E-NEWS FROM LOCAL 2111 - FALL 2008

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

(John Bachelor)

DODGING DEMOCRACY AT CCBC

On July 1st, 2008, CCBC began implementation of still another major reorganization, this time in the Information/Instructional Technology and Student Services areas of the college. This commentary focuses on the IT sector but may well have implications in other college areas.

In a message from the president issued the same day, the college community was assured that “Staffs from both areas have been prepared well in advance for these changes”, and that the reorganizing process was executed “while remaining sensitive to and respectful of the needs of the staffs in each area.”

Since nothing could be further from the actual truth, one is left to wonder if the president’s office has been willfully misinformed by those reporting to it on these matters, or whether the highest office in the college is consciously endorsing what it already knows to be a fantasy.

The truth is that there is widespread discontent and disappointment concerning the nature and results of this process, as well as the management style with which it is being administrated. In short, a private for-profit company, paid handsomely with taxpayer dollars, has been invited and allowed to run roughshod over a public institution in an operation which largely circumvents that institution’s historic commitment to shared self governance and respect for principles of democracy and fair play in the workplace.

“Campus Works”, a private, for-profit company, was hired on a consultant basis to review the IT area of the college. Upon the completion of their review, the same company was hired to implement the reorganization. Even at this early stage, one could sense a degree of conflict of interest.  Wouldn’t it have been better to prevent any single company from being able to write its own checks in this manner? Why could not our capable administrators review the analysis offered by the consultants, edit it if necessary and effect the desired changes themselves? Or even fill new staff positions from within to effect the changes, avoiding the possibility that the first firm is padding its own pockets via a corporate agenda that is less than best for the college community? It’s this sort of thing that once again calls to mind the phrase “appearance of impropriety”.

There are anecdotal reports that indicate a possible prior relationship between Campus Works and some level of current administration here at CCBC. Was this in fact an open, objective hiring process, or is there more here than meets the eye?

Going back to the president’s statements that “staffs from both areas have been prepared well in advance for these changes”, and that the reorganizing process was executed “while remaining sensitive to and respectful of the needs of the staffs in each area”, let’s take a look at the reality beneath this thin veneer.

It’s difficult to comprehend how the process was “sensitive and respectful to the needs of the staff” when the staff at large was completely excluded from any role having real input into the process. The staffing review and interviews that took place during the consultant’s initial review period were brief, cursory and without depth. There was no mechanism for dialog between the consultant’s recommendations, once issued, and staff reaction.

How could staff have been “prepared well advance” when the Fort Knox level of security surrounding the process preceding a key informational meeting in May precluded any staff from knowing in advance what their new roles would be? Even as of this writing, many staff members are still not sure exactly what they are supposed to do, or how to do it.

There was no apparent effort to match individual staff skills, abilities, natural talents, strengths or weakness with any new position assignments. People with a history of software skills were assigned to hardware groups (and vice-versa) and told they would be forced to obtain certifications in the new areas. Within the new “three tier” system, some employees were assigned to be “tier three” even though their qualifications were arguably less than or equal to those assigned to “tier one”. It’s as if names had been merely plucked from a hat. Changes in campus locations were effected with no regard for the hardship caused to individual staffers long assigned to campus sites close to them. Years of service and achievement to the college in one area by some employees were simply disregarded as they were reassigned to “entry level positions” in other departments involving duties in which they have no background or interest and for which they have still not yet been trained. In an ironic turn, all “entry level” position holders are told they will have ample opportunity to move up – again, that is.

Some positions were summarily changed from professional to classified status, while some other classified positions were made professional status, thereby defeating the union contract protection for classified positions.

Some employees did receive a wage increase; others were demoted in status and pay without adequate cause. Others received no increase in pay even though their job duties became drastically different in nature, scope and amount of increased workload.

And all of this is being done in the context of an authoritarian management style that cannot tolerate criticism, free speech, or - God forbid - any semblance of democratic mechanics in the workplace.

Management’s attitude is “if you don’t like it, you’re fired” or “get on board or you’re going to get wet”, not “because you do the work that is the college, your voice is heard, respected and welcomed”.

Employees at several levels have privately voiced misgivings, doubts and distaste about the nature and results of this process, both current and prospective – concerns voiced privately of course, since this is not and has not been anything close to an open process benefiting from a free exchange of ideas. Free and spontaneous communication among colleagues has been discouraged, lest it reveal dissent or objection. It’s also been reported anecdotally that some administrators across the college have told disenfranchised employees that they cannot advocate for them for fear of reprisal from above.

It is clear that any kind of even informally declared dissent will receive the attempted characterization of “insubordination” and be risked under reasonable fear of discipline. Sadly, it appears at the moment that the highest levels of CCBC have taken to either directing or endorsing this schoolyard-bully style of leadership.

Again one wonders if the highest office of the college is fully aware of the nature and scope of the negative impact that this reorganization and the general management style will have upon both the form and function of the college community, if dissenting views and opinions have been harshly discouraged and receive no voice through official channels.

Such policies undermine the historically established nature of academia and demean the long and hard fought reputation of public academic institutions everywhere as places of unfettered, independent thought, community nexus, and models of self-government which could otherwise serve to inform and sustain flourishing political democracies.

Fall will be an interesting time at CCBC as the faculty return, perhaps to find technical departments mired in confusion, poorly-tooled, and untrained for their tasks with morale at an all time low. It could be a surprise to many faculty members that long standing procedures related to online learning protocols and numerous other functions have been suddenly discontinued, requiring still another period of re-orientation and adjustment.

 

 

CWA LOCAL 2111 AND CCBC APPROVE NEW LABOR CONTRACT

(Rich Barnett)

On June 17, 2008 members of CWA Local 2111 held a meeting to discuss and vote on a new four-year agreement with CCBC. At the meeting, CWA Local 2111 president John Bachelor reviewed and explained the changes in the new agreement, which the membership voted unanimously to approve and ratify. The very next night, the agreement was presented to the Board of Trustees and was approved and signed. The labor contract goes into effect on July 1, 2008 and remains in full force and effect through June 30, 2012.
Some highlights of the new agreement:

• The employee share of the costs of core health coverage (including medical insurance, but excluding dental, vision, LTD, and other ancillary coverage) will NOT be increased in the 2009 fiscal year.

• For the first time EVER, in the history of this institution, all CCBC employees will receive a “signing bonus”. In addition to any applicable merit increases, the first full pay period of fiscal year 2009 will include $125 added to your base salary. In subsequent fiscal years, the “signing bonus” will be distributed throughout the year in your regular bi-weekly salary.

• Any employee who is regularly scheduled to a non-continuous workday (a shift that is separated in the same workday by non-work time) shall be paid a differential rate of $0.75 per hour FOR THE ENTIRE SHIFT. Keep in mind, it is the EMPLOYEE’S responsibility to submit a properly documented attendance exception report.

• Any employee whose shift begins between 12:00 PM and 11:00 PM (or who works 75% of the workday after 12:00 PM) or whose shift begins between 11:00 PM and 5:00 AM (or who works 75% of the workday after 11:00 PM) will receive a shift differential of $0.75 FOR THE ENTIRE SHIFT.

• Any employee who is off-duty and is called to answer questions or provide information shall be paid one-quarter hour of pay if the time spent exceeds seven minutes. For each additional 15 minutes, the employee will receive one-quarter hour of pay.

• An employee on temporary assignment doing work in a higher grade lasting longer than 15 consecutive workdays will receive a 3% wage increase for the duration of the temporary assignment, retroactive to the first day of the temporary assignment.

• In any meeting with management that could lead to or result in disciplinary action, management MUST inform the employee(s) of their right to union representation.

• Other actions include changes in the grievance procedure as it applies to a group of employees; two-weeks advance notice (to the union and employee) if management is establishing a flexible work week or flexible work hours to an employee or work group; if an employee submits a self-evaluation, that document must remain with the evaluation form.

Please read your contract and know your rights! Contact a union representative if you have a question or need more information.
Please thank your Bargaining Committee (John Bachelor, Pat Beard, Doug Frantz, and Mark Trojan) for their hard work, countless man-hours and dedication in securing this new agreement. And the work is not over! It is your problems and concerns and grievances over the next four years that will help build the next contract. Keep that in mind as your non-union co-workers (faculty and administrators) enjoy the fruits of the hard work of your union.

 

NEW CONTRACT:

Microsoft Word

PDF Format

 

LABOR DAY THOUGHTS

(Mark Trojan)

            One beautiful August day last week, while alone with my thoughts, I began to realize how close we are to another Labor Day. The first Monday in September now has more to do with the symbolic end of summer, than when the Central Labor Union of New York City in 1882, sought to have a day off for the working man, remembering those that fought for worker’s rights.  Another date (August 20) came to mind, as it passed with little or no fanfare, which was the 88th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th amendment, which gave women the right to vote.

            During the past week my mind seemed to fixate on these events and women’s relationship to labor. Using the resources at my disposal (GOOGLE), I came upon this one of many examples of women’s contributions. On March25,1911 the worst workplace disaster in New York city previous to September 11,2001 occurred, when a fire engulfed the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory in Greenwich Village. Out of 146 people that perished in the fire 123 of them were women.

            In 1911 most of the labor in the garment district was made up of poor, uneducated, immigrant women. Many spoke little or no English. The typical workday was 14 hours long and many of the workers were 12 and 13 year old girls. Factory conditions were dismal and typical.

            Two years before the fire occurred, a walkout of some 20,000 workers was organized by the International Ladies’ Garment Workers Union. A collective bargaining contract could not be worked out with factory owners, whose unsafe factory conditions would contribute to the large loss of life at the Triangle.

            Women did not have the right to vote at the time of the fire, but the right to assemble was and is applied to all US citizens .This was well demonstrated in a massive strike that had laborers, and suffragettes, working together to improve women’s working conditions. Many reforms came from the tragedy, including Francis Perkins, who later served as F.D.R.’s Secretary of Labor, becoming one of the biggest champions of workplace reform and workman’s compensation laws. She witnessed the tragedy from the street. Those women, who didn’t have a say in the legislative process, walked out of deplorable factories, stood together and refused to go back to work until things changed. Those women and workers are owed a debt of gratitude by us all.

            This election season has been like no other. Soon we’ll be called upon as Americans to exercise a right that was not available to those women back in 1911. It is essential   that everyone especially women, be in that voting booth come November, if for no other reason than to honor those women.

            My thoughts for Labor Day . . . Now pass the potato salad please.

DO YOU KNOW…

…your rights during investigatory interviews with the company, otherwise known as "Weingarten Rights"?
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) gives employees the right to have the assistance of union representation during investigatory interviews. Although not explicit in the Act, the right was declared by the US Supreme Court in 1975 in NLRB vs. J. Weingarten, Inc. The rules the court announced are known as Weingarten rights.
Employees sometime confuse the Weingarten rules with the Miranda rules. However there is a big difference in the two rules. Under Miranda rules police who question criminal suspects MUST notify them of their right to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning. Under Weingarten employers have NO obligation to inform the employees of their rights to union representation. The employee must ask for union representation in such meetings
An investigatory interview occurs when:

• Management questions an employee to obtain information and
• The employee has a reasonable belief that discipline or other adverse consequence may result from what he or she says.

Investigatory interviews relate to such subjects as:

Not every discussion with management is an investigatory interview. For example, a supervisor may speak to an employee about the proper way to do a job. Even if the supervisor asks the employee questions, this is not an investigatory interview as the use or possibility of discipline is remote.
However a routine conversation changes character if a supervisor becomes dissatisfied with an employee’s answers and takes a hostile attitude. If this happens, the meeting becomes an investigatory interview and Weingarten rules apply.
When a supervisor calls an employee to the office to announce a warning or other discipline that has already been decided it is not an investigatory meeting since the supervisor is just informing the employee of a previously arrived-at decision. Such a meeting becomes an investigatory interview, however, if the supervisor asks questions that are related to the subject matter of the discipline.
Having a steward present can help in many ways. The steward can:

The Employee Rights under Weingarten rules are as follows:

• The employee may request union representation before or during the interview. Remember the company does not have to offer union representation.
• After the request, the employer must choose from three options.
  • Grant the request and delay questioning until the union representative arrives.

If the employer denies the request for union representation and questions the employee, it commits an unfair labor practice and THEN the employee may refuse to answer.
Although some supervisors sometimes try to assert that the only function of a steward at an investigatory interview is to observe the discussion in other words be a SILENT witness this is WRONG. The steward has the right to counsel the employee during the interview and to assist the employee to present the facts. Legal cases have established the following rights and obligations of the steward.

1. When the steward arrives, the supervisor must inform the employee and the steward of the subject matter of the interview: for example, the type of misconduct, which is being investigated. (The supervisor does not, however, have to reveal management’s entire case.)
2. The steward can take the employee aside for a private pre-interview conference before the questioning begins.
3. The steward can speak during the interview. (But, the steward has no right to bargain over the purpose of the interview or to obstruct the interview.)
4. The steward can advise the employee not to answer questions that are abusive, misleading, badgering, confusing or harassing.
5. When the questioning ends, the steward can provide information to justify the employee’s conduct.

If called to a meeting with management, read the following statement to management BEFORE the meeting starts!!

ASK YOUR UNION

Q: How many times do I have to request vacation before I receive an answer?
A: You should be turned down only once for vacation time requested and an answer should be given to the employee within 10 business days following the request.  (See Section 9.3 - Use of Vacation Leave)  Your request should be submitted at least 10 days prior to the leave to be taken.

 

 

THANK A LABOR UNION IF YOU HAVE:

• Health Insurance
• Higher Wages
• Sick Leave
• Overtime Pay
• Pensions
• Paid Holidays
• Paid Vacations
• 8 Hour Work Days
• Social Security
• Jobsite Safety
• Ending of child Labor
• Increased Job Security
• Unemployment Insurance
• Family and Medical Leave
• Severance Pay
• Maternity Leave

 

The efforts of the American Labor Movement brought about all these benefits. Unfortunately most Americans take these benefits for granted.

INJURED AT WORK? DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT WORKERS’ COMPENSATION?
Please visit the Kahn, Smith & Collins, P.A. website for a variety of services for Union families.

CWA LOCAL 2111 E-NEWS
Remember, to please send your contributions and comments to Laura Pilat (LPilat@ccbcmd.edu) or Rich Barnett (RBarnett@ccbcmd.edu)

MOVING?? LET US KNOW!!
If you are moving or changing your name or your phone number or any of your contact information, please let us know. Even though you change your contact information with the college, that information is usually not shared with CWA. Returned and forwarded mail results in an extra expense and additional cost for the union. Please send your updated information to one of the union officers listed below. Thank you!

CWA LOCAL 2111 WEBSITE
Be sure to check the CWA Local 2111 website for…

CALENDAR…information about union events and meetings. Meetings start promptly at 6:00 PM. Topics of discussion, agenda items, and meeting locations will be posted on the website two weeks prior to the meeting.

GRIEVANCES…information and updates concerning grievances filed by your local on behalf of CCBC employees who are members of CWA Local 2111. Your right to union representation and redress is the backbone-benefit of your union membership!

YOUR UNION OFFICERS
President: John Bachelor
Executive Vice President: Pat Beard
Secretary/Treasurer: Norman McCullough
Vice President/Catonsville: Doug Frantz
Vice President/Dundalk: Mark Trojan
Vice President/Essex: Clarke Romans
Newsletter: Laura Pilat, Rich Barnett
Webmaster: Michael Redding