Classified employees tell board negotiations stalled, object to comment they say labeled staff 'lower class'

Patty Badia Salzberg, the CSC labor relations representative for Greenfield classified employees, told the board April 10 that classified members feel negotiations have stalled and that their concerns have not been addressed in writing.

"We feel that we're not being heard," Badia Salzberg said, describing two negotiated articles the union opened after multiple workplace concerns. She told the board the union had proposed changes after incidents during the school year but was told the district intended to maintain "status quo" per the board's direction and that the union had not been given written responses.

Why it matters Classified employees perform day‑to‑day operations at schools — including food service, custodial work and office support — and the union said staffing and pay practices affect school operations and employee retention. Badia Salzberg said summer‑school assignments can exclude long‑serving employees because the district prioritizes "experience and knowledge" in a way the union described as inconsistent with expectations for seniority. She also raised food‑service pay practices, saying the district pays employees taking on higher‑level duties only after five days under Ed Code but that the union seeks payment after two days for certain classifications.

Allegation of derogatory phrasing and board response Members of the classified union said they were upset by an account that an individual staff member, identified in public comment as having reported hearing a district representative say the board's directive was to "protect the lower class." That remark prompted vocal objection from union speakers and allies from the GTA. In response during board reports, Clerk Gonzales said she did not use the phrase "lower class" and clarified what she said.

"I did not, call, CAC members, lower lower class. I believe the term we used was lower classification," Clerk Gonzales said, explaining she would never refer to employees as a social class and noting she is herself a classified employee. Multiple board members later echoed support for classified staff and said they value the work done by kitchen staff, campus aides and other frontline employees.

Public requests and specific asks Union representatives asked the board to support the two negotiation articles the union submitted and to provide written responses to bargaining proposals. They also urged the board to consider changing food‑service pay timelines and to ensure summer‑school assignment processes do not exclude long‑tenured employees. Several speakers from immigrant and indigenous communities used public comment to press for a dedicated community worker at school sites and for culturally responsive after‑school programming; one speaker asked how a large contract listed on the agenda would serve indigenous students.

What the board said and next steps Board members said they value classified staff and that staff and union leaders will continue bargaining. Clerk Gonzales said she had arranged site visits and would tour school sites with staff. The district did not take formal action on the union requests at the April 10 meeting; the union requested board support for items still under negotiation.