. (Leslie Ormandy’s bargaining meeting notes December 09, 2010)
We also differ from Management on ART 16D: No Teaching Caps. They are not happy with the NO Caps language currently in play because it leads members to cry "foul" if they suddenly get no classes after years of classes (and no bad student evals or formal evals). It has led to several grievances being filed against admin for violating the contract.
So they are amending it "There is no cap on the number of classes that the college may assign to members of the bargaining unit. The college may determine based upon the criteria in Section A (including "needs of the program and informal evals) of this article, the number of courses to assign to any individual."
Elizabeth explained the reasoning this way, "Because the work-load is accumulated work load – it has nothing to do with the individual (Jan 13, 2011Leslie's Bargaining Notes).
She has said that there is no limit to the numbers of courses assigned to the UNIT, but this should not be read that an individual may, indeed, suffer some capping if it better serves the program to have lots of "new blood" (lower-step paid instructors). Our current language could be interpreted as saying, "That this language would be interpreted to say, if I want four, you must have a way.'(Leslie's Notes Jan 13, 11).
In my opinion, this speaks our issues with ART 16 best:
Elizabeth Lundy: "You are in the strange interest of taking work that is supposed to be part-time and trying to build a career out of it. No one should really do that. (Feb 9, 2011 Leslie Notes)
Our other major issue is in ART 2, where there is currently language to allow them to subcontract out our work at will.