|
1) Rope-a-Dope: How the Ohio
Education Association Bargains When Money Is Scarce.
To hear the Ohio Education Association (OEA) tell it, these are the worst of
times for public education in the state. Ohio may be 18th in the
nation in per-pupil spending, with an estimated 4.67 percent increase in
spending for 2004-05 despite a decrease in enrollment from the previous
year, but the union states that "nearly 4,000 full-time educators will lose
their jobs as a direct result of the school funding crisis" over the next
year.
In this "challenging financial climate,"
OEA offers specific advice to its local presidents, negotiators, and other
officials in the form of an annual Bargainer's Handbook. This year's
edition has some very interesting and helpful advice for OEA bargainers, and
it may also prove edifying both for the general public and Ohio school
district officials.
Most of the handbook is simply an
explanation of Ohio's collective bargaining law and a very large glossary of
terms and acronyms. But the handbook's introduction contains OEA
strategizing for this year's negotiating tables.
"Statewide, Ohio school districts saw
expenses exceed revenues by nearly one-half billion dollars in fiscal year
2004," the handbook states. "Nearly seven of every ten districts in the
state spent more than they took in."
In an environment where many districts
are seeking to cut costs through contract talks – though OEA refers to this
an "an apparent attempt to manipulate the bargaining process" – the union is
recommending a "rope-a-dope" strategy. For those unfamiliar with the term,
OEA helpfully explains its origins in the tactics of boxer Muhammad Ali, who
would lean on the ropes and shield his face while his opponent wore himself
out with fruitless punching. Then Ali would finish him off.
The OEA handbook describes how this
technique can be used at the bargaining table:
"During this onslaught many OEA
negotiators have managed to effectively lean on the figurative ropes
avoiding devastating outcomes and positioning themselves for the next round
of bargaining. Some general tactics are noted:
"* Compression of salary schedule in
conjunction with modest across-the-board increases. All members can enhance
their career earnings, but the immediate cost to the district is less than
that of an increase on the base.
"* Portion of salary increase contingent
upon passage of a levy or tied to additional funding assuring OEA members a
raise if new money becomes available.
"* Where wage freezes have been
unavoidable, some locals have opted to roll over the entire contract thus
maintaining the status quo with regard to insurance and all other terms and
conditions of the bargaining agreement.
"* Retirement incentive plans that
provide both a meaningful economic inducement to OEA members to retire while
generating significant payroll savings to school districts."
"* Other locals have sought and achieved
important non-economic advances such as fairshare and binding grievance
arbitration.
"* Clear and restrictive definition of
financial reasons with respect to reduction in force.
"* Rejection of regressive non-economic
proposals."
OEA also foresees an increase in the
number of shorter-term contracts, as locals seek to avoid committing
themselves to belt-tightening measures for extended periods.
The deficit spending in Ohio schools is
hardly a unique phenomenon. And since most districts bargain with NEA
affiliates, we can expect that union bargaining strategy in those places
will be similar to that described in OEA's Bargainer's Handbook.
2) AFT's Attempted Takeover in Puerto
Rico Heads to Court. In an expected move during a
conflict that has been filled with surprises, the American Federation of
Teachers (AFT) filed a civil case in U.S. District Court against the
Federación de Maestros de Puerto Rico (FMPR) and its president, Rafael
Feliciano. AFT's complaint stems from the national union's attempt to
install an administratorship over FMPR, which disaffiliated last September,
and FMPR's resistance to that effort. Both sides have filed numerous
motions, and the resolution of the dispute may ultimately hinge on technical
and jurisdictional matters.
EIA is in possession of most of these
court documents, and a preliminary injunction hearing to enforce the AFT
administratorship is scheduled for Tuesday, August 9. FMPR has also filed a
motion to dismiss.
Two key questions to be decided outside
of the merits of the case are whether the federal court has jurisdiction,
and whether AFT has standing to file suit based on the charges it made. FMPR
claims the court lacks jurisdiction because AFT filed its claim as a dispute
between labor organizations under provisions of the Labor-Management
Relations Act. Neither FMPR (nor Feliciano) is a labor organization subject
to the LMRA. Additionally, FMPR claims AFT's charges pertain to alleged
injuries to FMPR members, and that AFT, not being a member of FMPR, has
suffered no injury on its own behalf to support filing suit.
For its part, AFT claims that, as an AFT
affiliate subject to the AFT constitution, FMPR does not have to meet LMRA's
"labor organization" definition to be subject to its provisions. And the
national union adds that, "The AFT has also suffered and will continue to
suffer significant injury to its reputation" as long as FMPR defies the
administratorship.
(Editorial aside: How much injury can
AFT's reputation suffer when the only place members and the public can
regularly read about this story is in the EIA Communiqué?)
If the legal questions are resolved in
AFT's favor and the suit goes to trial, the chief issue will be, as FMPR
baldly declares, "The AFT has no valid legal authority to impose trusteeship
to a non-affiliate party." Can AFT prove with a preponderance of the
evidence that FMPR's September 2004 disaffiliation was conducted not only
improperly, but fraudulently? Its own investigation may not stand up to
scrutiny. As FMPR cleverly cites The Federalist No. 10: "No man is
allowed to be judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly
bias his judgment and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity."
3) Coincidence or Bad Karma?
* "Hoping to curb the nation's childhood obesity problem, Atkins
Nutritionals announced a collaborative effort Thursday with four major
education groups, including the National Education Association, the USA's
largest teachers union. Atkins is helping pay for an
NEA web site for teachers and students. It's also working with school
nurses in New York and underwriting a publication on childhood obesity for
state education policymakers." – September 23, 2004 USA Today.
* "Atkins Nutritionals Inc., the company
that promoted low-carb eating into a national craze, filed for bankruptcy
court protection Sunday, a company spokesman said." – August 1, 2005
Associated Press.
4) Quote of the Week.
"The death of organized labor has been going on now for more
than 40 years. It has proceeded under liberals and conservatives, Democrats
and Republicans, in boom times and bust, through every change in work
environments, job types, and worker demographics…. [The Change to Win
unions] could start by recognizing that this is now a free-agent nation. If
there's a model for labor negotiations in the future, it's the model of the
Major League Baseball Players Association, which works out very bare-bones
collective agreements featuring salary basements and basic work rules and
benefits, but doesn't punish high achievers for the good of the
benchwarmers. Unions have been grotesquely slow to learn the benefits of
flexibility in the workplace." – Tom Cavanaugh, web editor for Reason,
in a July 27 online essay headlined "Stegosaurus
Claims Brontosauruses Failing to Change With the Times." |
