| HR Positions Since the District did not respond to the question regarding the HR positions, can the Union forward to the board members for a response since they voted for it? Was Mr. Wu's secretary on the riff list last year and was one of those position titles that were changed? So that means she can't be bumped, right? Why did the Board vote to change the positions and why didn't the District respond to the question? Is it because the changes were already voted on? *see answer above!* You are correct that the position is now a management position, and now that employee cannot be bumped by another classified employee (though they can still be RIF'd). The Union will be glad to pass on the question to the people who voted for the change. The Union is not aware of the reason the District failed to respond to the original question. This matter was referenced in Vice President Jim Williams remarks to the school board on 1/19/11. |
| We have an answer...... The original question: I wanted to know the Union's opinion on the last Board Meeting where a whole bunch of HR employees' positions was changed to a new created position right before the Dec. 15th Board Meeting where cuts will be discussed or recommended. Seems to me that the District was saving HR positions and now those people affected will no longer be on the riff list like they were last year. In the early part of the 2010/2011 school year, the Human Resources Department experienced significant personnel changes: * Two (2) Senior Personnel Technicians were deleted through the Reduction in Force process; * The Associate Superintendent, Human Resources accepted employment outside of FUSD; and, * The Director, Certificated Human Resources was promoted to Assistant Superintendent, Business Services. The Director, Classified Human Resources remained the only administrator in the Human Resources Department and therefore, the Board of Education appointed him to the new position of Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources. The Director, Classified Human Resources deferred the salary increase of his new position in recognition of the District’s budget situation. The appointment of an Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources was necessary for the proper oversight of the department, which has responsibilities for both Classified and Certificated bargaining unit employees as well as all management personnel. This change, along with the Reduction in Force cuts made to the department, necessitated an organizational change in Human Resources. The Administrative Secretary positions in Human Resources formerly provided administrative support to the department, including secretarial functions for the Directors. However, with the absence of the Directors and recent elimination of Senior Personnel Technicians, the Administrative Secretary positions in this department have evolved. On October 6, 2010, the Board of Education approved a revised job description and title change to the Administrative Secretary positions assigned to Human Resources; the new title is Human Resources Specialist. There was no change to salary range between Administrative Secretary and Human Resources Specialist and there was no change to the Confidential/Management classification. The Intermediate Secretary and Intermediate Secretary-Management positions that formerly provided secretarial support to the Human Resources Coordinators were also significantly impacted by the elimination of the Senior Personnel Technician positions. These positions absorbed a tremendous amount of technical duties related to not only the employment process, but also the Reduction in Force process. These positions have also evolved out of the realm of “Secretary” and therefore required a job description that recognized their new roles. On November 17, 2010, the Board of Education approved a new job description of Human Resources Generalist and named two Human Resources employees as incumbents. By assuming the Human Resources Generalist position, the employee in the Intermediate Secretary- Management position saw no change to the salary range or classification of Confidential/Management. The employee who changed positions from Intermediate Secretary to Human Resources Generalist saw a change in classification from United Steelworkers Bargaining Unit to Confidential/Management and due to the increased responsibilities, there was a salary increase of 2.5%. In summary, the Board of Education has approved new job descriptions in support of the reorganized structure of the Human Resources Department to adapt to recent staffing level changes within the department. Currently, the job description and title of four (4) positions have been updated, while three (3) of these positions had no change to salary range and remained members of the Confidential/Management team and one (1) position changed classifications from United Steelworkers Bargaining Unit to Confidential/Management and received a 2.5% salary range increase. The Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources will continue to assess the roles of the Human Resources team and recommend changes to the Board of Education only if there is a significant disparity between the current job description and actual job duties. Kristen Brewster |
| Why is that people can go around saying what the district or the union is negotiating when they really have no clue. I am assuming the rumor about all employees going to 10 months, paying for health benefits, and another cut is something the negotiating team has not leaked out. Maybe it is, It just seems if you are going to negotiate you should come back to the union and release information formally such as a web release or a memo that goes to all employees not just spread rumors..... We agree. The rumors you are referring to are unfortunately not rumors any more. At the Board of Education work session on February 15th, a handout was given to the Board and to the Union representatives that listed possible budget cut proposals. This was a public meeting, so this information now becomes public knowledge. To see the handout, click HERE. The Union is not happy about the District's recent reliance on public meetings to conduct negotiations, on budget suggestions that we believe are negotiable items. A recent example of this was observed at the recent regular Board meeting on February 16th. |
| I would like to know why union member are not being polled to see what we are willing to do to save our jobs? Why aren't we taking a 5% cut across the board for everyone? Why aren't we going with International to save on benefit costs? Why aren't we taking 5 more furlough days? All of the above is easier to swallow than not having a job because we are taken over by the state. If the unions believe we are too big to be taken over then we need some drastic changes to our union!!!! Please listen to your members!!! If you have attended a Union membership meeting in the last 3 months, then you know that we have been aggressively pursuing a quote from the International Union's health insurance carrier. The problem has been that the District would not or could not provide the usage details needed to get a quote. We have finally gotten the information (after going public with our frustration at a Board of Education meeting) and we are now receiving several quotes that just might be what we need to help the District save millions of dollars (and therefore many jobs). The reason you haven't seen a membership poll is because the District has only asked for one thing. They want a low, hard, permanent cap on benefits (first $10,000, then $11,000, when the actual cost is closer to $13,000). They tried to steer us away from furloughs or any other types of reductions, until very recently. Our latest offer on February 25th included 3 furlough days. There is no belief in this Union that our District is "too big to be taken over". The county advisor has been very clear that if we don't help the District find the money they need, then our Superintendent and our Board of Education are gone and the next person we deal with will be assigned by the county and it is likely that life will be very unpleasant for the classified employees. |
| Why aren't members being asked Whose idea was it to offer the District 3 furlough days? I don't remember voting or taking a poll for this option. The Union belongs to all the members not just the appointed positions. I would vote for the 5% cut rather than lose my job. What about cutting half of the sick days we accrue? Wouldn't that be a saving? A poll should be done, a lot of people have good ideas or feel the say way about certain cuts and should be voted on regardless if the president, vice pres or executive board agrees. The idea came from the Negotiations Committee. You haven't voted on the idea yet because it is the Committee's job to negotiate the contract. It would be impossible to negotiate a contract if every idea had to be voted on by the entire membership every time. That being said, there is a questionnaire coming to the members RIGHT NOW. Please fill it out and send it back You are correct that the Union belongs to all the members, but it should be pointed out that the officers are freely elected by the membership, not appointed. As to your suggestions, the Union felt that furlough days were a better option because they are not permanent, as a salary cut would be. If the Negotiations Committee feels that a 5% cut would save all the jobs, we may include that in our offer. This is not a given. The District seems stuck on the Benefits Cap idea. Sick days are determined by California Ed Code and cannot (and should not) be changed without a change in State Law. If a lot of people have good ideas, they are all welcome at the Union Hall. We are all working together to save every job. |
| LOCAL 8599 |
| Representing FUSD employees for over 30 years |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
 | |  | |  | |  |
| ANSWERS |
| ARCHIVE 8 |