A locally governed, independent association, incorporated in 2009 by classified professional staff in the Foothill-De Anza (FHDA) Community College District to represent themselves pursuant to the California Public Employees Relations Act of 1976. ACE and the District Board of Trustees collectively bargain decisions on salary, hours of work, hiring practices, classification, and other terms and conditions of employment at Foothill and De Anza colleges.
Please see the attached write-up detailing our upcoming COLA and benefits tentative agreement with the district. (ACE Negotiations Update 20230731.pdf)
The negotiated 7.22% salary schedule increase and management of system-wide benefits cost increases are only possible due to your support of collective action, along with labor groups diligently working together.
Kudos to Chris White, Sushini Chand, Chris Chavez, Keri Kirkpatrick, Joseph Gilmore, and Andrea Santa Cruz for their work on these negotiations.
President’s Message The FHDA CCD Board of Trustees agenda had yet to be released prior to the previous ACE update message, but you can see what was discussed and acted upon on May 1st (LINK). “Ratification of Contracts”, the “Human Resources Report”, and the “Human Resources” specific sections are items I pay careful attention to – Is there an attempt to contract out our work? Who’s been hired? Who’s earned a PGA? Who’s resigned or retired? Are there new MOUs or agreements with labor groups? All the answers are there. On the June 12th agenda we have made it clear that we are expecting to see our updated 2021-2024 Agreement and our sunshine letter, which legally kicks off the contract negotiations process. While the text of our 2021-2024 Agreement will be very similar to 2018-2021, there are updates which are long overdue for us to literally be on the same page when it comes to understanding conditions of employment. The Agreement is a foundational document that we refer whenever there are misunderstandings about an employment practice or questions about how to proceed – it’s akin to a game’s rulebook but attorneys are involved on both sides.
I recognize almost everything takes longer than expected but we do need capacity on the District administrator-side to take care of business without having to file lawsuits, grievances, and unfair labor practice charges. The June agenda along with how our negotiations go forward will be telling. As members I encourage you to pay close attention, be engaged, and ask questions.
Layoff Update As a reminder, current layoffs are not due to a shortfall in the general fund and are not the fault of the affected employees. ACE continues to work with the Associate Vice Chancellor of Human Resources to place employees into positions in which they hold seniority or find comparable alternative positions, per Article 11 of our Agreement. We also continue to scrutinize the use of temporary employees and contractors to argue for permanent benefitted positions to be created where it has been demonstrated that there is an ongoing need. Thank you to those who’ve brought examples of misuse to our attention.
Upcoming Additional CalPERS Employee Contribution for 2.5% Salary Increase Now Being Pensionable CalPERS members hired after 2013, or PEPRA (Post-Employee Pension Reform Act) members, will see an additional deduction on their May paychecks to pay for the employee contribution for making a “temporary” salary adjustment pensionable. The average deduction is $190 (median $205). Contact @Scott Olsen for the exact amount or this would create a financial hardship.
This additional deduction is a result of winning our lawsuit against CalPERS, which determined that the OSSP-np line item (off salary schedule payment-non pensionable) was actually pensionable for all of our members. Not only does this affect the past salary schedule increase, it will be precedent setting in the event we negotiate for future one-time salary increases and both PEPRA and Classic members will be treated equally.
Negotiations and the May revise of the Governor’s 2023-2024 State Budget (by Chris White, chair of negotiations) Last week, the Governor released the May revise for the proposed 2023-2024 state budget. I would encourage you to read the full proposal as it relates to CCCs. You can find it here: https://ebudget.ca.gov/2023-24/pdf/Revised/BudgetSummary/HigherEducation.pdf.
The part most people want to know, is the cost-of-Living adjustment (COLA). It crept up from 8.13% in January to 8.22%.
WOOHOO! That means we’re getting an 8.22% COLA!Not so fast.For FHDA, COLA is not an automatic pass through, and we must bargain any increase. A couple of facts about this state budget proposal:
The legislature and the governor must agree and sign it by June 15, which means there is still time to negotiate. Historically, it hasn’t changed much from the May revise proposal, but this COLA is funded differently.
FHDA has its own budget issues with over a decade of declining enrollment, increasing costs, and the ending of hold-harmless funding in 2024-25. When this happens, we won’t lose funding, we also won’t get any new funding (like COLAs) until our enrollment matches the funding the state has been giving us despite fewer students (its pegged to 2017-2018 enrollment). That means unless we increase our FTES on average by 1,000 over the next three years or we get a five percent or more COLA each year during that same time period, both are highly unlikely, wages will most likely remain stagnant.
So, what are we getting? Your negotiations team will do everything to be fair in our proposals to help our members get a COLA that works for them now and in the future.
As I mentioned in my last update, we are expecting our proposals to go to the board of trustees’ June 12 meeting. In addition to the articles, we are opening – 8 (pay and allowances), 9.2 (Vacation), 13.2.6 (Remote Work) and 18 (benefits) – you’ll see some additional items which need to be amended due to changes in the law. They are:
Articles 3 – Union Security – this is the elimination of fair-share fee payers from the 2018 Janus supreme court decision.
Article 7 – Employment Practices – this is a change in probationary status where the maximum is now six months. Ours is currently 1 year.
Article 10 – Leaves – this is a change in parental leave (12-weeks at 50% of pay, can’t be supplemented with any other leave). Change says the max is 12 weeks within a 12-month calendar. If you use sick/personal/vacation to be covered at 100%, the number of weeks you used is subtracted from the 12-week total that parental leave allows. You still can’t use parental leave + your earned leave to accrue 100% of your salary.
Article 11 – Layoffs – sets March 15 notice deadline and requires the option to have an administrative hearing to demonstrate the layoff is due to a lack of work or lack of funds.
Article 16 – Discipline – changes the length of time from one year to two that the district can’t initiate any disciplinary action for any cause alleged to have arisen prior to the worker becoming permanent nor for any cause alleged to have arisen.
In solidarity Chris, chair of negotiations
Negotiators Sushini Chand Chris Chavez Joseph Gilmore Keri Kirkpatrick Andrea Santa Cruz
We hope to see many of your tomorrow at Classified Professional Development Day. Be sure to connect with your ACE representatives (LINK). What’s the difference between ACE and Senate? (LINK).
In March we sent a survey to better understand the impact of dentist participation, or lack thereof, with Delta Dental, our dental insurance provider. We shared the results at site meetings (see attached), but in a nutshell:
We had a 70% response rate. Of those that responded, 98% buy into district’s vision and dental coverage.
81% of respondents who use district provided dental insurance said their dental provider was still in network.
15% of respondents who use district provided dental insurance said their dental provider had moved out of network.
4% had always used a dental provider out of network.
There has not been a mass exodus of dental providers. In fact, many more providers have been added than those who have left.
Delta Dental – Provider Updates
Santa Clara County
Delta Dental has 1,961 providers in Santa Clara County. Of those 1,961 providers, 1,292 are PPO + Premier providers.
Of the 1,961 providers, Foothill-De Anza CCD members utilized 641 of the providers in the last 12 months.
There were 36 providers that termed in the last 12 months as follows:
25 were voluntary
9 were through attrition (Provider being deceased, retired or have moved to another location
2 were involuntary (typically due to license issues)
There were 141 new providers added in the last 12 months. Of the new 141 providers added, 14 of the new providers were utilized by Foothill-De Anza members.
Alameda County
Delta Dental has 1,694 providers in Alameda County. Of those 1,694 providers, 1,263 are PPO + Premier providers.
Of the 1,961 providers, Foothill-De Anza CCD members utilized 105 of the providers in the last 12 months.
There were 4 providers that termed in the last 12 months as follows:
3 were voluntary
1 were through attrition (Provider being deceased, retired or have moved to another location
There were no involuntary (typically due to license issues) terminations
There were 188 new providers added in the last 12 months. None of the new providers in Alameda County were utilized by Foothill-De Anza members.
San Mateo County
Delta Dental has 732 providers in San Mateo County. Of those 732 providers, 470 are PPO + Premier providers.
Of the 732 providers, Foothill-De Anza CCD members utilized 126 of the providers in the last 12 months.
There were 13 providers that termed in the last 12 months as follows:
12 were voluntary
1 were through attrition (Provider being deceased, retired or have moved to another location
There were no involuntary (typically due to license issues) terminations
There were 53 new providers added in the last 12 months. Of the new 53 providers added, 2 of the new providers were utilized by Foothill-De Anza members.
Santa Cruz County
Delta Dental has 229 providers in Santa Cruz County. Of those 229 providers, 184 are PPO + Premier providers.
Of the 229 providers, Foothill-De Anza CCD members utilized 57 of the providers in the last 12 months.
There were 5 providers that termed in the last 12 months as follows:
4 were voluntary
1 were through attrition (Provider being deceased, retired or have moved to another location
There were no involuntary (typically due to license issues) terminations
There were 21 new providers added in the last 12 months. None of the new providers in Santa Cruz County were utilized by Foothill-De Anza members
While the impact wasn’t significant on a majority of employees, the Joint Labor Management Council (JLMBC) wanted to see if we could do better and looked into other broker options besides Delta Dental which might bring more dentists into the network.
Carrier Comparison
We found the Delta Dental network is more than double the size of competing providers. If we moved to a different provider, more dentists would fall out of the network, having a significant impact on a large majority of employees.
In reviewing how other providers would compare to Delta Dental, Delta Dental has provided a claim comparison to several other carriers such as MetLife, Cigna, Blue Shield, SunLife, Anthem, etc.
As shown below, there would be significant disruption in the other carrier networks. For example, there were 14,554 services through Delta Dental between October 1, 2021 through November 30, 2022. Of the total 14, 554 services, only 33% of those services would have been considered in-network for Carrier A, 39% in-network for Carrier B, 35% in-network for Carrier C, 37% in-network for Carrier D and 38% in-network for Carrier E.
This is separate from asking the question if we should bargain for increased dental benefits. Changes always come at a cost and IF we were to make any changes, we’d survey the membership. As I’ve said on more than one occasion, you have to give something to get something.
Negotiations 2022-23
With COLA already bargained for this year (5.56%, implemented July 1, 2022) along with health benefit premiums for plan year 2023, we have been slow to get to the table on our other negotiated items. Primarily because HR did not have the bandwidth (getting people paid was a priority) nor did they have a representative to bargain with us. Now that the new Associate Vice Chancellor of Human Resources, Rocio Chavez, has been brought on board, we are starting that process. We have sent our sunshine letter to open negotiations based on the two articles we identified through the membership survey last June: Article 9 – Vacation and Article 13 – Remote Work. Articles 8 – Pay and Allowances and Article 18 benefits are also open and once we have a better idea of the state budget (usually mid-May) we can address any COLA for 2023-24 . We are currently addressing benefit rates though the JLMMC. I am cautiously optimistic the district is now in a position to move forward. We’ll keep you updated, ask for your input as we progress.
In solidarity
Chris, chair of negotiations
Negotiators: Sushini Chand Chris Chavez Joseph Gilmore Keri Kirkpatrick Andrea Santa Cruz Scott Olsen
Chris White (she/her) | Archive Coordinator Foothill-De Anza Archives | 650.949.7721 Hours: Mon – Thur 7:00 a.m. – 5:30 p.m., Access by appointment only. Foothill-De Anza Association of Classified Employees (ACE) | Chair of Negotiations
