Why I’m Begrudgingly Voting “Yes” on the CSU/CFA Tentative Agreement

I’ve spent the last week outraged. For the last four days, I planned to vote “no” on the tentative agreement (TA) and then leave the union. Before I rationalize my change of heart, I first want to distinguish between my two primary sources of grief. First, I’m unhappy with the terms of our TA. Second, I’m disgusted with our union’s machinations. I’ll first explain why I think the union shot itself in the foot with its messaging, then make a case for why I’m now leaning toward a “yes” vote, despite the union’s TERRIBLE maneuvering. 

One thing that’s puzzled me this week is why the CFA made a 12% GSI the FOCAL POINT of its messaging. The bargaining team knew that “me too” clauses meant we’d never see more than 5%. So why center 12%? My guess is that they were using 12% as a bargaining chip to secure other goals, like raising the salary floor for lecturers. The strategy is nonsensical to me given the union’s refusal to budge from 12% when the CSU tried multiple times to compromise. You can see CSU’s and CFA’s back and forth here: https://www.cfabargaining.org/proposals Each CSU offer in 2023 was met with, “5 is not 12.” But they always knew anything over 5 would trigger a “me too” for multiple other unions, so why not negotiate on OTHER terms and avert a strike? Rank-and-file members are rightfully pissed because many terms of the TA were included in previous CSU offers (e.g., retroactive pay for ’23-’24, a 2.65% SSI), then taken off the table in CSU’s last “best and final” immediately prior to the strike, only to be brought back in the TA. The bargaining team is now trying to paint these OLD elements of past offers as NEW gains. They’re playing a shell game, which has enraged membership. CFA’s 12% messaging played with the hearts and minds of its membership. Future strike authorizations will be an uphill battle. People will leave and have already left the union. So much of this could have been sidestepped had the CFA 1) tried to compromise with the CSU in earlier rounds of bargaining, 2) been forthright about how anything over 5% would trigger several “me too” clauses that rendered more than 5 impossible, and 3) not treated a full-week strike as a performative instrument, wherein rank-and-file were used as pawns and disrespected. That Monday night email to return to work Tuesday was gross, especially after the CSU tried to get students to rat out striking professors. I’m tempted to vote “no” just to stick it to the CFA and its terrible leadership. 

On the other hand, I don’t want to cut off my nose to spite my face. After ending the strike on day 1, CFA made it virtually impossible for us to get more than we got in the TA. I agree with the resounding sentiment that we likely would have secured more had we been on strike for four days. But I have to deal with the reality the CFA manufactured rather than a world of “What if?” If the TA is voted down and we go back into bargaining, we definitely will not get over 5% due to “me too” clauses, likely won’t get retroactive pay, and might (over may) get the CSU to eventually budge on other issues. Unfortunately, the CFA already squandered its opportunity to effectively bargaining terms for ’23-’24. So why vote “yes” when I was going to vote “no”?

First, CFA sold me on a pipe dream that anything over 5% was attainable. I’m disgusted by their lack of transparency about “me too” clauses. The union’s now pivoting as if “me too” is new information. But that’s always been the reality of our bargaining situation. So the question becomes if I want that 5% to be retroactive? Yes.

Second, I was hung up on July’s contingency because, as an 18-year CSU employee, contingencies have burned me twice: in 2008 and last year. Then I learned that, per Clause 41.3 of the 2022-2024 agreement, the base-funding contingency was ALREADY PRE-BAKED INTO THE CONTRACT. Here’s the clause:

Any term(s) of this Agreement that carries an economic cost shall not be implemented until the amount required therefore is appropriated and made available to the CSU for expenditure for such purposes. The CSU shall make appropriate requests for financing or budgetary funding in amounts sufficient to meet obligations set out in this Agreement. If less than the amount needed to implement this Agreement is appropriated in any given year of this Agreement, and made available to the CSU for expenditure, the term(s) of this Agreement shall automatically be subject to the meet and confer process.

In other words, the TA’s language about ’24-’25 is redundant. The contingency for ’23-’24 isn’t explicit in the TA because the state has ALREADY provided base funding for the academic year. I’m not optimistic that we’ll secure base funds for ’24-’25. People (myself included) have been circulating a fiscal outlook from California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office that predicts underfunding the state’s schools. This document specifically addresses Prop 98, which establishes minimum funding for grade schools and community colleges, not the CSU. Still, the LAO’s fiscal outlook is prophetic and fuels my pessimism regarding what’s to come (or NOT come) in July. Either way you cut it, the CSU will not guarantee a raise that’s not connected to base funding. From what I NOW understand, a base-funding contingency is already baked into our contract and should act as an enthymematic presumption for all raises. 

The thing I hate most about the TA is the non-performative language about mental health counselors. The CSU “agreed to move toward at 1500:1 student-counselor ratio”? How does one measure “move toward”? I fully understand how anyone might vote “no” based entirely on this bullet point. The language is nothing more than a commitment to NOT commit to student mental health in the WAKE OF A PANDEMIC, and it’s appalling. This is a classic non-performative, or speech-act that does NOT describe what it will (or won’t) do. Both the CFA and CSU should be ashamed. 

The most heartbreaking part of this week is how the CFA torpedoed its credibility. I no longer have any faith in our union. My plan is to leave the CFA if we don’t receive an additional 5% in July. I don’t blame anyone who votes “no” on the TA, whether it be for the agreement’s terms or to send a message to our terrible statewide leadership. I also appreciate why some have already left. I’m not persuaded by those who say, “No, stay! You can help change a fundamentally broken system.” My mental health is more important than being a radical agent of change in an organization that manipulates and disrespects its rank-and-file members and lacks this much transparency. I may have had the energy and patience to do so in my 20s and 30s. Closing in on 50, my energy is better spent on projects that bring me joy.