I just sent rhis out to the DLs for SDCCD
Did you get the email from Christian Sweeney, Deputy Organizing Director, AFL-CIO asking us to Support AT&T workers’ fight for a fair deal? In his email of May 25, 2018, he states that:
“Communications Workers of America (CWA) members at AT&T Midwest and AT&T’s national Legacy T division are at the bargaining table with AT&T right now and are willing to do whatever it takes to secure a deal that guarantees good jobs, affordable health care, and a secure retirement.
“This fight is bigger than AT&T. It’s about making sure we create an economy that works for all. “In Solidarity, Christian”
The buzzword in Education currently is Equity. Where is the Equity for Adjuncts? I am not talking about pay. I am talking about being treated fairly.
Isn’t it ironic? Once again, we are being asked to support another group of workers, in another affiliate of AFL-CIO but what about us, the Adjuncts at SDCCD? We are being asked to support a proposed contract that is grossly unjust and robs Adjuncts of what is the workplace version due process. Don’t believe me? Check out these parts of the contract that some of us tried to get changed to correct the unfairness, but our proposals have been ignored:
Some were as simple as adding to clause 4.4.9 “The AFT Guild representative attending the meeting with the grievant and their dean / department chair, shall not be a faculty member reporting to the same dean and/or department chair, unless requested by the grievant..” Why is that important? Because an Adjunct AFT representative is not likely to fight for the rights of the grievant if it means they have to stand up to their own bosses. Fear of retaliation is a strong possibility. It has already happened. The AFT Representative only observed and did not say a word to back up the Adjunct.
Or look at this section: 5.2.10.2 Adjunct faculty members who have qualified for priority of assignment rights within a specific discipline within a college, may have their assignment terminated at any time as a result of reasons which are delineated in the California Government Code, Education Code, Penal Code, District Policies and Procedures, and District Human Resources Manual. The reason(s) shall be provided in writing. Termination per this Section of the Article shall not be grievable.
In other words, Adjuncts can be terminated for just about anything when you consider all five of those books, but no matter what the reason, no matter whether it is just or unjust, according to this contract “Termination per this Section of the Article shall not be grievable” i.e. and the your union will hang you out to dry.
Meanwhile, here is an example of the discipline level for Contract Faculty, keeping in mind that strike outs mean the clause has been removed. “6.13 Faculty who fail to submit their grades by the appropriate deadline each semester shall have their subsequent pay warrants withheld until such delinquent grades are submitted.
In other words, Contract Faculty can do no wrong but Adjuncts can be fired for just about anything? Ok, that is an exaggeration but we know of a case where an Adjunct was one day late handing in grades and their classes were taken away from them for the next semester and yet staff will tell you that many Contract Faculty are late every semester, possible as many as 100. Where is the Equity, the Fairness?
I had specifically asked that a clause be added to clause 5.2.10.2 …”may have their assignment terminated at any time as a result of reasons which are delineated in the…”
Add: To prevent discrimination against Adjuncts, the above rules shall not be more strongly enforced for an Adjunct than they are for Contract Faculty in the same Department and / or School.
My proposed change, which does not appear in this updated version, would have created more equity, more fairness:
We also came up with additions that would have benefited all instructors, both Adjuncts and Contract such as:
ADD 7.1.2.3 Consecutive classes separated by less than 30 minutes on a campus cannot be further in distance than in adjacent buildings.
Or
7.7.2.4 ADD: 3 Consecutive classes separated by less than 30 minutes on a campus cannot be further in distance than in adjacent buildings.
One of the changes deals with an archaic rule about substitution. Why could it not be included? 5.2.1.3 Change “cannot exceed 10 class meetings” to “ten weeks” to recognize that the same class might have one section meeting one time each week and another section that meets two times each week.
If this change to 5.2.1.3 is not permitted “due to the Ed Code” (a common argument), then tell me so, and show that you the negotiating committee actually looked out proposals that were sent to you.
A group of Adjuncts spent a lot of time going over the Proposed Contract and submitted a lot of changes we would like to have seen to make it fairer. I don’t see where one of them has been included so why did they even bother to ask? We asked if we could meet with the negotiating team, or know who they are so we could make sure they received our proposals and the answer was always no. One strange answer was someone who said he didn’t know who was on the committee but also said he had just met with them. Proposed changes were also handed out at an AFT Guild meeting by an Adjunct, and a complete list emailed to the AFT Guild office via Jim Mahler with the request that they be sent on to the Negotiating Committee. We tried.
These items I show above were simple changes and additions that would have made the treatment of Adjuncts more fair which is one of the goals of true Equity.