So You're a Sensor & A Labor Rat On UPS Trucks
Website for updates on the LYTX camera grievances and everything el…
www.youtube.comSo You're a Sensor & A Labor Rat On UPS Trucks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ak4BpboO-O0
Additional Media:
UPS: STOP Torturing UPS Drivers With Infrared Flock Cameras!https://youtu.be/Y08SnkLsuuk
AI Torture, Fighting Back, IBT & Using AI To Fight The …Bosseshttps://youtu.be/AWKK9yGUVYc
Bullying, Union Democracy & The Fight For Membership Control: Lessons Of Vegas IBT631 Steward Resolutionhttps://youtu.be/0j20R6eyjg8
CA Teamsters, AI, Union Democracy & Workers Powerhttps://youtu.be/ShXk-cRxVGg
Cameras At UPS, AI & Infrared Torture With IBT 190 UPS Driver Eric Johnsonhttps://youtu.be/xkQuUrN4g2E
Teamsters Demand Stop The Torture! Infrared Cameras Out Of Our Cabs NOW!
Teamsters Speak Out On AI In Calhttps://youtu.be/vD3Igqb-Ru8
Teamsters In Southern California Speak Out On AI,The Class Struggle https://youtu.be/Ld55pZVykKQ
IBT Pres Sean O'Brien Tells Members He Stopped AI & Robots At UPShttps://youtu.be/yBa_2gDRz0Q
UPS Installs On-Truck Surveillance Camerashttps://www.tdu.org/ups_installs_surveillance_cameras
IBT Pres SOB Using AIhttps://thehill.com/homenews/media/5638970-teamsters-substack-newsletter/
Teamsters in Southern California are facing growing attacks on thei…
youtu.behttps://www.facebook.com/collegeinhighschool1/posts/pfbid02mX3kFPiuquVCwSN8Hr7HMUQyWg2WgQFR82mAdS2iCoZzFjEpFF8A5WbYYdP55CRTl
How a San Francisco disability rights protest inspired the film ‘Being Heumann’
https://www.sfchronicle.com/entertainment/movies-tv/article/being-heumann-sf-disability-rights-22503279.php
By Pam Grady,
Contributor
Nov 3, 2026
Disability rights activist Judith Heumann, …center, is joined by a delegation of handicapped protesters on their way to Washington at the San Francisco International Airport in 1977. Heumann, along with 100 other protesters, had just participated in the Section 504 sit-in at the Department of Health, Education and Welfare at the Federal Building in San Francisco.
Disability rights activist Judith Heumann, center, is joined by a delegation of handicapped protesters on their way to Washington at the San Francisco International Airport in 1977. Heumann, along with 100 other protesters, had just participated in the Section 504 sit-in at the Department of Health, Education and Welfare at the Federal Building in San Francisco.
Clem Albers/S.F. Chronicle
In 1977, a group of disabled activists took over a federal building in San Francisco. They stayed for 26 Days — a record that still stands as the longest occupation of a federal building by protesters.
Mounted by disabled activists led by Judy Heumann, the action aimed to convince Joseph Califano, the Carter administration’s secretary of health, education and welfare to enforce Section 504, a key component of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 that granted civil rights protections to people with disabilities.
Califano continued the delay in enforcing Section 504 that began during the Nixon administration, citing the expense of the accommodations that equality would require. He formed a committee with no disabled people on it to study the issue. But disabled people who spent their lives fighting for equal opportunity were done with being second-class citizens.
The drama of that standoff is at the heart of Siân Heder’s latest film, “Being Heumann.” Ruth Madeley (“Doctor Who”) plays the native New Yorker Heumann, with Mark Ruffalo cast as Califano.
More Information
“Being Heumann” (R) opens Friday, Nov. 6, in select Bay Area theaters before streaming on Apple TV on Friday, Nov. 13.
It was “Crip Camp,” Bay Area filmmakers Jim LeBrecht (an executive producer on “Being Heumann”) and Nicole Newnham’s Oscar-nominated documentary about a summer camp for disabled children, that introduced the “CODA” writer-director to Heumann. After reading the activist’s memoir, “Being Heumann,” Heder became excited at the prospect of making a film about her. In a triumph of timing, Heumann was on the verge of hiring a director for a proposed film when Heder reached out with her pitch.
“You could make a biopic of Judy, which would be incredibly interesting. There were all these chapters of her life that would have made a great movie,” Heder told the Chronicle. “But when I got to the section (about the protest), I was like, ‘Oh, this is a contained heist story.’“
Heder saw a model for that kind of contained, character-driven story in Sidney Lumet’s 1975 film about a bank robbery that becomes a media spectacle.
“There was something exciting for me in the way that ‘Dog Day Afternoon’ just drops you right into that story, and then you learn about the characters as you go,” she said.
Disability rights activist and Center for Independent Living founder Judith Heumann is photographed in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle in 1980.
Disability rights activist and Center for Independent Living founder Judith Heumann is photographed in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle in 1980.
Vince Maggiora/S.F. Chronicle
Heumann embraced the idea, choosing Heder to tell her story. When Heumann died in 2023, the director, who was in the midst of developing several projects, decided "Being Heumann” would be her next film.
Coming off the best picture Academy Award for “CODA” and the adapted screenplay she won for the film, Heder had the clout needed to get backing for a large-scale period drama she might never again have the opportunity to make.
The film required the San Francisco federal buildings and its surroundings to be meticulously recreated in Toronto, filled with a large ensemble of mostly disabled actors. The production also called for a large accessibility team.
Casting disabled actors, many unknown, to play people with disabilities was crucial. Beyond the irony implicit in casting able-bodied actors in a film about disabled people fighting for their rights, Heder believes only actors from the disabled community could fully inhabit those characters.
“For instance, thinking about ‘CODA,’ if you have an actor playing deaf, part of their work is always going to be, ‘OK, I need to be deaf and I need to be these other things.’ You put (deaf actor) Troy Krotsur in that role, and he's playing the moment,” Heder explained.
Ruth Madeley, left, with director Siân Heder on set of “Being Heumann.”
Ruth Madeley, left, with director Siân Heder on set of “Being Heumann.”
Apple TV
For Heder, the benefits of that approach went beyond authenticity. It also opened the door to actors she might not otherwise have encountered.
“An actor like Ruth is a gift, an incredible actor. … and the cast that I got to discover on this movie was incredible. It brought a sense of realism and a lived-in quality to the movie,” she said. “When you don't take the time to search for talent in these communities, you miss out on artists that you get to collaborate with, and by having a set that's not accessible, you miss out on these collaborations.”
Madeley pointed out that even with a disabled cast playing disabled people, there were still challenges. In her own case, the English actor not only had to learn Heumann’s Brooklyn accent, but she had to learn how Judy sat in a wheelchair.
“The way my body exists in the world is very different from the way hers did,” noted Madeley, who has spinal bifida, while Judy was paralyzed by polio as a child. “That was quite a challenge to show well and properly. Judy had no core strength, so she couldn't balance her body in the way that I can.”
In the years since the federal building occupation, the Americans with Disabilities Act passed in 1990 and ramps, curb cuts, wheelchair lifts and other accommodations have become more standard. Yet significant barriers remain.
Andrew Pilkington, from left, Siena Rafter, Charlie Rush-Reese, Dylan O’Brien, Roberta Colindrez, Ruth Madeley and Madeline Delp in “Being Heumann.”
Andrew Pilkington, from left, Siena Rafter, Charlie Rush-Reese, Dylan O’Brien, Roberta Colindrez, Ruth Madeley and Madeline Delp in “Being Heumann.”
Apple TV
Ruffalo has experienced this firsthand through his close friend, actor Christopher Thornton (“The Pitt” and star of Ruffalo’s 2010 film “Sympathy for Delicious”), who was paralyzed in a rock climbing accident. He recalled once carrying Thornton up three flights of stairs at a New York subway stop that lacked an elevator.
“I know even today how hard it is for him,” Ruffalo said. “I know his struggle, and it’s very personal to me.”
Nearly five decades later, the fight over Section 504 has taken on a new urgency. “Being Heumann” is arriving as the Trump administration rolls back protections under the Rehabilitation Act, including the mandate for the full integration of people with disabilities into American society.
Datebook Picks
The rapper Rexx Life Raj is hosting a show in the East Bay dedicated to his 2016 debut record.
MUSIC
His music changed after profound loss. Now he’s coming home to mark a milestone
Dancer and choreographer Chinchin Hsu.
DANCE
From a suitcase of rice to the S.F. stage, a dance about memory and home
The cast of American Conservatory Theater’s “John Proctor Is the Villain” rehearses.
THEATER
ACT’s ‘John Proctor Is the Villain’ gives ‘The Crucible’ a radical feminist makeover
“This story took place 50 years ago, but it feels incredibly relevant to me in the current moment,” Heder said. “We're in a time where people are being marginalized and made to feel invisible, and (back then) was a time when collective action worked. A lot of people came together to support this group in the building because it was like, if we are going to disenfranchise this marginalized group, then we're all in trouble.
“I think that's a moment that we're in right now. We have to raise our voices together because the powers working against us are more powerful than ever.”
Pam Grady is a freelance writer.
Nov 3, 2026
Pam Grady
A new film from “CODA” director Siân Heder revisits the 26-day San Francisco federal building occupation led by disabled activists.
www.sfchronicle.comhttps://www.facebook.com/fox12oregon/posts/pfbid02MyNhQZUzuCEvGdsrh5Abfyw6ahrP6FLsTStJzhxLGTA57o1nJX4Dsjr9NcwvTZhfl
https://www.wthr.com/article/news/crime/former-school-director-found-guilty-of-18-charges-money-laundering-wire-fraud-indiana-charter-schools/531-1a57d549-e9e4-4e7c-b6c4-dd9d8a9cc987
The former director of Indiana Virtual School was found guilty on federal charges for using money that was supposed to help the schools to buy…
www.wthr.comhttps://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid0uHydtCHQfuPX8xFsuYhNYYdVCfajdaVFw2FqFgXsgFSWW8GK8tbFZRGMNZLT3fxql&id=100064360403033
The San Francisco Monument
Dedicated to the Lincoln Brigade
Needs Your Help!
The Abraham Lincoln Brigade Monument in San Francisco features a display of archival photographs of the Volunteers of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, both during the Spanish Civil War and in the …years afterward, commemorating the Volunteers’ continuing activism throughout their lives. Dedicated on March 30, 2008, it is the most prominent monument in the United States to the veterans of the Spanish Civil War and the continuing fight against Fascism. The monument is located on the San Francisco Embarcadero.
The park complex on the Embarcadero where the monument sits is now slated for an aggressive redevelopment plan. This plan does not include the Abraham Lincoln Brigade Monument.
We urge our supporters everywhere to make their voices heard and help us protect our monument to the Lincoln Brigade. You can find ways to get involved below!
We encourage supporters to email the San Fransico Board of Supervisors in support of protecting the monument during this redevelopment process. A sample letter is below. The primary asks our supporters are making are:
Require a permanent, prominent, and accessible home developed with ALBA and artist Walter Hood, including consideration of design changes that could retain the monument within the renovated park.
Identify funding, a responsible City department and a firm installation timetable, with conservation safeguards and secure handling and storage during any move.
Provide readable, accessible panels and space for education, commemorations and community gatherings.
If a final site cannot be identified now, set a deadline for presenting alternatives and require a public progress report before the next design approval.
Sample Letter
To whom it may concern,
I write to you today about the Abraham Lincoln Brigade Monument on the Embarcadero, which honors approximately 2,800 Americans who volunteered to defend the Spanish Republic against fascism. They recognized the international threat posed by Hitler and Mussolini when much of the world looked away. Many never returned. Their courage and sacrifice belong permanently in San Francisco’s public memory.
When San Francisco accepted this monument, it made a commitment to those volunteers, their families, the artists and supporters, and then-Mayor Gavin Newsom and his administration, who helped bring it into being. Allowing it to disappear into indefinite storage or become an afterthought would break that commitment.
I respectfully ask for a commitment from the city government. That commitment should require:
• A permanent, prominent and accessible location, developed in consultation with ALBA and artist Walter Hood.
• Identified funding, a responsible City department and a firm timetable for installation.
• Appropriate conservation, secure handling and storage during any move.
• Readable, accessible panels and space for education, commemorations and community gatherings.
The monument cannot get lost in the shuffle. A renewed waterfront should help residents and visitors encounter this history and understand its continuing significance.
The Abraham Lincoln Brigade volunteers stood against fascism when doing so demanded extraordinary courage. San Francisco must keep faith with them.
Find Emails and the Comment Forms of the Supervisor and Mayor Below
The Mayor’s Office
Mayor Daniel Lurie – daniel.lurie@sfgov.org
The Board of Supervisors
Supervisor Connie Chan – chanstaff@sfgov.org
Comment Form
Supervisor Stephen Sherrill – sherrillstaff@sfgov.org
Comment Form
Supervisor Danny Sauter – SauterStaff@sfgov.org
Comment Form
Supervisor Alan Wong – WongStaff@sfgov.org
Comment Form
Supervisor Bilal Mahmood – MahmoodStaff@sfgov.org
Comment Form
Supervisor Matt Dorsey – dorseystaff@sfgov.org
Comment Form
Supervisor Myrna Melgar – melgarstaff@sfgov.org
Supervisor Rafael Mandelman – mandelmanstaff@sfgov.org
Comment Form
Supervisor Jackie Fielder – fielderstaff@sfgov.org
Comment Form
Supervisor Shamann Walton – waltonstaff@sfgov.org
Comment Form
Supervisor Chyanne Chen – ChenStaff@sfgov.org
A Faculty Union Acting to Increase Economic Inequality Among its Members
https://www.counterpunch.org/2026/11/06/a-faculty-union-acting-to-increase-economic-inequality-among-its-members/
NOVEMBER 6, 2026
RICK BAUMatoa-print-icon.png
One of the most troubling characteristics of …capitalism today has been increasing economic inequality. One of the many factors causing it has been the decline of organized labor. Fewer workers are organized in unions and many of those unions that exist are problematic.
One might expect that local teacher union leaders who work in a public college would not advocate in contract negotiations positions that allow for growing economic inequality within their own ranks, especially one located in a city regarded as progressive. Unfortunately, that is not the case with my own union at City College of San Francisco (CCSF), the American Federation of Teachers Local 2121 (AFT 2121).
Faculty in community colleges throughout California fall into two categories, full-time faculty who gain tenure after a few years, and part-time (also called contingent or adjunct) faculty who generally have no guarantee of a job or a similar work assignment following each school term.
As is true of most, if not all unions representing higher education faculty in the United States, faculty at CCSF have a two-tier contract. In California’s community colleges, the majority of the faculty work part-time. When teaching the same class as a tenured full-time faculty member, job insecure part-time faculty receive lower wages for the work they do and inferior or no benefits.(1)
My union leadership will express support for and embrace equality, social justice and democracy. They even recently passed a resolution with the title “Resolution in Support of Ending the Two-Tier System Within the California Community Colleges.” Whereas sections included “AFT 2121 believes that equality is a basic principle of democracy” and indicated that their Sunshine Document for union contract talks in 2023 had the stated goal: “Achieve a one-tiered contract with equality in pay, benefits, and strengthened job security for all faculty and all assignment types.” The resolved section indicates that “we, AFT 2121, favor that equally qualified and experienced faculty be paid the same amount for the same work”
However, the most recent contract the leaders approved and the negotiating position they are proposing for our next contract represents an acceptance for doing the opposite of what is stated in the resolution. Under both, the salary schedule moves away from paying “equally qualified and experienced faculty…the same amount for the same work,” and has or will result in increasing the economic inequality between the highest paid faculty and those paid the smallest amount, part-timers. Additionally, the difference in the level of pay between the highest paid full-time faculty and the lower paid full-time faculty also increases.
Pay at CCSF is based on two factors. 1. the level of one’s education which determines one’s column placement resulting in those who are more highly educated being paid more than the less educated, and 2. a step system determined by how long one has worked at the college with a move up a step generally resulting in a higher rate of pay. One example of our pay inequality is that a full-time faculty member moves up a step each year one works at the college while a part-time member must work two years before moving up a step.
The most recent negotiated and ratified contract that covered the three school years 2023-2024 through 2025-2026 resulted in a pay increase of 9% for the first year, 3% in the second year and 2% in the third year. These were certainly increases that benefited all workers keeping their jobs. However, the problem is with the unfair and unequal results that disproportionately favored the higher paid faculty, fostering greater economic inequality among faculty.
For the school year, 2022-2023, on which the pay increase was based, a newly hired full-time faculty member with a master’s degree placed on column F + 15 was paid $68,570. One in the same column beginning a tenth year was paid $92,600, $24,030 more. In 2025-2026, the difference in pay for these two spots came to $27,518.
Full-time pay vs. Part-time
For the school year, 2022-2023, a newly hired full-time faculty member with a master’s degree placed on column F + 15 was paid $6,857 for teaching a three-unit class. By contrast, a newly hired part-time faculty member just as experienced and qualified was paid $5,897, $960 less, for teaching the same class.
Three years later, for school year 2025-2026, the newly hired full-time faculty member was paid $7,852 for teaching a three-unit class while the newly hired part-timer made $6,753, increasing the difference in their pay from $960 to $1,099.
A part-time faculty member who was starting a tenth year at the college in 2025-2026 was paid less, $7,805 per three-unit class, than the newly hired full-time faculty member placed in the same column and teaching the same class. Full-timers starting their tenth year were paid $10,604, $2,752 more than a part-timer also beginning year ten.
The justification given for not having equal pay for equally qualified and experienced faculty with the only difference being that one is a full-timer, and the other is a part-timer is that full-time faculty, unlike part-time faculty, have greater responsibilities beyond teaching such as committee work. However, many part-time faculty do this work for free, and the extra work some full-time faculty take on can be questionable and minimal. Additionally, the full-time faculty greater job security and the value of their superior benefits should be viewed as payment for the extra work obligation.
My Effort to Equalize Pay
More than a year ago, I asked my union to pass a resolution I wrote calling for making a demand in negotiations for equal pay for equal work for equally qualified and experienced faculty.
To my surprise, the leaders put the resolution on the agenda for more than one meeting. Few people attend union meetings held over Zoom, generally less than 30 in a faculty of some 900 members. The leadership did what they needed to do to see that the resolution was defeated. Aside from a silly contention that the resolution was anti-democratic, the only argument for opposing this resolution was the claim that making such a demand would tie the hands of negotiators even though it was put forward as an item to be negotiated over, not as a non-negotiable demand. I wrote about what transpired that one can read here.
Current Contract Negotiations
A new three-year contract is currently being negotiated. The initial proposal put forth by the administration called for a pay increase of 2% in the first year, 2026-2027, and 0% in the next two years. The union leaders properly characterized this proposal as “paltry” and “a slap in the face to most [not all?] faculty.” AFT 2121 leaders claimthat “the purchasing power of CCSF faculty wages is currently only 83% of what it was in 2007 due to our wages not keeping up with inflation.” To partly make up for this decline in purchasing power, they put forth an across-the-board pay proposal with an increase of 15.28% in the first year, 4% in the second year and 2% in the third year.
This regressive proposal, if enacted, would foster greater economic inequality. How is the union leader’s pay proposal regressive? After three years, one currently being paid $100,000, will be paid $122,800, while one making $40,000 would have pay that increases to $49,120. The differences in their pay increases from $60,000 to $73,680. This inequality is even greater if one includes pay going up due to step increases. If a union principle is to seek to achieve more in negotiations for its most vulnerable and lowest paid members, my union proposes to do the exact opposite, help to give rise to greater economic inequality between the lowest paid faculty and the highest paid faculty.
The unfairness is also illustrated in the pay per class example already discussed. Under the contract, the inequality grows the longer one works at the college. In school year 2025-2026, a part-time teacher placed on column F+15 entering year ten makes $2,752 less per three-unit class taught than a full-timer entering year ten. Under the union proposal, after three years with step increases, the part-timer would be paid $10,230 for teaching a three-unit class while the full-timer would be paid $14,148. The differences in their pay for this one class would go from $2,752 to $3,918. Were the part-time teacher paid the same per class as the full-time teacher, and teaching the maximum of six classes allowed under the law, this person would be making almost $24,000 more for the year.
In a recent update, my union leaders informed us that the administration is now offering a pay increase of 4% in the first year and 2% each of the subsequent two years. The union reduced the size of its regressive wage demand to 13.31% in the first year, 3.06% in the second, and 3.31% for the third year.
CCSF Part-Timers Level of Pay
The pay of part-time faculty at CCSF is much higher than most other colleges. This can be used as an excuse for not advocating that it be higher. However, this higher pay is more a reflection of how poorly part-time faculty are paid elsewhere, and should not be used to divert attention away from the unfairness and inequality of pay at CCSF.
What could be done?
Simply and obviously, to reduce inequality in pay, a progressive pay increase providing the lowest paid faculty with the biggest percentage pay increase and the higher paid with the smallest percent pay increase without sacrificing anyone’s job should be what is demanded in negotiations.(2) To move all faculty toward equality in pay would include having a step increase system in which all faculty move up a step each year, not just full-time faculty. Additionally, each column and step has a cell specifying a dollar amount. Currently, the cell of a part-timer teacher is 86% of that of a full-time teacher. Equal pay for equal work of equally qualified and experienced faculty would be accomplished by making the cell amounts the same for part-time and full-time faculty.
For the above to more likely happen, part-time faculty need to be organized to fight for their interests not just against the administration/management, but also in opposition to a union leadership that acts to bring about greater inequality between its members.
NOTES
(1) Among the benefits received by full-time faculty not available to part-time faculty are paid sabbaticals, a life insurance policy, and medical coverage when they retire. Additionally, they will receive bigger pensions because of their higher earnings.
Currently, full-time faculty are required to enroll in the CALSTRS defined benefit pension plan. The employer’s contribution to their pension is 19.1% of one’s gross pay. Informed part-time faculty have the option of enrolling in this plan, but many choose not to because of a higher deduction from their pay of over 10% that they can’t afford and/or because of a vesting requirement being the equivalent of 5 years of full-time work, something that could take them over a decade to reach and that may never happen due to their precarious job situation.
An alternative plan choice for part-time faculty is to either enroll in social security or the CALSTRS Cash Balance Plan. The deduction from their pay is either 6.2% for social security or 4% (that could be negotiated to a higher level) for the Cash Balance Plan, and the employer contribution is the same amount as the pay deduction. At my college, part-time faculty not in the Defined Benefit Plan requiring the 19.1% employer match receive none of the money saved from their smaller employer match to cover their plan.
(2) In late October, I sent an email to the leaders of my union explaining why their pay proposal is regressive and unfair. No reply has been received. Most of the leaders tend to be more senior full-time faculty members and higher up on the pay schedule.
Rick Baum teaches Political Science at City College of San Francisco. He is a member of AFT 2121.
A Faculty Union Acting to Increase Economic Inequality Among its Members
https://www.counterpunch.org/2026/11/06/a-faculty-union-acting-to-increase-economic-inequality-among-its-members/
NOVEMBER 6, 2026
RICK BAUMatoa-print-icon.png
One of the most troubling characteristics of …capitalism today has been increasing economic inequality. One of the many factors causing it has been the decline of organized labor. Fewer workers are organized in unions and many of those unions that exist are problematic.
One might expect that local teacher union leaders who work in a public college would not advocate in contract negotiations positions that allow for growing economic inequality within their own ranks, especially one located in a city regarded as progressive. Unfortunately, that is not the case with my own union at City College of San Francisco (CCSF), the American Federation of Teachers Local 2121 (AFT 2121).
Faculty in community colleges throughout California fall into two categories, full-time faculty who gain tenure after a few years, and part-time (also called contingent or adjunct) faculty who generally have no guarantee of a job or a similar work assignment following each school term.
As is true of most, if not all unions representing higher education faculty in the United States, faculty at CCSF have a two-tier contract. In California’s community colleges, the majority of the faculty work part-time. When teaching the same class as a tenured full-time faculty member, job insecure part-time faculty receive lower wages for the work they do and inferior or no benefits.(1)
My union leadership will express support for and embrace equality, social justice and democracy. They even recently passed a resolution with the title “Resolution in Support of Ending the Two-Tier System Within the California Community Colleges.” Whereas sections included “AFT 2121 believes that equality is a basic principle of democracy” and indicated that their Sunshine Document for union contract talks in 2023 had the stated goal: “Achieve a one-tiered contract with equality in pay, benefits, and strengthened job security for all faculty and all assignment types.” The resolved section indicates that “we, AFT 2121, favor that equally qualified and experienced faculty be paid the same amount for the same work”
However, the most recent contract the leaders approved and the negotiating position they are proposing for our next contract represents an acceptance for doing the opposite of what is stated in the resolution. Under both, the salary schedule moves away from paying “equally qualified and experienced faculty…the same amount for the same work,” and has or will result in increasing the economic inequality between the highest paid faculty and those paid the smallest amount, part-timers. Additionally, the difference in the level of pay between the highest paid full-time faculty and the lower paid full-time faculty also increases.
Pay at CCSF is based on two factors. 1. the level of one’s education which determines one’s column placement resulting in those who are more highly educated being paid more than the less educated, and 2. a step system determined by how long one has worked at the college with a move up a step generally resulting in a higher rate of pay. One example of our pay inequality is that a full-time faculty member moves up a step each year one works at the college while a part-time member must work two years before moving up a step.
The most recent negotiated and ratified contract that covered the three school years 2023-2024 through 2025-2026 resulted in a pay increase of 9% for the first year, 3% in the second year and 2% in the third year. These were certainly increases that benefited all workers keeping their jobs. However, the problem is with the unfair and unequal results that disproportionately favored the higher paid faculty, fostering greater economic inequality among faculty.
For the school year, 2022-2023, on which the pay increase was based, a newly hired full-time faculty member with a master’s degree placed on column F + 15 was paid $68,570. One in the same column beginning a tenth year was paid $92,600, $24,030 more. In 2025-2026, the difference in pay for these two spots came to $27,518.
Full-time pay vs. Part-time
For the school year, 2022-2023, a newly hired full-time faculty member with a master’s degree placed on column F + 15 was paid $6,857 for teaching a three-unit class. By contrast, a newly hired part-time faculty member just as experienced and qualified was paid $5,897, $960 less, for teaching the same class.
Three years later, for school year 2025-2026, the newly hired full-time faculty member was paid $7,852 for teaching a three-unit class while the newly hired part-timer made $6,753, increasing the difference in their pay from $960 to $1,099.
A part-time faculty member who was starting a tenth year at the college in 2025-2026 was paid less, $7,805 per three-unit class, than the newly hired full-time faculty member placed in the same column and teaching the same class. Full-timers starting their tenth year were paid $10,604, $2,752 more than a part-timer also beginning year ten.
The justification given for not having equal pay for equally qualified and experienced faculty with the only difference being that one is a full-timer, and the other is a part-timer is that full-time faculty, unlike part-time faculty, have greater responsibilities beyond teaching such as committee work. However, many part-time faculty do this work for free, and the extra work some full-time faculty take on can be questionable and minimal. Additionally, the full-time faculty greater job security and the value of their superior benefits should be viewed as payment for the extra work obligation.
My Effort to Equalize Pay
More than a year ago, I asked my union to pass a resolution I wrote calling for making a demand in negotiations for equal pay for equal work for equally qualified and experienced faculty.
To my surprise, the leaders put the resolution on the agenda for more than one meeting. Few people attend union meetings held over Zoom, generally less than 30 in a faculty of some 900 members. The leadership did what they needed to do to see that the resolution was defeated. Aside from a silly contention that the resolution was anti-democratic, the only argument for opposing this resolution was the claim that making such a demand would tie the hands of negotiators even though it was put forward as an item to be negotiated over, not as a non-negotiable demand. I wrote about what transpired that one can read here.
Current Contract Negotiations
A new three-year contract is currently being negotiated. The initial proposal put forth by the administration called for a pay increase of 2% in the first year, 2026-2027, and 0% in the next two years. The union leaders properly characterized this proposal as “paltry” and “a slap in the face to most [not all?] faculty.” AFT 2121 leaders claimthat “the purchasing power of CCSF faculty wages is currently only 83% of what it was in 2007 due to our wages not keeping up with inflation.” To partly make up for this decline in purchasing power, they put forth an across-the-board pay proposal with an increase of 15.28% in the first year, 4% in the second year and 2% in the third year.
This regressive proposal, if enacted, would foster greater economic inequality. How is the union leader’s pay proposal regressive? After three years, one currently being paid $100,000, will be paid $122,800, while one making $40,000 would have pay that increases to $49,120. The differences in their pay increases from $60,000 to $73,680. This inequality is even greater if one includes pay going up due to step increases. If a union principle is to seek to achieve more in negotiations for its most vulnerable and lowest paid members, my union proposes to do the exact opposite, help to give rise to greater economic inequality between the lowest paid faculty and the highest paid faculty.
The unfairness is also illustrated in the pay per class example already discussed. Under the contract, the inequality grows the longer one works at the college. In school year 2025-2026, a part-time teacher placed on column F+15 entering year ten makes $2,752 less per three-unit class taught than a full-timer entering year ten. Under the union proposal, after three years with step increases, the part-timer would be paid $10,230 for teaching a three-unit class while the full-timer would be paid $14,148. The differences in their pay for this one class would go from $2,752 to $3,918. Were the part-time teacher paid the same per class as the full-time teacher, and teaching the maximum of six classes allowed under the law, this person would be making almost $24,000 more for the year.
In a recent update, my union leaders informed us that the administration is now offering a pay increase of 4% in the first year and 2% each of the subsequent two years. The union reduced the size of its regressive wage demand to 13.31% in the first year, 3.06% in the second, and 3.31% for the third year.
CCSF Part-Timers Level of Pay
The pay of part-time faculty at CCSF is much higher than most other colleges. This can be used as an excuse for not advocating that it be higher. However, this higher pay is more a reflection of how poorly part-time faculty are paid elsewhere, and should not be used to divert attention away from the unfairness and inequality of pay at CCSF.
What could be done?
Simply and obviously, to reduce inequality in pay, a progressive pay increase providing the lowest paid faculty with the biggest percentage pay increase and the higher paid with the smallest percent pay increase without sacrificing anyone’s job should be what is demanded in negotiations.(2) To move all faculty toward equality in pay would include having a step increase system in which all faculty move up a step each year, not just full-time faculty. Additionally, each column and step has a cell specifying a dollar amount. Currently, the cell of a part-timer teacher is 86% of that of a full-time teacher. Equal pay for equal work of equally qualified and experienced faculty would be accomplished by making the cell amounts the same for part-time and full-time faculty.
For the above to more likely happen, part-time faculty need to be organized to fight for their interests not just against the administration/management, but also in opposition to a union leadership that acts to bring about greater inequality between its members.
NOTES
(1) Among the benefits received by full-time faculty not available to part-time faculty are paid sabbaticals, a life insurance policy, and medical coverage when they retire. Additionally, they will receive bigger pensions because of their higher earnings.
Currently, full-time faculty are required to enroll in the CALSTRS defined benefit pension plan. The employer’s contribution to their pension is 19.1% of one’s gross pay. Informed part-time faculty have the option of enrolling in this plan, but many choose not to because of a higher deduction from their pay of over 10% that they can’t afford and/or because of a vesting requirement being the equivalent of 5 years of full-time work, something that could take them over a decade to reach and that may never happen due to their precarious job situation.
An alternative plan choice for part-time faculty is to either enroll in social security or the CALSTRS Cash Balance Plan. The deduction from their pay is either 6.2% for social security or 4% (that could be negotiated to a higher level) for the Cash Balance Plan, and the employer contribution is the same amount as the pay deduction. At my college, part-time faculty not in the Defined Benefit Plan requiring the 19.1% employer match receive none of the money saved from their smaller employer match to cover their plan.
(2) In late October, I sent an email to the leaders of my union explaining why their pay proposal is regressive and unfair. No reply has been received. Most of the leaders tend to be more senior full-time faculty members and higher up on the pay schedule.
Rick Baum teaches Political Science at City College of San Francisco. He is a member of AFT 2121.
