In Part 1, I explained about the collective bargaining law that went into effect in California in 1976, and about the San Francisco Community College District, where I was working. In Part 2, I explained how AFT 2121 (San Francisco Community College District Federation of Teachers), after many delays, finally won the election to be exclusive bargaining representative for all full-time faculty and for all part-time faculty who had taught at least three semesters in the previous three years.
The election for exclusive bargaining representative was in March, 1978. The faculty were eager to begin negotiations, but first we had to present a contract proposal to the District. It would have to be sunshined at a Governing Board meeting, and the District would present its proposal and sunshine it as well. We hurriedly formed subcommittees to work on contract proposals in April, but with the end of the semester looming we were worried that we wouldn't be able to get everything together before the semester ended. We decided to make a public presentation of a detailed proposed contract outline to meet the requirements of the public notice, and fill it in with complete proposal language a few weeks later.
The Union proposal was made in May, and opened for public discussion in June. (As I recall, no one from the public made any comments.) The District planned to present their initial proposal in August.
I was elected President of AFT 2121 just before the summer of 1978, and what a summer it was. In June, Proposition 13, which changed the method of property taxation in California, was passed. The District canceled summer school, deferred previously granted sabbaticals, and on June 20, the Chancellor asked for a "State of Emergency" calling for a higher workload, a freeze on salary, no salary increments, any increase in the cost of fringe benefits to be paid by the faculty, a freeze on hiring, and minimal paid leaves. Despite the 300 faculty in attendance at the Governing Board meeting to protest the resolution, it passed.
In June the Union filed unfair labor practice charges with PERB (the Public Employment Relations Board) because the emergency resolution bypassed negotiations and unilaterally changed wages, hours and working conditions. PERB held a hearing on the Unfair Labor Practice charge in October, and a year later (PERB was not noted as a speed demon in reaching decisions) the District was forced to grant back pay with interest for increments denied, and had to give double sabbaticals to make up for the ones that were unilaterally taken away.
In the meantime, the District made its initial proposal in August and negotiations were to begin in September. The ground rules called for at least one 3-hour session per week. One of the most important things we did, was to keep the faculty aware of everything we were doing and everything that was going on. We typed up our reports, and literally cut and pasted them since there were no computers. We used press-on letters and ran everything off on a mimeograph machine. We felt really lucky because we had a folding machine too. We would count the flyers and send each pack to the department or site representative to deliver to the faculty under their jurisdiction. We mailed some flyers to faculty who were in hard to get to places.
The District's chief negotiator, Ron Glick, was hired on a special contract, while the Union designated our CFT organizer as our chief negotiator. In the ground rules that were adopted by both sides, both the District's and the Union's chief negotiators had to initial an article for it to be tentatively agreed to. Unfortunately, the District's negotiator missed many meetings. Following is our Negotiations Update No. 3 flyer from January, 1979, as an example of the kind of flyers we were putting out.
In this flyer, the Union pointed out that the District's Chief Negotiator had only attended 3 out of the 15 scheduled bargaining sessions, and that the District had canceled 4 out of the 15 sessions because their negotiator could not attend. The Union had proposed a change in the ground rules in November, allowing two other designated individuals to initial articles of agreement if the chief negotiators weren't available. The District finally agreed to the changes, but they were still reluctant to sign anything when their chief negotiator wasn't there.
While the negotiations slogged on, the Governor was proposing a 10% cutback for all state agencies. As an example of how our District operated, the Chancellor was concerned that the money we received from the state would be cut as well and called for a plan for 10 and 20% cuts. As Union President, I spoke up at the Board meeting asking why 20% cuts were even being talked about, since no one else statewide was asking for them.
At a special Board meeting on January 23, 1979, the Union presented a Fact Sheet on the District's budget to the Governing Board, explaining there was a large surplus, that the next budget year was going to be similar to the current one, and asking why they were requesting plans for 10 and 20% cuts. The 20% cut called for elimination of almost all foreign language classes, journalism, labor studies, and legal assisting. Labor leaders came to the meeting to protest. Finally, at the February 6, 1979 board meeting, the Chancellor agreed with the Union's contention that 10 and 20% cuts were not needed. He said, "Was the anxiety generated too high a price to pay? I think not." As President, I said, "Perhaps the District feels that no harm was done. This is not the case. Morale has plummeted and there is certainly no faith in the Administration's ability."
In Part 4, I will talk about how the negotiations continued, and why we went through all the steps in the law--negotiations, impasse, mediation, and fact-finding, ending with a strike threat before reaching agreement.