| NEGOTIATIONS IMPASSE Doug Kuula |
The District and SEIU are currently at impasse with regard to the salary portion of our latest negotiations. Classified salaries are a part of the Pay & Allowances section of our contract that was re-opened for this round of negotiations. By declaring impasse the bargaining teams have decided that they cannot reach common ground with respect to salary and need the assistance of a mediator. The mediator will attempt to provide an impartial analysis of the salary issue, and work with both bargaining teams to reach a solution. The recommendations of the mediator are not binding because our contract states that we have non-binding arbitration.
Negotiations involving salaries usually center on the size of the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) to apply to our salaries to keep up with inflation. At this time there are two main factors that are considered in deciding on a COLA. There is the California State COLA that is included in the Governor's budget, and there is the amount of COLA received by the faculty. Historically, the COLA for the classified staff has been practically identical to that of the faculty as can be seen in the table below:
| YEARS | AFA COLA | SEIU COLA |
|---|---|---|
| 96/97 | 2.97% | 3.00% |
| 97/98 | 3.20% | 3.20% |
| 98/99 | 4.96% | 4.96% |
| 99/00 | 1.41% | 1.41% |
| 00/01 | 3.67% | CLASSIFICATION STUDY |
| 01/02 | 6.155% | UNDER NEGOTIATION |
The direct comparison between the faculty and classified COLA could not be done last year because the classified staff salaries were being adjusted to reflect the results of the classification study that was just completed. This leads us to the nature of the current impasse situation. The District negotiators are assuming that the first year cost of implementing the classification study (6%) was equivalent to an average COLA to the classified staff of 6% for the 00/01 budget year. When you compare the 6% COLA that the classified staff received to the 3.67% COLA that faculty received for the 00/01 budget year, the District negotiators argue that the classified staff is 2.33% ahead of parity with the faculty going into this year's negotiation. This is summarized in the following table:
| YEAR | AFA COLA | SEIU COLA | DIFFERENCE |
|---|---|---|---|
| 00/01 | 3.67% | 6.00% | +2.33% |
This year (01/02) the faculty settled for a 6.155% COLA. The faculty now appears to be 3.825% ahead of the classified staff.
The District negotiators have identified that cost to the District for the second year of implementation of the classification study will be 2.49%. They again would like to call this cost a COLA for the classified staff. To this COLA they are proposing to add an additional 2.50% to make the total COLA 4.99%. They feel this is generous when compared to the 3.825% that would keep us in parity with the faculty, or the 3.87% State COLA for 01/02.
The SEIU negotiators do not agree with the District negotiators' proposal, and have proposed that the 01/02 COLA be based on direct parity with faculty, not including the cost of the classification study. The costs of implementing the classification study is seen as an expense that the District must automatically allocate to complete the four year process of bringing staff to the agreed-upon salary schedules.
The classification study revealed the District has been paying us at a less than adequate rate for many years. In addition, SEIU agreed to a phase-in of the classification study costs by not insisting that everyone went from their same step in the old classifications to the same step in the new classifications. This helped to offset the costs for the District and reduced the Y-rating of the classified staff - a tremendous collaborative effort.
The SEIU negotiators and CAC feel strongly that we should not pay for step movement out of our COLA. This would put us back to where we were before the classification study - underpaid!
| FUTURE COLAs Doug Kuula |
It is interesting to speculate how classified salaries would fare with respect to the faculty if we were linked to some other index. One index that could be used is the Bay Area Consumer Price Index (BACPI). The following is a table comparing the BACPI to the faculty COLAs for the past six years:
| YEARS | AFA COLA | BACPI |
|---|---|---|
| 96/97 | 2.97% | 2.3% |
| 97/98 | 3.20% | 3.1% |
| 98/99 | 4.96% | 3.4% |
| 99/00 | 1.41% | 3.8% |
| 00/01 | 3.67% | 4.2% |
| 01/02 | 6.155% | 6.6% |
| TOTAL | 22.365% | 23.4% |
It looks likes we would be in good shape if we were linked to the BACPI. This would also allow us the benefit of settling the salary portion of our negotiations in July at the beginning of negotiations rather than waiting to the end. What do you think?
| STEWARD'S REPORT Ann Samson |
Two new stewards received training on September 25th, As soon as their training is complete, we will announce names and contact information. This addition doubles the number of stewards available to assist unit members!
Our grievance over Hours of Employment was not resolved at the bargaining table. It has been submitted to advisory arbitration, through the American Arbitration Association. The Association will select an arbitrator and set a date; we will report on the hearing and on its results as soon as we can. Progress in this matter seems to take a long time, but the issue remains vital.
I recently attended a stewards' training in which the subject was the Weingarten rule, which is a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in favor of the union in a National Labor Relations Board dispute with an employer. I learned something new, which I'd like to summarize here:
Unit members have a right to union representation under this rule when the meeting to which the member is being called is an investigation interview (not simply to review work performance or give instructions or directions or other more routine matters).
· You have the right to know the subject matter of the meeting. If your supervisor asks to meet with you and refuses to identify the purpose of the meeting, you have the right to consult with a steward for advice before attending the meeting.
· You must request the presence of a union representative; management is not obligated to request it for you or to remind you of this right.
· You may not delay the meeting in order to have the representative of your choice. (You can't insist on Local 707's General Manager or your favorite steward, for instance.)
· You must have the reasonable belief that some disciplinary action may result from this investigatory meeting. That means, if you are attending such a meeting and discover that such action may develop, you have the right to stop the meeting until you can consult with or have a union representative attend the remainder of the meeting.
· A provision of our contract calls for disciplinary action if a unit member refuses to cooperate in an investigation. Do not refuse to cooperate; simply invoke your right to union representation in any investigation, and don't go it alone!!
| SEIU WEBSITE Doug Kuula |
Check out the SEIU website at www.santarosa.edu/seiu. Frank Job has created and maintains a wonderful website for us. Frank has recently added a new feature: the SEIU-Classified Staff Bulletin Board. Take a look at it and start some dialogue. There is an interesting letter from Ed Tapley in the General section of the bulletin board. What do you think?
On the website you can look at back issues of the Power Source, or check out our current contract and salary schedule. There are links to CAC members, so you can communicate with us more effectively. Let's contact Frank Job (fjob@santarosa.edu) and let him know he is doing an outstanding job for us!
| UNION SUPPORT Doug Kuula |
Stewards Needed! We still need two more stewards to bring us up to the maximum of six. Training and 16 hours released time per month are provided by our contract.