catalyst-chicago.org

re: CPS posts its latest offer to the teachers union online

Interestingly last night WGN completely covered President David Vitale's press conference live held in front of the CTU offices at around 9:40 pm. At that meeting Mr. Vitale was waving around what he called the CPS offer, it was very thick. I would guess possibly several hundred pages. Then he stated he would provide to the media with what he called the CPS's "term sheet." As will be noted in the link to what Catalyst calls the CPS latest offer to teachers there is no tie in to the term sheet or the larger contractual language President Vitale was waving around last night. I for one want to see the actual deal offered not a press release and I suspect so do all the education reporters in Chicago.

I would also note that there are some discrepancies between President Vitale's statement last night and the press release linked by Catalyst in Ms. West's article. I only want to discuss one such discrepancy and that is in relation to the wage offer CPS has made for four years of 3% in year one and 2% in years 2-4. Mr. Vitale stated CPS had agreed to eliminate its escape clause allowing it to void raises in the situation of economic emergency in order to assure teachers they would get their raises. This does not appear in the press release. Why is this important? It is important because Edwin H. Benn the jointly appointed fact finder discussed this issue in detail in his report and the devil is in the details. I am sorry this extract will be so long but I doubt very many teachers, parents, or other readers of Catalyst have reviewed Mr. Benn's very informed discussion. He writes:

"However, given the length of the Agreement it seeks (and which has been recommended) — i.e., four years — and the current unknowns concerning the economic recovery, the Board cannot really predict with any degree of absolute
Chicago Board of Education and Chicago Teachers Union certainty how its revenues will look in the future years of the Agreement (particularly years three and four). At most, then, the Board’s ability (or inability) to fund the wage increases tips towards the speculative — particularly in the
out years of the Agreement."

Then Mr. Benn goes on to state as follows:

"Like the parties here, just prior to the Great Recession, the State of Illinois and AFSCME negotiated a collective bargaining agreement. That contract was signed on September 5, 2008 and was for the period September 5, 2008 through June 30, 2012. That contract called for 15.25% in wage increases over that period. The September 5, 2008 effective date of the State-AFSCME contract was significant because while at the time the country and the State
were experiencing a recession, a few weeks after the parties completed their negotiations and the Agreement was ratified and signed, the stock market crashed and what was a recession became the Great Recession.
Unlike here, after the contract was in effect and the Great Recession hit, the State and AFSCME negotiated a series of concession agreements to avoid layoffs, which included an agreement by AFSCME to defer certain wage increases
called for in the collective bargaining agreement. The total concessions granted by AFSCME to the State came to approximately $400,000,000. One of the wage increases which was deferred nevertheless required payment of a 2%
increase on July 1, 2011 (rather than a 4% increase to be paid effective that date as originally negotiated). The State failed to pay the 2% wage increase to approximately 30,000 employees as renegotiated effective July 1, 2011 arguing
that it did not have to do so because sufficient money to pay those increases were not appropriated by the General Assembly. I was the arbitrator for disputes arising under the concession agreements between the State and AFSCME. By award dated July 19, 2011, I found that the State violated the collective bargaining agreement and the concession
agreements by failing to pay the 2% wage increase as required to be paid effective July 1, 2011. I ordered the State to pay the 2% wage increase to the employees
(with interest). The State made a series of statutory and Constitutional arguments which I found I could not address as an arbitrator because my function was to interpret the parties’ negotiated agreements and the courts are
charged with interpreting statutes, the Constitution and public policy. The State moved to vacate the award and AFSCME moved to confirm it. On July 2, 2012, Judge Richard Billik of the Circuit Court of Cook County ruled in State of Illinois, Department of Central Management Services v. American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 31, 2011-CH- 25352 (“State-AFSCME Pay Case”) which was followed by a written order on July 9, 2012, that even though a collective bargaining agreement requires payment of specified wage increases (and even though an arbitrator has found that the State was required to make the payments as negotiated), there is an overriding public policy that prohibits the State from disbursing public funds to pay the wage increases without the lawful authority to do so in terms of an appropriation for the expenditure of those funds."

Mr. Benn goes on:

"I recognize that for collective bargaining agreements the State of Illinois and the Board operate under different statutory frameworks. But the consequences
of the State-AFSCME Pay Case — i.e., that the State (or any county, city, village, district councils, boards of trustees, etc.) can negotiate a multiyear collective bargaining agreement and then avoid having to pay negotiated
wage increases in the out years of the contracts will jeopardize — if not kill — multi-year collective bargaining agreements because unions will not want to
agree to contracts (especially where concessions may have been granted) only to find out down the road that wage increases previously promised are not going to be paid because of a subsequent refusal by the public employer to appropriate those funds.
And that is what happened here for the 2011-2012 4% wage increase. Because of the lack of an appropriation, the previously agreed-upon 4% wage increase was not granted. The result has been much of the fuel for the now toxic relationship between the parties. And that is what could be happening here as the Board seeks (and has obtained) the longer term of the Agreement (four years) arguing for stability while the Union sought a shorter term (two years) when there is now a legal cloud hanging over whether the Board as a public employer can pay promised wage increases if it chooses not to appropriate for those increases. The State-AFSCME Pay Case has the very real potential impact of derailing the stabilizing effect of multi-year collective bargaining agreements. If that is to be the law in this State, so be it, and all public employers, unions, employees, negotiators, administrators (and arbitrators) will have to live with that result. But the direct consequence of that result is that public employers who want longer collective bargaining agreements will be frustrated in getting those as the unions will see promises made which can be easily broken and will simply not agree to multi-year contracts. Consistent with the Board’s request ..., I have recommend a four year contract. That recommendation avoids much of the problems caused by the State-AFSCME Pay Case due to the reopeners permitted for the third and fourth years (thus, in effect, making this a two year agreement for wages and insurance — a duration consistent with the Union’s request). However, I am not satisfied that those reopeners will prevent a situation where a wage increase called for in the new Agreement is not paid by the Board — Chicago Board of Education and Chicago Teachers Union particularly as the State-AFSCME Pay Case winds its way through the court
system and because of the Board’s stated budget difficulties.
The State-AFSCME Pay Case will play out and the law and the impact of the result in terms of whether multi-year agreements will be the exception or the norm will follow. However, for this case — and for purposes of stability — I cannot permit a situation which occurred in 2011-2012 which caused so much turmoil when the Board withheld the 4% wage increase for 2011-2012 to reoccur and I further cannot permit a wage increase to be withheld when this Agreement recommends concessions in benefits by the employees [...] To further make certain that wage increases in the Agreement are, in fact paid, in addition to the recommendation that there should be no operable language in the Agreement similar to Section 47-2.2 of the 2007-2012 Agreement which permitted the Board to not pay a called-for wage increase, I further recommend that in the event the Board does not pay a wage increase called for in the new Agreement, the Union should be relieved of its no-strike obligation as found in Section 47-1 of the 2007-2012 Agreement and the Union may (with 10 days notice to the Board) strike over that failure to pay a set wage increase. In
such a case, the Union could strike without first having to go through the impasse resolution procedures found in the Act. Knowing that a strike may result from failure to pay an increase will serve as a deterrent against nonpayment."

Now this issue is but one of many where the devil is in the details of what CPS has proposed. I am sure teachers would also like to know what exactly the change in the "curve" as Mr. Vitale put it of step increases CPS is proposing and CTU is opposing. I have no doubt that the education reporters of Catalyst have been asking for the actual documents relating to the good deal CPS has offered its teachers and has been rejected by the CTU leadership.

Rod Estvan