How Exploited Job Insecure Part-Time Faculty Get Screwed at Progressive City College of San Francisco

I teach part time at City College of San Francisco (CCSF.)  Under the recent union member ratified concessionary one-year agreement, I expected a pay cut, but not one that results in my pay being 10% lower than it was in the spring. Including my loss of dental benefits, the cut in my salary package comes to 14.2%.

Compared to many other part-time faculty, I am lucky—I still have a job teaching the same number of classes. Those who lost their jobs are taking a 100% cut in pay.

In a May 8,  2021 union bulletin, the leaders of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) 2121, representing CCSF faculty, described the one-year agreement as consisting of “progressive concessions on salaries” in which the cuts “range from 4% to 11%,” a sacrifice that would preserve jobs. Their description grossly understated the impacts of the cuts on part-time faculty.[1] 


A large portion of the teaching workforce in higher education currently consists of contingent and part-time faculty. They have salary packages that are much less, (often poverty-level wages,) than their full-time tenured colleagues. Additionally, they have little to no job security. These increasingly all too common conditions are scandalous, especially considering the dramatic increases in the costs of tuition for a college education.

Conditions of part-time faculty at CCSF have been among the best in the country—still unfair, but relatively much better than what most such teachers face elsewhere. However, for many CCSF part-time faculty, the better situation has largely vanished.

Leading up to negotiations, as they have often done in recent years, the CCSF administration contended that the college faced a budget deficit requiring cuts in jobs and classes to balance the budget.  Fortunately for management, this time the claimed deficit was accepted by the union leadership even though management “failed to provide” them with needed budget information.[2]

In February 2021, to supposedly address the deficit, the administration proposed and received the approval of the democratically elected board of trustees to lay off 163 tenured full-time faculty—almost one-third of all full-time faculty. Tenured faculty are people who expect job protection for the rest of their working days.  Many were obviously upset and demoralized by being treated in ways like their job insecure part-time “colleagues,” especially in the middle of a pandemic.

A few months later, the union leaders would reach a settlement with management in which they accepted major pay concessions to supposedly save jobs. As the union leaders claimed in a July 29 bulletin,

“Why did we make these sacrifices? Over 60% of CCSF’s faculty were facing layoff last spring: 163 FT faculty received pink slips notices, and over 500 PT faculty were at risk of losing their jobs.”[3]

What the union negotiators involved in the contract talks had sought was never fully discussed and decided upon by members.[4] But all lay-offs of full-time faculty were averted.  As explained in the May 8 union bulletin sent out before the agreement was ratified:

“The administration has agreed to rescind all 163 pink slips issued to full-time faculty and to preserve part-time jobs as well. However, this is possible only if we all collectively agree to one-year progressive concessions on salaries.“

The agreement was overwhelmingly ratified by the membership. As described in the May  10 union bulletin.

“82% of eligible members voted to accept salary reductions ranging from 4% to 11% to save City College from devastating cuts and protect access for students. Members had less than three days to vote, and the turnout for this concessionary agreement was still 79%.”

Key to the agreement was a willingness to take pay cuts. The cuts were supposedly progressive with those making the most incurring a bigger cut than those paid the least. I figured those paid the least included part-timers like myself. Was I wrong!

Furthermore, the one-year agreement has no adjustment for increases in the cost of living. If inflation is 5%, then the understated (see under Real Pay Concessions) 4% to 11% cut is, realistically, a cut of 9% to 16% in one’s purchasing power. The cuts come on top of increasing workloads that include additional required paperwork and classes with more students.

The claim was made that the one-year agreement will “preserves part-time jobs.” However, under the agreement, the jobs of some 70 part-time faculty were not preserved. Their job loss can be added to the 241 who lost their jobs the previous year.  Many other part-time faculty still have a job, but have a reduced schedule that constitutes a further reduction in their pay.

Figures from the state chancellor’s data mart and the administration provide a picture of how many part-time faculty at CCSF have lost their jobs during a time in which there have not been major increases in the number of full-time faculty jobs. Compared to the rest of the state, the percent of CCSF part-time faculty losing their jobs has been much greater.

In 2011, CCSF employed 1,004 part-time faculty and 810 full-time faculty.


Before the agreement was reached, the administration had discussed hiring back some of the 163 full-time faculty receiving pink slips as lowered paid part-time faculty. (Ironically, that would have added to the number of employed part-time faculty!!)   From the April 23 union bulletin:

“We learned something: The disturbing rumors are true. Administration is planning to lay off full-time faculty and back-fill with part-timers.This would be a violation of Education Code, legal precedent, and basic reason. When pressed, they responded that they would re-employ full-timers as part-timers – which would still be a violation of the Education Code – and then continued to defend layoffs of FT faculty by saying classes could be taught by part-timers.”

Real Pay Concessions

Union leaders stated that the pay cut would be progressive. However, those experiencing the lower percentage cut results from a step increase in pay (which generally occurs yearly for full-time faculty and every two years for part-time faculty,) especially if they are on a lower pay column (based on one’s education.)  Their calculation is based on comparing one’s salary in the current year with what it was in the previous year.

An example using dollar amounts: A full-time faculty member with a master’s degree on step 15 column F+15 in the spring was making $105,950. Under the new agreement, that individual moves up to step 16 for the fall earning an annual salary of $97,298, a reduction of over $8,600 or an 8.2% cut.

However, more appropriately, would be to compare the new negotiated salary to the salary at step 16 on the July 2020-June 2021 pay scale of $108,620. In this case, the cut from it to $97,298 comes to 10.68%.

Without a step increase, the percent cut in my pay of 10% allows me to “proudly” write that it is right up there with those making the most money. Had I been eligible for a step increase, my pay cut would be 7.65% instead of 10%, still putting it in the mid-range of cuts despite my relatively low income as a part-time faculty member. However, if I had a step increase for the fall and compared my pay with what it would be with a step increase based on the July 2020-June 2021 pay scale, it is 10.1% lower.

I crunched some numbers. A table found as an appendix shows the per cent of the salary cut for both part-time and full-time faculty in a few selected columns and steps.

The table shows those absorbing the biggest percent cut in their salaries are those who are in the column of the most educated that includes those with PhDs. Additionally, the cut is greater for those who have worked the longest at the college and are on a higher step.

Comparing this year’s salary with where it would be had the Fall 2020-Spring 2021 schedule remained frozen, the range in cuts come to 8-11% not the 4-11% communicated to members by union leaders.

Fostering “equality,” the “progressive” cut percentage agreed to is the same for both part-time and full-time faculty in a similar column and on the same step.

The cuts could have been substantially progressive by exempting a certain amount of everyone’s pay from the cuts, and then cutting all additional money made by the same, or by a higher percent for those making more. Such a scheme was not to happen. From the May 14 union bulletin: “The first $30,000 of your income is not exempted. Part-timers who make $30,000 or less will still experience a cut…nothing [is] exempted.”

Those Taking the Biggest Cuts this Year had been Receiving the Biggest Increases

The cuts should be put in the context of the changes in the pay of full-time faculty during recent years.  Those in the highest pay column who are taking the biggest percent cut under the agreement have, over the previous five years, received larger salary increases at a higher percent than those in a lower paid column.

The table below shows that those with PhDs. working their 10th year in 2016 had a salary increase of 31.7% as of the fall of 2020 while those with a master’s degree had a pay increase of 28.3%. Their growing difference in pay increased from $3,946 to $8,010. The increasing gap in the level of pay for those with PhDs compared to those with masters reached the same amount of $8,010 for those first hired in 2016, and the most senior faculty who had reached the maximum pay level.

Basically, the “progressive” cuts this year do little to offset the past years’ regressive salary increases.  


Built in Unfairness

Across the country, faculty unions representing both full-time and part-time faculty negotiate and accept two-tier contracts. Full-time tenured faculty have job security and greater benefits. They also receive higher pay per class compared to job insecure part-time faculty even when both are equally qualified and teach the same class.[6]  With a two-tier contract, the administration has a great incentive to hire lower paid part-time faculty, the long-time gig workers of higher education.

Currently in California, a part-time community college faculty member is limited to teaching no more than a two-thirds load of classes taught by a full-time faculty member in one of California’s 73 districts. To earn a decent living teaching, many, known as “freeway flyers” or “road scholars,” must teach classes in other districts and spend hours driving from one school to another.

Degree of Pay Differences at CCSF

At CCSF, a full-time faculty member and a part-time teaching faculty member with a similar education start in the same pay column and, generally, at step 1. For that first year, the part-time teaching faculty members’ pay per class is 86% of what a full-time faculty member makes per class.

A full-time faculty member starting at step one moves up a step every year and, before step 16, assuming no pay cuts are instituted, receives a salary increase.[7] By contrast, part-time faculty move up a step every two years having to work twice as long to reach the step of a full-time faculty member who started at the same step. This result in growing inequality in the rate of pay per class.[8]

I have taught 23.5 years and I am on step 12. A similarly educated full-time faculty member starting at the same time as myself is now on step 24.  My pay per class relative to that person’s pay is now 72.8% instead of where it started at 86%.

This relative decline brought about by one moving up a step in pay every two years instead of every year is not reflected on the pay scales provided. For example, to calculate one’s salary using the full-time faculty pay scale, one locates one’s column and step, then multiplies the amount by both 86% and the percent of a full-time faculty load one teaches to arrive at one’s salary.  The appearance is of one always being paid at an 86% rate mystifies the reality of the relatively declining pay. This obfuscation is reinforced by union leaders repeatedly telling us we are paid at an 86% rate.

Additionally, even if I moved up a step each year, my pay would be 76.6% not 86% of what the full-time faculty member makes per class because the highest step a part-time faculty member can reach stops at step 14.

Under the one-year agreement, my pay per class relative to that of the full-time faculty member who started work at the college when I did, after my 10% cut, increases .6% to 72.8%. That .6% relative improvement is a fine example, almost “earth shattering,” of the “progressivity” built into the contract in which both of us are making much less!

And Differences in Benefits and Privileges at CCSF

At CCSF, medical insurance is the only benefit part-time faculty receive, and only if they are eligible by teaching at least 50% of the class load taught by a full-time faculty member. Four years ago, fewer than one-third of the part-time faculty received this benefit which had previously covered 50%.[9]  By contrast, all full-time faculty are entitled to medical benefits.

The employee cost for the medical plan not covered by the employer is the same amount for both part-time and full-time faculty. That results in the deduction for the plan from the lower paid employee’s paycheck being a much higher per cent of one’s salary.

Additionally, since full-time faculty receive a higher salary, the employer contributes more money to their pensions. Unlike part-time faculty, full-time faculty get paid sabbaticals, do not pay for disability insurance, are provided with a life insurance policy, and are entitled to medical benefits after they retire.

When the difference in the benefits earned by full-time faculty compared to part-time faculty are taken into account, the pay package per class taught by a part-time faculty member is much less, perhaps less than 60%.

Additionally, full-time faculty have numerous privileges over part-time faculty. Two examples: The day they are hired, they immediately have seniority rights over all part-time faculty. They also have bump rights that entitle them to take a scheduled class from a part-time faculty member when their classes are cancelled for being under-enrolled.

 Some Part-Time Faculty Receiving Medical Benefits During the Pandemic Lose Them

In the middle of the pandemic, for Fall 2020, the CCSF administration agreed to provide medical benefits for all part-time faculty who had been eligible for them in the spring of 2020 even if they were no longer eligible. However, this medical benefit must be put in the context of the “savings” from 241 part-time faculty losing their jobs, and many others having reduced schedules.

The continuation of the medical insurance benefit was not made part of the one-year deal for 2021-2022. In negotiations over it during the summer, despite the continuation of the pandemic, it ceased being provided for those part-time faculty who were previously eligible, but are not eligible for the Fall 2021 term.

According to the union’s August 5 bulletin with the first two words of the title “Bargaining wins…,” the administration would not agree to continue to provide the medical benefit for now ineligible part-time faculty “because they could not identify funds for this very costly proposal.”  The claim in the union bulletin, not from management, that the medical benefit continuing is “very costly” prompted me to ask at a union meeting how much providing medical coverage for another year would have cost. The answer given is the administration is saving about $500,000. That is an amount one might perceive as far from being “very costly” in a college that had just paid a one-year interim chancellor a salary of $340,000 plus benefits who also had an expense account and was reimbursed for moving. Furthermore, CCSF is a college which, for the last two years, had paid its more than 50 top administrators’ salaries that average more than $40,000 over the state average for people holding comparable positions elsewhere in the state. Add in the employer pension contribution to the amount of their above average salaries, and the extra cost comes to well over $2 million.  Additionally, the union leaders indicated in their May 14 union bulletin that the concessions they made in the 2021-22 one-year deal come to $9 million.

For the part-time faculty who lost their jobs who had been receiving medical benefits, their salary cut is probably over 120% of their spring 2021 salary, more than ten times greater than the highest cut taken by a full-time faculty member.  

There is an Alternative

I strongly support unions. They are necessary for protecting the needs and interests of workers. I wish that they were more powerful. When the leadership disregards or places little importance on the needs and interests of any of its members, especially the most marginal and lowest paid members, they undermine their purpose.

I am not writing to be complaining or to provide information opponents of unions can use. However, at a minimum, my union, and others like it, need to change their ways by being truthful and adhering to democratic practices while protecting the jobs and well-being of all of their members. That includes rejecting two-tier contracts in which equally qualified people doing the same job are treated unequally by not receiving equal pay and benefits per class taught, job security and whatever else is needed to achieve true equality for all employees.

Anyone claiming there is no alternative (TINA) to two-tier contracts for faculty in higher education is wrong. The Vancouver Community College in British Columbia has achieved an alternative contract in which all faculty are on the same salary schedule with equal pay and benefits for equal work and similar seniority rights.[10]

Harmful Results

The claimed progressive outcome of the one-year concessionary agreement has resulted in causing far greater harm to the most vulnerable and lowest paid faculty members as a group—part-time faculty. Many are experiencing cuts that go well beyond the claimed 4%-11% reduction in pay, the most any full-time faculty member will be enduring.[11]

From the report in the May 9 Union Bulletin (not posted on the union website,)

“AFT 2121 faculty have sacrificed and stood together to preserve classes, jobs, and programs. AFT 2121’s bargaining team reached a tentative agreement with City College administration early Saturday morning that saves CCSF from the threat of devastating cuts. The district has agreed to rescind the 163 pink slips issued to full-time CCSF faculty members and to preserve almost all part-time faculty assignments. This is an important victory for our students and our college–these cuts would have fundamentally undermined the historic role of CCSF in our city. There is no doubt that we would not have achieved this outcome without the pressure you helped us to collectively build.” (emphasis added)

In announcing the vote in favor of the one-year concessionary contract, the union leaders declared in the May 10 union bulletin, “The takeaway: We are willing to stand together as one to protect our jobs and our courses.” (emphasis added)

As a result of this “important victory for our students,” the college is offering 12% or 308 fewer classes than it did in the fall of 2020, further reducing student educational opportunities.

The May 9 bulletin also provides an important difference with the message in the May 8 union bulletin. The latter indicated that the agreement will “preserve part-time jobs” while this May 9 bulletin describes the agreement as preserving “almost all part-time faculty assignments.”  “Almost all” comes to over 13% fewer part-time faculty with jobs in the fall of 2021 compared to the fall of 2020. This cut comes on top of over 31% of part time-faculty losing their jobs in the fall of 2020.  As we “stand together,” some folks are making much greater sacrifices than others. They are the ones at the bottom of a hierarchical system.

The union leaders will claim they had no choice and had to agree to the concessionary contract they negotiated.  However, three days before reaching the approved tentative agreement, they filed an unfair labor practice charge against the administration because “the District has failed to provide the budget information we need, and has provided false information.” (see endnote 2) Hence, did they really need to agree to any concessions? Are their claims to be protecting jobs and negotiating progressive cuts a sign of incompetence or misrepresentations to mystify the result of what they agreed to for the purpose of securing quick approval of the one-year deal? Certainly, given the outcome of the agreement raises the question of whether it represents another example of a view that sees part-time faculty as nobodies–people who are not just repeatedly thrown under the bus, but are allowed to be run over many times.

In reaching this agreement, the union leadership has once again gone along with policies that result in injuring numerous workers, especially the most vulnerable. They have failed to improve the situation of the people at the bottom, those with the least job security and/or are the lowest paid, violating any notion of acting to achieve social justice.

Under this agreement, full-time faculty will be working at the same job for less money. In comparison to part-time faculty, they are not being run over, but are getting some nasty scrapes.[12] The different treatment of part-time and full-time faculty and maintaining two tier contracts help to divide and weaken all faculty members and strengthen management. In turn, unions like AFT 2121 become weaker.


After the agreement was ratified, CCSF received $6 million in cost-of-living adjustment money. The plans of the administration are to use none of this money to restore faculty salaries.  According to union leaders, the administration plans to spend some of that money on lawyers to help carry out “unwarranted faculty layoffs.”

All the union leaders previously received in negotiations was a commitment  “to go back to the table to confer over that money.”  And when negotiating sessions were scheduled, here is what union leaders reported in November.

“Progress has stalled because the last four sessions were either canceled, rescheduled, or not fully attended by the administration team. The district continues to be completely unprepared for a substantive discussion of the budget. Since August, they have failed to provide us with budget information, answer our questions, or address our concerns. Yesterday, they were unwilling to engage for the fourth session in a row. Vice Chancellor al-Amin’s continued lack of participation and unwillingness to discuss the budget has made it impossible to move forward.”

As Gomer Pyle would have said—surprise, surprise, surprise.

This is what can happen when union leaders agree to concessionary two-tier contracts and do little to mobilize members to fight against management.


[1] See my The Exploitation of Part-Time Teachers in Higher Education at  For background information about how AFT 2121 operates, see my A Teaches Union Against Itself

In bargaining over the one-year agreement, the AFT 2121 union leaders engaged in their typical “organizing” approach which they contend is democratic. No meetings were called for members to discuss the contract negotiations and come up with goals and demands. The leaders determined strategy and asked members to participate in whatever they had decided. Absent during the whole period of contract negotiations were discussions of resistance and possibly striking.

An alternative form of organizing that could have been adopted would have been to have members decide on demands, goals and strategy—a bottom-up process of organizing members rather than a top-down approach. Utilizing such an approach means that members own what is decided and, presumably, will become active in bringing about the realization of their decisions. Additionally, much effort needs to be undertaken to gain support from other workers and their unions, students, and the community.

[2] The faculty union leadership’s acceptance of the administration claims about a budget deficit: From a document with the title PT [part-time] Outreach Rap, see at the end of 5.) at–vJs_enBJmDdbXoADAUxo0e9r4/edit Asserted without substantiation, “the District has cried poor in the past and has sat on money, but this time they really don’t have the funds.” No description of the past false claims made by the administration was offered.

The union leaders also sent out different messages about the size of the claimed budget deficit. From an April 23 bulletin (sent out, but not on the union website): CCSF has a “$30 million shortfall this year and $40 million shortfall next year.”

Yet, in the May 6 bulletin: “The District has been claiming they have a $35 million shortfall. According to our budget analysis and projections, the shortfall is actually around $12 million.” No explanation for the difference between the April 23 stated shortfall and the “around $12 million” was provided. Later that day, on May 6, a second bulletin was sent that mentions the union on May 5 filed an unfair labor practice charge explaining

“the District has failed to provide the budget information we need, and has provided false information. In addition, VC of Finance John al-Amin has been absent from negotiations, and the District team has been unable to work on budgetary issues without him.”

Given what is described in the complaint, how could they be so definitive about the actual budget shortfall?

Furthering their inconsistency and confusion about the budget: In the May 14 Union Bulletin, they indicated they agreed to accept a shortfall amount $10 million more than what they were claiming on May 6 as the actual “shortfall.” Why would they have accepted an inaccurate amount is not explained. From the May 14 union bulletin,

“When we began bargaining, Thursday, February 22nd, 2024 the District claimed they were facing a $35 million shortfall. Through extensive budget analysis, we were able to show the number was considerably less. [amount not specified] We agreed at the bargaining table to negotiate based on an expected shortfall of about $22 million. These figures are all projections of what we expect to happen next year, so exact reporting is impossible.”

By accepting a shortfall $10 million greater than their May 6 claim of $12 million (perhaps not understood until right before reaching a tentative agreement,) one should not be surprised by a May 4 Union Bulletin not posted on the union website) statement: “At our next Open Bargaining session, AFT 2121 will address concessions.”

Additionally, what should also be considered is that, according to a union May 6 bulletin, CCSF “received over $54 million since May of 2020” in covid relief money. In March 2020, the San Francisco voters approved $845 million in bond money to be used for improving the college’s facilities.

The claim about a budget deficit does not account for why it exists.  The state government, dominated by members of the Democratic Party, most of whose candidates are continuously endorsed by faculty unions, does not adequately fund public education.

CCSF’s enrollment, the main source of revenue, has declined dramatically due to the administration’s inadequate promotion of the college and mismanagement. For years, the administration downsizing policies have included maintaining a user-unfriendly online registration system that discourages potential students from enrolling.  In the 2011-2012 school year, CCSF enrolled over 90,000 students. In 2017-2018, it enrolled 67,638 students. That number declined to 55,070 for the 2019-2020 school year before the impact of covid. With covid, it has plummeted even more, a much greater percent than the decline experienced at most, if not all, other community colleges in the state. This enrollment decline has happened despite San Francisco’s population increasing by some 80,000 during the last 10 years.

Students have also been driven away by the administration cutting hundreds of classes. During the 2011-2012 school year, the college offered 6,809 credit classes. In 2017-2018, the number of credit classes was 5,633. In 2019-2020, before the pandemic, the number was 4,751. For 2020-2021 the number was further reduced to 4,354.

And who gets harmed the most from cuts?  The most vulnerable—CCSF’s predominantly working class and lower middle-class students lose educational opportunities, and the most marginal employees—part-time faculty– incur the biggest reductions in their standard of living by having reduced schedules or, even worse, by losing their jobs.

And who has benefitted? The number of top administrators at CCSF in the Fall of 2011 was 40. Despite the decline in enrollment and class offerings, their numbers reached 47 in the fall of 2017 and went on to grow to between 54 to 56 every subsequent year adding to the budget deficit. The level of pay of CCSF administrators, as of the fall 2020, was more than $40,000 over the state average for people in comparable positions. See

[3] How the union leaders arrived at the claim that “over 500 PT faculty were at risk of losing their jobs” was never clearly explained since such a result, including the loss of the jobs of 163 full-time faculty, would have left the college with about 25 part-time and 375 full-time faculty. From the May 10 union bulletin: “We are willing to stand together as one to protect our jobs and our courses. The stakes of this decision were high. Our Trustees voted in March to layoff nearly 65% of the faculty, over 700 people, a move that would have closed doors to over 30,000 students a semester and fundamentally undermined CCSF’s mission, namely, to serve the essential needs of our City.” The 700 figure is greater than the number of part-time faculty employed and full-time faculty receiving pink slips.  An exaggeration?

[4] See the May 6 bulletin with the title “Bargaining Update 5/5/21” that provides an “initial proposal” on salaries after weeks of bargaining.  “After step increases, make a progressive cut to wages, from around 1.8% at the low end of the scale to 2.2% at the high end.”

They agreed to a tentative agreement just two days later that contained cuts that were much greater than what is in their proposal.

[5] For Fall 2020, the state chancellor’s data mart shows 595 part-time faculty at CCSF (maybe including substitute faculty) while the administration figure is 525.* The lower number of part-time faculty in Fall 2020 is consistent with the interim chancellor’s message on May 15, 2020 “…we have had to remove teaching assignments for nearly 250 part-time faculty for the Fall 2020 Semester.”   Note: This cut was planned for in January 2020 before the pandemic and at a time the college was expecting more revenue and a cost of living increase. See video starting at 6:39:00

The fall 2021 figure comes from a message outlining the number of part-time faculty who would be receiving a contract document to sign. The number is in line with the more than 300 fewer classes scheduled in the fall of 2021 compared to the fall of 2020.

*2020 faculty numbers 525 part-time and 538 full-time pages 9, 10  Hiring Data Report

[6] To be more accurate, we have a three-tier contract.  Teaching faculty have differences in terms of pay and benefits per class depending on whether they teach full or part-time. Non-teaching part-time faculty who work in the library or are counselors have conditions similar to other part-time faculty. However, their pro-rata pay is 14% higher than the pay of part-time teachers in a comparable position on the pay scale, or what the union would see as 100% pro-rata pay. The focus of the discussion here is on faculty who teach in a classroom.

[7] After 16 years, a full-time faculty member still moves up a step each year, but the higher step includes a pay increase only every 2 to 3 years.  Currently, their pay increases stop after 25 years of service or after reaching step 25.

Under our contract, a full-time faculty member can move up a step in the pay scale teaching only 75% of a full-time load. Most classes are 3 units. A full-time load is the equivalent of teaching ten 3 unit classes in a school year. If one teaches eight classes in a year, one is entitled to move up a step.  By contrast, for most of my years at CCSF, I taught three classes as a part-time faculty member each semester. To move up a step, which takes two years, I would have taught twelve classes, four more than a full-time faculty member would have needed to teach, to move up a step on the pay scale. Had I taught only one class each term for four semesters, I would also be eligible to move up a step. See page 124 of contract article 20. C. at

[8] A fairer alternative to a percent pay increase is a similar dollar increase for all faculty per unit taught. That could lead to greater unity since all are fighting for a similar dollar amount. However, the more highly paid could view the substituting of the same amount per class for an across-the-board percent increase of one’s current pay as likely to reduce their possible salary increase and reject it.


[10] On Vancouver: see The Vancouver Model of Equality for College Faculty Employment by Frank Cosco in Equality for Contingent Faculty, Edited by Keith Hoeller, (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2014)

contract:  articles:

[11] AFT 2121 delegates recently agreed to another concession which is to cover a modest increase in the employee portion of medical insurance.  One positive change for part-time faculty under the one-year agreement is that for once, no full-time faculty member will be allowed to teach more than a full-time load. Some had been teaching extra classes taking work away from part-time faculty.

[12] In subsequent years, many full-time faculty may lose their jobs. The interim chancellor stated in March 2021 that the state sees the college (that once enrolled over 90,000 students) as serving no more than 18,000-20,000 students and that it should not have more than about 180 full-time faculty (around one-third of the current number.)  After 56 minutes on this video

In December of 2020, the board of trustees passed a five-year budget. If it is implemented, cuts in faculty salaries by 2024-2025 would end up being more than 21% lower in nominal dollars compared to 2020-2021. See pages 22-23 at

Union Bulletins Referenced

April 23

A second April 23 bulletin with the title Tell City Supervisors: Step up to Save our CCSF not on the website

May 4 emailed out but not posted on union website

May 6

May 6

May 8

May 9 emailed out but not posted on website Title: Faculty sacrifice to Defend CCSF, the fight for funding continues

Sent out the same day: “After a grueling week, our bargaining team has reached a tentative agreement! This TA will save jobs and educational opportunities. It rescinds ALL pink slips and protects FTEF to keep part-timers and full-timers employed.” Note: FTEF stands for Full-Time Equivalent Faculty—it indicates the number of faculty needed to cover the scheduled classes.  However, in the negotiations, the agreement reached was that this number could be cut 12% which it was. See last bullet point FAQ document found in the May 8 Bulletin.

May 10


July 29

August 5  No Part-Time medical benefits under title:  Bargaining wins | Part time employment letters | COVID survey

Endnote ii cites second bulletin sent on April 23 claim of “$30 million shortfall….” not on AFT 2121 website


Three lines:

1. Shows the per cent cut comparing Spring 2021 salary to Fall 2021 if one moved up a step.

2. A comparison of the pay in Spring 2021 to pay on the same step in Fall 2021 which is what could be the more proper and accurate basis of comparison for one who moved up a step. It shows the percent cut being larger, a minimum of 8%.

3. A comparison between the pay for Spring 21 with Fall 21 for those not getting a step increase.


Rick Baum teaches Political Science at City College of San Francisco. He is a member of AFT 2121.