August 26, 2002 vol. 43 no. 1
From the President…
Welcome back for another year in Peralta. I hope that your summer break was restful, restorative, and pleasant. We have a fresh academic semester ahead of us with all its potential for both problems and successes.
Part Time Parity
I am happy to report that, due to the outstanding work of our PFT negotiating team—Bill Love, Les Margolies, Rick Greenspan, Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla and Susan Schacher—we have almost reached a tentative agreement on the definition of parity for part time and extra service work. This will translate into back pay for part-time Faculty as well as for others who taught extra service in 2001-2002. We expect that this agreement will be finalized soon and the Faculty will be receiving retroactive checks this Fall.
Budget Concerns
At the State level, California is still without a budget . It is clear that this is going to be a very bleak year for California in general and community colleges in particular. Aside from a delay in passing through the cost-of-living adjustment because of concerns that the state will attempt to take back the money after the November elections, the proposed cuts in this year’s budget will present many challenges for staffing and benefits in the immediate future.
Faculty Service Areas
While the PFT does not anticipate layoffs this year, given the state’s budgetary situation, we recommend that during the next few months all regular (contract) and probationary Faculty take the time to review and update their Faculty Service Areas. The last day to apply for recognition of an FSA for use in any academic year is February 15th of that academic year.
Grievances
The PFT has had an unusually busy summer. We all owe a special thank-you to Bill Love and Rick Greenspan, who have spent much of their summer working on behalf of the Faculty. We have filed an unusually high number of grievances because we have been unable to resolve the issues informally. The PFT is particularly concerned over the District’s attempt to discipline Faculty members in ways which we believe are both improper and illegal. Since this could have serious consequences for all of the Faculty, the PFT officers have devoted considerable time and energy in attempting to resolve theses issues while at the same time preparing to pursue them if and when it becomes necessary. The PFT has also been involved in attempting to resolve a dispute between the District and the Counselors over the 11-month contracts (please see Rick Greenspan’s article on page 2).
Health Benefits
The PFT anticipates that the District will be proposing a change in our current health benefits. Throughout the State, and even the Nation, the rapid increases in the costs of health coverage have been brought to the bargaining table. The PFT has been committed to working with the district on ways to reduce the cost of services without reducing our level of benefits, and is active in researching ways in which each of us could help reduce the cost of the prescriptions that are a significant portion of our health care costs (please see page 5).
Peralta Overseas?
I’m certain that you’ve heard that the Peralta Community College District administration has received much negative Bay Area press this summer, especially in the Oakland Tribune and the San Francisco Chronicle. Much of this press criticism centers on District’s decision to offer Peralta instruction in China. The PFT will be keeping an eye on this proposal, but we firmly believe that the District should have brought all the Faculty organizations, especially the Academic Senates, into this and all other Peralta expansion decisions. Anything that involves curriculum involves the Faculty. We will continue to monitor both the geographic and academic expansion of the Peralta community and we will continue to remind the Chancellor that such decisions do not belong to him and the Board of Trustees alone.
Membership and Involvement
In closing, I’d like to remind you of the fundamental truth that a Union’s strength comes from it’s members. Those of you who are fee-payers, please consider joining as a member. You are already paying the equivalent of union dues without the full advantages that come from being a member of the PFT. To those of you that are already members, given the challenges that we are facing this year, we ask you to get involved, let us know your views on the issues facing the Peralta community and join us in making all of our views count with the Administration, The Board, and the Community that we serve.
We not only want to work for you but with you. Let us know how you are doing. We welcome (and rely on) reports "from the field." You can call the PFT office at 510-763-8820, fax us at 510-763-1140, or email us at PFT1603@aol.com.
Welcome back!Kathy Bauer
Counseling Crisis in Peralta – A Chronology
By Rick Greenspan & Kathy Bauer
1. The Side-letter
At the end of negotiations for our current contract (October, 2000), the single sticking point remaining unresolved was the District's desire to have counselors work 175 days over 12 months (as opposed to working only during 2 semesters, with extra pay for working in August and January, before classes begin). As a final compromise, the District backed down from its demand for changes in the counseling work schedule, with this "side letter":
Side Letter between Peralta Community College District and Peralta Federation of Teachers
Re: Article 18 HOURS, WORKLOAD, CLASS SIZE
F. Counselors, including Categorically Funded Counselors, and DSP&S Counselors and Coordinators
The following points of principle confirm the intent of, and modify any conflicting provisions in Article 18.F:
1. Counseling needs in the District are not specific to the academic year, but instead span the entire 12-month calendar year, including Saturdays.
2. The eighteen (18) days of the 11th month contract may be utilized to cover needed counselor services at any time during the 12-month calendar year.
3. When counselors are building their schedules, they will take into account the goal of at least one contract counselor being available whenever possible, when the college is open as necessary to meet student demand.
4. The District retains such rights of assignment as it has under the Agreement and this side letter in assigning contract counselors to assure full and appropriate counseling coverage throughout the 12-month calendar year, including Saturdays.
5. In Fall 2000, a subcommittee of the parties will jointly develop criteria for offering 11-month contracts.
6. Article 18.F is subject to reopener negotiations at the conclusion of the first or second year of this Agreement at the District's option, if the District concludes that the present language, in combination with this side letter, is insufficient to meet District needs.
Because the District never asked to form the subcommittee referenced in point 5 (above), the PFT (and Peralta counselors) believed that all parties were content with the existing agreement.
2. Governor's Budget cuts matriculation funding
With the release of the "May Revise" budget (mid-May, 2002), the District was faced with a 40% cut in "matriculation funds." The PCCD matriculation budget totaled over $1.5 million in '01-'02, and it is used throughout the District for the many mandated phases of matriculation, from student testing, to counseling, to research on student outcomes. Approximately $130,000 of this money was used last year to pay contract counselors to work during August and January, and they were paid (according to Article 18F) at the "11th month" rate. Based on Article 18F, Counselors would work 18 days during this period, and would earn a full additional month's salary. With the proposed cut in matriculation funds, the District decided (unilaterally, and, it turned out, in error) to suspend article 18F. The PFT objected, and, within 2-3 weeks, the District rescinded.
However, the District had a very real problem with funding. At the time, Peralta's projected '02-'03 deficit was nearly $5 million, and since the PFT is committed in our contract to working with the District to find ways to save money during times of financial distress (thus avoiding layoffs), meetings were set up between the PFT and the District to discuss Article 18F and ways to lower the projected deficit in "matriculation funded counseling".
3. A compromise is proposed
Eventually, a compromise was crafted, based on the mutual good will of the counselors and the District to meet the mandates of matriculation and the needs of Peralta's students, while still saving the District money in the matriculation budget. The compromise was written, in a large part, by Bob Bezemek, the PFT attorney, at a marathon 6-hour negotiation session attended by the PFT officers/negotiators, 3 counselor representatives, the PFT attorney, and District negotiators. The compromise involved only "matriculation funded" counselors (not EOPS, DSPS, and other categorical counselors), and committed those counselors at all Peralta's colleges to work together with administration to create a schedule that would meet student needs with each counselor working (on average) only 10 of the "11th month" days, rather than the 18 that many had worked in the past. The PFT attorney, Robert Bezemek, recommended accepting this compromise, predicting that the District would then exercise its right to immediately reopen Article 18F; if this happened, the counseling faculty would be at a disadvantage when the negotiations for the 2003-06 Contract begin next year.
4. Compromise is rejected
Much of this process went on after the end of Spring semester finals, and it was difficult to keep in contact with all the counselors affected by this compromise. Nonetheless, the PFT Executive Council held an emergency meeting in June, which was attended by a number of counselors. Laney and Alameda counselors at that meeting were particularly opposed to the compromise. Laney counselors stated that, of the 10 "matriculation-funded counselors" at Laney, fully 8 of them would simply refuse to work under any compromise of any sort. Clearly, this was not the mutual good will envisioned by the compromise proposal. Primarily at the urging of these Laney and Alameda counselors, the Executive Council rejected the compromise.
5. Article 18F reopens
In reaction to the PFT's rejection of the compromise, the District has begun the process to reopen Article 18F, as stipulated in the "side letter" and predicted by Bob Bezemek. Article 18F covers the working year for all counselors in the District, including EOPS, DSPS, Coordinators, etc., as well as "matriculation" counselors. The District has proposed the following revision to Article 18F:
"The counselor work year shall consist of 175 days between July 1 and June 30, scheduled by the District administrator at each site based on the District’s assessment of counseling needs. The administrator will make reasonable efforts to work with counselors before implementing the schedule. The District in its discretion may assign additional days beyond 175, to be paid at the per diem rate." Once an article of the contract is reopened, there is a specific process which must be followed, according to the California Education Code.
First, the parties attempt to negotiate and come to mutual agreement. These negotiations began in late July. Each college was asked to choose a representative to attend the negotiation sessions, and additional reps from DSPS and EOPS were also asked to attend. Next, if the parties cannot come to a mutual agreement through negotiations, a professional mediator is called into the process. The parties usually do not even meet face-to-face; instead, the mediator shuttles back and forth, attempting to craft a compromise agreement. Finally, if the mediation fails, the issue goes to a "fact-finding" panel. This panel has one representative chosen by the District, one representative chosen by the PFT, and one representative mutually agreed upon. This panel looks at all the evidence presented to it and makes a recommendation to the PFT and the Peralta Board. While either side may reject the fact-finding recommendation, it is usually accepted. If the fact-finding recommendation is rejected by either party, the only option available to the Union is a strike by the entire bargaining unit.
While this issue could be resolved at any point along the way, the entire process, from negotiations to fact-finding, typically takes six to nine months.
6. Violation of Article 18F
Meanwhile, the District did not follow Article 18F during the 2002-03 academic year: instead of offering the assignment to the full-time faculty at the full contract rate, they hired part-time counselors to work during the pre-Fall semester period—whereas Article 18F states that those days must be staffed by contract counselors working at the 11th month rate. A violation of an existing article is a separate issue from reopening an article in the contract; resolving this violation follows a separate path, from filing a grievance to binding arbitration.
The PFT has filed a grievance against the District for violating Article 18F and not offering contract counselors the "11th month" work stipulated in the article. If a settlement is not reached during the internal resolution process, a decision will have to be made on whether to take the grievance to the mediation and/or arbitration.
While the mediation/fact-finding process (for Article 18F) is intended to reach a compromise between two parties, the grievance/binding arbitration process is essentially a legal process to determine if a contract was violated and to determine a legal remedy. While mediation/fact finding is often done without a lawyer present, an arbitration is a legal process which usually requires a lawyer. As such, it can be very expensive.
The decision of whether or not to pursue a grievance must be carefully considered. The Union must weigh the cost to the Union membership compared to the likely benefit, and also consider the number of people likely to be affected by the outcome. We must consider the chances of prevailing and, more importantly, the risks of not prevailing: if we do not prevail, there could be precedents set which will have negative consequences to all of the community college faculties in the state.
The PFT attorney has estimated that arbitrating this issue may cost the PFT a great deal of money. Due to recent faculty retirements, the PFT Budget for '02-'03 is already "bare bones," and there may not be sufficient funds to pay for an arbitration of this nature without a special assessment of all our members. If a special assessment were required to take this case to binding arbitration, that decision would be made by a vote of the full membership.
As you can see, this is a very complex issue. While the original compromise proposal only affected about half of the 45 counselors/coordinators in the District, reopening Article 18F affects every one of them. And the arbitration litigation of the Article 18F grievance may affect all members of the PFT, since it may require a special assessment from everyone. Throughout the Fall and Spring, it will be necessary for all of us to stay well informed in order to make the best possible decisions.
Preventive Action and Collegiality
By Kathy Bauer
One of my primary goals as your President is to educate the Faculty on their own responsibility for self-protection. In the past I have written on the importance of what I call "preventive maintenance." I have focused on this goal since I first starting helping our faculty resolve problems related to wages, hours and working condition over 12 years ago.
During the last academic year we saw an unprecedented number of disciplinary cases involving Peralta Faculty. Although some of these cases arose from poor communication, misunderstanding, or incorrect handling of groundless complaints against certain Faculty members, all too often the faculty members involved had worsened their own situation by waiting weeks, if not months, to come to the PFT for help. Faculty members have also delayed in bringing salary problems to the union’s attention—and then wondered why their correct pay couldn’t be secured for them immediately.
This is needless suffering. I cannot stress enough that you, the Faculty, need to be more proactive when it comes to protecting your wages and working conditions. It is the Peralta Federation of Teachers’ duty to represent Faculty in this area, but timely success in such representation will be seriously compromised by a Faculty member’s procrastination or state of denial. So, if you are having trouble at Peralta being heard, properly paid, or securing safe working conditions, contact us at the PFT immediately. Don’t procrastinate! An ounce of prevention is worth many pounds of grievance files.
Another problem this last year has been the deluge of intra-faculty disputes that the PFT has been asked to deal with. Remember that the Union cannot represent one Faculty member against another, because we represent all Faculty members. But more importantly, this infighting and backbiting achieves nothing but disunity in the Faculty. There are many, of course, who delight in the spectacle of intra-faculty warfare, but ultimately it is counterproductive to the PFT’s mission to serve and protect the Faculty so that you, in turn, can serve the students and the Peralta community.
It is also extremely wasteful of the PFT’s limited resources of time and money when we are forced to intercede in these situations. If you find yourself affected by peer stress, you cannot expect the union to "make it right"…we must all deal with each other as colleagues; we need to cooperate with, respect, and support one another.
Contract Development coming during Fall Semester
By Rick Greenspan
This academic year is the last of our current three-year contract…and for the first time in over 30 years, the PFT will not be going into contract negotiations dead last in the Bay 10 for contract faculty salary. When you consider California's mammoth budget deficit, we can all agree that it's a good thing that we got the raises we did during the last two contracts. As of this writing, our best guess is that Peralta's contract faculty salaries are about seventh in the Bay 10, and we are certainly in the top three in terms of benefits; our part-timers are second or third in the Bay 10 for hourly pay.
We will be presenting our next contract proposal to the Board of Trustees in November, and we expect to open negotiations in January 2003. In order to develop our proposal, we need your help and participation. We will be having Contract Development Meetings at each campus this Fall, and will also have General Membership Meetings where proposals can be presented.
In addition, feel free to talk to your PFT Executive Council officers, campus co-chairs, and committee chairs regarding any deficiencies in the current Contract or any changes you think would be worth including in our proposal. It is especially important to consider what colleges in the rest of the Bay 10 have in their contracts.
We always try to include all reasonable proposals in our Contract proposal. But remember, just because a suggestion makes it into our Contract proposal, that doesn't mean it will be part of our final (new) Contract. A Contract is the result of negotiation, of give and take; and whenever we ask for something, the District responds by asking, "What are you willing to give up for that?"
We know, for example, that the District is facing a 20% increase in benefit expenses this coming year, an increase of nearly $2 million. They are going to come to the bargaining table with a number of proposals to decrease our benefits coverage and/or lower their benefits costs (i.e., increase our out-of-pocket expenses). The more we resist those demands, the harder it will be to get them to agree to other changes we may propose.
Luckily, we have an experienced Negotiation Team, a dedicated Executive Council, and a committed membership. Many of us have been through this process before, and we are hopeful that this contract negotiation process will be successful.
Blue Cross' Elusive Formulary
By Rick Greenspan
As part of the ongoing process of looking at the cost of health benefits, one of the proposals made by the District's benefit consultants was a "tiered" pharmacy plan. Many plans throughout the country use this type of approach. A two-tier plan penalizes members who (after consulting with their doctor) fail to choose a generic drug. The penalty is a higher co-pay each time the non-generic prescription is filled.
How much would this approach save Peralta on benefits? The consultants projected huge savings as Peralta's Blue Cross participants switched in droves from brand-name drugs to generics to avoid the higher co-pays. When we asked exactly what percentage of Peralta's prescriptions were already generic, we were told that the data was unavailable, and difficult to obtain. Finally, after over six months of prodding and questioning, we got our answer: 36% of Peralta's Blue Cross prescriptions were for generic drugs. How much could we expect that to rise if we started charging higher co-pays for non-generics? Again, almost 9 months after we asked, we've gotten no answer from Peralta's consultants. But, on our own, we found a set of statistics on the internet from a "two-tiered" plan in Michigan. Statewide, Michigan Blue Cross plans which penalize non-generic drug usage average 38% generic prescriptions. In other words, Peralta Blue Cross participants already use generic drugs at nearly the same rate as other plans which penalize non-generic use.
It is our contention that this shows that Peralta Blue Cross members are already being very conscientious about choosing generic drugs, without any penalty whatsoever. Any "tiered" copay would cost those members more money (thus saving Peralta benefits expenses), but it wouldn't significantly shift prescriptions from brand name to generic.
What about a three-tier plan? This is a plan where generics have the lowest co-pay. Common, lower priced brand-name drugs have a medium co-pay. And the highest priced brand-name drugs get the highest co-pay. How do you distinguish between the drugs with the medium co-pay and the high co-pay? The answer is that Blue Cross keeps a special list of medium co-pay drugs, which it calls its "formulary." Every time you and your doctor choose a brand name drug from the formulary list, you save Peralta money. Although your co-pay doesn't change, choosing drugs from the "formulary" keeps benefits costs down for everyone.
Given the cost savings of choosing formulary drugs, you would think that every Peralta Blue Cross member would be sent a list of formulary drugs every year (at the least), and would be inundated with reminders to always choose formulary drugs. Such has not been the case. No one in Peralta even knew of the existence of the Blue Cross Formulary until last January, when the benefits consultants proposed a "Three-Tier" plan. A list of formulary drugs was finally given to PFT Benefits Committee members in May. At a meeting with the Chancellor in June, he was shocked that no one had ever bothered to mention to him the existence of a Formulary list of Blue Cross drugs! The list still hasn't been sent to all members. We would expect that the list would become a permanent part of the medical file of all Blue Cross members, in the office of every doctor you see. In addition, members could bring the list when they consulted a specialist, to be sure that, if all other things were equal, their doctor would choose the drug which would keep Peralta's benefit costs down.
No problem, you might say. In this day and age of the internet, the list should be available on the Blue Cross web site. Well, it is there, but it is difficult to access (the instructions for getting to the formulary on the internet are listed below). Since this information is most useful when you are sitting in your doctor's office making a decision about which drug you need, and chances are that your doctor doesn't teach CIS in his or her spare time, the internet formulary list isn't as helpful as you might think.
How to access the Blue Cross Formulary on the web First, go to the blue cross web site at:
next, click on "visitors"
now, click on "groups of 51 or more"
look on the left side of the page for the subheading of "pharmacy", and click on that
now go to "formulary"
then, click to "open a window for formulary selections"
at that point, you can type in the name of a specific drug, or (better yet) your doctor can enter a therapeutic class or sub-class of drug, to see all the choices--generic, formulary and non-formulary.
(don't try to jot this down, but the actual web address for the Blue Cross formulary is:
http://www.bluecrossca.com/pharmacy/indexPhar.asp?brand=b&role=v&businessUnit=lg&browser=NN)
Hopefully, this article will be the "nudge" that Peralta needs to get the Formulary list out to all Blue Cross participants. Along with an apology for taking so long, in an era where every dollar counts...
Membership Has its Rewards
Robert Lew, Jr., PFT Staff
The Peralta Community College District is what’s known as an "agency shop." This means that all members of the Peralta Faculty pay a fair share to support the bargaining agent, because all members of the Faculty benefit equally from the PFT’s efforts in negotiating and enforcing the Contract, which covers the salary, benefits, working conditions, and employment rights of all Faculty. However, though this support is mandatory, actual membership in the Union itself is optional and discretionary, meaning that you must want to be a member and apply for membership.
Check your pay-stub and see what kind of deduction is being taken out: if the PFT deduction line reads ‘dues,’ you’re a member; if it says ‘fees,’ you have not yet joined.
Consider some of the benefits of membership, such as voting rights (only members get to vote on the policies and governance of the Union), scholarship programs (like the CLF Scholarship and the Raoul Teilhet Scholarship), the CFT credit union, and a huge variety of discount programs from our national affiliate (AFT) that covers such diverse needs as insurance plans, mortgage and real estate services, legal services, travel, flowers, magazines, auto insurance, student loans, professional liability insurance, and so much more!
So what’s stopping you? Look at your pay-stub, determine your membership status—and if you’re not a member, just fill in the form below and mail, fax, or hand-deliver it to the PFT Office.
The Faculty listed below placed membership with the PFT in the 2001-2002 academic year. Join them and help us to build a stronger, more effective Faculty at Peralta, while reaping the benefits of membership. What have you got to lose?
Don Arnold, April Bankhead, Barbara Ann Bell, Cyndi S. Berck, Anita M. Black, Sarah Blum, Audie Bock, Judith Branzburg, Dave Conner, Wendell L. Cooper, Patricia Cortés-Bodero, Alayne Cramer, Marty de Souto, Daniel DeYoung, Fayez El Giheny, Harriett "Sue" Fernstrom, Shirley Fogarino, Danielle M. Font, Arif Gamal, Renée Garcia, Roberto E. Gibraltarik, Marc Gold, Robert N. Hansen, Carol Jameson, Malcolm Kelly, Katherine Kocel, Sherry Kwint-Cattoche, Barbara Lass, Phyllis Lee, Jorge Marquardt, José P. Martín, Juan Martinez, Clara McLean, Tom Moniz, Karyn Panitch, Charles Pearson, Jeniver Persing, Rivka Polatnick, Irina Rivkin, Lisa Rodke, Yevgeniy Russakovskii, Adam Sandel, Alison Sato, Griselle Schmidt-Fonseca, Meryl Siegal, Glenda M. Stalker, Michèle Thorsen, Akemi Uchima-Decena, Jay Van Arsdale, Karolyn van Putten, Jerry W. Varnado, Fan Lee Warren, Sally Weare, Chris Weidenbach, Fayette Wimberly, Kathleen S. Witt, Lorena Wolfman, Nicole Wordlaw, and Andrena Zawinski
