February 2003

(Back)

Approximately eighty classified staff members attended our first ever SEIU sponsored PDA Workshop on the main Santa Rosa campus February 12th to participate in a lively and highly informative discussion regarding the potential impact of the current budget crisis on our classified work force.
SEIU President, Wende Wahl, set the tone for the session by explaining that even though the SRJC administration is actively looking for ways to cut operating costs, "nothing has hit the negotiating table yet, in the form of a proposal". She anticipates that we can "probably expect to receive one (a proposal) in the next few weeks" and that we will present our position once we know the facts.
Wende further stated that our SEIU Negotiating Team and our Classified Executive Council (CEC) are working hard to prepare our position and "want to hear from SEIU members before we go to the negotiating table". She encouraged workshop participants to start the process that day by asking questions and offering ideas and observations on how we should deal with the budget crisis.
Our SEIU Local 707 Field Representative, Michael Allen, provided an overview of the estimated $24 to $32 Billion shortfall in the state budget and its impact on community colleges. He went on to discuss possible changes at SRJC but pointed out "It is important that we all go through this process together...your attitude and what you say to management and to your co-workers affects what happens at the bargaining table".
Shirley Davis, a member of our Negotiating Team, briefly explained the process of negotiations and the potential impact of the budget cuts on negotiations. She also reported that Ron Root had briefed both negotiating teams last week on the budget situation and discussed the possibility of "value reductions" regarding COLAs and salaries. Shirley added that even though the budget situation is severe, it is being looked upon as temporary and will be reviewed later when conditions change.
Workshop attendees asked a wide range of questions and offered thoughtful ideas on how to deal with the expected budget cuts. Wende, Michael, Shirley and Past SEIU President and current Negotiator, John Mercer, answered all questions as thoroughly as possible but stressed that we are in a fluid situation and should avoid dealing in speculation until we have all of the facts to deal with in the negotiating process.
Copies of the seventy-minute videotape of the SEIU Budget Crisis Discussion will soon be available for checkout in the libraries at both Santa Rosa and Petaluma. All classified employees are encouraged to view the tape to gain a better understanding of the issues.

In late November the Classified Executive Council sent a memo to the District that identified the groups we proposed for classification review. These were as follows:

1. Administrative Assistant Series

2. Bookstore Family

3. Custodial Technicians

In addition to these groups, we proposed a number of individuals whose classifications we considered to belong to a category of "cleanup," as a result of unintended oversights or problems in the original study.
The proposal resulted from reviewing applications, determining the basis for review, grouping applications into categories, poring over the contract language, and considering the recommendations of the Classification Study Committee.
In early January, the Classified Executive Council received a memo from Karen Furukawa detailing the District's response to our proposal. The text of the response is as follows:

"The District accepts your request to review the total of three families or classifications as submitted. These include the Administrative Assistant series (AAI, AAII, AAIII), the Bookstore series (Bookstore Assistant, Bookstore Clerk I, Bookstore Clerk II and the Bookstore Specialist) and the Custodial Technician classification.
However, we do not agree with your request to have individuals reviewed for "clean up" purposes. As I interpret Article 19, I see no basis for these specific reviews. I will be happy to discuss this point during negotiations, as I believe this is a negotiable item and was brought forward as a re-opener by SEIU.
The District will also want to discuss during negotiations an extension of the timelines listed in Article 19."

Here is the second edition of frequently asked questions concerning the budget crisis.

Question 1) How much will it cost me if I have to pay the difference between what HPR cost the District and what is now paid for my medical coverage?
Answer 1) Before I present the current health care rates to you, I need to preface the answer with two things: 1) There has been no official proposal received in negotiations as yet that corresponds to Dr. Agrella's Budget Message #3; and 2) Any change in the payee setup of health care coverage is subject to the collective bargaining process. Below are the monthly and annual health care rates currently being paid by the District. Single is one person insured. Double is two people insured. Family is three or more insured.

Kaiser
Single   $225.57   $2,707.00
Double   $451.14   $5,414.00
Family   $638.36   $7,660.00

HealthNet
Single   $236.45   $2,837.00
Double   $508.36   $6,100.00
Family   $697.52   $8,370.00

As a steward, I have been concerned that there is no mechanism for handling a situation in which two employees, of any level of employment, have a dispute. Our contract addresses classified employees' behavior but not other employees' behavior toward us.
I met with Dr. Agrella in the fall to begin working on language to form a policy whereby the College embraces the concept that civility will be a workplace condition. Apparently, Academic Senate is proposing a similar policy, and College Council wants to make certain that it is not dealing with conflicting or redundant policies. I have not seen the Academic Senate language and expect to see a copy of it soon. The policy, as we envision it, would address disputes as follows:

1) Between two or more classified employees. SEIU cannot represent one member of its unit against another. They may or may not have the same supervisor, who may or may not be willing to take on inter-personal-relations issues.
2) Between faculty and classified. If faculty is not the supervisor, there is no opportunity for the faculty member to gain redress, and the classified member has no power or authority to change faculty behavior.
3) Between or among management employees or between management and classified employees who are not in supervisor/subordinate relationships.
4) Academic Senate has a procedure for handling faculty concerns about the behavior of other faculty. Whether the Senate-proposed language builds on that or seeks to expand it remains to be seen.
5) Members of College committees often have concerns about the manner in which they are treated or spoken to. Many committees have all levels of employees serving on them, from component administrators to student representatives. Short of resigning from the committee, members have not had any recourse in the absence of a strong committee chair.
Following for your review and feedback is the language that Dr. Agrella and I (after review by the College's legal counsel) are proposing:

The Sonoma County Junior College District is committed to ensuring a work environment in which all employees conduct themselves in a civil manner and in which constructive methods of conflict management are utilized.
To that end, the District shall develop procedures that address situations in which an employee has a concern about the conduct of another employee. The complaint procedures shall not apply to situations covered by collective bargaining agreements, grievance procedures, claims of unlawful discrimination, or matters involving violence in the workplace.
When an employee has a concern about the conduct of another employee, the following steps shall be conducted in a timely manner, i.e. as soon as practical after encountering offensive or inappropriate behavior.
A) If the concerned employee is comfortable doing so, he/she is encouraged to resolve the concern directly with other employee(s) involved. In so doing the employee who has the concern should describe the behavior that concerns him/her and his/her expectation for future workplace behavior.
B) If the concerned party elects to not confront the other employee(s) or is unable to resolve the issue directly with the other employee(s) involved, he/she should report the concern to his/her immediate supervisor or area administrator, if appropriate. The supervisor will make reasonable efforts to resolve the issue in a timely manner utilizing appropriate conflict resolution techniques.
C) If the supervisor is unable to resolve the issue in a satisfactory manner, he/she shall seek assistance in the resolution from the area administrator and/or the appropriate Vice President or the Director of Human Resources.
D) Any agreements reached as a result of the conflict resolution shall be appropriately documented, up to and including insertion in employee personnel files.
E) Offensive or inappropriate behavior not able to be resolved using this procedure shall also be documented and, where appropriate, placed in the employee's personnel file. In accordance with existing policies and collective bargaining agreements, such documentation may result in disciplinary action up to and including termination.

Power Source Menu

SEIU Home