Nitpicking West and Hess: The “Unions have a clear advantage” issue
(A continuing series looking at the new A Better Bargain: Overhauling Teacher Collective Bargaining in the 21st Century report, available here.)
I’m quoting from page 19 of the report, under the “Grievance Procedures” heading:
Critics of teachers unions assert that unions’ institutional resources and specialized expertise give them a clear advantage in the ensuing proceedings. Ron Wilson, executive director of the North American Association of Education Negotiators, says, “There is a definite difference in expertise [between unions and school districts]…Districts often utilize labor relations consultants to close the gap, but small districts have to rely on associations to provide them the resources they need.”
As an aside, the use of the word “associations” here is confusing. Are they relying on the local union associations to provide them with resources? Other professional associations, like the NAAEN referenced above? I’d guess that the second is the intended meaning, because if a district is relying on the union for bargaining help I can see where some of the odder contracts around come from.
The most striking example of union coordination may be the NEA’s UniServ system, a nationwide network of 1,650 full-time and 200 part-time employees who provide local affiliates guidance on matters including negotiations and grievance resolutions. The NEA touts the UniServ program as “a vast cadre of human resources,” on which it spent approximately $50 million in 2001.
NEA leaders, however, downplay the significance of UniServ, noting that its employees have multiple responsibilities, work with several districts, and offer expertise that pales beside the staff districts can readily hire. Moreover, union officials point out that school districts command far greater legal and budgetary resources.
There’s two key points to be made here:
1) You can’t dismiss the expertise that exists in the district office. When we bargained last summer I was looking across the table at our superintendent, assistant superintendent, the director of special services, the school business manager (who’s one of the sharpest guys I’ve ever met), and a principal who used to be the union president and who has a top-notch reputation for figuring out how to get things done. Here in Washington State they can call for help from the Association of Washington School Principals, the Washington Association of School Administrators, the Washington Association of School Business Officials, the Washington State School Directors Association and those are all on top of the district legal staff.
2) When the state feels threatened it can spend the money to make the threat go away. For example, take the special education funding lawsuit being filed by 12 school districts against the state. In the recently-completed legislative session $1.099 million dollars was put into the state budget expressly for the purpose of fighting this lawsuit. It could be argued that this is no different than the WEA adding another $1 assessment to the dues to tilt at whichever windmill happened to be biggest at the most recent Rep Assembly (see here for the newest increase), and it’s certainly a piddling amount when you consider what the California Teachers Association did to Schwarzenegger, but it does show that the mechanism is there if the state has the will to use it.
I’ll say, too that after having gotten to know our UniServ people pretty well in the last year that they are as busy as described. We have three full-time UniServ reps to cover the Eastern Washington region; the region is split into three different sections, with each of them being responsible for one. At any given time imagine that 1/3 of them are in a bargaining year, so there’s always plenty of action. On top of those duties they have to take care of the business of the UniServ, like putting on trainings and attending meetings.
The overriding theme of the section is that the grievance procedure is a hindrance to getting rid of bad teachers, and I won’t argue the point. When you read something like this chart (I think it's the same one Stossel used) detailing what it takes to fire a bad teacher in New York City you’d be hard-pressed to argue that the process isn’t flawed. This makes me a bad union member, but I’m all for extending the probationary period for teachers from 2 to 5 years, but only if there’s just cause for them to not have their contract renewed. I worry about the “New Owner” effect, where someone new buys the team and promptly fires the GM, coach, and trades away most of the players because they want to put their stamp on the team. I’m thinking Dan Snyder or Jeffrey Lauria here. I think too of the Pittsburgh Steelers; they probably could have fired Bill Cower after some of his weaker seasons, but it’s good for them that the didn’t.
I probably won't be able to look at the report any more this week, just because of circumstances and time. Next up, when I get to it--teacher transfer provisions.
I’m quoting from page 19 of the report, under the “Grievance Procedures” heading:
Critics of teachers unions assert that unions’ institutional resources and specialized expertise give them a clear advantage in the ensuing proceedings. Ron Wilson, executive director of the North American Association of Education Negotiators, says, “There is a definite difference in expertise [between unions and school districts]…Districts often utilize labor relations consultants to close the gap, but small districts have to rely on associations to provide them the resources they need.”
As an aside, the use of the word “associations” here is confusing. Are they relying on the local union associations to provide them with resources? Other professional associations, like the NAAEN referenced above? I’d guess that the second is the intended meaning, because if a district is relying on the union for bargaining help I can see where some of the odder contracts around come from.
The most striking example of union coordination may be the NEA’s UniServ system, a nationwide network of 1,650 full-time and 200 part-time employees who provide local affiliates guidance on matters including negotiations and grievance resolutions. The NEA touts the UniServ program as “a vast cadre of human resources,” on which it spent approximately $50 million in 2001.
NEA leaders, however, downplay the significance of UniServ, noting that its employees have multiple responsibilities, work with several districts, and offer expertise that pales beside the staff districts can readily hire. Moreover, union officials point out that school districts command far greater legal and budgetary resources.
There’s two key points to be made here:
1) You can’t dismiss the expertise that exists in the district office. When we bargained last summer I was looking across the table at our superintendent, assistant superintendent, the director of special services, the school business manager (who’s one of the sharpest guys I’ve ever met), and a principal who used to be the union president and who has a top-notch reputation for figuring out how to get things done. Here in Washington State they can call for help from the Association of Washington School Principals, the Washington Association of School Administrators, the Washington Association of School Business Officials, the Washington State School Directors Association and those are all on top of the district legal staff.
2) When the state feels threatened it can spend the money to make the threat go away. For example, take the special education funding lawsuit being filed by 12 school districts against the state. In the recently-completed legislative session $1.099 million dollars was put into the state budget expressly for the purpose of fighting this lawsuit. It could be argued that this is no different than the WEA adding another $1 assessment to the dues to tilt at whichever windmill happened to be biggest at the most recent Rep Assembly (see here for the newest increase), and it’s certainly a piddling amount when you consider what the California Teachers Association did to Schwarzenegger, but it does show that the mechanism is there if the state has the will to use it.
I’ll say, too that after having gotten to know our UniServ people pretty well in the last year that they are as busy as described. We have three full-time UniServ reps to cover the Eastern Washington region; the region is split into three different sections, with each of them being responsible for one. At any given time imagine that 1/3 of them are in a bargaining year, so there’s always plenty of action. On top of those duties they have to take care of the business of the UniServ, like putting on trainings and attending meetings.
The overriding theme of the section is that the grievance procedure is a hindrance to getting rid of bad teachers, and I won’t argue the point. When you read something like this chart (I think it's the same one Stossel used) detailing what it takes to fire a bad teacher in New York City you’d be hard-pressed to argue that the process isn’t flawed. This makes me a bad union member, but I’m all for extending the probationary period for teachers from 2 to 5 years, but only if there’s just cause for them to not have their contract renewed. I worry about the “New Owner” effect, where someone new buys the team and promptly fires the GM, coach, and trades away most of the players because they want to put their stamp on the team. I’m thinking Dan Snyder or Jeffrey Lauria here. I think too of the Pittsburgh Steelers; they probably could have fired Bill Cower after some of his weaker seasons, but it’s good for them that the didn’t.
I probably won't be able to look at the report any more this week, just because of circumstances and time. Next up, when I get to it--teacher transfer provisions.
posted by Ryan at 1:28 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home