Master Agreement, Part 1
Today I am going to begin a series of posts that deal with the school district 11 Master Agreement (MA), which is the contract between the D11 board and the Colorado Springs Education Association labor union. I will add additional posts on the MA and I will address the clauses that benefit the labor union without providing benefits to the D11 parents and taxpayers. Remember, the MA is supposed to be a contract between the board (the voters) and the labor union.
I and other reform board members have been critical of the master agreement, and it is important to understand the reasons for that criticism. While some claim that I oppose the teachers’ right to organize, this is not true. I do oppose clauses in the agreement that only serve the labor union. I believe that the union contract has a detrimental impact on the ability of the district to do what it needs to do to better educate kids. I also believe that the contract gives the union a much greater influence over the operation of D11 than it gives the parents. Notice that I said the “union,” not the teachers. These are actually separate parties in contract language. All references to the MA can be verified by viewing the MA on the D11 webpage. The link to the MA is at http://www.d11.org/hr/CSEA/Master_Agreement.pdf.
Articles III, IV, and V of the MA make it very clear that there are three parties to this contract: teachers, the school board, and the labor union. There are many clauses that have nothing to do with pay or working conditions, and have everything to do with strengthening labor union power, influence, and income. Keep in mind that the labor union is a private entity. Combine this with the knowledge that this private labor union has a tremendous foothold over the operation of the school district, and it makes it seem rather ironic to hear union leaders accuse reform board members of being “privatizers.”
In any contract, there should be conditions and provisions that benefit both parties. The MA contains numerous provisions that only serve to benefit the power of the labor union. Some examples:
Article III B. 1. The Association President shall be furnished with copies of all publications, directives or memoranda containing official District interpretations of this Agreement.
Although one might argue that the district or board could benefit from official labor union interpretations of the contract, neither the board nor the administration receive these interpretations. Why not?
Article III E. 1. The Board shall grant the following to the Association President, one of which he or she may choose: (1) Release time of one-half (1/2) day each day of the school year or the Association and the Board will share equally the cost of a one-half (1/2) time contracted teacher on regular salary or (2) Leave of absence. The Board agrees to pay an annual amount equal to twenty-five percent (25%) of salary with the Association paying the balance.
In layman’s terms, the taxpayers foot either ½ or ¼ the pay of the labor union leader each year while this person does not teach. No other employee taking leave of absence to work for any other private entity would be allowed to have his/her salary paid by the tax payers. In addition, while on leave, the president of the labor union continues to receive full credit towards salary. Again, this provision serves nobody but the leader of this private organization.
Article III F. 2. The Association Representative shall have: the use of the school’s communication system to make announcements at appropriate times.
What other private entity has the right to utilize the communications systems of the school buildings? How does this right benefit anyone other than the labor union?
Article III G. The Association President has the right to assign an Association member to the initial interviewing committee considering applicants for District positions. The District will provide the Association with a copy of each posting and the Association President will notify the Division of Human Resources when it wishes to participate. The Association President may also appoint members to other District committees as desired.
This article actually conflicts with Article II B, which says that the labor union will represent all teachers regardless of status in the union. This came into play when the board established a committee to study teacher incentive pay. Union leader Irma Valerio and UniServe representative Tim Cross did everything in their power to prevent a non-union teacher from participating on the committee. By only selecting union members for committees, the labor union is violating its own contract.
Article III H. The Association has priority for using buildings, as long as such use does not interfere with the normal conduct of school activities and no conflict exists with previously scheduled meetings. There shall be no cost to the Association unless additional costs are incurred by the District. The Association shall have the right to place materials related to Association business on bulletin boards and in teachers’ mailboxes. A copy of all such materials shall be given to the principal.
Every other private organization is required to pay for use of public facilities. What benefit does the public receive when this private labor union is the exception to that rule? Union representatives often abuse this privilege by posting political materials in mail boxes and on bulletin boards. Once again, the labor union receives a benefit that the public does not. Why does this private organization receive “priority” over parents who pay for those buildings?
Article IX F. 1. Association - Teachers may be released when the Association requests such time in advance. Days shall be paid by the Association if the teachers are doing work that is not of a direct educational nature; split with the District if the work is of mutual benefit to the parties; or paid by the District if the work is in pursuit of District goals as established by past practice.
Who determines if the work is educational in nature? I have already shown how union leaders have taken association leave for political purposes and have charged the tax payers for this time off of work. Teacher absences are a major issue in D11, and this provision allows the labor union to charge the tax payers for political activities.
Article IX F. 2. Association Leader - A leave of absence without pay shall be granted to no more than two (2) teachers for up to one (1) school year for the purpose of engaging in Association activities. Upon return from such leave, each teacher shall be granted credit on the salary schedule and seniority credit as if he/she had remained continuously employed in the District.
This labor union self-serving provision allows union activists time to run for higher CEA or NEA offices. It allows activists to serve their private organization while still gaining seniority credit as if they were in the classroom teaching children. Again, no other private organization gets this treatment.
None of the above provisions are necessarily harmful to the overall academic success of D11. However, none of these provisions benefit either the school board or the classroom teachers. Only one of the 3 parties of the MA receives any benefit from these provisions. They amount to tax payer subsidizing of union political activities. All of these provisions should be removed, but the union will not even allow discussion of them.
Much more to come on the MA.
I and other reform board members have been critical of the master agreement, and it is important to understand the reasons for that criticism. While some claim that I oppose the teachers’ right to organize, this is not true. I do oppose clauses in the agreement that only serve the labor union. I believe that the union contract has a detrimental impact on the ability of the district to do what it needs to do to better educate kids. I also believe that the contract gives the union a much greater influence over the operation of D11 than it gives the parents. Notice that I said the “union,” not the teachers. These are actually separate parties in contract language. All references to the MA can be verified by viewing the MA on the D11 webpage. The link to the MA is at http://www.d11.org/hr/CSEA/Master_Agreement.pdf.
Articles III, IV, and V of the MA make it very clear that there are three parties to this contract: teachers, the school board, and the labor union. There are many clauses that have nothing to do with pay or working conditions, and have everything to do with strengthening labor union power, influence, and income. Keep in mind that the labor union is a private entity. Combine this with the knowledge that this private labor union has a tremendous foothold over the operation of the school district, and it makes it seem rather ironic to hear union leaders accuse reform board members of being “privatizers.”
In any contract, there should be conditions and provisions that benefit both parties. The MA contains numerous provisions that only serve to benefit the power of the labor union. Some examples:
Article III B. 1. The Association President shall be furnished with copies of all publications, directives or memoranda containing official District interpretations of this Agreement.
Although one might argue that the district or board could benefit from official labor union interpretations of the contract, neither the board nor the administration receive these interpretations. Why not?
Article III E. 1. The Board shall grant the following to the Association President, one of which he or she may choose: (1) Release time of one-half (1/2) day each day of the school year or the Association and the Board will share equally the cost of a one-half (1/2) time contracted teacher on regular salary or (2) Leave of absence. The Board agrees to pay an annual amount equal to twenty-five percent (25%) of salary with the Association paying the balance.
In layman’s terms, the taxpayers foot either ½ or ¼ the pay of the labor union leader each year while this person does not teach. No other employee taking leave of absence to work for any other private entity would be allowed to have his/her salary paid by the tax payers. In addition, while on leave, the president of the labor union continues to receive full credit towards salary. Again, this provision serves nobody but the leader of this private organization.
Article III F. 2. The Association Representative shall have: the use of the school’s communication system to make announcements at appropriate times.
What other private entity has the right to utilize the communications systems of the school buildings? How does this right benefit anyone other than the labor union?
Article III G. The Association President has the right to assign an Association member to the initial interviewing committee considering applicants for District positions. The District will provide the Association with a copy of each posting and the Association President will notify the Division of Human Resources when it wishes to participate. The Association President may also appoint members to other District committees as desired.
This article actually conflicts with Article II B, which says that the labor union will represent all teachers regardless of status in the union. This came into play when the board established a committee to study teacher incentive pay. Union leader Irma Valerio and UniServe representative Tim Cross did everything in their power to prevent a non-union teacher from participating on the committee. By only selecting union members for committees, the labor union is violating its own contract.
Article III H. The Association has priority for using buildings, as long as such use does not interfere with the normal conduct of school activities and no conflict exists with previously scheduled meetings. There shall be no cost to the Association unless additional costs are incurred by the District. The Association shall have the right to place materials related to Association business on bulletin boards and in teachers’ mailboxes. A copy of all such materials shall be given to the principal.
Every other private organization is required to pay for use of public facilities. What benefit does the public receive when this private labor union is the exception to that rule? Union representatives often abuse this privilege by posting political materials in mail boxes and on bulletin boards. Once again, the labor union receives a benefit that the public does not. Why does this private organization receive “priority” over parents who pay for those buildings?
Article IX F. 1. Association - Teachers may be released when the Association requests such time in advance. Days shall be paid by the Association if the teachers are doing work that is not of a direct educational nature; split with the District if the work is of mutual benefit to the parties; or paid by the District if the work is in pursuit of District goals as established by past practice.
Who determines if the work is educational in nature? I have already shown how union leaders have taken association leave for political purposes and have charged the tax payers for this time off of work. Teacher absences are a major issue in D11, and this provision allows the labor union to charge the tax payers for political activities.
Article IX F. 2. Association Leader - A leave of absence without pay shall be granted to no more than two (2) teachers for up to one (1) school year for the purpose of engaging in Association activities. Upon return from such leave, each teacher shall be granted credit on the salary schedule and seniority credit as if he/she had remained continuously employed in the District.
This labor union self-serving provision allows union activists time to run for higher CEA or NEA offices. It allows activists to serve their private organization while still gaining seniority credit as if they were in the classroom teaching children. Again, no other private organization gets this treatment.
None of the above provisions are necessarily harmful to the overall academic success of D11. However, none of these provisions benefit either the school board or the classroom teachers. Only one of the 3 parties of the MA receives any benefit from these provisions. They amount to tax payer subsidizing of union political activities. All of these provisions should be removed, but the union will not even allow discussion of them.
Much more to come on the MA.
posted by Craig Cox | 3:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home