September 12, 2003

vol. 44 no. 2

From the President

Welcome back! We trust that your summer was less turbulent than the one experienced by the State, the District, and your PFT.

It took a combination of four months of hard bargaining, vociferous faculty presentations at several board meetings, and weeks of behind the scenes discussions, but your PFT Negotiations Team achieved what the membership desired:

1.      protection of the health care benefits;

2.      a one year’s extension of the terms of the expiring contract.

On June 26, a ‘Letter of Agreement’ was reached between the PFT and the District. See the following article, “A Brief History of Recent Contract Negotiations,” for details. The PFT’s Executive Council, acting under authority granted to it by the PFT Constitution, approved the Letter of Agreement by a vote of 11-0. The entire text of the Letter of Agreement appears on our website, www.PFT1603.org.

The adjoining article discusses the events leading up to your Executive Council’s approval, including an explanation of the extended contract’s modifications. The Negotiations Team will be present at the General Membership meeting, scheduled for Thursday, September 18, from 3-5 p.m., at the Laney Forum. PFT attorney Bob Bezemek will also be present to explain legal issues as they relate to recent and current negotiations.

It is important to note that, absent this extension, an untold number of senior faculty, most of whom have spent nearly half their lives working in Peralta, and facing drastic adjustments to their lifetime health benefits if they stayed for another year, were being forced into an immediate and unplanned retirement. The damage to our educational programs resulting from this stampede out the door was obvious. The agreement, achieved just four days before the end of the Contract and Board of Trustees term, prevented this from happening.

This is not to say, however, that we are not addressing salary concerns for newer contract and part-time Faculty members. The primary focus of the PFT Negotiations Team going forward will be salary issues as they relate to our Faculty members with fewer years of service, in addition to protecting benefits for everyone.

It is also bears mentioning that in our present negotiations with the District we will be addressing a difference in interpretation in regard to step and column advancement for the 03/04 and 04/05 calendar years, particularly the definition of the word "catch-up."

The Membership further needs to know that in agreeing to reduce, for one year only, the FTE allocation for Department Chairs at Laney and Merritt, the PFT never prohibited the colleges from utilizing other resources to compensate department chairs. The PFT intended the reduced FTE to be a floor, not a ceiling. Any talk to the contrary is simply inaccurate.

I hope that this article and the following one on the history of negotiations help to answer questions you might have over the terms of the agreement. Continue to consult our website regularly, www.PFT1603.org, for information critical to your professional life.

The PFT is extremely grateful to Alexis Alexander from Merritt College for creating and maintaining this website.

See you at the September 18 General Membership Meeting at Laney College’s Forum from 3-5 p.m. At that meeting, we will introduce the new members of your Negotiations Team: Celia Correia, English at Laney; Tom Moniz, English at Vista; and Shirley Robinson, Counselor at Alameda. Please remember that, professionally speaking, you and the Union are one.

Yours in Solidarity,

Michael Mills

The Peralta Federation of Teachers
General Membership Meeting

will take place on

Thursday, September 18, 2003

From 3 p.m. to 5 p.m.

In the LANEY FORUM

A Brief History of Recent Contract Negotiations

by Mark Greenside, Rick Greenspan, Bruce Jacobs, Bill Love, and Michael Mills

Now that people have returned from summer breaks and have had a chance to settle in and read the PFT-PCCD Letter of Agreement, the telephones have begun to ring. People are asking questions and expressing concern—and in some cases anger and dismay. This article is an attempt to respond to those concerns, which revolve around two questions: (1) Did the Negotiations Team and the Executive Council have the authority to sign the Letter of Agreement, and (2) Did the PFT give away too much for what we got? To answer these questions, we need to recount some history.

Fall 2002

“…the number one item was Health Benefits: to preserve and maintain our current benefits package. That was the faculty’s number one priority, and it was absolutely clear.”

PFT began the 2002-03 academic year knowing the PFT-PCCD collective bargaining agreement (CBA) was due to expire on June 30^th, 2003. To prepare for new contract negotiations, PFT Officers and Chapter Chairs held well-attended meetings at each college during the Fall 2002 semester to determine faculty interests, concerns, issues, and needs to be addressed in the new Contract. At each college, at every meeting, the number one item was Health Benefits: to preserve and maintain our current benefits package. That was the faculty’s number one priority, and it was absolutely clear.

Also last fall, the District Health and Welfare Benefits Committee, of which the PFT is a member, was informed that when our contract expired on June 30^th, Kaiser would no longer accept one-dollar co-pays. There was going to be an increase to a minimum of five dollars. There was no room to maneuver, as this was a Kaiser-mandated change, and the PFT members acquiesced.

Last, the Governor’s post-election budget report recommended cutting Community College budgets for both last year and this year, with this year’s cut being approximately 10%. Peralta was projecting a reduction of anywhere from $8-$9 million (our numbers) to $13-$15 million (the District’s numbers). That’s where we ended the year.

Spring 2003

Chancellor Temple convened a Budget Advisory Committee to assist the District in responding to these impending budget cuts. Very early in the process, it became clear that the District was focusing on benefits costs and benefits savings. In other words, they were looking to reduce their benefits costs, which of course meant reducing our benefits package. They cited two reasons: 1) a projected double-digit increase in health costs for 2003-04; and 2) an actuarial study that indicated the District had a $150 million unfunded health care liability. It was clear where they were going, and it wasn’t where we wanted to be.

Bill Love and Mark Greenside, as PFT’s only officers at the time, requested a meeting and met with Chancellor Temple and his staff to discuss extending the 2002-03 contract and the current benefits package for one to two more years. In return for the extension, PFT was willing to discuss monetary concessions.

Chancellor Temple turned the matter over to the District’s Chief Negotiator, Jeff Sloan, and five months of “informal” negotiations began. The PFT team expanded to include Michael Mills, Barbara Joans, Rick Greenspan, Alex Pappas, and, as available, Bruce Jacobs, as well as Bill Love (Chief Negotiator) and Mark Greenside.

The issues were clear: we wanted to preserve and maintain our current benefits package for at least another year and we were willing to pay something to do so. The District at various times wanted three things: 1) an agreement to eliminate the Blue Cross PPO plan effective June 30, 2003 (thus forcing all faculty members to go to Kaiser or an as-yet-unnamed HMO on July 1, 2003); 2) an agreement in which faculty paid the difference between Kaiser and the Blue Cross PPO, a difference that amounted to thousands of dollars a year; 3) $1.3 million worth of give-backs, presumably to cover the projected increase in benefits costs for 2003-04.

Items # 1 &2: PFT refused to agree to any changes (except an increase of $5 co-pay) for any Faculty member who was employed as of June 30, 2003. Faculty members who retired on or before June 30^th retired under the “old” contract and therefore retained their one-dollar co-pay. Faculty members hired after June 30^th, 2003 would not be given the Blue Cross PPO option, saving the District $60,000 for 2003-04.

Item # 3: Many sums and sources of funds were discussed as give-backs: the 2% COLA increase (saving $600,000); increasing co-pay to $10 (the District at various points suggested $20 and once, even, $50—the $5 co-pay saves $76,000, $10 would save $152,000); giving up all 8.0 FTE department chairs (saving $228,000), all of Staff Development (saving $120,000), and half of the Tenure

Review Committee stipends (saving $75,000); the District also wanted a permanent pass on one year’s step and column payments (saving $200,000). The grand total on the table: $1,435,000.

“…Had the $600,000 come from the 2% COLA, the Faculty would have lost that 2% every year, forever. So instead we paid $600,000 once, for one year only, to buy a year’s stability and no retroactivity on the benefits”

While these negotiations were going on, the PFT had two Membership Meetings and conducted a survey to determine the Faculty’s wishes. The result of those meetings and the survey was clear: the priority had not changed, the preservation and maintenance of the current benefits package was still number one. Two other things became clear, too: 1) The Faculty was not willing to pay, in perpetuity, through higher co-pays, higher deductibles, reduced coverage, reduced faculty, reduced salaries, etc. to maintain the current Blue Cross PPO package; and 2) the best possible outcome was a short-term, hold-onto-the-status-quo solution so we could have time to study, think, plan, and respond. The faculty authorized the PFT and the Negotiations Team to continue to negotiate for those goals. We did, and we came to an agreement on June 26, 2003, four days before the Contract was due to expire.

What did we get?

Status Quo and stability regarding health benefits. The “old” contract ran from July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2003. The new contract, even if it were not ratified until 2005, would be retroactive to July 1, 2003 unless there was an agreement specifying another date. And that was the problem: if the new contract was ratified in April 2004, for example, and made effective retroactively to July 1, 2003, did the District have the right to retroactively impose a benefits package? There was no clear legal answer to this question. The only thing that would make it clear was a letter of agreement that stated the benefits package would not be changed retroactively. This agreement does that. It protects all Faculty members from the District attempting to retroactively impose a new benefits package. Second, it guarantees that every faculty member who signs a revocable (at any time) letter stating that s/he is going to retire on or before June 30, 2004, and does retire by that date, will retire with the current benefits package whatever changes have been made in a new contract.

In other words, we got a short-term solution that should preserve and maintain our current benefits package for the 2003-04 academic year. Throughout the entire process we worked closely with our attorney, seeking his advice and counsel. All of the language in the letter of agreement was reviewed and approved, and in some cases written, by our attorney before the team agreed to it.

Did we pay too much for it?

First, remember that the District’s goal was to get $1.3 million from us, and that this was negotiated before the new, revised, State budget was passed in July. So what did they get?

¨   A one-time, one-year $200,000 for halting step and column increases for 2003-04 only. Next year, 2004-05, we will regain that step (for example, if you are on Step 10 this year, next year you will be on Step 12).

¨   $76,487 from the increase in co-pay to $5 that had essentially been agreed/acquiesced to by the Health and Welfare Benefits Committee in fall 2002.

¨   $75,000 from reducing Tenure Review Committee stipends for one year;

¨   $75,000 from Staff Development for one year;

¨   $114,000 from Department Chairs for one year;

¨   $60,000 from eliminating Blue Cross PPO option for new hires.

Had the $600,000 give-back come from the 2% COLA, the Faculty would have lost that 2% every year, forever. So instead we paid $600,000 once, for one year only, to buy a year’s stability and no retroactivity on the benefits package. Is this too much to pay? Obviously, each of us has to decide. All we can tell you is the PFT Executive Council and Negotiations Team did its best to serve and represent you.

Did the PFT Exec and Negotiations Team have the authority to sign the Letter of Agreement?

According to our attorney, yes, for two reasons: 1) The letter of agreement is not a new contract, but a contract extension, and as such stands on its own without further ratification; and 2) the PFT Constitution gives the Executive Council the authority to act on behalf of the Membership. The members, at four different Chapter Chair Meetings, at two Membership Meetings, and in response to a survey questionnaire, directed the Negotiations Team and the Executive Council to seek to preserve and maintain the current benefits package. In good faith, that is what we tried to do. We hope we did. If we did not do it to your satisfaction, let us know. We still have to negotiate the new (2004-07) contract, and we need all the help and information we can get.

See you at the Membership Meeting on
September 18th.

Laney Forum

Benefits Committee Update

by Rick Greenspan, PFT Benefits Committee Rep.

According to Article 22 in the PFT Contract, the role of the Health and Welfare Benefits Committee is "limited to making recommendations to the PFT and District" in areas such as health plans, providers, communication with employees, etc. The recent contract extension agreement (from June 26) states that, "the Health Benefits Committee shall review by January 15, 2004, for additional cost-neutral or cost-saving HMO or other health plan options per Article 22.H."

Accordingly, the Benefits Committee is planning to thoroughly review and cost-out alternatives to our existing Blue Cross PPO, and to present those results publicly by mid-January. Unfortunately, the District needs some sort of outside benefits expert to facilitate these presentations and negotiate prices, contracts, and bids. As you might suspect, Peralta does not currently have a contract with such an expert (called a "benefits broker"), so the Committee hasn't been able to begin to review health plans as yet. We are still hopeful of meeting the January 15 deadline, but we haven't yet had any information regarding any alternative health plans.

On the plus side, all bargaining units have been invited to participate in the process of screening and choosing the benefits broker (similar to a hiring committee), and Kathy Bauer will be the PFT rep in this process. Depending on the timeline of that process, it may be necessary to hire an interim consultant to advise the Committee and facilitate the presentations during the next few months.

Finally, the Benefits Committee will be surveying the other districts in the Bay 10 during the upcoming months, in order to put together a comparative spreadsheet on current benefits and benefits costs for all college districts in the Bay Area. This will include a comparison of retiree health benefits, as well as benefits for current employees. We also hope to have this comparative survey completed by January 15.

While the Benefits Committee will be looking at a number of HMO (Health Maintenance Organization) plans as well as other PPO (Preferred Provider Organization) plans and POS (Point of Service) plans, the Executive Council and the Negotiations Team would like your input as well. Last Spring, we sent a health provider survey questionnaire to all contract faculty, asking them to check with their physician(s) to find out if they participate in any HMO plans. If you returned your survey, you have helped us in making the tough choices that are coming. If you haven't returned your survey, please take the time to fill in and return the information; if you didn't get a copy of the survey, call the PFT office.

PFT Office “Blotter”

Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, PFT Professional Staff

In addition to handling the all-important contract negotiations, do you ever wonder what the PFT does for you, the Faculty, on a daily basis? Here’s a recount of situations recently handled and/or being worked on by the PFT Staff.

Four student grievances involving grade complaints were filed against four different faculty members. With PFT representation, two were settled in the Instructor’s favor; two more are pending…

A member’s disability claim was initially and incorrectly denied by the District; the member’s personal and professional items were improperly removed from the work-site while the member was out on disability; and the member’s disability claim and other related paperwork were not included in the member’s copy of the personnel file. The PFT filed a grievance for the member to receive entitled benefits. It was resolved in favor of the member. The PFT worked with the District to have all personnel records released to the member. The PFT is presently waiting for a response from the District to locate the member’s personal and professional belongings…

Two Instructors were underpaid, one for around a dozen years. Both situations, handled by PFT specialists, were resolved in favor of the Instructor…

In a similar vein, one Instructor was not paid for work performed due to an FSA dispute. With persistent PFT follow-through, the Instructor was paid in full…

After charges of sexual harassment were filed against an Instructor, the District made movements to deny the member tenure as “discipline.” PFT investigation and intervention led to the suit being dismissed, and the Instructor was granted tenure…

A longtime Part-time Instructor was denied equivalency for the discipline in which he was teaching, and was blocked from interviewing for a new full-time position. He was then terminated. While hiring issues are handled exclusively by the Academic Senate, the PFT pointed the member in the right direction to work toward resolving concerns, and continues to monitor the situation…

Two Instructors have had inquiries regarding their longevity status unanswered for over 7 months by the PCCD Personnel Office. Both cases are presently being worked by the PFT…

Over the summer, five part-time Faculty members were terminated or threatened with termination for vague or improper cause. The PFT has settled one case in the Instructor’s favor; the others are pending…

One long-term substitute (LTS) position was stalled by the Office of Human Resources after the part-timer was pulled from that position. The PFT intervened, but the position’s term ended before the District acted…

Questions remain about the about the selection of an Instructor for a Fall 2003 LTS position at Laney. The hiring process was changed without proper notification of potential applicants. The PFT is actively investigating the situation…

Problems remain with the improper reassignment of two faculty members to different campuses: One situation was settled successfully, with PFT assistance, for the Faculty member; one reassignment is still pending a full and complete outcome and is being monitored by our office…

There were questions regarding retreat rights for a former administrator, specifically on faculty status. The PFT made inquiries and questions were answered…

The PFT office is talking with Faculty undecided over the timing of their retirement. So far we've heard from five members, and we're still counting…

Part-timers are calling the PFT with concerns about State funding for part-time office hours. We’ve heard from five, but we're still counting…

If you are having any problem like these listed, or a problem not listed here, please do not hesitate to contact your Union! Call your Campus representatives, or the PFT Office, as soon as you are aware of a problem to do with your wages, benefits, working hours, or working conditions. There’s no reason to go it alone…this is what we’re here for!

PFT CAMPUS REPS

College of Alameda:



Laney College:



Merritt College:



Vista College:

Rick Greenspan, x2309
Frissell Walker, x2384

Ron Jones, x3187
Debra Weintraub, x3167

Tom Branca, x2593
Barbara Joans, x2607

Joe Doyle, x2904

Know Your Contract

Joanna Beck, PFT Professional Staff

The PFT/PCCD Agreement (the Contract) is a crucially important document in the working lives of Peralta faculty. The Contract spells out many of the guidelines for faculty hours, salary, and working conditions. The PFT has labored mightily to produce several generations of these three-year contracts and is proud of the economic gains and other protections it has won and defended for the faculty. It is in each individual faculty member’s best interest to be as familiar with the articles of the Contract as possible. However, the truth is that for all too many faculty, the familiarity may come only after he or she encounters a problem with the Administration.

For example, in the PFT Office we have recently dealt with several cases in which faculty were unaware of or misinformed about their personnel files. Since the personnel file is the record of the employee’s working relationship with the Peralta District, it is vital that the record be complete and accurate. Usually a faculty member’s file is just that: complete and accurate. But errors can creep in.

Article 13 of the Contract defines the personnel file, describes what kind of materials can and cannot appropriately be placed in the file, and explains the faculty member’s right of access to the file. Specifically, the article states that:

            Information [of a derogatory nature] shall not be entered or filed unless and until the employee is given notice and an opportunity to review and comment thereon. An employee shall have the right to enter and have attached to any derogatory statement his/her own comments thereon. (13F)

Faculty also has the right to ask the District to remove derogatory material that has been on file longer than three years.

Despite the strong language of Article 13, as with other articles in the Contract, you must be proactive in preserving your rights. Know you have a file. Check it on a regular basis, say once a semester at a minimum, to insure that your file is complete, accurate, and nothing derogatory has been placed there without your knowledge. If you object to any such material that does appear there, even if you have been given notice, it is your right to object and to try to have it removed before the three-year period. Read and familiarize yourself with the full text of Article 13. If you have questions and /or concerns about your personnel file, please contact us at the PFT Office.

Revocable Notice of Intent to Retire

As you can see from the preceding articles on Contract Negotiations, one of the most worrisome aspects of these talks is the fate of health benefits, both for current and future active Faculty, not to mention retirees. In a nutshell, there is a strong possibility that health benefits, especially for Blue Cross, will be more restrictive and more expensive in the future.

On June 26, 2003, the PFT Negotiations Team won a one-year extension of the old (2000-2003) Contract. The terms of this extension are spelled out in a Letter of Agreement between the PFT and the PCCD. The text is on our website (www.PFT1603.org) This extension locked in (“grand-parented”) current medical benefits both for active faculty and those faculty who chose to retire by June 30, 2004. The future nature and cost of medical benefits for Peralta Faculty beyond that date is murky at best.

If you are thinking of retiring in the next few years anyway, consider this. Retiring by June 30^th of next year would at least guarantee you lifetime medical benefits at the current level (plus the recent $5 co-pay). To enable you to hedge your bets, the PFT has arranged the following win-win option for you: you can submit a revocable notice of intent to retire by June 30, 2004 to your college and the District by October 1, 2003. The PFT has a form (see facing page) for you to use if you want to exercise this option. “Revocable” of course means that you could later—any time before June 30, 2004—change your mind.

Many Faculty members have already submitted letters of intent to their College Presidents and/or to the District Administration. If you aren’t sure whether or not your letter covers all the bases, please compare it with the form provided on the facing page, which was prepared by PFT’s legal counsel. So long as your letter was sent to the three Administrators listed below, you should be on track; if you have any doubts, however, please contact the PFT Office as soon as you can.

If you choose to submit the notice, please be aware of the following:

·       The signed form must be submitted three separate places: at the District Personnel Office, to your College President and your Vice President of Instruction, by October 1, 2003. The PFT urges you to hand-deliver these notices and get a file-stamped copy for your records at the time of delivery.

·       Notices not delivered by the October 1, 2003 deadline will not be effective under the terms of the June 26, 2003 Letter of Agreement (see above.)

·       This notice of intent to retire becomes final and binding unless it is revoked on or before June 30, 2004. Therefore, if you change your mind and decide NOT to retire on or before June 30, 2004, you must submit three “revocation” notices to the same offices mentioned above. Again, it is best to hand-deliver these notices and to ask for a file-stamped copy for your records at the time of delivery. These notices will be available from the PFT Office later in the semester.

·       Please make five photocopies of the enclosed form; hand-deliver one each to the District, the College President, and the VP of Instruction. Mail the fourth copy to the PFT Office, 51 Eighth Street, Suite B, Oakland, CA 94607; and as always, keep a copy for your own records.

If you have any questions about these retirement decisions, please contact the PFT Office by phone (510-763-8820) or email (PFT1603@aol.com). And remember, as in all retirement decisions, it is important that you contact the State Teachers Retirement System (STRS) for advice in planning your course of action… you can contact CalSTRS at (800) 228-5453 or visit their new website at www.CalSTRS.com.

Click here for a downloadable version of the Revocable Notice of Intent to Retire Form

Membership Notes

“I am a member already…money is being deducted from my check.” If I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard this sentence—well, I’d have quite a few nickels. It doesn’t surprise me that people don’t know the difference between Dues and Fees; after all, I didn’t know the difference until I started working here. But unless you sent us a form like the one below, you aren’t a Member.

The Peralta Faculty is what’s known as an “Agency Shop.” That means that all members of a bargaining unit benefit equally from the Collective Bargaining Agreement, and therefore equally support the bargaining agent (the Union); however, membership in the Union itself is voluntary. In a “Union Shop,” it would be a condition of employment that you belong to the Union. Here, membership is up to you, and you must apply.

When you get right down to it, there’s not much difference between Fee-payers and Members…the deduction is exactly the same amount of money either way; the Union protects your rights under the Contract and the law whether you’re a member or not; fee-payers benefit the same as members from the efforts of the Union in negotiating salaries, benefits, and working conditions (like the Part Time Parity payments that faculty received recently after laborious negotiations, or the retroactive Growth readjustment that the Union researched and fought for a couple of years ago, money you’re still receiving). Union member or not, you’re part of the bargaining unit and you benefit from our representation.

If you look at it that way, it makes you wonder why you should bother to become a member at all…

Members-Only Benefits!

First of all, fee-paying non-members don’t get to vote in Union elections or at Union Membership Meetings, or run for Union office. That means that policies that affect your professional life are made and enforced, and the Contract that governs your salary and working conditions is negotiated, without any input from you! You might think of Union membership as Voters’ Registration.

Plus, you get material benefits with your PFT Membership, such as Professional Liability Insurance that can cover your legal costs in case of a suit filed against you at work, scholarship programs for yourself and your children, a credit union, and discount programs ranging from term life insurance to travel arrangements to magazine subscriptions. Not to mention strengthening the clout of your bargaining agent!

It costs you nothing, and you get a lot in return. So why not become a member today? All you have to do is fill out the form below and send it back to us.

Return to Archive

Return to Homepage