Thoughts on GCC’s Proposed New CBA

[rwallen]

Overall about Article 13 and 18: The administration’s proposal:
a. cuts salaries for almost everyone,
b. increases student loads for salaried employees,
c. decreases the ratio of salaried employees per number of students, eliminating the jobs of many 50% salaried faculty
d. dramatically decreases job security and participation in college life for affiliated faculty, eliminating residency pay, on-going contracts, and evaluations
Their proposal is all about cuts, much more than is necessary for financial stability. This semester almost all programs are within the 21% or 22% percentage of tuition margin, including extra pays, a target that was set out by the administration. Making further cuts, much more than we are experiencing currently, to balance the budget is inexcusable.

Need to maintain the option for 50% salaried faculty as stipulated in redesign proposal.
Maintaining the option for 50% salaried faculty is essential for those programs (MFAs and GGI?) that desire them, especially in the short run. Small numbers of full-time faculty, may not be enough to maintain the many types of diversity needed for all programs to thrive.

Before faculty loads can be raised from current levels, there needs to be an extended discussion about methods of advising students, how we can provide the intensive listening and transformative experience in a bit less time-consuming manner. The contract proposal mandates group studies for all programs, without a more comprehensive consideration of teaching methods and strategies, or consideration of the needs and desires of individual programs.

Issues to be considered around group studies:
Cost savings is minimal! For core faculty, the savings rest on dubious assumptions—that salaried faculty could teach a group study to 15 students in lieu of taking more additional students, and that doing so can increase in their total credit load because group study teaching takes less time than individual advising. For affiliated faculty teaching group studies, there is absolutely NO savings, as affiliated faculty get paid by the credit. Also note that while several group studies are co-taught by two faculty, this assumes that all group studies are taught by a single faculty member.

Group study proposed size is too large: Most existing group studies have caps of 8-10 students. Online learning is very different than a classroom. In a classroom, a seminar typically meets for three hours once a week (or in two smaller increments). Online learning sessions typically are 1.5 hours max.

Group studies increase individual advising loads under the proposed model: Let’s assume that undergrads take one group study per semester on average. That means that if a group study is worth 3 credits, the remaining advising load is worth 12 credits. Now for core faculty instead of 210 credits=14 advisees, it means 17.5 students (at 12 credits each, plus 45 group study credits.)

Proposed system may overestimate the number of credits that can realistically be devoted to group studies:

11. Program Chairs
The proposed workload is absolutely unsustainable. Currently chairs are doing the same work as PDs, except for writing faculty evaluations. Despite numerous promises from admin to lower workloads, or give some tasks to the Associate Dean, it doesn’t seem workable to do so. Proposing that a chair could be responsible for multiple sites or residencies per semester with only a 50% reduction in load, plus responsibility for facilitating 45 credits of group studies, is absurd. There needs to be 50% reduction of workload per site.

111. Affiliate Faculty are adjuncts
Call it like it is!! In contrast to pledges for equity and racial justice the majority of faculty would no longer have any job security, but be hired by the semester. They may no longer be required or expected to attend residencies, will no longer receive evaluations, are paid less than present (except of BA/MA faculty at the very bottom of the salary scale) and are excepted to participate much less in program life than at present. Overall this is a disastrous proposal for faculty and the health of the College. It is imperative to keep the residency pay and service stipends. While we might need to agree to a reduction in salary if less than six students, residency pay assumes that PBT participate fully in the pre- or post-residency faculty meetings/retreat where the bulk of the semester’s work traditionally has been done. Affiliate faculty need to be evaluated, as they are in most colleges throughout the country and to have some form of job security, which is also widely offered in other institutions.

Article 18: Compensation
Almost all currently employed faculty would receive a lower salary in the new contract. Starting from a fresh slate, and eliminating salary steps, ignores all of the care that has gone into creating relationships with students and alumni and developing College programs. Retention and new admissions are based in large part on these relationships! The wisdom of current faculty is something to be valued. Some faculty may need to step aside to achieve racial justice and allow for re-invigoration of programs, but not everyone who is not currently full-time.

Current Salaries vs Proposed Salaries (hard to copy in here)
For MFAW
Current Appointment:

PBT 0-2 years -$1840  18% cut
PBT 10-12 years -$3838 31% cut
50% salary (7 students/84 credits)  13-17 years -$5713.5 36% cut
50% salary 18-22 years -$6029 cut 37%

MFAIA
PBT 0-2 years. -$1720 semester     16% cut
PBT 10-12 years. -$3592 29% cut
50% salary  13-17 years. -$5419 35% cut
50% salary 18-22 years. -$5729.5 36% cut

MA
PBT 0-2 years. -$346 4% cut
PBT 10-12 years -$2260, 21% cut
50% salary 13-17 years (8 students/95 credits) -$3671 24% cut
50% salary 18-22 years -$3975, 26% cut

BA
PBT 0-2 years +$14 ca. .16%raise
PBT 10-12 years -$1999 18% cut
50% salary 13-17 years 8 students/120 credits -$3191 or 21% cut
50% salary 18-22 -$3495, 23% cut

*PBT current salaries are calculated based on 6 students, residency pay, service stipend and one second reader

For 100% core faculty positions: Those with more than 9 years of service in MFA programs or twelve years of service in BA/MA faculty, or virtually all of those who currently hold these positions, would receive a faculty cut. Newly hired core faculty would receive a small increase over current salaries. They are the only ones that benefit somewhat from administration’s proposals.

Overall: Proposed BA salaries are higher per student that MA or MFAIA salaries. MFA salaried faculty have the biggest pay cuts, but all 50% salaried positions of faculty who’ve been at the College over ten years suffer significant pay cuts per credit work. Older faculty, who may have trouble finding other jobs, are out of luck.

Any proposed changes need to be made over a three-year period. This gives faculty time to find other jobs and health insurance, and for relationships between students and faculty to change gradually, instead of having students suddenly finding most of their advisors suddenly shown the door or taking a hike.

[Author]

Posts