June 29 Bargaining Update
Yesterday, our bargaining team had a full day of negotiations with the CMO. While overall both bargaining teams made compromises and moved much closer to agreement, we finished the day apart on several key issues.
We went into the meeting knowing that the CMO would present a comprehensive counter offer on all remaining articles needed to solidify our first collectively bargained contract.
We were scheduled to start at 10 a.m. but due to an internet issue at High Tech schools, the CMO requested additional time and we connected with their team at 11 a.m.
Our team started the day by presenting an initial proposal on Layoffs, which was the only topic neither side had proposed yet and a needed component for our final contract.
Layoffs and Reemployment
Full HTEC proposal here
A layoff contract article covers the process by which HTH can reduce HTEC bargaining unit position for financial or programmatic changes. Layoffs do not cover dismissals for performance or disciplinary reasons.
District schools follow the Education Code that mandates that educators be laid off in reverse seniority order (last one hired is the first one laid off). While this is an extremely objective criteria for determining who is laid off, we recognize the one-size-fits-all approach of the Education Code might not be the best system for our schools.
Similar to our Evaluation Proposal, which was signed as a tentative agreement on April 28, our Layoff proposal pitches the idea of forming a joint committee made up of Collective members and HTH management for the purpose of making recommendations for determining the order of layoffs. The idea is that this team will come together to create a fair and transparent layoff system that feels right for High Tech schools. The committee will work to address the order of who would get laid off if such a need ever becomes a reality for the school.
Some protections our proposal creates are that layoffs would need to occur at the end of the year (except in extreme circumstances), the school must provide unit members with written notice of layoff by May 15, the impacts and effects of layoffs must be negotiated with the Collective (this will ensure we can get members who are laid off sufficient time to pack up their classrooms for example, amongst other things), and unit members who have been laid off will be placed on a reemployment list that would guarantee them the option to return to HTH for 39 months if a position becomes available.
The CMO then presented a packaged proposal covering eight topics:
Benefits
Full CMO proposal here
This proposal remained unchanged and is the same benefits proposal the CMO and our collective have been passing back and forth in the last few sessions. The reason it keeps getting presented/passed in each negotiation is because it’s been included as part of a packaged proposal by both sides.
Management Rights
Full CMO proposal here
This proposal also remained unchanged from the last time they presented it on April 28. In April, they added clauses that allow the CMO to suspend most of the contract for 30 days in cases of emergencies.
Collective Rights
Full CMO proposal here
This proposal also remained unchanged. When they countered our proposal on this topic on March 16 the CMO’s team took out the ability for the Collective to release a unit member for one school year to work on union activities given that we would cover the costs.
Now for the articles they did present changes to:
Employment Status
Full CMO proposal here
The CMO’s proposal made huge progress by finally providing members with some job security. Their team budged on not having all unit members be “at will” employees and ending the continued practice of year-to-year contracts. The proposal outlines that employees would be “introductory unit members” for the first three years they work at High Tech schools. During the introductory period of three years, unit members are at-will employees and can be dismissed at any time by the school’s leadership.
After the introductory period, employees become “established unit members” and have an expectation of continued employment. If the school deems that an established unit member is having performance deficiencies, their proposal outlines that HTH would develop a growth plan for the unit member to rectify said deficiencies. If the school decides that a unit member working under a growth plan should be terminated they must provide 30 days notice. Lastly, all years our unit members have served at High Tech will be counted towards credit for the introductory period. This means if you’ve been with High Tech for three or more school years as of July 1, 2022 you would already be an “established unit member” when the contract is ratified. If you’ve been at the school for two years, then you’d have two years of credit towards the introductory period, etc.
This is a huge win for us! Our collective power has made it clear to the CMO’s team that having due process rights for educators is important. The school’s concession in giving up the right to fire educators for no reason at all is big progress for us and shows the power of our Collective.
Discipline
Full proposal here
The school’s proposal added that depending on the severity or frequency of a unit member’s conduct HTH can skip steps in the discipline plan. The discipline plan now starts with a verbal warning that cannot be issued in writing but can be confirmed in email or writing as long as the written confirmation is not placed in a unit member’s file. After the verbal warning, the unit member would receive a letter of reprimand that is maintained in their file. Both of these steps must be taken before a director or school leadership can dismiss a unit member. If the unit member wants to appeal a dismissal, the proposal outlines that they would need to appeal with the CEO.
Our team felt this revised proposal was progress, but we still feel that the CEO should not be able to make the final call on a dismissal appeal. The final decision maker should be someone without a vested interest in the school and someone who could be impartial. The CMO has already agreed to a grievance process with binding arbitration and issues involving discipline or dismissal should not be excluded. Further, as we know, the CEO position at the school has been unstable in the last two school years.
We do not believe educators will truly have due process rights as long as the organization itself is the arbiter of if they followed the contract.
Hours
Full CMO proposal here
The CMO's proposal maintained that teachers lose one day a week for lunch, plus any rainy days. The only change that was made to this proposal by the CMO was guaranteeing all unit members who do not get a duty-free lunch or have a prep in a school day at least one 20 minute break during the day.
While we feel it is important for educators to have a duty-free lunch everyday, we still feel the guarantee of 4 duty-free lunches a week is a big win as many of our members do not currently receive a guaranteed lunch break. The added 20-minute break is necessary for days when an educator does not get a lunch or break so we are pleased with this addition.
Assignment and Transfers
Full CMO proposal here
The only difference between the CMO’s proposal and ours is that they gave themselves the ability to make involuntary transfers and assignments at their sole discretion. Our team voiced that we feel it is necessary for this part of the proposal to include that the CMO has that managerial discretion only in the event that there is not a vacant position for which the unit member is credentialed and qualified to hold at their current school.
We strongly believe that this basic protection helps stabilize our schools and ensure there isn’t unnecessary movement of educators between campuses. Members of the CMO’s bargaining team even confirmed they have no intent of moving people unnecessarily, and we hope their future proposals reflect that intent. We believe our contract should be clear that moving someone to another campus is because there was no other way to keep them at their current school.
Salary
Full CMO proposal here
Last but not least, the CMO presented a counter on our wages proposal from June 17. Their proposal again establishes the same salary schedule they proposed on May 25, but did increase their previously proposed retention bonus to $2,000 for full-time educators and $1,000 for part-time. Their proposal also would allow us to bargain for additional raises each of the next two years once the Governor provides their May Revision.
We asked them why they are not willing to equalize the raise, since an average raise of 10.33% that they have promoted to parents should be the same cost as our proposal. They confirmed what we already knew. The 10.33% average raise they have been telling parents about is not actually a 10.33% raise, but a total cost increase when accounting for STRS payments and other costs mandated by law. That is why only some teachers would receive close to a 10% raise while many of us would receive 5 to 6%.
|
