Letter to Members, Collective Bargaining
Dear SNEA Member,
It has been a busy summer for Springfield NEA as we have continued our efforts to yank our school administration out of its 1950's mindset and finally create a professional negotiating climate for educators in our district.
Since May 2007, when the Supreme Court restored bargaining rights to teachers, our district administration has deliberately engaged in a series of stalling tactics that not only showed disrespect to our profession but also a casual disregard for what is clearly stated in the Missouri Constitution.
Finally, at the urging of the school board, district leadership set up meetings with the two teachers organizations (SNEA and MSTA) in late spring and early summer of 2008. The meetings yielded three proposals, two of which were virtually identical, that were delivered to the school board on July 15.
Here is a brief summary of the three proposals:
1) SNEA proposed that the district hold a representative election so that all teachers could choose a single bargaining agent - as is customary in 34 states and several districts in Missouri. Article I, Section 29 of the Missouri Constitution clearly states that employees have the right to bargain collectively "through a representative of their own choosing". Elections are key components in a democracy, and they are a common component of effective collective bargaining.
2) MSTA proposed that a negotiation "team" be appointed with equal representation from both teacher groups. A nearly identical plan was put in place during the early 1990's, when the district created TAMAC (Teacher/Administrator Meet and Confer). After two years of impasse and dysfunction, TAMAC was dissolved, having had no meaningful impact on teacher salaries and working conditions.
3) District leadership has proposed a "Teacher Advisory Team", which is nothing more than a new name for the MSTA proposal above. The goal of the TAT is to "gain additional teacher involvement in the process of improving teacher working conditions and compensation".
Why do we feel our proposal is superior?
The SNEA proposal is inclusive - all teachers, regardless of affiliation, would vote in choosing their representative. The elected representative would be legally obligated to represent all the employees in the bargaining unit, regardless of affiliation. The MSTA/Administration plan would exclude all unaffiliated teachers from the "team". There are approxmately 300 unaffiliated teachers in the district.
The SNEA proposal has an accountability component. If the elected teacher representative does a poor job of representation, teachers can call for another election through a simple petition process. The proposed "team" plan has no accountability factor. It could conceivably live on in complete impasse and/or dysfunction for perpetuity . . . much like the district Compensation Committee, which has proven to be totally ineffective as a bargaining tool.
The SNEA proposal allows teachers to choose their representation. The MSTA/Administration plan allows school administration to appoint the representative groups.
It has been a busy summer for Springfield NEA as we have continued our efforts to yank our school administration out of its 1950's mindset and finally create a professional negotiating climate for educators in our district.
Since May 2007, when the Supreme Court restored bargaining rights to teachers, our district administration has deliberately engaged in a series of stalling tactics that not only showed disrespect to our profession but also a casual disregard for what is clearly stated in the Missouri Constitution.
Finally, at the urging of the school board, district leadership set up meetings with the two teachers organizations (SNEA and MSTA) in late spring and early summer of 2008. The meetings yielded three proposals, two of which were virtually identical, that were delivered to the school board on July 15.
Here is a brief summary of the three proposals:
1) SNEA proposed that the district hold a representative election so that all teachers could choose a single bargaining agent - as is customary in 34 states and several districts in Missouri. Article I, Section 29 of the Missouri Constitution clearly states that employees have the right to bargain collectively "through a representative of their own choosing". Elections are key components in a democracy, and they are a common component of effective collective bargaining.
2) MSTA proposed that a negotiation "team" be appointed with equal representation from both teacher groups. A nearly identical plan was put in place during the early 1990's, when the district created TAMAC (Teacher/Administrator Meet and Confer). After two years of impasse and dysfunction, TAMAC was dissolved, having had no meaningful impact on teacher salaries and working conditions.
3) District leadership has proposed a "Teacher Advisory Team", which is nothing more than a new name for the MSTA proposal above. The goal of the TAT is to "gain additional teacher involvement in the process of improving teacher working conditions and compensation".
Why do we feel our proposal is superior?
The SNEA proposal is inclusive - all teachers, regardless of affiliation, would vote in choosing their representative. The elected representative would be legally obligated to represent all the employees in the bargaining unit, regardless of affiliation. The MSTA/Administration plan would exclude all unaffiliated teachers from the "team". There are approxmately 300 unaffiliated teachers in the district.
The SNEA proposal has an accountability component. If the elected teacher representative does a poor job of representation, teachers can call for another election through a simple petition process. The proposed "team" plan has no accountability factor. It could conceivably live on in complete impasse and/or dysfunction for perpetuity . . . much like the district Compensation Committee, which has proven to be totally ineffective as a bargaining tool.
The SNEA proposal allows teachers to choose their representation. The MSTA/Administration plan allows school administration to appoint the representative groups.
The school board chose to table collective bargaining (the administration calls it "Teacher Involvement in Improving Working Conditions and Compensation for Teachers") as an agenda item during the July 15 meeting because one member was absent. It is important, and probably in the best interests of all teachers, that all board members be present when this issue is discussed at the September 2 board meeting (Update: date changed to Sept 9).
I would strongly encourage our members to attend that meeting as a show of support for a representative election, which we regard as the only fair and democratic way to determine a cohesive voice for teachers in our district.
Other news: Building Reps will soon receive an invitation to an August 12 breakfast training session regarding collective bargaining and other important issues. The meeting is open to all members. If you are interested in attending, please call our offices at 869-5090 or email snea@aol.com.
Thank you so much for the work you do for the children of our community. SNEA recognizes that teachers are the experts when it comes to public education and effective classrooom instruction, and we are working hard to make sure that your voice is heard.
Sincerely,
Ray
Ray M. Smith, President
Springfield NEA
posted by RSmith @ 11:35 AM
0 comments
