The recent Republican efforts to remove collective bargaining for public employees gave me a chance to remember back to 1976 when California's first law giving collective bargaining to its teachers took effect. I was a thirty-year-old ESL (English as a Second Language) teacher who had been a relatively inactive Union member until consenting to run for the Union's Executive Board. Little did I know that I had joined the Executive Board the year before the Rodda Act (SB 160) went into effect, and that it would lead to seven years of heavy activism while the Union fought for recognition as the bargaining unit representative, and then fought for its first contract. I served as Secretary, Executive Vice-President, and President of the San Francisco Community College District Federation of Teachers Local 2121 from 1975 to 1983.
I would like to tell you the story of how collective bargaining was perceived in our district at first, the struggles we incurred, the successes, and the results that are still felt today. Before I start telling this story, however, it's necessary to give a little background about our district and the law that existed prior to 1976. Follow me after the squiggly to learn some more.
Life Before and After the Rodda Act
For those who would really like an in-depth discussion of what kind of representation existed before and after the Rodda Act (also known as the Educational Employment Relations Act (EERA) or SB 160), I would recommend reading Collective Bargaining in the Public Sector: The Experience of Eight States by Joyce M. Najita and James L. Stern, especially pages 140-142, and California School Law by Frank Kemerer and Peter Sansom, especially the section beginning on page 130.
A more complete and nuanced explanation of the path from the Winton Act to the Rodda Act, including amendments and failed efforts along the way, can be found in an undated speech, most likely from 1975, by California State Senator Albert S. Rodda, who shepherded the act through the legislature and whose name is often used on the bill.
For the rest of you, what follows is a thumbnail sketch of some of the differences between the two laws.
The Winton Act |
The Rodda Act |
Enacted in 1965 |
Enacted in 1975, effective Jan. 1, 1976 |
Proportional representation on a "negotiating council" representing all employees and employee organizations |
Exclusive representation by an elected bargaining agent |
"Meet and confer" provisions allowing for discussion but not resulting in final written agreements binding on both parties |
Final contractual written agreements binding on both parties |
The scope of discussions, as interpreted by the courts, was very broad |
The scope of negotiations was enumerated and specific |
Disagreements in interpretation of the law were taken to court |
A state board, the Educational Employment Relations Board (EERB) was created to interpret the law and clarify rules and regulations |
The San Francisco Community College District
The Rodda Act included both K-12 and community colleges under its jurisdiction. In order to understand what happened in San Francisco, it's necessary first to understand the makeup of the district. The San Francisco Unified School District was initially in charge of K-12 and community college education in the city. There was a state law passed, however, that required the community college to be operating as a separate district by July 1, 1970.
As explained in From Dream to Reality, City College of San Francisco: A Short History by Austin White,
While almost all of the College’s staff assumed that this separation would only involve the Main Campus facilities, an intense behind-the-scenes administrative discussion was occurring over what the future educational direction of the College should be. Two opposing proposals emerged from this debate: keep the College as solely a degree granting institution located basically on the Main Campus or set up a number of centers throughout the City where non-credit and credit courses would be tailored to the new categories of students beginning to appear in the City as a result of significant demographic shifts—"Senior Citizens," individuals wanting quick skill upgrades, and ethnic groups (Latinos, Chinese, Filipinos, Cambodians, Laotians, and Vietnamese) desperately in need of English as a Second Language classes.
The short history further explains that when the San Francisco Community College District was formed on July 1, 1970, it included the degree granting institution on the main campus, as well as the staff, programs, and buildings of the Adult and Occupational Division of the Unified School District. In 1974, there were two separate educational divisions established, one for credit classes located on the Ocean Avenue Campus, and one for non-credit classes offered at eight neighborhood centers.
The credit and non-credit faculty were further divided into full-time and part-time employees. There was a lot of distrust between the faculty in the two divisions, as well as between the full- and part-time faculty at the credit institution. Since state law limited part-time faculty to 60% of a full-time load, the part-time faculty in the Centers (noncredit) Division were able to work more hours per week than the part-time faculty in the College (credit) Division. The part-timers in the Centers Division tended to spend more time participating on academic committees than their credit counterparts, who often had to teach at two or more institutions. The Centers Division part-timers, therefore, were more integrated with the full-timers in their division than the part-timers in the College Division were with theirs.
My goodness, my thoughts of having a "little bit of an introduction" to the law and my district seems to have gotten a bit out of hand. I think I'll stop Part 1 now, and follow with a more personal version of what happened in our district, starting with the establishment of the bargaining unit and the election for exclusive bargaining agent in Part 2.