Home » Campus » No break for labor negotiations
PUBLISHED: 05-09-11
No break for labor negotiations
Labor talks between college, part-time union show few signs of ending
The leadership of Columbia’s part-time faculty union, P-Fac, and the administration have been at odds throughout the academic year in regard to issues ranging from health care to job security to credit hour reductions. And while spring classes are concluding, the negotiations between the two parties will extend throughout summer with hopes of resolving as many differences as possible in a timely manner.
John Stevenson, secretary, and Diana Vallera, president, have alleged for months that Columbia is treating adjuncts without dignity and respect.
Initially, P-Fac asked the college to draft a new labor contract in January 2010, which it believed was fair to the union members, ideally giving them more job security. The process has slowed throughout the year. When Columbia presented the union with an offer at the end of March, representatives were encouraged. But the college believes the union is to blame for the slowly paced negotiations because of the leaders’ focus on issues other than job security.
“I’m kind of surprised P-Fac wouldn’t be more focused on compensation or job security since all of their public statements seem to be about those issues,” said Annice Kelly, vice president of Legal Affairs and General Counsel. “Instead, since our March 30 proposal, we’ve talked about issues other than those.”
The contract the college presented in March included many things P-Fac wanted, Kelly said. The union leaders have until May 31 to respond before the offer expires. The proposal includes a minimum of 60 renewable two-year teaching appointments to members with a guaranteed minimum of six credits per semester. It also offers the opportunity to appoint a union member to each departmental curriculum committee. The offer also open the door to additional wage negotiations in two years.
If the leadership of P-Fac accepts the proposal by May 31, the college offered to give all union members a 1 percent wage increase retroactive to the fall 2010 semester, according to an email sent to all union members from Louise Love, vice president of Academic Affairs.
But union members think the college’s offer doesn’t benefit P-Fac enough as a whole.
“In order to accept that offer, we’ve got to have an offer on health insurance and job security,” said Nancy Traver, publicity chair of P-Fac and adjunct faculty member in the Journalism Department. “The only thing the college has offered on job security is a very small percentage of adjuncts out of a membership of 980 will get two-year contracts. What about the rest of the adjuncts?”
Currently, part-time faculty members must be signed on to teach before the start of every semester.
The proposal made a point to mention all aspects of the new proposal were formulated based on conversations at the bargaining table between the college and union. It also details what Columbia did not agreed to, such as a tier-based system that would assign classes to adjuncts based on how long they’ve worked at the college.
“We did not agree to this tier system because the college’s primary responsibility is to assign courses in a way most beneficial to students,” the email stated.
The college also declined to increase payments to union leaders to $108,000—a 157 percent increase.
As of press time, the union has yet to respond to the college’s offer.
Both sides agree the bargaining sessions—aside from the recent contract offer—have been fruitless.
“We really need more [negotiation] dates,” Traver said. “We need more time for bargaining.”
Kelly, however, said the process has been slowed because of distractions and other requests presented by the union since the negotiations started
Since August 2010, P-Fac filed three separate Unfair Labor Practice complaints against Columbia, one of which was deemed to have merit by the National Labor Relations Board. That complaint was filed in regard to a situation in the Photography Department in which the administration made the unilateral—and legal—decision to reduce the four credit hour classes to three without bargaining with the union first.
Another was denied by the board, and the third was dropped by the union.
Though both the college and the union have express desire for a swift resolution, neither side can put a timestamp on when the negotiation process will be complete.
“There’s no timeline or deadline,” Kelly said. “The parties proceed as they proceed. I think the administration would like to move this along, which is why we put the incentive in there. We respond to what the union talks about, so I don’t really know—beyond what we’ve done—how to move
it forward.”
One Response to “No break for labor negotiations”
Leave a Reply
All comments are moderated before being published. We will not edit comments, but we also will not approve those that are abusive, off-topic, attack another person, include profanity or contain information we know to be libelous or false. Please include a valid e-mail address, as we will not approve comments with invalid or fake e-mail addresses. Most comments will be reviewed within 8 hours during weekdays. Comments posted on weekends may not be approved until Monday. For more information, please visit the "about us" link at the bottom of the page.
Dear editor,
We are writing in response to the story published in the Columbia Chronicle on May 9, 2011, “No break for labor negotiations.”
Columbia’s general counsel, Annice Kelly, says she is “surprised” that the union is not more focused on job security. Actually, job security is P-fac’s No. 1 concern. Under our contract proposal to the college, we call for a tiered system of rehiring, which would ensure more job security for experienced adjuncts. This would also ensure quality instruction by experienced teachers and opportunity for growth for new members.
The college has offered two-year contracts to only 60 adjuncts, (among a membership of 980!) who would be temporary, full-time employees with no benefits and no tenure. They also would not have the security of knowing they can return to Columbia when their contracts expire. How does this address job security?
Kelly also states that the contract the college offered in March includes “many things P-fac wanted.” That is not true. The contract did not address the union’s call for the opportunity to buy into the college health insurance plan and it does not address a fair and transparent system of evaluations.
Your story says the college offered a 1 percent wage increase contingent upon the union accepting the offer by May 31. Since November, the college has been taking hours away from some of the most experienced adjuncts, particularly in HHSS and AEMM. What will a wage increase mean to adjuncts who have been losing their classes? Some of our members have lost more than 40 percent of their wages since last fall, so a 1 percent increase will do little to mitigate their catastrophic loss of income.
Your story also says that, as of press time, the union “has yet to respond to the college’s offer.” That is not true. P-fac has made several counter offers to the college’s partial proposal. P-fac has said repeatedly that the college’s offer is unacceptable. We continue to talk to the college, however, in an effort to find common ground.
Also, Kelly said the negotiations process has been slowed because the union continues to bring up “distractions.” Actually, we have been trying to resolve the easier issues first, at the recommendation of the federal mediator who attends all talks between the union and the college. We have finally started talking about the tough issues — job security and health insurance — after months of stalling by the college. Don’t forget, the college bargaining team took five months to make even a partial offer to our comprehensive!
The college has refused our request for raises for the union leadership. We have asked for a raise of only $200 per semester for each of the seven steering committee members. We have not received a pay increase in more than 12 years. Our pay is based on contributions of time to the union in lieu of teaching a class. Our current pay does not equal what we would be paid to teach one three-credit-hour class. We also requested some pay for department representatives to handle grievances. This would enable us to become a union that is truly run by its members rather than the leadership at the top.
In your story, you stated that one complaint against the college was “dropped.” This is a factual error. This charge was never dropped. Your reporter was given a copy of a letter from an attorney representing the union saying that the charge was added to a new, larger charge that has been sent to the NLRB and is under review.
Finally, P-fac has asked the college for many more negotiation dates. We have offered to meet nights and weekends. The college bargaining team members have refused, however, saying they are too busy with Manifest, graduation or are on vacation.
P-fac would like to conclude the negotiations quickly and sign a new contract with the college. We cannot do that, however, until our issues are addressed.
We call on Columbia College to provide the following under a new contract: job security, health insurance, fair and transparent evaluations and respect.
Thank you,
Diana Vallera, P-fac President
Janina Ciezadlo, Vice President
John Stevenson, Treasurer
Dale Chapman, Secretary
Christina Gonzalez-Gillett, Membership Chair
Susan Tyma, Grievance Chair
Nancy Traver, Publicity Chair