 |
 |
Members Home / Ask The President / The President Responds / Archived Questions
The President Responds - QUESTIONS POSTED PRIOR TO 12-4-09
On 11/6/09 Marianna Rivera from Sacramento asks:
Are we considered university employees? Does it make a difference if funding from our positions is from soft money? How does that funding affect our rights?
Dear Marianna:
Your question is a really important one, but to correctly answer it we need to be absolutely sure about some facts. First, while appointment letters for some temporary positions speak to specific beginning and end dates and funding sources, no university employee loses her/his collective bargaining rights just because an office or department on campus closes. Without proper, official notice in accordance with Article 33, no Unit 4 employee should consider her/himself subject to layoff (Article 33.21). Another thing to consider is that just because an office closes due to loss of funding does not mean that a campus will elect to impose layoffs. It is always possible that employees in an office that is closed or loses its funding can be transferred to other, open positions on campus if such are available.
Second, employees must be clear about their employment appointment status in Unit 4 (see Article 13 - Appointment and Article 14 - Probation And Permanency). Some CSU employees in privately funded positions are not in Unit 4 at all (for example, some work as Foundation employees, with lesser rights than Unit 4 Members). Within Unit 4, there are three basic types of employment status: Temporary, Probationary, and Permanent. Each of these appointments has specific language in Article 33 - Layoff associated with them. Clearly, the "strongest" level of appointment is that of permanent employees.
Third, Unit 4 employees are appointed to a classification, and those employees who achieve permanency are permanent in that classification campus-wide not in her/his office or funding source.
Fourth, if a campus does elect to impose layoff that decision may set in motion what is commonly referred to as "retreat" and "bumping" rights (Article 33.22-25). In very basic terms, a permanent employee who has received notice of layoff may "bump" another employee within the classification with fewer seniority points, and/or "retreat" to a previously held classification in which she/he achieved permanency. If the retreating employee is reassigned to a classification/position held by a Unit 4 employee with fewer seniority points (Article 33.10-16), the less senior employee is considered "bumped." Bumped employees may also have retreat rights to previously held classifications in which they achieved permanency, and there are occasions where an employee can retreat to a classification in another bargaining unit.
Finally, if campuses do elect to implement the layoff procedure, Unit 4 employees are fortunate to have some seemingly small but very important job security improvements from our most recent contract extension. Thanks to language added to our contract in the 2008-2010 contract extension, many temporary employees became permanent a full year earlier than they would have otherwise, and a permanent employee need only show "successful completion of the employee's probationary period" to prove permanency (addendum to Article 14.7). The bottom line here for you and everyone else in Unit 4 is know your appointment/employment status!
On 11/7/09 a Member from Long Beach asks:
Dear Member:
The answer to whether or not APC/Unit 4 will do furloughs again may depend more on you and the rest of the APC membership than on the CSU. It's always inspiring to see members come up with innovative ideas, and yours has merit because would result in a 5% return to base salary for the membership, while still saving money system-wide to help reduce the need for layoff. Other members might have differing ideas, and I hope they will feel free to suggest those, too.
From all that I've seen and heard so far, however, it doesn't presently appear that the CSU will raise or offer the furlough option again. In my comments to the Chancellor at the most recent Board of Trustees meeting I asked for Dr. Reed's pledge to once again do all he can to save and protect jobs, but he was noticeably noncommittal to that request. That doesn't necessarily mean, however, that APC can't or won't suggest some sort of furlough reduction to the CSU on behalf of the membership. As you probably know, the furlough option does not appear anywhere in our contract, but that doesn't mean that it can't be considered as a "voluntary program to avoid layoff" under Article 33.4. The question here will be how willing and creative you and your counterparts are in fashioning and employing collective tactics and strategies to avert or minimize layoffs. And the bigger question is whether or not you and your colleagues will want and be willing to continue to sacrifice through furloughs so that others will not suffer the full loss of their jobs. And if this is a question that we may be facing soon, it's also a conversation we should all be having now.
How/when APC and Unit 4 will be in a position to discuss/suggest/negotiate furloughs as an option to mitigate layoff in the 2010-2011 fiscal year is another matter. Remember, our current furlough agreement is confined to the equivalent of two days per month for the 2009-2010 fiscal year. Anything in addition to or beyond our current agreement will have to be discussed, negotiated and, ultimately, approved by the rank-and-file membership (for additional information, please see response to Eliana McReynolds below).
I'd like to hear from members about how to get their input on these questions. Should the statewide officers decide for the membership on the various layoff or furlough or other options? Should the Statewide Council decide? The last time APC/Unit 4 considered and voted on this issue we did so under the terrible pressure of an extremely short deadline. Right now we have a good deal more time.
On 11/10/09 Alice Fuentes from Stanislaus asks:
Dear Alice:
Your comment and the issue (workload) it raises certainly are not new to APC/Unit 4, and our current budget and furlough situation only serves to exacerbate the problem. The practice of not filling vacant positions on campus is very familiar to anyone who has worked for five or more years in the CSU system. When times were good and there was at least a glimmering of hope/promise that those vacant positions would eventually be filled, I think it fair to say that most Unit 4 members were willing to temporarily pitch in a little extra to make sure the work got done so that our students wouldn't suffer. But over time the hope/promise of filling vacant positions and appropriate staffing faded, yet the work continued to get done. How this issue is addressed, however, is more important now than it ever was.
To begin with, I will start from the position of taking the CSU at its word on the issue of workload with regard to furlough. When the furlough agreement was negotiated and signed, CSU representatives made it clear that they understood that a 10% reduction in pay and time comes with an equivalent 10% reduction in work. CSU representatives reiterated this commitment and understanding at our most recent Furlough LMC meeting (11/19/09). Having said that, I will also say that I am well aware that there are local campus administrators that do not appear to have the CSU's stated understanding. When that is the case in an office or on a campus it is imperative that Unit 4 employees notify the APC chief steward on their campuses immediately. When we know and can show that the agreement made by the CSU is being violated, APC can address the issue both locally and at the statewide level. But this requires the vigilance, assistance, and participation of individual Unit 4 employees.
I have been saying since even before becoming the president of APC that WE are the true experts in all the jobs in Unit 4. As the experts in our professions, we know what it takes to do our jobs well, and we know what kinds of pressures will harm our ability to do those jobs. We need to come together as PROFESSIONALS in our respective fields to define the standards of what it takes and means to do our jobs. Unit 4 members in each area can document how much work is usually done in a 40 hour work week, and calculate a reduction of 20% for furlough weeks. How many financial aid files can be packaged, admissions applications evaluated, students advised, etc. is really possible?
When we do what I suggest above, as a Union and a Unit, we will be operating from the position of authority and expertise when discussing/deciding on all facets of our jobs, including workload. In almost every Unit 4 classification from evaluators to SSPs, from admissions to teacher credentialing, Unit 4 has expert employees with 20, 25, 30 and sometimes even more years of experience. It's time that we stood up collectively to assert our expertise on that about which we are the most qualified experts and authority: our jobs.
On 11/13/09 Eliana McReynolds from Chico asks:
Dear Eliana:
In responding to your question I will assume that it is in reference to the Article 33 letter sent to APC from the CSU. If that is the case, I can tell you that no meeting has either been planned or scheduled as of yet. But in our most recent Furlough LMC, APC's Labor Relations Manager, Mr. Ed Purcell, asked CSU representatives Bill Candella and John Swarbrick about the Article 33 letter. In a recent email to APC's statewide and local elected leadership Ed shared the following:
Mssrs. Candella and Swarbrick, claimed yet not to know when layoffs would begin but their speculation was the new year. Similarly, they claim not to know which campuses would be involved, but there was no indication that it would anything other than the full boat. We were assured that CSU had no intention of varying from procedures previously used in such situations, most particularly specific, campus-based discussions at the time firm decisions are made by each campus.
Ed's recollection of the CSU's risk management reason for sending the Article 33 letter is the same as mine. I also recall Mr. Candella suggesting that it would probably be better for Unit 4 employees individually and collectively to begin talking about voluntary programs (Article 33.4) before actual notices are sent so that they may do so without the stress of an actual "ticking clock" that will begin once notice is actually received. For my part, I have been recommending for some time now, both during campus visits with members and at Statewide Council meetings, that campus chapters engage in this type of discussion. If your campus is not meeting and discussing such possibilities now, perhaps it should be.
On 11/17/09 Laurie Lindeneau from San Marcos asks:
Is this practice going on at all CSU campuses?
Dear Laurie:
Unfortunately, the simple answer to your question appears to be, "Yes, this practice appears to be going on at all CSU campuses." How "We," meaning APC, Unit 4, individual campuses, and the CSU, find ourselves in this situation is a story in and of itself, and one that would take far too long to address here.
There was a time, however, when all employees in the CSU could count on a "step" system to advance through a salary range, but those days and that system disappeared long before I was either an employee of the CSU or the President of APC. Since that time Unit 4 employees have hoped, depended, and counted on two ways to increase one's base salary: Reclassification (Article 14.3, 14.9, 14.11; 23.9-11); and In-Range Progression (Article 23.14). The problem with both of these methods of salary advancement that APC continues to hear from the CSU (both at the local and statewide level) is lack of available funding. With California's current fiscal situation being as bad as it is, this response is offered with more frequency than ever. But for as long as I have been employed by the CSU and involved with APC, my personal stance and that of APC has been that all Unit 4 employees must be appropriately classified and compensated for the work they do. This is not an "option" or a question of available funding.
With regard to classification/reclassification the above statement means that if an employee is doing work appropriate to a higher classification, then that employee either needs to be reclassified and compensated appropriately, or the work from outside of the employee's classification needs to be taken away from the employee. It is neither the employee's nor APC's responsibility to determine where/how/who does the work of the higher classification, that's the responsibility for which administrators exist and are paid. Of course, once work has been determined to be appropriate to a Unit 4 classification, that work cannot simply be assigned to employees in other bargaining units. If this does or is happening, again, please notify your campus stewards immediately.
On 11/17/09 Sarah Bauer from San Francisco asks:
Dear Sarah:
I couldn't agree with you more! A review of my email history shows that when I received the notice to which you are referring (10/30/09), I immediately contacted APC's senior labor relations employee by telephone and the entire APC Executive Board by email. I shared with that group not only the CSU's letter, but also my intended response before replying to the CSU. This entire exchange probably took no more than 8 hours. While I believe this response time shows that APC/Unit 4 members were well and immediately represented, notice to the membership did not go out for another 10 business days (11/13/09) when I sent an email to all campus stewards, with both letters attached, for immediate distribution. At that time I also had the letters posted on APC's web site. And I agree with you, that is entirely too much time, and you should have been notified much sooner.
As the duly elected president of APC I see it as my responsibility to communicate immediately and directly with the membership as my office is elected by and its line of reporting is directly to you. According to established practice and APC policy, "The President serves as the primary spokesperson and representative of APC" (APC Statewide Officers: Responsibilities & Expectations, approved by the APC Council May 2001, amended February 2008). But communicating with the membership is difficult for a number of technical reasons, such as a lack of a complete, accurate list of Unit 4 member email addresses. Recently APC has tried to address this issue by sending out a letter and follow-up email requesting that members register their correct email address, but that continues to be an ongoing process (at this writing we only have 511 of a possible 2300 emails registered), and it appears that some either did not get our letter or the email. For all those who are reading this now, I hope you will go to APC's web site at www.apc1002.org and click on the link under "Member Email Registration" to register your email address if you have not already done so. The ability for the APC statewide office to communicate with members depends on everyone's assistance and support in this effort.
There are, however, those who believe that it is not within the authority of the APC President to communicate directly with the membership. On some campuses the locally elected APC leadership believes that the APC President may not communicate directly with campus membership on statewide issues without their approval and authorization. In addition, some members of one of several committees formed in accordance with APC's Two Year Plan, the Communications/Marketing Committee, believe that it's within their authority to preview and approve any and all statewide communication on APC's web site, and voted among themselves to require that all such communication be reviewed and approved by them before its posting. On the one hand I am both pleased and excited by the heightened degree of interest and involvement from an ever-expanding group of APC folks. The difficulty for me with both these points of view, however, is that they suggest that one campus or small group of locally elected stewards believes it is within their right and authority to determine what information the entire APC/Unit 4 membership has a right or interest in knowing, which I could not disagree with more. This is an issue that I believe is far too important to be decided by one or another small group of locally elected APC leaders, especially without input from the membership. I invite and would like to hear the thoughts and wishes of the rank-and-file membership on this and every issue.
In the meantime, it continues to be my responsibility to represent and share information on behalf of the entire statewide membership of APC/Unit 4. I may not pick and choose selected groups of APC/Unit 4 members with whom to share or not share important information. My doing so would mean that the CSU would have more direct and immediate contact/communication/access to APC/Unit 4 members than your democratically elected statewide leadership. I don't think that is in the best interest of employees in Unit 4, and I know you haven't authorized any particular body to make that decision for you.
On 11/18/09 Janice Moneypeny from San Marcos asks:
Dear Janice:
Prior to my taking office, APC authorized and was engaged in a data collection project called "The Disparity Project," which was one of several contained in a document titled, "Building Power for APC: A Plan for 2007-2008." From my understanding of that project, the data collected might have been able to provide the type of information you are looking for. Unfortunately, before all the data could be collected, entered, and the appropriate script written to extract and analyze the data, APC lost its only administrative staff person who provided multifunction support to APC including all facets of APC's technical and data support. The vast majority of the data collected has been entered into our database and we expect to have the rest entered soon. In the very near future we will look at how to accomplish the data extraction process in a manner to produce good, usable data, which can then be analyzed and shared with the campuses and the membership. I don't have a hard timeline for completion of this project, but we are moving on this at the statewide office and hope to have more information out soon.
On 11/20/09 Kathy Lucero from San Jose asks:
Dear Kathy:
Great suggestion, thanks!