9/28/2026
The Faculty Collective Bargaining Team (FCBT) met with management on Friday, Sept 25. This was the first time the parties have met since August. At its last session, the union team provided management with a comprehensive package that included all outstanding articles. The FCBT told management ahead of this session that they expected a response on their economic proposal and their AI proposal.
Discussion of FCBT’s AI Proposal
In May, the union brought a proposal that prohibits the college from reassigning, replacing or contracting out faculty bargaining work with AI tools. The language would also protect the faculty members’ right to use or not use AI tools under the academic freedom provisions of the agreement, and prohibit the college from using material created by faculty to train or inform any AI software, thereby protecting our intellectual property.
During the bargaining session last week, management brought in Michael Stamper, CTIO for the college, to discuss this AI proposal. At the beginning of this part of the session, the management team asked the union bargaining team to tell them what their proposal was. The FCBT responded that their proposal was presented in May. One is left to wonder why the rest of the management team was unable to read the FCBT proposal in the intervening four months.
Fortunately, Michael Stamper had read the proposal before the meeting and was able to provide some cogent questions and thought-provoking comments. Other members of the management team had many questions about AI, several of which were not relevant to the faculty working conditions that are the subject of contract negotiations. All of that said, there were some questions that led to productive discussion about adjustments to the language of the FCBT’s proposal, and management said they would provide a counterproposal.
Management Slashes Department Head Pay and Increases Workload
Instead of providing the FCBT with a comprehensive counter to their economic proposal as they requested, management instead made a new proposal to slash pay for department head duties. Instead of department heads receiving reassigned time (RAT) for their duties, department heads would be required to teach their full teaching load every quarter and receive a stipend for their additional department head duties. The amount of the stipend would vary with the department, but it is estimated that it would pay about one-third of the cost of the previous RAT amount. That is, department heads that currently received reassigned time that costs approximately $4500 per quarter would now receive $1500 per quarter for their department head duties, which would have to be performed on top of their full teaching load. Management said that this reduction in pay would be commensurate with a reduction in duties, but the department head job description that was presented to the FCBT did not clearly show any significant reduction in department head workload.
This proposal from management appears to be an all-out assault on the use of reassigned time at the college. Statements from members of the management team outside of the negotiation room indicate that management has concerns about granting any reassigned time to faculty for any reason. The implications of this change in working conditions affect all faculty at the college. The full-time faculty who are tasked with being department heads would be required to perform mandatory overtime. There will be less teaching opportunities for associate faculty in every department, since department heads would be required to teach their full load every quarter.
Furthermore, the changes to the contract language regarding department heads proposed by management place a lot more power in the hands of VPI to assign the department head role regardless of whether or not the faculty member wishes to do it while also reducing the authority of department heads to a role of representing the department as opposed to coordinating the department. These changes may indicate the desire of management to seize more control from department heads.
Management Softens Language Regarding Providing Faculty with Tools of the Trade
During the last negotiation session, management disagreed with the union’s assertion that the language regarding providing faculty with all equipment, instructional materials, and technology to do their job was tentatively agreed to. Instead, management provided a counterproposal that softens the language, saying that the college would “make every attempt” to provide the tools of the trade before classes start. The FCBT’s previous proposal made this a requirement.
Management Proposes Faculty Training Pathways
The last bargaining session also included a discussion of whether faculty should be paid for trainings like Online Teaching Essentials (OTE). Some members of the management team stated that they would be comfortable with requiring faculty to take these trainings unpaid. The FCBT stated that these trainings are not the same as the compliance training required for state employees and as such faculty should be compensated to complete them. After this initial discussion, the management team presented a proposed stipend list for faculty who complete certain trainings during the life of the contract, like OSCQR and OTE.
When we fight, we win!
If you have questions about these latest proposals or want to know how you can get involved in the fight for a fair contract, contact the union’s Action and Advocacy team, Jackie Sheppard and Leslie Rossman, at action@aftedmonds.com and the Federation President, Chuck Mueller at president@aftedmonds.com.