Intercepts
A listening post monitoring public education and teachers’ unions.

Some Maryland school employees want to form their own union but the powers-that-be are standing in their way.

No, not those powers-that-be. The other ones.

Education historian Diane Ravitch just completed her magical mystery tour of California, prompting Valerie Strauss to reprint her account of the proceedings on the pages of the Washington Post.

Ravitch writes that the Sacramento get-together was the “most stupendous event I have ever seen.” Gov. Jerry Brown’s State of the State speech was “the highlight of the week.” After all, “Gov. Brown is a visionary,” state schools superintendent Tom Torlakson is “the wisest and most experienced state superintendent that I have met in my travels,” and “California has courageous, wise, and bold leadership that is prepared to stop the insanity that has undermined education across the nation.”

That’s descriptive enough, I suppose. But why not just show the video of Ravitch’s speech to the rapt and adoring California crowds?

I wouldn’t blame you if you came away confused after reading this article in the Idaho Statesman about what effect the state’s new collective bargaining laws have had on the Idaho Education Association. The teachers’ union is now limited to negotiating only pay and benefits.

According to local IEA presidents, the law hasn’t affected their relationship with their districts, hasn’t taken away teachers’ rights, and has had only a marginal effect on membership numbers.

Really?

The president of the Nampa Education Association said the detrimental effect on teachers is a “misconception.”

Membership is down in Caldwell, Meridian and Boise, but their union presidents claim that is mostly due to a languishing economy and higher insurance premiums. “I wouldn’t necessarily relate it (lower membership) to the new laws,” said Meridian Education Association president Luke Franklin.

Statewide, Idaho Education Association president Penni Cyr said, “Our membership is down in some areas, (but) we’re stable or gaining in others, including among the education support professionals like classroom aides, janitors and cafeteria personnel who work throughout our schools.” Communications director Julie Fanselow said most locals are “within 5 percent of where we were a year ago.”

OK, but a five percent loss in a single year is significant, the Nampa local cut its dues in half to attract new members, and in some places the union doesn’t represent even half of the eligible teachers. So why would union officials downplay the effects of a law they vehemently oppose?

IEA officers are in a tough spot. They have to persuade voters to repeal a law the union finds objectionable while at the same time try to convince teachers and other potential members that IEA is not a sinking ship, best abandoned. Unfortunately for them, these arguments can work at cross-purposes. Why repeal the law when they say they’re getting along fine with it?

IEA president Cyr even got to the point of saying that teachers join a union for the “camaraderie” and “social activities.” Of course, it’s the only book club or coffee klatsch with multi-million dollar revenue, a team of lobbyists and a political action committee.

Click here to read:

1) Whatever Happened to Communities for Quality Education?

2) Last Week’s Intercepts

3) Quote of the Week

No doubt you’re aware that Hostess, the makers of the pseudo-food guilty pleasures we have all enjoyed, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

While the Sno-Balls will keep rolling downhill for the foreseeable future, Hostess is looking for a way out of its “unsustainable cost structure,” which is finance-speak for its labor union obligations. The company’s largest debt – $944 million – is owed to the bakery and confectionary union pension fund. Last year, Hostess paid $52 million in workers compensation. Since 83% of the company’s 19,000 employees are unionized – far more than the industry average - it appears at the very least that layoffs and benefit cuts to union jobs are looming.

We can all join forces to save these jobs. Not only can we buy Twinkies ourselves, but we can stop trying to get kids to eat edamame as a school snack and hook them on Ding Dongs and Ho Hos. If Hostess was good enough for my generation, it should be good enough for them.

In the state of Hawaii, there is an ongoing political and legal battle that involves a Presidential initiative, the role of federalism, a governor imposing a settlement on the teachers’ union, performance pay, teacher evaluations, pay cuts, and the fate of $72 million in grant money.

What’s fascinating is that there isn’t a single Republican involved in any of it.

Members of the Hawaii State Teachers Association voted down by a 2-to-1 margin a collective bargaining agreement designed to address not only the state’s budgetary needs, but the requirements of the federal Race to the Top program, for which the state had been awarded $75 million. The result came as something of a shock to the HSTA leadership, which had unanimously approved the proposed agreement.

Katherine Poythress of Honolulu Civil Beat has had this story thoroughly covered, and has the best compilation of reasons why the proposal was defeated. It’s worrisome that the teachers quoted would not speak on the record because they “feared retaliation.”

Hawaii teachers have a number of options open to them now. They can return to the negotiating table, strike, abide by the contract imposed by Gov. Neil Abercrombie, or continue with a legal challenge to the imposed contract. What isn’t clear is how Race to the Top can be accommodated in the wake of this rejection. Certainly the U.S. Department of Education can bend and interpret any subsequent agreement in Hawaii so that the requirements seem to be met. But it will set a bad precedent for the other states who battled through similar difficulties for their Race to the Top funds.

Did you know that the Buffalo school district pays for elective plastic surgery for its teachers?

Yes, you did.