Skip to content

Negotiations

Negotiations timeline – where have we been, where are we going

5/25/2012: Negotiations began

7/18/2012: District proposes a completely new MOU with a different negotiating team

9/7/2012: District offers a completely new proposal with a new negotiating team – rather than the two VPs, there was Dr. Rocha flanked by two attorneys (general counsel and outside counsel).

11/5/2012: District cuts off negotiations

11/6/2012: Prop 30 Passes – results in additoinal $6.7 Million ongoing funding to PCC

District refuses to negotiate with FA even after repeated attempts by FA to get District to come back to the table (including Thurs., May 30)

late 11/2012: District files Impasse with PERB over all negotiating issues

12/2012: Mediation begins

3/2013: District’s  Last, Best and Final offer  gets handed out by Dr. Rocha at the Academic Senate meeting, two hours after it has been emailed to the FA negotiators

PCCFA Summary of Bargaining Process-Major Sticking Points (March 21, 2013)

PCCFA Counter Offer of March 13, 2013 to PACCD

3/2013: Mediator sends the case to fact-finding. Read about Fact Finding.

5/6/2013: Fact finding begins

  •     District refuses to waive 30-day time limit – no interest in fully vetting issues
  •     District refuses to return to mediation regardless of fact-finding report
  •     (District cannot impose until fact-finding is completed)

5/30/2013: Fact-Finding Hearing- What could have been an open meeting had the District agreed, turned into a trial of transparency: the District mandated that the faculty and staff in the room leave (standing-room only with 35+ attendees), that the Courier reporter leave, and even the FA-hired court reporter leave. Read about it in the Pasadena Star: http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/news/ci_23365789/mediator-holds-hearing-at-pcc-over-union-impasse

6/5/2013: Fact-finding report due

 

FA team waiting for District
FA team waiting (40 minutes) for District – Fact Finding Hearing, May 30, 2013

Fall 2012

Negotiations Update  (Nov. 8, 2012)

Negotiations Update – (Oct. 17, 2012)

PCCFA+District contract proposals (ppt.) – compare both PCCFA and PCC District proposals. The proposal from the District includes overload paid at lowest adjunct rate starting 2014; normal closing numbers (NCNs) set at 45 students for all online classes, zero post-retirement benefits for retirees starting 2020; health benefits for new employees only (no spouses, no children) starting 2013. Read more about what the District’s offer means.

Negotiations Update (Oct. 3, 2012)

Negotiations Update (Sep 28, 2012)

Negotiations Update (Sep 21, 2012)

Negotiations Update (Sep 14, 2012)

PCCFA’s  5  General Philosophical Principles in Negotiations

How has the calendar switch affected you? Please contact the FA immediately with any and all effects that the trimester calendar has had  or will have on you, so the FA can attend to your issue(s) in the current negotiations.

Did you know? PCC falls at number 60 out of 68 California community colleges in a statewide average, with 49% parity (.425 pro rata) for adjunct faculty at initial placement on the salary scale, and at number 46 with 46% parity (.407 pro rata) in the 9th step of salary scales. Source:  Adjunct Pro Rata and Parity – statewide comparison (2012) 

Where are the best and brightest faculty going to teach? Not at PCC!  PCC remains competitive until around the 11th step on the non-doctorate full-time salary scale. At the Step 12, PCC currently ranks 44 out of 71 reporting schools, and at Step 21, we rank as the 54th highest paying school in the state.  See for yourself!

Related Negotiations Documents:

4 Comments

  1. RE: negotiations. For what it’s worth (I’m a full time faculty member not involved with the union), my first reactions to the district offer are: 1. Promises should be kept–if they are to phase out the post-retirement supplement, the phase-out it should not apply to currently employed faculty (or current retirees). 2. Pegging full-time overload course pay to the entry-level adjunct rate is absurd and doesn’t seem like a good-faith proposal. 3. However, a limit on the number of overload courses an individual can teach per year does strike me as a reasonable point of negotiation, even though the district isn’t directly asking for that. 4. Likewise, asking future hires to contribute some kind of co-pay for spouses and dependents does seem like a realistic way to grapple with escalating health-care costs, and a relatively fair one: clearly, a faculty member with a family covered by insurance is getting a substantially greater benefit than a single faculty member.

    I hope that offering these opinions isn’t somehow undermining the negotiations, as 3M seems to fear. I’m curious what others–including the union reps–think, both about the proposal and about the best use of public comments on this web site. Is this sort of feedback useful or counterproductive?

    • Anonymous

      how I see it (another FT faculty member), the district has ALREADY reduced overload by canceling out winter intersession. at some point, either they’ll get rid of one summer, leaving PCC with 2 semesters + 1 intersession, or they’ll keep the long summer. also, there’s already a limit on overload new hires can teach, i believe, in any given year.

      i’d worry about having 1 faculty with different benefits. there will be the haves and the have nots. there will be animosity. the union will need start having dual policies or negotiate separately for them on certain topics, creating more room for not being as comprehensive. also, what top-notch applicants will want to teach at PCC with a silly stipend for their families?

      this really de-professionalizes our profession – a first BIG step toward that- and even though those negative effects won’t affect me per se, i hope PCC faculty aren’t just thinking about themselves and their own working conditions, but the greater good.

      • Thank you for the reply, Anonymous. Our points of agreement far outweigh our differences, far as I can tell. I especially want to endorse you comments about the de-professionalization of the faculty. This may be the biggest single issue in play at PCC, more than anything about salary or benefits. The complete disregard–even contempt–displayed by our current administration for faculty is well along the way to collapsing PCC as a college. I hope the union can find ways to build respect for the faculty’s academic freedom and control over curriculum into the contract. Likewise, faculty should receive some sort of benefit for being active and productive within their field, not only for “professional development” that has to do with fulfillment of bureaucratic mandates. The situation has become absurd: why are PhDs being hired, then instructed to do a job that falls somewhere between office clerk and middle-school teacher?

        As to our differences, I agree that a two-tiered benefits package is a big minus. It’s just that I think some reduction in benefits is in the cards (it’s happening everywhere, including the UC and CSU systems), and I’m looking for the places where it would make the most sense. For me, it comes down to whether breaking the agreement with established employees who have invested years in the belief that these were the terms of their agreement is worse than offering an inferior package to new hires. I think it is, but I certainly don’t like either option.

  2. Anonymous

    Why is it that the PCC president would get an automatic 5.5% raise over 3 years without a campus-wide review, but in negotiations the District is only offering a 3.5% raise to faculty over the same period? In addition to his STRS retirement, he will get $20K but wants to take away retirement benefits?!? As the transparency page shows, he and the VPs are making hefty sums, and the budget docs show the District in very good financial standing, even without Prop 30!

Comments are closed.

Faculty Working Conditions Are Student Learning Conditions.