'Twas the week before Christmas, but our negotiating session on Tuesday wasn't all that merry.
The Federation and the District agreed to an MOU providing counselors 10 additional per diem days for 2016-17. We also agreed to an MOU paying nurses for required hospital orientations from 2017 through 2019.
So that was good. But on the sticking point of faculty salary, the District and the Federation remain far apart.
In what was perhaps just an uncontrollable spasm of holiday cheer, the Federation team left Friday's negotiating session feeling guardedly optimistic.
Well that was weird.
Two hours into our negotiation session on Friday, November 18th, the District presented to us, in writing, a recommendation that we cease negotiations and go straight to impasse. The District believes that the gap between its salary proposal and ours is insuperable. We believe that, yes, the gap is certainly significant. But, um, isn't that why we're negotiating?
The Federation and the District met for another round of negotiations on Friday, Nov. 4th. We spent the first two hours or so addressing various contractual issues, reaching tentative agreement on several of them.
It was a positive, productive dialogue. But then we talked salary.
The District sweetened its previous offer somewhat, emphasis on the what.
While big news was breaking in D.C. on Friday the 28th, the negotiation news out of Torrance was hardly news at all. It was simply more of the same – the same sad pattern of District indifference to the Federation's plea for economic parity with our peers at neighboring community colleges. Not exactly an October surprise.
Here are the numbers.
Federation proposal: Salary increases for both full- and part-time faculty of 6% in 2017; 4% in 2018; and 3% in 2019.
The Federation negotiating team met with the District team on Friday, Oct. 14th.
The session began with the District questioning some of the numbers in Susana Prieto's salary study published in September's issue of Proof.