The Promotion Problem--Part I

On merged campuses, 4C’s members have watched with dismay as AFT members have been promoted more quickly. It is not unusual to see an AFT member who was hired after a 4C’s member earning more money because of more rapid promotions. (The AFT contract cites qualification as the eligibility criterion for promotion; our contract currently demands we serve three years in rank as the eligibility criterion for promotion.)

Our Norwalk colleague H. Steve Dashefsky decided to examine this issue in a very direct and personal way. He approached an AFT member who was hired at the same time, at the same rank, and at the same step as he was. He received her permission to obtain her salary history from Human Resources, and he then compiled a graph documenting the difference in their earnings. After seven years, Steve was earning $7000 per year less than his AFT counterpart. She had been promoted twice to his once, and she had earned over $22,000 more than he had. (Note that our 2003 concession agreement does impact Steve, but it has only a secondary effect on his comparative earnings.)

When Steve brought this analysis to the attention of our union’s current leaders, he was vilified. They argued his analysis was misleading, mostly wrong, and that there was no real difference in earnings between 4C’s and AFT members based on promotion. Eventually, they realized Steve’s work was irrefutable, and they changed their tune and began to demand “equity” for 4C’s members. In fact, for a brief time, Steve’s chart was on the 4C’s website, though it is no longer.

It was only because of the tenacious efforts of Steve and many others, that our current leaders were forced to admit promotion differences between the 4C’s and the AFT constituted a problem.

This link will take you to the AFT website where Steve's analysis has been posted and where AFT President Dennis Bogusky advocates for 4C’s members.

By the way, extrapolating out to twenty years, Steve estimates he will earn approximately $90,000 less than will his AFT counterpart due to our contract’s promotion language.

NEXT: The problem with our new contract language on promotion.