During an election season often marked by division, the vote being held this week by members of the Cal State faculty union on a proposed contract is no exception, as a vocal faction has urged a vote against what they believe is a rushed agreement that falls short of the wages and benefit demands.
The tentative agreement with California State University includes a 5% raise for all faculty retroactive to July 2023 and another 5% raise that would take effect this July as long as the state does not cut base funding for the college system. 23 campuses.
The proposed contract was reached after one day of a planned five-day systemwide strike in late January that virtually shut down classes at the nation's largest four-year university system. The proposed contract also includes 10 weeks of paid parental leave, a minimum pay increase for the lowest-paid teachers and better access to gender-inclusive bathrooms.
The California Faculty Association, which represents 29,000 professors, professors, lecturers, counselors, librarians and coaches, had demanded a 12% raise and a full semester of parental leave, among other benefits.
With teachers set to strike for a week, the quick agreement accepted by union executives took many members by surprise. That night, union members were notified by email that the strike had ended.
State union leaders and some university chapters are hailing the deal as a victory and saying they are confident it is the best deal possible and will pass with the necessary simple majority vote.
“Based on all the conversations I've had, I'm pretty confident that the tentative agreement has strong support across the union, even if that's not what it seems,” said Meghan O'Donnell, a member of the union's board of directors. union and part of the central negotiation team.
But many union members who were not directly involved in the bargaining process see significant shortcomings. They have been organizing on all campuses., urging to vote against.
“We believe that accepting this agreement leaves our economic and social justice issues inadequately addressed, lets CSU off the hook without any systemic changes, and fails to protect our students' right to an accessible, affordable, high-quality education. “said the vote. The down website says.
“I felt like we were just starting to come into our own,” said Robin Dodds, a professor at California State University, Los Angeles, who is participating in a campaign on her campus to vote against the deal. “I would rather go back to the negotiating table and continue to do better for the union.”
Dodds wanted the deal to include additional mental health counselors, higher pay increases and more significant action on gender-inclusive facilities, she said. Her university union chapter is one of four that has issued an official statement against the agreement.
The executive boards of the union chapter in Long Beach State University, CSU San Bernardino and San Francisco State University issued similar statements. On those campuses and others, many rank-and-file union members are frustrated with union leaders for shortening the strike and characterizing the tentative agreement as a victory.
“We are seeing our classes increase, our workload increase and our salary not keeping up with inflation,” said Sang Hea Kil, a professor at San Jose State University. “There is no victory here.”
Andrew Delunas, a professor at San Jose State University, supports the tentative agreement and said he is bothered by the attitude of those who don't, which indicates fractures within the union.
“It's a give and take, but it's an extremely good contract and it's the culmination of 10 months of extremely hard work,” Delunas said. “The party that opposes this agreement is criticizing our efforts.”
The pay increase, a 10% increase over two years with 5% contingent on normal state funding, is a victory for the union, he said. He also praised parental leave and said the deal “immensely” benefits part-time teachers like him.
The first strike followed months of tension between the union and CSU leadership over so-called reopening negotiations, when certain terms of an existing contract can be negotiated before it expires. The current contract will end in June unless the tentative agreement, which would extend it through June 2025, is approved.
If the tentative agreement is not approved, Cal State officials will not have to return to the negotiating table, O'Donnell said. The union may strike again in an attempt to begin negotiations, he said.
For the record:
3:48 pm February 16, 2024An earlier version of this article said several CSU concessions were not on the table before the January strike. Access to lactation spaces and the right of teachers to request union support when interacting with law enforcement had been under negotiations before the strike.
O'Donnell said he believes the current tentative agreement is the best it can get. It includes concessions from management that the union had pushed for, including access to breastfeeding spaces and the right of teachers to request the union's support when interacting with authorities.
He also said Cal State has contractual agreements with other unions called “me too” clauses that require the university to reopen negotiations if another bargaining unit receives better terms. The Teamsters union, for example, which recently finalized a new contract with Cal State, has a “me too” provision.
“If faculty were to actually get an across-the-board pay increase of more than 5% by 2023, the CSU would have to renegotiate all the pay contracts they had just agreed to with all the other staff unions,” O'Donnell said. “The CSU made it very clear that it was a hill they were going to die on.”
The CSU chancellery did not want to comment on the voting process.
“As the agreement is still tentative and union members are currently voting, it would be inappropriate” to comment, communications director Amy Bentley-Smith wrote in an email.
The results of the union vote will be announced on Monday. Despite the opposition, O'Donnell said he is optimistic about the tentative agreement and the union's future, and said the contingent that voted against it reflects a committed union membership.
“It really shows how passionate and committed teachers are to this process and to improving our working conditions,” he said.
Those against the provisional agreement said they were not sure whether they represented a majority vote, but said their dissatisfaction was deep.
“I don't know how extensive the campaign is,” Dodds said. “But I know that the people who participate in it are very passionate about improving our union so that it truly represents rank-and-file members.”
