Master Agreement, Part 2
One of the most critical priorities for any labor union is organizational security. The security of the labor union even takes priority over salary and benefits. There are numerous provisions in the D11 master agreement that strengthen the security of the CSEA labor union while offering nothing to the tax payers.
The opening sentence of the contract is the most important sentence of the entire contract, as far as union bosses are concerned. It states: “The Board hereby recognizes the Association as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all certified professional staff who are under contract with the District and for whom remuneration is indicated herein.” Although it is understood that the public education establishment holds a monopoly over educating kids, its monopoly looks downright competitive compared to the monopoly that the labor union holds over teachers.
Back in 2000, the Education Intelligence Agency, an education labor union watchdog, published a report on charter schools that was conducted by the Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA). This report exposed some fascinating admissions by union leadership on the importance of unionizing teachers. The report stated in part:
“Act 195 granted PSEA and Federation a legal monopoly to represent public education employees for the purposes of collective bargaining. All we have to do is to convince teachers and supported personnel to join. Once we obtain majority representative status, PSEA becomes the exclusive bargaining agent. IN NO OTHER ENDEAVOR PSEA UNDERTAKES CAN IT ENJOY THIS EXCLUSIVE POSITION, The timeworn debate whether we are primarily a professional association or a union obscures a critical point. The main source of PSEA’s influence is that almost all Pennsylvania teachers are unionized. If we want to maintain our influence, our ability to do ANYTHING, we must make sure that education remains a unionized industry.”
The labor union wants teachers to be unionized, not to improve education for our kids, but to strengthen the power and control that the labor union holds over our tax dollars.
As a side note, a man named Mike Coughlin used to be the president of the CSEA here in D11. He now receives his paycheck from the NEA (same thing, just bigger). Coughlin has been very busy in El Paso County. His job description now has him attempting to organize and unionize surrounding school districts. His first target is Falcon D-49, and his secondary targets are Academy D-20 and Cheyenne Mountain D-12. Again, Coughlin’s goal is not to improve the education that children receive in these districts; his goal is to gain more power and resources for his monopolistic labor union.
The CSEA gained its exclusive status in D11 back in 1968. In those 39 years, it has never been required to defend itself against any opposition. Union leaders will try to pretend that the union is a “democracy,” but without any opposition, this can hardly be the case. Because teachers are never given an option of "CSEA or something else," the decisions that a few teachers made in 1968 still govern the operations of D11 today. I don't mean that they govern the operations of the local labor union; I mean that they govern the operations of D11, much more than tax paying parents can govern.
The following are the master agreement provisions that provide security to the union, but provide nothing to the D11 tax payers.
Article I D. This concerns representation elections and the threshold for decertification of the union. This is a redundant provision since decertification is already covered by state law. The union wanted this clause in the contract out of fear that the state legislature would change the state law. Now that the union backed Democrats run the state, there is no threat of this happening.
Article II A. “The Board shall not discriminate against any teacher on the basis of membership, activity or non-activity, in any teacher organization.”
This provision contradicts many others in the master agreement. If the board cannot discriminate against any teacher based on status, why, then, do union officers receive leave for union business while other teachers do not? Why can’t non-union members become president of the CSEA, and why can they not vote in union elections? Why is the CSEA president given release time and salary credits while others are not? Keep in mind that the labor union adamantly opposes giving salary credits to teachers for their performance in the classrooms, yet they can be given credit for labor union political activity. The labor union considers union teachers to be more important than non-union members.
Article II B 1. “The Association shall equally represent all teachers under the terms of this Agreement without regard to their membership or non-membership, activity or non-activity, in the Association or any other teacher organization.”
Non-members cannot even vote to ratify the agreement, so how are they being treated as equals? Any non-member teacher will tell you that they are not treated the same as union members.
Article III C 1. This provision requires the District, at tax payer expense, to deduct union dues from teacher’s paychecks and to forward those dues to the union bank account. Why can’t this private organization collect its own dues? Why do the tax payers have to foot the bill for this activity?
Article III C 2. This article gives teachers a 10 day window to opt OUT of the labor union. If the teacher does not opt out in this 10 day window, then the window is slammed shut and dues will be deducted from the teacher’s pay. Although the union leaders claim that they will only require teachers to opt out one time, the provision remains in the contract. Until the contract is changed, the union leadership cannot be trusted.
Article III D. This article is called “dues equivalency.” Some people call it strong arm robbery. Non-union members are required to pay the union 100% of the dues that union members pay unless they opt out in a 10-day window. Why won’t the union agree to have members join the union voluntarily instead of having them have to “unjoin” the union? Because membership would drop precipitously. Remember, this provision is a security blanket for union political activity. CSEA dues include an automatic payment to the labor union Political Action Committee (PAC). The last Secretary of State ruled that this could no longer occur without explicit member consent, but with the Dems in charge, there will be no enforcement of that ruling.
Article XI A. “…the Association will participate in planning the orientation and will provide time of approximately two (2) hours to address new hires on issues of the Association’s choosing (reasonably agreed upon by the Association and the District) pertaining to their introduction to the District.”
Bottom line is that the labor union gets 2 hours to convince a rookie teacher to hand over part of his/her paycheck to the union. Despite the language of this provision, the District is never consulted on the topic to be discussed. One would like to think that the discussion would center on teaching and academic needs of the District. That is mere wishful thinking. The discussion centers on politics, and then even more labor union politics. No other privat eorganization receives this type of teacher access.
Again, these provisions do not necessarily harm the academic performance of the district when looked at on the surface, but neither do they provide any benefit to the District or the public. They are meant to provide funding and survivability to the labor union. Where these provisions cause harm is through the funding of the labor union that they enforce. This damages not only D11, but other public school districts as well. This massive funding helps fuel the NEA political machine. This machine purchases weak school board and legislative candidates who will continue to resist any improvements in our education system. The labor union gets to purchase the school boards that will then be responsible for negotiating contract provisions with the labor union that bought their seats for them in the first place. That is why the John Gudvangens, Tami Haslings, Sandra Manns, Jan Tanners, and Charlie Bobbits of the world would NEVER open any part of the master agreement up for negotiations. The labor union will not authorize them to do so.
The opening sentence of the contract is the most important sentence of the entire contract, as far as union bosses are concerned. It states: “The Board hereby recognizes the Association as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all certified professional staff who are under contract with the District and for whom remuneration is indicated herein.” Although it is understood that the public education establishment holds a monopoly over educating kids, its monopoly looks downright competitive compared to the monopoly that the labor union holds over teachers.
Back in 2000, the Education Intelligence Agency, an education labor union watchdog, published a report on charter schools that was conducted by the Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA). This report exposed some fascinating admissions by union leadership on the importance of unionizing teachers. The report stated in part:
“Act 195 granted PSEA and Federation a legal monopoly to represent public education employees for the purposes of collective bargaining. All we have to do is to convince teachers and supported personnel to join. Once we obtain majority representative status, PSEA becomes the exclusive bargaining agent. IN NO OTHER ENDEAVOR PSEA UNDERTAKES CAN IT ENJOY THIS EXCLUSIVE POSITION, The timeworn debate whether we are primarily a professional association or a union obscures a critical point. The main source of PSEA’s influence is that almost all Pennsylvania teachers are unionized. If we want to maintain our influence, our ability to do ANYTHING, we must make sure that education remains a unionized industry.”
The labor union wants teachers to be unionized, not to improve education for our kids, but to strengthen the power and control that the labor union holds over our tax dollars.
As a side note, a man named Mike Coughlin used to be the president of the CSEA here in D11. He now receives his paycheck from the NEA (same thing, just bigger). Coughlin has been very busy in El Paso County. His job description now has him attempting to organize and unionize surrounding school districts. His first target is Falcon D-49, and his secondary targets are Academy D-20 and Cheyenne Mountain D-12. Again, Coughlin’s goal is not to improve the education that children receive in these districts; his goal is to gain more power and resources for his monopolistic labor union.
The CSEA gained its exclusive status in D11 back in 1968. In those 39 years, it has never been required to defend itself against any opposition. Union leaders will try to pretend that the union is a “democracy,” but without any opposition, this can hardly be the case. Because teachers are never given an option of "CSEA or something else," the decisions that a few teachers made in 1968 still govern the operations of D11 today. I don't mean that they govern the operations of the local labor union; I mean that they govern the operations of D11, much more than tax paying parents can govern.
The following are the master agreement provisions that provide security to the union, but provide nothing to the D11 tax payers.
Article I D. This concerns representation elections and the threshold for decertification of the union. This is a redundant provision since decertification is already covered by state law. The union wanted this clause in the contract out of fear that the state legislature would change the state law. Now that the union backed Democrats run the state, there is no threat of this happening.
Article II A. “The Board shall not discriminate against any teacher on the basis of membership, activity or non-activity, in any teacher organization.”
This provision contradicts many others in the master agreement. If the board cannot discriminate against any teacher based on status, why, then, do union officers receive leave for union business while other teachers do not? Why can’t non-union members become president of the CSEA, and why can they not vote in union elections? Why is the CSEA president given release time and salary credits while others are not? Keep in mind that the labor union adamantly opposes giving salary credits to teachers for their performance in the classrooms, yet they can be given credit for labor union political activity. The labor union considers union teachers to be more important than non-union members.
Article II B 1. “The Association shall equally represent all teachers under the terms of this Agreement without regard to their membership or non-membership, activity or non-activity, in the Association or any other teacher organization.”
Non-members cannot even vote to ratify the agreement, so how are they being treated as equals? Any non-member teacher will tell you that they are not treated the same as union members.
Article III C 1. This provision requires the District, at tax payer expense, to deduct union dues from teacher’s paychecks and to forward those dues to the union bank account. Why can’t this private organization collect its own dues? Why do the tax payers have to foot the bill for this activity?
Article III C 2. This article gives teachers a 10 day window to opt OUT of the labor union. If the teacher does not opt out in this 10 day window, then the window is slammed shut and dues will be deducted from the teacher’s pay. Although the union leaders claim that they will only require teachers to opt out one time, the provision remains in the contract. Until the contract is changed, the union leadership cannot be trusted.
Article III D. This article is called “dues equivalency.” Some people call it strong arm robbery. Non-union members are required to pay the union 100% of the dues that union members pay unless they opt out in a 10-day window. Why won’t the union agree to have members join the union voluntarily instead of having them have to “unjoin” the union? Because membership would drop precipitously. Remember, this provision is a security blanket for union political activity. CSEA dues include an automatic payment to the labor union Political Action Committee (PAC). The last Secretary of State ruled that this could no longer occur without explicit member consent, but with the Dems in charge, there will be no enforcement of that ruling.
Article XI A. “…the Association will participate in planning the orientation and will provide time of approximately two (2) hours to address new hires on issues of the Association’s choosing (reasonably agreed upon by the Association and the District) pertaining to their introduction to the District.”
Bottom line is that the labor union gets 2 hours to convince a rookie teacher to hand over part of his/her paycheck to the union. Despite the language of this provision, the District is never consulted on the topic to be discussed. One would like to think that the discussion would center on teaching and academic needs of the District. That is mere wishful thinking. The discussion centers on politics, and then even more labor union politics. No other privat eorganization receives this type of teacher access.
Again, these provisions do not necessarily harm the academic performance of the district when looked at on the surface, but neither do they provide any benefit to the District or the public. They are meant to provide funding and survivability to the labor union. Where these provisions cause harm is through the funding of the labor union that they enforce. This damages not only D11, but other public school districts as well. This massive funding helps fuel the NEA political machine. This machine purchases weak school board and legislative candidates who will continue to resist any improvements in our education system. The labor union gets to purchase the school boards that will then be responsible for negotiating contract provisions with the labor union that bought their seats for them in the first place. That is why the John Gudvangens, Tami Haslings, Sandra Manns, Jan Tanners, and Charlie Bobbits of the world would NEVER open any part of the master agreement up for negotiations. The labor union will not authorize them to do so.
posted by Craig Cox | 9:41 AM
5 Comments:
Somewhere between 70% and 80% of all D-11 teachers are members of CSEA. You keep ignoring the fact that, for the most part, teachers are not as anti-union as you are; that's why you failed so miserably as a board member.
Why on earth should any organization allow a non-member to be its President? The "argument" you advanced is ridiculous.
The hubbub about student achievement,curricula, etc is bogus. They're not bargaining issues, so they wouldn't be in any Master Agreement. Teachers (Association members and non-members) serve on all sorts of district committees that address these types of issues. There's a time and a place for everything; even you must realize that. (And, if you don't, then add that to the list of reasons why we're all so grateful you resigned.)
Yep, CSEA collects political contributions from its members: around $3 PER YEAR for CSEA and $36 PER YEAR for CEA. (Nothing goes to NEA political activity, by the way, despite your rhetoric to the contrary.)
You're downright paranoid about that super-double-secret political rally at Sky Sox Stadium in 2005. It was an annual training/welcome back meeting of all building representatives. A SMALL part of the agenda was about the mill levy and school board campaigns. The bulk of time, the building reps were being trained on how to be building reps. CEA legal counsel came down to explain what to do when there's a complain involving a teacher. An NEA rep came in to explain some of the perks that come with membership, like discounted auto insurance,loans, credit cards, etc. And half the day was spent explaining and discussing what the Master Agreement actually says... training that might have benefited you, Craig, as you're pretty myopic as to the agreement's provisions.
I'm curious about two things:
1. You've advocated that contract negotiations be open to the public, which both the Administration and the Association have been hesitant about. Can you tell me one instance where any other union contract is negotiated in public? And don't dodge that with the "it's taxpayer money you're negoitating about" baloney, because there's all sorts of unionize public employees being paid with tax revenue, and I've never heard of those contracts being negotiated in public.
2. In 2005, the Board of Education (actually, the minority of the Board,meaning you, Willie, an good old what's-his-name) demanded that Article X of the contract be opened up for bargaining. Article X is the Article that addresses "teaching conditions" and all you guys screamed for two years was how that article handcuffed the Administration from making any needed changes. And what happened in 2005? Not ONE proposal to change anything came from the Administration. End of story.
In response to another anonymous reply above, I will use "aup" to indicate the anonymous (or angry) union person's statement, and then my name in front of my reply.
aup:"Somewhere between 70% and 80% of all D-11 teachers are members of CSEA. You keep ignoring the fact that, for the most part, teachers are not as anti-union as you are; that's why you failed so miserably as a board member."
Craig: I never said that I was anti-union. That charge comes from you. I do contend, accurately, that the union does not have anything to do with quality in education. As far as failing as a board member, you can't list any failures. You can only spout union rhetoric, such as "anti-public school," "teacher hater,", etc. Real intelligent stuff. And if I was such a failure, why do you continue to obsess over me? Just out of curiosity, if teachers are so loving of your labor union, why is it that you make them opt out rather than opt in?
aup: "Why on earth should any organization allow a non-member to be its President? The "argument" you advanced is ridiculous."
Craig: Here is an even more ridiculous scenario: Why on earth would you forcibly take money from the paychecks of teachers who aren't even members of the union? Talk about ridiculous. If you claim to treat all teachers equally, regardless of membership status, then of course you should let them run for labor union offices.
aup: "The hubbub about student achievement,curricula, etc is bogus. They're not bargaining issues, so they wouldn't be in any Master Agreement. Teachers (Association members and non-members) serve on all sorts of district committees that address these types of issues. There's a time and a place for everything; even you must realize that. (And, if you don't, then add that to the list of reasons why we're all so grateful you resigned.)."
Craig: Once again you strengthen my contention that the union does nothing for education, despite your weak claims to the contrary. You and the rest of your leadership run around pretending to be education experts, yet you have never offered a single idea to improve our school district. Not one idea. The purpose of a school district is to educate kids. Any "agreement" between the people (through their board) and the employees should be designed with the purpose of strengthening education. But you are sadly correct - these aren't bargaining issues. What do you mean that you are grateful that I resigned? Your side is the side that keeps obsessing over me. Admit it - you really miss me. Thank you. That is touching on Valentine's Day.
aup: "Yep, CSEA collects political contributions from its members: around $3 PER YEAR for CSEA and $36 PER YEAR for CEA. (Nothing goes to NEA political activity, by the way, despite your rhetoric to the contrary.)"
Craig: I don't care if you only take $1 per year. The fact is that you don't ask your members for permission to only back liberal anti-parent candidates. Of course your money gets to the NEA. It goes straight through the CEA. You are an affiliate - stop pretending that the NEA doesn't make its living off of forced contributions.
aup: "You're downright paranoid about that super-double-secret political rally at Sky Sox Stadium in 2005. It was an annual training/welcome back meeting of all building representatives. A SMALL part of the agenda was about the mill levy and school board campaigns. The bulk of time, the building reps were being trained on how to be building reps. CEA legal counsel came down to explain what to do when there's a complain involving a teacher. An NEA rep came in to explain some of the perks that come with membership, like discounted auto insurance,loans, credit cards, etc. And half the day was spent explaining and discussing what the Master Agreement actually says... training that might have benefited you, Craig, as you're pretty myopic as to the agreement's provisions.
Craig: No paranoia here. In fact, the reason that I pointed this meeting out was because your labor union was paranoid about endorsing your 3 empty vessels because you knew that if you told the truth, your 3 shills would have lost. You funneled money through a 527 and you actually used the reform campaign themes from 2003 to get your people elected. The big difference is that we kept all of our promises from our campaign. Thank you for clarifying the content of your little labor union party. As expected, no talk at all about education. Thanks for the offer of MA training, but so far, the only one who is explaining this thing properly has been me. You haven't corrected me on anything that I have said, nor have you added anything of substance.
aup: "I'm curious about two things:
1. You've advocated that contract negotiations be open to the public, which both the Administration and the Association have been hesitant about. Can you tell me one instance where any other union contract is negotiated in public? And don't dodge that with the "it's taxpayer money you're negoitating about" baloney, because there's all sorts of unionize public employees being paid with tax revenue, and I've never heard of those contracts being negotiated in public.
2. In 2005, the Board of Education (actually, the minority of the Board,meaning you, Willie, an good old what's-his-name) demanded that Article X of the contract be opened up for bargaining. Article X is the Article that addresses "teaching conditions" and all you guys screamed for two years was how that article handcuffed the Administration from making any needed changes. And what happened in 2005? Not ONE proposal to change anything came from the Administration. End of story."
Craig: As to #1, why on earth does it matter what other corrupt public unions do or how they negotiate as far as it relates to what we wanted in D11? And you tell me not to use an answer that makes perfect sense? Of course we wanted open negotiations, and of course the tax payers deserve that. It doesn't surprise me that you think so little of the tax payers that you dismiss this motive as silly. I don't believe that ideas can't be proposed simply because they have not been proposed elsewhere. As a matter of fact, look at this blurb from the Honolulu Star Bulletin way back on January 23, 1999:
"The union representing professionals in the University of Hawaii and community colleges has proposed that its formal negotiations with the state be open to faculty, students and public observers. "Perhaps negotiating before the public will temper unreasonableness and lead toward a more cooperative approach to addressing some major issues at the institution through contract language," J.N. Musto, executive director and chief negotiator for the University of Hawaii Professional Assembly, said in a letter to the state's chief negotiator, Davis Yogi.
Craig: Look at that! Even a union hack agrees that it would be a great idea. Beyond that, according to state law, the way negotiations are handled in D11 is illegal, in my opinion. My opinion, of course, is based on state law. Let me show you. "Littleton Education Association vs. Arapahoe County School District; Collective bargaining agreement between school district and local education association was reached in violation of public meetings law where during negotiations board met in executive session with its negotiators to review progress of negotiations and to determine policy as well as strategy and decided in private to make its final offer to the education association, even though the final collective bargaining agreemeent was adopted by board at public meeting. The LEA argues that the statute was not violated in view of the fact that the final vote on the agreement was taken in public. This is contrary to the public record which indicates the board decided in private to make its final offer to the LEA which was voted upon by the teachers. Then on March 12th the agreement was adopted by the board in a public meeting....we (the court) stated: One has not participated in a public meeting if one witnesses only the final recorded vote." Another case: "Bruce vs. School District #60: Board of Education may not take a perfunctory vote in public session on issue previously decided in closed meeting, but it may base its decisions on recommendations by panel which met in closed session, provided no final decisions were made in nonpublic meetings. How about this one a little closer to home: "School District No. 11 El Paso County vs. Colorado Springs Teachers: Master labor agreement between school distrct and teacher's association...was void as violative of the Public Meetings Law and statute governing meetings of the board of education, where all sessions in which school district's negotiating team met with team from teacher's association, and in which school district's board met with its team to review progress of negotiations and to determnine policy as well as strategy, were closed to public."
None of these cases are real recent cases, but each is still listed as the most recent and valid case law. Each of those examples above is exactly how the D11 board and labor union handle negotiations. There is no public discussion of the progress of negotiations. The board decides in executive session whether it wants to accept the agreement or not (and it always does accept it because the board majority is always union purchased). A perfunctory vote is then taken in public with all the liberal board members professing how much they love teachers and that is why they are giving them their 1% pay raise. The master agreement contains 70% of the district's budget, and there is NEVER a public discussion of its main provisions.
As to #2, you are wrong on all counts. Article X was not open in 2005, but was supposed to be open in 2006. In 2005, I received a copy of the agreement at 11:30AM as I was preparing to interview the final 2 superintendent candidates at Tesla. The master agreement states tnat both the school board and union board are to have at least 24 hours to review the contract before it goes public. The union had already voted on the contract prior to me receiving a copy only7 hours before the meeting at which I and the rest of the board were to vote on the contract. I have pushed for changes to Article X all 3 years that I was on the board. Look at your own post, "The minority of the board." The fact that we were in the minority is a pretty good indicator that we did not get to have any changes to Article X. Your purchased board members would not allow it. Instead, they changed the contract to keep Article X closed beyond 2006 until 2008. Was there any public discussion about doing that?. The fact that the "administration" never proposed any changes to Article X is a given. Dave Schenkel works harder for the union than he does for the public. I have made that accusation each year. The man is incompetent. By the way, no charge for this fact check. Story wasn't as close to the end as you thought, I guess.
Ouch! That smack down had to hurt Craig. Why do they keep sending in these (incoherant) softballs?
"Obsess" is correct. These poeple need help.
Below is an excerpt from the Friedman Foundation website on the state of US Public Schools. Many of the ideas promoted by the "chaotic" D11 "reformers" are exactly those ideas proposed by Nobel Laureate economist Milton Friedman.
http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/schoolchoice/state_of_schools.html
The fault is not with the teachers, it is not with the children, it is not with the parents, it is with the monopoly character of the market for educational services.
Government schools are established by law. Elected and appointed public officials nominally have authority over them. In practice, however, actual authority is typically exercised by professional bureaucrats and the teachers' unions. Teachers' unions and school administrators have become skilled at managing the political process by which public officials are named, laws that govern schools are enacted and budgets are established. The result is a government-run school system that does not reflect the voices of parents but of career lobbyists and educational bureaucrats.
Though alternatives to government schools are available, many parents cannot afford them. The "free" government schools, supported by tax dollars and unaccountable to the public, are the only option for many. About 90 percent of all children now attend government schools.
The result is a market largely controlled by the producers of educational services. Most consumers of educational services have little choice about the nature of services they receive. The lack of the discipline enforced by competition leads to a product of poor quality and high cost. The producers' main interest is to preserve control of the market, not to serve the students.
It is hard to imagine Friedman being called a right-wing nut case, but I imagine that the educrats will call him that. The last sentence in your post, Jeff, written my Milton Friedman, very accurately describes the situation with the current D11 makeup of the administration, labor union, and school board.
Post a Comment
<< Home