Updates and summaries from your bargaining team:
May 28, 2010
Colleagues,
We met with the Administration today and they finally made a formal proposal. However, they actually put less money on the table than in last week's 'supposal.' They continued to propose changes that would gut the current insurance language that protects faculty from dramatically increased out-of-paycheck contributions. Their proposal also provides 1.6% partial COLA but no steps for contracted faculty; and no COLA but 1/2 steps for part-time faculty. Under the College's proposal most faculty members would experience an actual reduction in their paychecks next year, due to increased insurance costs that exceed the proposed COLA (for contracted) or half step (for part-time). See the modified table, below, regarding the impact on out-of-paycheck insurance contributions, and the attached PDF file for a comparison of proposals. The administration also rejected our proposed framework for balancing reductions in full COLA and steps with work year reductions (i.e., full furlough days).
Given the great distance between our proposals and their economic movement away from their supposal last week, we agreed to discontinue negotiations today and are scheduled to meet again next Friday.
| Insurance Level | Current Out of Paychecks | 2010-2011 Under Current Language | 2010-2011 Under Administration Proposal | 2010-2011 Classified | 2010-2011 Managers |
| Only | $57.06 | $95.29 | $150.45 | 8.63 | 8.63 |
| Spouse | $145.43 | $230.09 | $351.49 | 121.34 | 121.34 |
| Child(ren) | $126.21 | $198.48 | $303.40 | 121.34 | 121.34 |
| Family | $183.94 | $302.48 | $473.64 | 154.93 | 154.93 |
Please continue to support your Bargaining Team and your Action Team's calls to action.
Your Bargaining Team:
Dean Bergen
Stacey Kiser
John Lorang (OEA)
Adrienne Mitchell
Brandon Olszewski
Jim Salt
May 26, 2010
Colleagues,
Your faculty Bargaining Team met with the College on Friday. Even after five hours in the bargaining room and months waiting for the College to make a proposal they failed to do so. Instead, they presented a "supposal" that allows them to walk away from their offer. More problematically, it provides no steps and no COLA and a dramatic increase in faculty out of paycheck monthly contributions for insurance (see below). Attached find a summary of LCCEA's proposals and the College supposal (plus the Tentative Agreement that the classified staff union reached Monday).
Regarding insurance rates, our current language provides that the College picks up the first ten percentage points of insurance rate hikes, then we split the rest unless either the "cost neutrality" * or "stop loss" ** language kick in. The College is proposing new language where they pick up only the first four percentage points (OEBB's comparison plan is going up 26.66% next year), we pick up the rest, and the cost neutrality and stop loss language is gutted and replaced with vague language about the 'college commitment'. This is fundamentally unacceptable and frankly outrageous. It would result, in our initial calculation, in out-of-paycheck contributions of over $500 per month for contracted faculty members needing family insurance. We agreed to the current language when it was proposed by the College approximately five years ago as it provided balanced protection to both parties. When it worked for them, they were happy with it, but now that it requires the college to pick up 18% of the 26% rate hike, they want to gut it. And this is despite us moving to OEBB plans that still save the money compared with the PacificSource plan we left.
[CHART]
The only positive element of their supposal was that they offered to restore the 175 day work year for contracted faculty along with the 2.05% associated salary (.34% for part-time faculty since salaries weren't reduced for part-time faculty when we moved to a 172 day work year). However, the lack of a COLA or steps and the increase in insurance costs that they proposed far outweigh the salary adjustments for the work year restoration. In effect, they are proposing to eliminate the reduced work year we have used to partially offset the lack of full COLAs and full steps in the past. In other words: more work, less buying power, no steps, much higher contribution to insurance costs.
In short, the administration's "supposal" comes as nothing less than an insult to the faculty at a time when workload, class sizes, enrollment, and tuition revenue are at an all time high. And is totally unacceptable when the College has accumulated a formal reserve of $3.5 million and is expecting to build college reserves even higher at the end of this fiscal year.
If you don't want the deal the College is offering, say no to the administration, and respond to your Action Team's calls to action.
Your Bargaining Team
Dean Bergen
Stacey Kiser
John Lorang (OEA)
Adrienne Mitchell
Brandon Olszewski
Jim Salt
P.S. Finally, please note that all faculty received retroactive salary adjustments in yesterday's payroll, based on our agreement with the College to use a reserve fund to partially restore furlough days this year.
* Cost neutrality: Prevents anyone from having a reduced paycheck after the COLA and insurance rate hikes are implemented
** Stop loss: Prevents anyone from paying more than 20% of the insurance costs