 |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
 |
|||
|
Contract progress possible; strike vote OK'd
The Advocate
The MHCC District board this week indicated there is possible common ground with the full-time faculty on several economic issues in their contract dispute while the faculty voted to authorize a strike in case negotiations do not significantly advance.
The board Tuesday submitted a proposal to the Employment Relations Board that matches recent faculty movement on salary, health benefits, and some language in Article 1.
Randy Stedman, the labor relations consultant hired by the board to bargain the contract for the administration, said he felt getting those three issues off the table would bring a resolution "closer."
Sara Williams, chief negotiator for the faculty, was notified Wednesday of the board action and said, "I am appreciative of the board providing an offer that moves forward negotiations. But the offer doesn't resolve all of the issues."
On Wednesday, an "overwhelming majority" of the full-time faculty association voted to authorize its bargaining team to call a strike if necessary, according to Sara Williams, the faculty's chief negotiator.
The main sticking points for the faculty have been in the areas of extra teach, summer teach, and retiree benefits.
Following a 5:30 p.m. meeting, Williams said, "The hope is that a strike vote moves us forward in the conversation. We need the board to demonstrate an interest in finding a resolution." She also said the faculty has "worked toward finding a middle ground. We want the board to do the same."
According to Williams, approximately 150 people voted, with about 90 percent voting in favor of authorizing a strike.
The association did not announce its intent to strike, which would start a 10-day, state-mandated clock before a strike could legally begin. Williams said she was not willing to talk about the faculty's discussion of going on strike, but that there has "not been a decision made" on a day to strike.
Jack Schommer, immediate past MHCC Faculty Association president, said, "We will (strike), but we don't want to. We're not interested in a strike, but to get to a settlement. We have to do this."
Stedman said Wednesday night that while the board is "disappointed (the faculty) took a strike vote, they look forward to continuing to negotiate with them and try to reach a settlement."
No meetings had been set as of press time Thursday.
Williams said, "This last (board) offer was the first significant movement toward the faculty."
Asked what movement the administration has made toward the faculty, Stedman said, "The administration has moved consistently towards the faculty on every economic issue."
In the area of health benefits, he said the administration has moved from 20 percent employee contribution to 13 percent. In the area of extra teach and summer teach, he said the administration has moved from $695.77 per credit for both, to $830 for extra teach and $1,000 for summer teach. In the area of retiree health, he said they moved from a $350 subsidy per month to a $525 subsidy with a 5 percent increase each year. In the area of salary, he said they moved from a zero percent cost of living adjustment increase at the top step (3.5 percent increase at the bottom step), to a zero percent increase for the first year of the contract, a 1 percent increase for the second year, and 2 percent increase for the third year, for all steps.
Stedman said Wednesday no decision on implementation of the contract has been made. "We decided to wait until we saw what the association would do today. We'll take that into consideration," he said.
The board filed a complaint with the ERB against the faculty association Monday, saying the association has made false claims about how much their proposals save.
A statement made by the faculty association March 30 in an email to its members and March 31 in a press release, which the college claims are false.
"It doesn't surprise me that that's what they're doing," said Schommer. "They have used this tactic before when they said the faculty was the highest paid in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho."
Stedman said, "The union has the right to communicate its position to its membership and the public, but it does not have a right to intentionally mislead its members and the public in bad faith."
In response, Schommer said, "We have attorneys looking at what they are claiming. It's over a disagreement between what we see as the numbers and what they say are the numbers."
The numbers referenced by Schommer are the differences between what the faculty said is "extensive concessions to the tune of $1.6 million in permanent give-backs to the college" and what the board says will save the college "$74,000 over the life of the contract."
Board member Brian Freeman said in an interview Thursday the complaint basically said the board feels the other side isn't following the rules.
The Advocate reserves the right to not publish comments based on their appropriateness.