SMC Faculty Association Blog

Meet me in the bottom/Bring me my running shoes – Howlin’ Wolf

By Lantz Simpson

The SMC district has joined the race to the bottom by first mandating that SMC managers receive a lesser health benefits package and then by bullying the classified union into accepting the same take backs. Faculty benefits as well are now in the district’s sights in order to complete the trifecta. All of this is being sold to the public by SMC’s propaganda machine as a way to save classes at SMC. The district is hoping that faculty who fight this phony choice will be seen as greedy. Since the district is sitting on a $23 million, 17% reserve, this either/or—either benefit take backs or fewer classes—is a classic false dilemma. The cynicism being displayed by the district’s attempt to make out students as victims of a selfish faculty shows that the district’s lack of shame in trying to use students has no bottom either.

The term “race to the bottom” was coined by Justice Louis Brandeis in a 1933 Supreme Court decision. At that time “race to the bottom” referred to competition between states to offer corporations the best deal on taxes and regulations. The effect of this race was for more and more corporations to move their operations to states that had not only lower taxes and fewer regulations, but also lower wages and little or no union activity. This kind of race continues to this day. Now with globalization, many corporations are abandoning operations in the United States as much as possible. Hence many of our clothes and manufactured goods are now made in China where workers are lucky to make $5 a day while 14 million Americans can’t find work.

Conservatives have countered that “race to the bottom” is misleading and that instead this race is really a “race to efficiency” or even a “race to freedom.”

This fetishization of efficiency was noted by Jacques Ellul, who argued in The Technological Society that in the twentieth century, efficiency has supplanted justice, equality, and even freedom as the highest value, a belief now held in a pragmatic way by almost everybody in the West—and even in education. One only has to look around to see all the ways our culture now offers instant gratification of many kinds to almost everyone. Whether it’s McDonald’s cheeseburgers or instant text messaging, video on demand or microwaves, the god of efficiency is everywhere. Who are the biggest winners in this supposed race to freedom? Those who own and run corporations and their Wall Street financiers. There’s even a show on television now called The Biggest Loser, but it’s not about workers. Instead, it’s about persons who are victims of their own free choice to overeat.

In recent years, use of the term “race to the bottom” has broadened to include other kinds of acts that result in a lowered standard of living. Another example would be the attacks on private sector pensions and health benefits over the last thirty years that is now spreading to the public sector, viz., in Wisconsin and elsewhere.

This brings us full circle. The point of my digression is to show that what is happening at SMC is a microcosm of the larger race to the bottom. What should be done? Some have argued that a health benefit take back is “only a little bit” and “is reasonable,” and even “necessary.” This approach is called “one slice of the baloney at a time,” which also refers to the nature of that argument—it’s baloney. The district should immediately restore the previous health benefits of managers and classified and drop its take back demands for faculty. It should also offer those 200 extra classes—if not more—by dipping into about 10% of the reserve.

One would think that a Board of Trustees who sees itself as progressive would not stoop to the lowest tactics of today’s robber barons. What is needed is a change of outlook and goals from racing to the bottom to instead helping each other up to the mountaintop. After all, isn’t that why we’re in higher education?

By Professor X

We see our hero, wearing a dressing gown, laid out on his left side on a hospital examining table. The infamous Dr. Benway stands at Xavier’s side, patient chart in one hand, colonoscope in the other.

Dr. Benway: Well, son. Unfortunately, it says here that you’ve got PERS Choice coverage. I hate to break it to you. That means…no a-nes-the-si-a.

Professor X (his eyes bugging out in dismay): What?!? Is…is that really necessary, Doc?

Dr. Benway: Look at the bright side, kid. That will give us a li’l time to talk. Did I ever tell you about my plan to reduce those un-su-stain-a-ble commie faculty health care costs while simultaneously ridding the Third World of hunger? I call it SOYLENT RED….

WE INTERRUPT THIS EPISODE of IMMODEST PROPOSALS (Epi. 2 Naked Lunch? Whose Choice?) TO BRING YOU AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM…PROFESSOR X.

Hello, friends. X here. The current state of faculty health care benefits is no laughing matter. Make no mistake about it: Changing from PERS Care to PERS Choice passes costs onto the individual (although neither plan covers anesthesia for colonoscopies).

How is it that when the district is sitting on 23 million dollars, faculty are being asked for take backs on hard-won health benefits? Whether you have PERS Care or not, there is an important principle at stake: health care is not the place to “discover” savings for the college. Health care is a human right. If we are being asked to reduce our coverage at a time when the district has the largest fund balance in history, what will they ask for in future negotiations? Slippery slope, you say? More like slippery scope!

WE NOW RETURN TO IMMODEST PROPOSALS, ALREADY IN PROGRESS.

Professor X sits at the end of the hospital examining table, looking slightly disheveled and rather exhausted, as Dr. Benway jots down notes on his clipboard.

Dr. Benway: Well, Xander, my boy. Everything appears to be in order. You take it easy on those pork loins, and your G.I. should be just fine. But, next time you come in here to get scoped with that PERS Choice plan, you best remember: B. Y. O. L.

Professor X: B. Y. O. L.?

Dr. Benway: That’s right. Bring your own lube….

Professor X: Ouchy!!! (Loud Canned Laughter and Applause.)

Theme music plays. Fade to black.

By Nick Pernisco

We live in a time of take backs. In the current negotiations with the administration, it seems that they want to take away a lot of things we’ve worked hard to gain. Things that matter. And while the debate goes on regarding what we should fight hard to keep and what maybe we could let go of, nothing has the ability to utterly destroy jobs, morale, and our sense of professionalism than the threat on the Associate Faculty provision of the contract.

First, a little history. In the early 1990s, the faculty won a big fight for rehire rights for part-time faculty. Our first FA president from the part-time ranks, Jim Prickett, managed to create a sort of safety net for part-time faculty. If they received good evaluations and were nominated by their chair, part-time faculty could earn Associate Faculty status. This gave the faculty member re-hire rights for one year. However, initially this provision would apply to a maximum of 25 part-time faculty in the entire school. This was just the beginning, and the FA would fight to include more teachers in these protections

Today, nearly 600 part-time faculty enjoy a higher level of job security as Associate Faculty. This is because over the years the provision has been improved, strengthened and made more inclusive. Even in our darkest hours, with the college in turmoil that resulted in the ousting of a college president, the faculty made gains in this provision.

But today is a different story. The district, looking for more flexibility in hiring and firing, is adamantly fighting to reverse the gains and leave more part-time faculty without a safety net. In the current contract, up to 60% of part-time faculty in a discipline can be given Associate Faculty status. The district wants to lower this percentage for the sake of flexibility. If the percentage drops to 50%, for example, that would leave nearly 100 part-time faculty unprotected and in danger of being terminated. In addition, the district wants to restrict the re-hire rights of those who have already earned Associate Faculty status. The whole point of this provision is that part-time faculty have re-hire rights… and now they want to diminish it?

Accepting the district’s proposals to change the Associate Faculty provision of our contract is tantamount to essentially eliminating much of what the provision does for us, and part-time faculty would be left in the lurch. But wait just a second. Our hard working negotiations team and other faculty leaders won’t just roll over and let this happen. We will stand up and say “no” to these cuts to our hard-earned benefits. Because in these times of take backs, it’s also time for us to fight back.

By Matt Hotsinpiller

If the purpose of the instructor is to facilitate student learning, then it seems students will benefit most from those instructors whose minds, bodies, and spirits are best conditioned to perform in students’ interests. Outside distractions should be at a minimum, and any necessary school-related tensions should be for the sake of better providing for students. We expect our board and administration to govern the school so that instructors can concentrate on helping students. The board and administration, then, should be facilitating the instructor’s ability to provide the best learning atmosphere possible for all students. So, the chain seems simple: The board and the administration facilitate the instructor/student experience and the instructor facilitates the students’ experience. All actions should be for the sake of the good of the student, and the first principle should be to do no harm.

An instructor who, at the beginning of the term, promised his students one set of standards but then began to change the structure of expectations out of the students’ favor for what seemed to be capricious, or even self-serving, reasons would certainly lose his students’ trust. More important, those students would begin spending energy trying to understand the instructor’s behavior rather than on learning. Much energy would be misplaced, and things would fall apart. We would be correct in judging this instructor as having done his students and the establishment a great disservice. Why then does the same not apply in the administration’s treatment of instructors?

My experience of being hired as a full-time instructor involved three trips to the president. I was not offered the position on my first two visits. Before the third trip, I went to visit a head hunter to see what I might do if Dr. Tsang did not feel I was a good match for the full-time position. I received three offers through the head hunter, each at least double the salary of the teaching job that I accepted. I worked many jobs in several fields before I began teaching here part-time in 2001, and I knew that, more money or not, if I was going to be happy, I needed to be in the classroom. I was so happy to get the call that I had been chosen that I cried in poor Mr. Shimizu’s ear. Shortly thereafter, a senior administrator gave me an avuncular pat on the back and told me that, even though there was more money elsewhere, I could rest easy with my excellent benefits package. I assume he meant the one the school promised me the day I signed my full-time contract three and a half years ago and not the benefits with which they are trying to replace those first promised.

When I accepted the school’s offer, I did so with pride and commitment. I felt as though I had found a home for the rest of my career. The last thing I want to do is spend time considering finding a different job. But with my trust wavering, wandering thoughts are beginning to distract my globe. I don’t like it. When a friend who manages medical sales recently offered me a job, the correct response would have been to buy the guy a beer, thank him, and explain that, though I appreciated his offer, I could never take it because it was not in accordance with my soul, as teaching is. However, to my surprise, I went about considering his offer. I’m not leaving SMC. I am not even close, and that is not my point. The point is, the atmosphere around SMC should be such that I do not even entertain fleeting notions of such a thing.

I do not mean to cast aspersions upon the board or the administration, nor do I wish to question their compensation. Each of them is excellent at his or her position, and in most circumstances, another person’s remuneration is none of my business, just as which benefits package another fellow chooses is none of my business. Both of these become my business when the other fellow acts in a manner out of my favor and contrary to the agreement extended when I first signed on. If this is a time of dearth and we must all “feel the pain” for the common good, then I am certainly willing to do my part. However, the facts suggest that only some of us are feeling the pain, while others are quite comfortable.

The resulting impression is that SMC is a sort of microcosm of what is currently causing so much unrest across our country. It seems those few in power are taking the fruits and presenting the rest of us with the bill. I am not interested in the fact that administration decided to lessen their health plan. First, this has nothing to do with faculty, and it is a logical fallacy to suggest otherwise. Second, those folks make enough money that they can either opt back into PersCare or pay the increased share they will face with PersChoice out of their pockets. Finally, the move now has the unfortunate appearance of being a premeditated contrivance designed to persuade the public and faculty that they are leading the way in our common interest.

Fiscal austerity is a virtue all of the time, and especially so since 2008. We are fortunate to have people keeping a close eye on the till. But I do not understand where it ends. The Chancellor’s Office suggests a 5% reserve is prudent. SMC is currently at roughly 17%. It seems we could increase our course offerings by 200 classes, pay for more faculty, give the option of keeping our current benefits, and give faculty raises commensurate with those enjoyed by administration over the past few years and still be above the chancellor’s recommended reserve.

We instructors are now concerned with facilitating the administration’s facilitating our facilitating student learning. This is confusing and absurd. It seems reasonable that we faculty continue to enjoy that which enticed us here in the first place. The FA’s original offer to the district was to roll over the existing contract. That was a noble sacrifice in itself. Let’s please settle this mess and work on developing a more collegial atmosphere where our disagreements are challenges that result in better service to our students rather than broken promises.

Part-time faculty have the right to apply for unemployment benefits during breaks between semesters when they are not employed as well as during semesters when all their teaching assignments have been cancelled.For example, even if you have been offered an assignment for the spring 2012 semester and you have no winter assignment, you may still be eligible to receive unemployment compensation from the date of the end of the semester through the date of your first class in February.

Be sure to let EDD know that you are a temporary, part-time employee who has been laid off for lack of work. (Do NOT say you are on a break.) If you have been offered an assignment for the spring, explain that you have a tentative assignment for the upcoming semester and that your assignment may be withdrawn at the District’s discretion at the last minute because of funding, enrollment, or other changes. You should also mention your entitlement to benefits under the Cervisi decision, which states, “an assignment that is contingent on enrollment, funding, or program changes is not a ‘reasonable assurance’ of employment.”

If your application is denied, be sure to appeal. You may also consider contacting the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges (FACCC). Andrea York, Director Of Governmental Relations, (ayork@faccc.org/ (916)447-8555) is working with EDD staff to resolve these denials.

For more information go to the FA website: www.smcfa.org.

By Howard Stahl

Over the past month, coinciding with the reconstitution of the Job Action Task Force now ably led by Tom Peters, our Political Director, you and your colleagues have been speaking out with the goal of having the district settle a fair contract now.Faculty have been writing letters to board members, responding to press articles, attending Board of Trustee meetings, joining SMRR, and strategizing each week at Job Action Task Force meetings about ways to reach our goal.

All this faculty activism has been having a positive effect on the negotiating process.On October 25, the parties started facilitation with the arbitrator, R. Douglas Collins, a neutral third party.So far, over 50 hours have been spent over seven different sessions with Mr. Collins.As of November 29, tentative agreements have been reached on the issues of Academic Freedom (a new article), Coaching (Article 6.15), Department Chairs (Article 22), Added Responsibility (Article 6.13), and Professional Development (Article 15). I have described the nature of these agreements at recent Faculty Association Assembly meetings. These updates are available from the Association’s website for you to review (please see the online version of this article for a link). Further updates will be posted there as our negotiations continue.

While I am happy to be making progress, many difficult and contentious issues remain, including Associate Faculty, Salary, Benefits, as well as State Disability Insurance and Social Security for part-time faculty.At this point, both parties continue to believe that progress can be achieved through the facilitation process.Numerous additional days have been scheduled with Mr. Collins stretching into January, 2012.

It’s not too late for you to add your voice to the growing chorus of active faculty who will no longer remain silent as the District seeks to strip us of our health benefits and refuse any across-the-board salary increases for faculty for the 5th consecutive year. Your voice can make the difference!I call on you to join our fellow faculty colleagues who are participating in the actions originated by the Job Action Task Force.I appreciate all your continued support as negotiations continue in the weeks and months ahead.

• Lunch time at 2714 Pico.

• “Yeah, it’s's new anti-smoking initiative.Faculty get a dollar billevery student butt they pick up off the Pearl Street lawn andin to the administration.A true win-win, no?”

• Santa Monica Corporation, #1 in hoarding money!

• Any trustees need a laptop? We’ve got money!

• We have the money and you all ain’t getting any-nary a penny!!

• “Pick these up carefully, bend with your knees, remember you managers only have
PERSChoice now.” -Tom Peters

• Five times a day: “I bear witness that there is no God but the SMC Reserve.” -Fran Chandler

• Counting the SMC Reserve: Day O, Da-aa-ay O, Daylight come and me wan’ go home. -Fran Chandler

• Have no fear, Goblins. At the SMC branch of Gringotts they won’t get in without the Horcrux of Tsang. -Fran Chandler

By Lantz Simpson

So contract negotiations have been dragging on, and it is now over a year since the previous contract expired. What else is new? Since the 1995-98 contract, not a single one has been settled on a timely basis as set forth in the accompanying table.

Contract expired Contract settled

August 1998 March 2000
August 2001 November 2001
August 2004 September 2006
August 2007 February 2008
August 2010 Not yet settled

The Faculty Association has tried as hard as possible to settle every single con-tract in a timely manner. Instead, contract negotiations have taken on the ritualistic traditions of Elizabethan tragedy or Kabuki theater. The following list is an attempt to explain the nature of this ritual. Each item in the list leads to the next. However, I do want to be clear that not every single board member has fallen into all of these rituals, but too many have and continue to do so.

The FA helps elect new board members. Disappointed by sitting board members, the FA seeks, endorses, supports, and campaigns for board candidates who tell the FA that they would seek a more harmonious relationship between the college‟s leadership and its faculty and they would “ask the right questions” and “keep an open mind.”

Indoctrination. Newly elected board members attend a CCLC (Community College League of California) training session for new board members. New members are told that their main function is to keep a unified board and to support the district CEO (real title: Superintendent/President). Little is said about making good or right decisions.

Inoculation. New board members are warned by administrators and sitting board members that it is improper to dis-cuss issues with FA leaders or to even meet with them. Various pressure tactics are applied, each one custom-made for a particular board member‟s needs.

Information control. Administrators and lawyers attempt to control information flow to the board by the above inoculation and by closed session meetings in which only selective information (and sometimes even misinformation) from administrators and counsel are presented and only administrators and counsel views are expressed.

Immunization. Some board members do meet with FA leaders, who pre-sent more information and other views. However, board members are often con-fused by conflicting information and views and wishing to avoid too much personal distress, fall back into the safe harbor of supporting the CEO. Thus, board members are immunized against information and views contrary to the administration‟s.

Dilatory bargaining. The district hires one or more lawyers to do collective bargaining. These lawyers have one over-riding goal, keep their meter running. In the last ten years, the district has spent over $1 million on each of three different lawyers/law firms to do its bargaining. Meanwhile, these lawyers take ridiculous bargaining positions and then tell the board that it is the FA that is foot dragging.

Budget manipulation. Twelve of the last thirteen years, the district has present-ed a budget plan to the board that project-ed a declining reserve. However, year-end totals subsequently show more revenue and fewer expenditures than project-ed. Last year a $6 million operating deficit was projected, yet a $2.6 million surplus was the actual result. Recently, the college president has thanked everyone for working so hard to save the budget. History, however, reveals that these budget manipulations are planned in order to lead to the next step.

Crisis creation. To set the final stage of bargaining, the administration creates a crisis through manipulation, fear, and hysteria. Allegedly, the district is suddenly on the verge of going over a cliff. Yet the cliff keeps moving. In 1998-2000, it was the fifty per cent lawsuit. In the 2003 program massacre, it was the state budget crisis. In 2004-06, it was the leadership transition. Now it is the alleged crisis in health benefit costs. Every single one of these crises was phony because the cliff was, and is, nowhere in sight. (See past issues of the FAB online.)

Abdication of authority. Board members begin wringing their hands and playing what I call the helpless control-ling game. They moan that the cliff is looming and that only the CEO can avert disaster by the faculty totally caving. They make claims such as their main duty to the district is fiduciary and that their only employee is the CEO. Either they were not instructed to read the Education Code section on the duties and responsibilities of board members or they read it and forgot (EC 70902).

Circling the wagons. Completely giving up any claim to power, authority, and responsibility, board members abide by the slogan “My CEO, right or wrong.”

Impasse. Sticking to its ridiculous positions, the district finally wants to go to impasse.

Denial. When FA leaders point out the repetitive nature of the bargaining ritual, they are told that “this time it is different.”

Endless reservoir of wishful thinking. Board members and faculty alike bemoan the situation and ask, “why can‟t everyone be reasonable?” Why indeed? In some minds, rolling over and being reasonable are equated as one and the same.

Fact finding. Since 1995, bargaining with faculty has gone to fact finding twice. Both times the facts found were greatly in favor of the FA. This year, the district went to fact finding with CSEA. The finding was that the district had the ability to pay for continuing the existing benefit plans for the classified. And why not? The district has a reserve of $23 million, which is about 18% of its expenditure budget.

Imposition. This is the lawyer‟s plan all along. After the fact finder‟s report is made public, the board may vote to impose a contract. This they did in January 2000. After all, that time it was different.

Faculty action. Somewhere between impasse and imposition, the faculty begin to take action: letter writing, emails, speaking and demonstrating at board meetings, informational picketing, marches, press releases, newspaper ads, search for new board candidates, etc.

Settlement. Finally, a new contract is settled at the cost of further damaging relations at the college.

Moving on. Board members are replaced. The college president gets a large raise. Administrators retire, resign, or are dismissed. Lawyers are fired, having already created their own large bank account and then new lawyers are hired. After all, this time it will be different.

The faculty? The faculty remain, dedicated to their students and the process of education.

By Mitra Moassessi

It is no secret that the district has made reducing its employees‟ health benefits one of its top priorities. Unfortunately the majority of board members support this attack on employees‟ health benefits. Recently, the district forced classified employees to relinquish their PersCare coverage. All classified employees on this plan have to move to a different plan start-ing January 2012, or face paying the difference between the premium for PersCare and the highest non-PersCare plan.

In general, CalPERS offers two categories of health benefits: Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) and Preferred Provider Organization (PPO).

Under an HMO plan, participants obtain care from physicians and hospitals that are part of the plan network. If the care is obtained from outside of the net-work without a referral from the health plan, except in the case of emergency or urgent care, the participant is responsible for the total cost. Under the HMO plans, participants are required to have a Primary Care Physician (PCP) who will manage their health care needs. Participants in HMO plans make small co-payments for most services.

Under a PPO plan, participants have access to many types of services without referral or advance approval. Although encouraged to receive service from a net-work of providers, one can also receive services from an out of network provider, but it will result in paying for a higher percentage of the bill. Under a PPO plan, in addition to the annual deductible, there is a copayment for a majority of the services.

PersCare and PersChoice are two PPO plans offered by CalPERS. Both plans have the same networks of Anthem physicians and hospital preferred provider organizations. Both plans have $500 deductibles for individuals and maximum deductibles of $1000 per family. The premium for PersCare is higher than for PersChoice. Apparently, the district believes paying for the PersCare premium is not money well spent and has referred to it as a “waste of money.”

The district has repeatedly claimed that the difference between the PersCare and PersChoice is not significant, and that an employee who moves from PersCare to PersChoice will not face a major in-crease in out-of-pocket expenses. The facts, however, clearly establish that this is not true.

Under PersChoice, the maximum copayment/coinsurance for a calendar year is $3000 for individuals and $6000 for families, while the corresponding figures for PersCare are $2000 and $4000. Importantly, only copayments for services that are (1) covered under each plan and (2) provided by preferred providers go toward the maximum annual copayment/coinsurance. Additionally, members are responsible for 100% of benefits that ex-ceed the maximum covered by the plan and the out-of-pocket maximum doesn’t apply to non-covered visits.

PersCare is a 10-90 plan and PersChoice is a 20-80 plan. For a majority of the services, the PersCare member is responsible for 10% of the negotiated charge, while the PersChoice member is responsible for 20% of the negotiated charge. This means that PersChoice members are required to pay double the copayment of a PersCare member.

Additionally, PersChoice has lower coverage than PersCare for several services. For example, under PersCare, the Home Health Care covers 100 visits per calendar year, while under PersChoice the same service covers only 45 visits per year. At $200 per day for Home Health Care visit for a seriously ill patient, a PersChoice member who receives 85 vis-its in one year is responsible for the $8000 total cost of the extra 40 visits in addition to $1800 copayment of the covered 45 visits. The PersCare member is responsible for $1700 copayment for the covered 85 visits.

Another example is the coverage for Skilled Nursing Care. PersCare covers up to 180 days and the member is responsible for 10% of the charges for the first 10 days and 20% of the charges for the next 170 days. PersChoice covers up to 100 days and the member is responsible for 20% for the first 10 days and 30% for the next 90 days. For a member who had a stroke and needs six months in a skilled nursing facility at a rate of $200 per day, under PersChoice the member has total responsibility for 80 of those 180 days at a cost of $16,000.

In a recent email to the district announcing the tentative agreement between CSEA and the district, Dr. Tsang stated: “This new agreement aligns the health care program offered to classified employees with the one previously adopted for the Board of Trustees, Personnel Commission, Academic Managers, Classified Managers, and Confidential employees. With this change, the District is able to take a major step in addressing the unsustainable cost escalations so that we can continue to afford a range of health care options for employees and their de-pendents with no employee contribution for health premiums.”

However, Dr. Tsang failed to mention that the extra medical costs that employees and their family members may be exposed to will further diminish their ability to keep up with costs of living.

At a time when the district is enjoy-ing its highest reserve in history, there is no justification for attacking employees‟ health benefits. A progressive board certainly should not spend thousands of dollars on imposing a reduction in health benefits on the college‟s employees.