College Administrators Reject Concessions

By Oliver Lukacs
Staff Writer

May 2 -- Santa Monica College administrative officials have rejected $2.5 million in wage concessions offered by classified employees in an effort to save between 50 and 125 staff jobs slated to be cut to help bridge a $15 million budget gap.

Union officials said laying off as many as 125 custodians, carpenters, and secretaries -- some with 18 years of service at the college and others just months from retirement -- is an unnecessary action that borders on “union busting.”

“On the microcosm of what’s going on at SMC,” said Tamarah Thomas, the spokesperson of the local union chapter, “it’s a breakdown of workers rights.

“One of the things they tell you is ‘don’t take it personal,’ but losing your job is very personal, especially when you don’t have to. At this point in the game the layoffs are unnecessary.”

College officials called accusations of union busting “ludicrous” and said the number of layoffs cited by the union is “inaccurate” and is actually closer to 50.

The administration “has no proposal on the table right now that contemplates that level of layoffs,” said Robert Sammis, vice president of human resources at SMC. He added that the administration “cannot put anything into a written agreement that world preclude us from making any layoffs.”

The proposal to save nearly one-third of the 440-member classified employee workforce by reducing 10 percent of their scheduled work hours was contingent on saving all the positions and on the participation of the school’s classified management in the work sharing program.

The administration -- which plans to save $5 million with the layoffs -- refused to budge on either condition during negotiations last week, according to officials of the California School Employees Association (CSEA).

The “administration's chief negotiator announced that layoffs of classified employees, regardless of the implementation of any work sharing program are ‘going to happen’ and that ‘there is nothing left to meet about,’” the union wrote in a statement.

But Sammis, who called the contention “absolutely untrue,” said it was the union that rejected their offer.

“They never gave us anything in writing,” Sammis said. “We gave them a (a proposal) indicating some level of layoffs were inevitable, but it was not our best, last, and final offer.

“We were surprised that they were willing to walk away from the idea,” said Sammis. “We still see it as a viable option.”

Union officials contend that because final state budget won’t be hammered out for at least another 6 months, the layoffs are unnecessary and strongly resemble a “union busting activity.”

They note that seven of the union’s 14 top leaders are slated to be included in the first round of 52 cuts and that there has been an upsurge of contracting non-union workers.

“It has all the earmarks of an elitist or anti-worker mentality, conscious or not. That’s the direction it’s taking,” said Phil Hendricks, the president of the SMC chapter of the CSEA. Seven out of 14 leaders is “an enormous statistical impossibility.”

Sammis called the allegations “simply ludicrous.” He said that the cuts, which were made by department managers, affected services “that were not essential” and did not target individuals.

“No one is trying to bust the union,” Sammis said. Managerial participation was taken off the table, he said, because they are not unionized and the administration already has a weeklong furlough planned for them.

As for the “upsurge” in contracted work, it is due to construction projects, not to union busting, Sammis said.

“This isn’t in a typical labor/management issue. We’re in this crisis together,” Sammis. said. “CSEA has taken the position that the administration is the enemy. Pointing fingers will get us nowhere.”

The layoffs would come in the wake of pink slips handed out to 13 full-time teachers and 13 administrators, and the termination of ten programs.

The proposed classified staff layoffs would “result in a direct loss of services to the students,” according to the union’s statement. “This would compromise their safety and put in jeopardy the ability of the college to maintain its educational effectiveness.”

The union’s “only hope,” according to Hendricks, is for the college’s Board of Trustees, which is meeting on Monday, to reexamine the proposal and “say there is some real value here.”