As CPS prepares to close a record number of schools, the fate of students and communities is in question.
Join the conversation
We encourage our readers to leave comments and engage in dialogue about our stories. But before you do, please check out our "rules of the road."
Recent Notebook Entries
Right Now On Notebook
By:
By:
Subscribe to catalyst-chicago.org by e-mail
Other Blogs
catalyst-chicago.org feeds
Current Issue
Teachers support possible strike, union says
By: Rebecca Harris / April 05, 2012
The Chicago Teachers Union claimed Thursday that more than 75 percent of teachers at each of 150 schools showed support for a strike in informal polling.
But the union would not give details on which schools the polls were conducted, or whether any teachers at turnaround schools had voiced their support. “We will have a lot of intimidation and harassment” if the schools are revealed, said CTU President Karen Lewis.
CPS spokeswoman Becky Carroll said in response that “Any talk of strike is the wrong message to send to our schools, students and taxpayers.”
“We should be focusing our energies on our students, working together in good faith to reach an agreement that will benefit them and their academic growth,” Carroll said. Catalyst Chicago first reported on the issue of “practice” strike votes in January.
If a strike were to happen this summer or fall, it would be the first since 1987, when a walkout fueled calls for reforms and ultimately led to the passage of the landmark 1989 school reform law that created local school councils and decentralized governance of schools. Former Mayor Richard M. Daley secured recent labor peace with the current 5-year teachers union contract, which will expire June 30.
At a news conference, Lewis described as “cordial” the ongoing contract negotiations with the district, which are now in mediation. But she said the climate inside schools is the worst she’s seen in 25 years of teaching, and has fueled the strike polls.
CTU spokeswoman Stephanie Gadlin has said that the union may call for a fact-finding panel before April is up. That would be the next step in a lengthy, legally mandated pre-strike process. (Click here for Catalyst Chicago’s interactive timeline of the negotiations and possible next steps.)
Contract proposals on the table
Lewis also slammed the district’s proposal for a 2 percent raise next year, saying it amounted to a 23 percent pay cut because of the increase in time that teachers will be required to work once the official longer school day and year begin next year.
She also characterized the district’s proposal for a 20-page contract as “gutting” the current agreement and said health insurance costs would increase.
The district is offering a 2 percent raise in the first year followed by the implementation of a merit pay system, Lewis said, but CPS and CTU have not discussed the size of possible teacher bonuses. (A flyer distributed by the Caucus of Rank and File Educators, the union caucus of the current leadership, states that CPS has proposed eliminating the current contract’s ‘step and lane’ system, which rewards teachers for earning graduate degrees and on years of experience.)
Lewis added that CPS has made “no commitments” to increase the professional wraparound services like school nurses and psychologists that are available to students, one of the union’s demands.
Re: CTU calling for fact finding panel
Rebecca Harris was sharp to pick up on the fact finding panel comment made by President Lewis at the press conference. It would seem to be a wise move on the part of CTU to call for a fact finding panel that is defined in the law commonly called SB7. But this panel effectively will create a contract that will be based on a number of factors outlined in the law and the panel's estimation of the fiscal ability of CPS to pay for costs related to the contract.
The panel can not in any way address the length of the school day or working conditions in schools, because by law CPS does not have to bargain on these issues any more and the school district has elected to leave all of these issues to be resolved on an informal non-binding basis. To put it crudely that means they will be imposed by the Board as they see fit. So teachers and parents need to grasp that aspect of the fact finding panel. Once the panel issues its proposed deal either the CPS or CTU can reject it, if either party does the deal becomes public.
If CPS accepts the panel's recommendation on wages and benefits and the CTU opposes that deal they will effectively have to vote to go on strike against a decision of an independent review panel. That will be far more difficult than rallying the members against the Board. It should also be noted that one of the crafters of SB7 is the lawyer handling the bargaining for CPS and he fully understands that the panel will likely split the baby in terms of wages and benefits, hence CPS's position on a very low wage offer. An extremely astute bargaining position.
Rod Estvan
Rod, I've just read through
Rod,
I've just read through SB7 and have a few questions and observations. It seems like this law has been on the books for a while and was most recently amended in 2011. If this is correct the only new permissive bargaining subject is the length of the work and school day and year. All other permissive bargaining topics were not new to this edition (i.e. class size, staffing/assignments, etc. as laid out in Sec. 4.5). So, I'm confused why you say that "working conditions" are no longer mandatory bargaining topics. It would seem to me that any working conditions that were mandatory bargaining topics during the last contract negotiations are still mandatory (minus the length of day and year).
I agree with you that the fact finding panel seems to be tilted in the districts favor. Most of the conditions under which the fact finders must consider CPS and CTU offers seem to favor CPS. I'm not so sure, however, that it will be more difficult to rally against the fact finding panel. The results of the panel will be published along with the final offers of both sides. Like you said, the panel will try to take the middle path and because of this CPS has made low-ball offers. I think this will be obvious to most people when these offers and proposed resolutions are made public, making it pretty straight forward for teachers to rally against CPS.
Evan
Rod, Thanks !
You've explained the position that the CTU is in. A virtual "It's almost impossible to strike". Question number two, if there is a strike, what will be on the negotiating table except salary and wages? We all know that CPS will say that they are not fiscally solvent and cannot pay the cost of a 4% or higher raise. So since Senate Bill 7 has tied the unions hands in terms of negotiating on the longer school day, teacher seniority and work conditions, what is there really left to strike for? If teachers are striking on for a raise, that they cannot get, is it worth it? It would have been better if the CTU called for a strike when they fired almost 1300 coaches in 2010 in a complete violation of appendix H. Also, before SB7 was signed would have been a great time to call a strike. (when you had something to protect with a strike) At point it appears that this is too much, too little too late.
Other issues are the fact that notification gives parents plenty of time to select the "new charter school" of choice with an impending strike looming. Secondly, the idea that the CTU is finally acknowledging that African American teachers are under attack is nauseating seeing that the day before they CTU election their Caucus CORE filed an EEOC complaint acknowledging the plight of Black teachers but waited almost 2 years to act upon this information. Meanwhile, we lost 1/3 of what was left under the African American teaching force under the Lewis administration. (dropping from 29.5% to 19.5% in one year. They have yet to address the numbers of veteran teachers who have been E'3rd and brought up on charges by CPS in an effort to purge the system of minority and veteran teachers. Rod it would be nice to have some feedback on this.
race
Our school had 4 non latinos fired by a latina principal...and every since every teacher has been latino (except one).....and not one male hired in 9 years...this is a problem too!!!! This is problem of too much principal power!! Being a male teacher and I go to PD's and see one male or two in crowd of 50......I dont exactly feel like my gender is having it's civil rights addressed...so i can empathize! but males..no matter their race...are the least discriminated at cps on the teaching level....from statistics alone!!!
least
i meant most!!
and i work in North Side school...that is supposedly "diverse" hahaha
trying to answer very hard questions
I am going to try to answer Evan's questions first and this is only my opinion based on how I read 115 ILCS 5/4.5 as amended by SB7. But first this disclaimer, while I am a registered lobbyist and have taken classes in statutory construction I am not a labor lawyer, so take what I say not as gospel truth.
You are totally correct that much of the language relating to CPS and subjects of collective bargaining pre-existed the passage of SB7 it was put in place by Public Act 93-3 on April 16, 2003 and prior to the passage of SB7, CPS could have elected not to enter into any discussions relating to class size, class staffing and assignment, class schedules, academic calendar, but they did do so.
Now with the addition of the length of the work and school day, length of the work and school year to the permissive subjects list (within the sole discretion of the educational employer to decide to bargain) CPS has apparently also decided at this time not to bargain over issues that they did bargain over in 2007. As we all will recall in 2007 Mayor Daley wanted long term labor deals for all municipal workers in order to have labor peace for the failed Olympics selection process. Once CPS declared at the bargaining table it would not discuss these permissive areas this important phrase kicks in from 115 ILCS 5/4.5 (b): "During this bargaining, the educational employer shall not be precluded from implementing its decision."
So once the contract ends CPS can implement its decision on all of these working condition related issues even if another contract is not in place. All of these permissive subjects are also excluded from section 13 of the Act, which is where the strike provision is and that means CTU cannot strike over these permissive subjects. Before SB7, this issues could have been dealt with under section 12, but SB7 added this language that relates only to Chicago: "A dispute or impasse over any Section 4.5 subject shall not be resolved through the procedures set forth in this Act, and the Board, mediator, or fact-finder has no jurisdiction over any Section 4.5 subject." [see 115 ILCS 5/12 (b] So the long and short of it is CPS can do what it wants to over Section 4.5 subjects it has declared it will not bargain on. The CTU can only bargain over economic impact related to these issues.
If the lawyers for the CTU see it differently I would be very interested in their understanding of the Act in relation to these critical issues.
Rosita Chatonda's question is in part explained in my answer to Evan. Formally if the CTU is going to strike legally it can only be over the economic impact of changes to teachers working conditions and actual wages and benefit issues that may be unrelated to working condition issues. I can't answer the question about whether it would have been better to go out on a strike in 2010 because it involves labor law issues that are beyond my knowledge. I do know that the maximum penalty for strikes determined to be illegal in the public sector is decertification and that is what happened to the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization or PATCO in 1981. While PATCO was at the federal level and we are dealing here exclusively with state law, I think the dangers are the same.
I simply do not know what to say about the race related issues you have raised, but to be honest they are important issues and your statistics are correct as far as I can determine. But I will say this much, the CTU is in a very difficult situation and I do not want to see the union destroyed, in part because I was born and raised in a union family, and in part because the union can in some cases be a counter weight to bureaucratic policies that can hurt students with disabilities from getting a free and appropriate public education. I also am not saying the CTU historically has not generated bureaucratic rules itself through contractual provisions, but on the whole the union is a counter weight as I see it.
The union has not been fully upfront with its members on how very bad SB7 is for their interests and all the complexities of going on a strike under it provisions regardless of the 75% provision. The union is clearly trying to build momentum in order to get better offers from CPS and that is more than appropriate. But before the union commits itself down a path of no return, it needs to let its army know what they will face in this battle. If teachers understand these things and want to go forward they may become heroes of the American labor movement or they may become members of a broken union, if that is what comes then I hope with all of my heart it is the former and not the latter that happens.
Rod Estvan
Not correct--principals who want to hire male teachers
they are just not out there , esp. for elementary school teaching.
Then if you get 1-or 2- they want an administration job.
Compare the # of male teachers to male principals in CPS.
principals would vote to strike if they could!
Our principal has stated that he would vote to strike if he could--and we are an elementary school!
It is crazy for all of us right now and Rahm is hurting our students!
male teachers???
I used to work eduation job fairs ! there were a TON of men wanting jobs, I think that theory of "they are not availablble" is an easy excuse....there needs to be more recruiting the college education schools and at the schools for male teachers!!
MALE TEACHERS?
I agree, however, CPS knows how difficult it will be for a man to accept the abuse from parents, students and administrators. Women respond differently and many cases absorb the abuse in a manner that is not healthy or productive. They work in fear daily never knowing from day to day which student will have a bad day and CPS lawyers will in and criminalize them for standing up for their rights. I'm not sure that if this was a male dominated profession that they could get away with it. However we do need male teachers.
UPC: I want my dues back for your incompetence
Where is the traitor Marilyn Stewart. Is she with CTU or hiding in disgrace? Before you criticize CORE you better take aim at UPC who had no organizing going on and sold us out in the last contract! How sad is that!
To VIN
Senate Bill 7 is worse than anything Marilyn did while in office. I was a CORE supporter and CORE member. I worked very hard to get the CORE leadership team elected. I am very disappointed and embarrassed.This is a union busting bill signed off by all Illinois unions including the CTU. .How did this happen?, There's something awfully wrong with this picture.
Yes, SB7 sucks. But it would
Yes, SB7 sucks. But it would have been far, far worse without the CTU fighting not only against Stand for Children and their gobs of money but also against other reformers, corporate privatizers, legislators, CPS, the mayor, and the IEA.
This is not a company like we've seen for the past 15 years or so. Though at the table, the CTU was fighting tooth and nail. The unions in Wisconsin were not part of the process and they ended up in much worse shape than here in Illinois.
I too was disappointed with the end result of SB7. But I am also pleased with the organizing, partnership building, increased media presence, positive agenda, incredibly hard work, and overall activism of the CTU. Those things have been absent from our union for a very, very long time.
male teacher
Rosita
Men internlize the abuse too! We gotta keep inside too! Espcially now that we lost tenure hahaha
Bill
I know that the CTU is doing a lot in terms of organizing and being out front and in the media. However, much of the organizing is making the union LOOK strong. I'm not convinced that the organizing in some communities is welcome or actually preserve jobs for teachers. Also, some of the organizing techniques lead to the CTU having too much influence and control in some communities. In some cases this control is NOT welcome. In my community, the residents, tax payers, parents feel that their education issues and desires are taking a back seat to the CTU agenda. That agenda is to make the union look great. In many cases this has been at the expense of teachers. Many have lost their jobs due to the ineffectiveness of the union to negotiate privately with CPS and the Mayor. I agree, the media campaign is mobilizing the community around education issues but at what cost?
Additionally, when the union leadership does not mobilize to fight when initiatives like SB7 takes place and then basically gives up everything teachers have fought for over the past 40 years with an oops! I am sorry , is not good enough. The time to have media presence was BEFORE the leadership lost everything, not after. Now the union, knowing that they have made the biggest boo boo in the history of unions, want the teachers to mobilize to strike after signing off on a bill that literally makes it almost impossible to strike. Does this make good sense? That's like someone declaring war on an armed enemy after they've given them all of their weaponry.
If the CTU can muster up the 75% of the total membership vote needed to strike, good. Otherwise, it's just another publicity stunt. I've seen many of them played out over the past few years. of the strike vote needed. Personally, I honestly believe that teachers have been completely sold out by this leadership. Basically the leadership is drowning and is waiting on the membership to bail them out of one fiasco after another. With SB7 signed into law, What can the membership actually receive by striking other than venting frustrations and showing union solidarity? When Vaughn went on strike, CPS made concessions. Let's see what will happen if you can get a consensus to strike.
Finally, there is absolutely nothing that can justify the loss of seniority, the horrible "strike deal" negotiated with the involvement of the Illinois unions.
Add your comment