August 26 Bargaining Update
HTEC Members,
Friday evening we met with the CMO for a one-hour bargaining session where they presented an updated comprehensive contract proposal.
The CMO’s updated proposal continues to include our proposed agreements on Hours, Leaves, Benefits, Class Size, and Effect (duration) of our final union contract. We once again asked the CMO if they would be willing to sign off on these articles as tentative agreements to lock in place the areas we have agreement. The CMO declined, stating that they prefer to only make proposals that encompass the entire agreement.
Other areas of their proposal they updated included:
Discipline/Employment Status
See full Discipline proposal
The CMO’s proposal on discipline and dismissal still entrusts the CEO to make the unilateral determination on whether there was cause to fire an educator. It fully rejects our previous proposal that the appeal process include a non-binding recommendation from the CEO that could be appealed to a neutral third party. The neutral third party would then make the final binding determination on whether an educator was fired for cause.
We asked the CMO why they were so wedded to the CEO having the final say on whether there was cause for dismissal. They answered that they believe the CEO would have a better feel for the culture of High Tech schools and be more appropriate to decide if someone is a “good fit” than a neutral third party. However, this contradicts the purpose and goal of moving towards “for cause” dismissals. The CEO having the latitude to determine if someone should be fired simply for “not being a good fit” only perpetuates the current broken model of “at-will” employment. We also pointed out the failed leadership of the previous CEO and how he was the least likely to be able to make an unbiased decision on dismissals.
The CMO’s bargaining team continues to state that they want to rebuild trust and operate under the stated values of HTH, yet they also continue to resist putting meaningful and enforceable policy behind those words.
The CMO also maintained their previous proposal of a three-year introductory probation period that is at-will prior to educators receiving due process and “for cause” employment rights. We have proposed an industry-standard two-year probationary period.
Our concern with a longer probationary period is that it will inevitably delay HTH’s support and development of new teachers until their third year, when a decision on if they receive “for cause” status must be made. Leaving new teachers without support or coaching for an additional year is not what is best for their development as educators, nor is it best for student learning.
Our previous proposals are in line with industry standards that exist within both charter schools and district schools throughout the state. It remains a goal of our bargaining team to ensure that High Standards for High Tech includes providing equity and comparability with others within the teaching profession so that we can stop the constant turnover that exists at our schools and retain teachers that are able to build long-standing relationships with our students, parents, and communities.
|
|
Updates to their last proposal include:
Wages
See full proposal
The CMO updated their one-time bonus structure. Educators hired before August 1, 2017 would receive $4,200 ($1,800 for part-time) and educators hired after would receive $1,850 ($850 for part-time). Their proposal also eliminates our proposed new hire signing bonus of $400 for educators hired this year. We requested detailed information on how they calculated the cost of their bonus structure and will review and assess once received.
Layoffs
See full proposal
The CMO’s last proposal on layoffs would have allowed them to make the unilateral determination on who gets laid off in the unlikely event that the schools need to reduce staff. While the updated proposal creates a joint HTEC-HTH committee to determine the specific criteria used to create the order of layoffs, if needed, it still has the potential to be a subjective and opaque system.
The proposal also states that layoffs occur on a school-by-school basis. This means that lower enrollment at, or the closure of, a single school would result in only teachers from that school being laid off, even if they have more experience with HTH or have previously taught at another HTH school.
Assignments and Transfers
See full proposal
Previously the CMO proposed that they retain the unilateral discretion to transfer educators from one school or village to another. Their updated proposal limits this management right to only circumstances involving a violation of school policy, personnel matters (such as conflict between two teachers), or to address a legal concern.
Collective Rights
See full proposal
The CMO’s proposal on Collective Rights reverts back to their previous proposal that limits our Collective’s ability to release an officer from duty to focus on union business to just one 5-day period per school year. Union business does not fit neatly into a single period during the year and requires consistent time, energy, and focus. Further, the CMO’s proposal is less than what state law currently requires them to provide.
Management Rights
See full proposal
The CMO attempted to address our concerns with their ability to suspend some sections of the final contract. We had proposed limiting this to only address immediate needs of the school that would otherwise keep them unable to operate–a right already granted to them under state law. Our concern is that an open-ended ability to suspend provisions of the contract when a state of emergency is declared could leave us no recourse in the event of a long-standing declaration of emergency, such as the current COVID-19 emergency which has been operative since March 2020.
In an attempt to address this concern, the CMO proposed that either side may declare impasse if updated contract language is not bargained within 15 calendar days. This creates an unfair power imbalance if we need to bargain in an emergency, as the impasse process allows management to impose their last, best, and final offer and gives the union the ability to go on strike. However, the CMO has insisted upon a “labor peace” provision in the contract that would prevent us from being able to strike before the expiration date of the contract. This means that under an emergency situation we would have no recourse if the school wanted to change a section of our contract.
Recognition
See full proposal
The CMO’s proposal on recognizing the Collective as our union accepted our bargaining team’s previous proposal that limits HTH's ability to contract out positions only on a temporary basis until a qualified applicant can be hired.
|
|
So what’s next?
Our next meeting with the CMO has yet to be scheduled. Our bargaining team will continue to make a good faith effort to reach agreement on all remaining issues; however, the CMO has made it clear that they do not want to budge on having the CEO as the ultimate decision maker on if there was cause for a teacher being fired.
This refusal on the CMO’s part puts us on a path towards impasse. Impasse may be declared in the future if both sides have bargained in good faith and have not reached agreement upon presenting their last, best, and final offer.
Should we reach an impasse, the state will appoint a mediator to help us resolve any outstanding differences. Absent agreement, each side will then make a presentation to a panel that consists of a Collective representative, a CMO representative and a neutral third party. This panel will make a non-binding recommendation for a settlement. If we still haven’t reached agreement, the CMO may implement their last, best, and final offer as a final contract while HTEC members may vote to authorize a strike or other work action.
|
|
While we’re confident in the power we hold as a Collective, we hope the CMO chooses to honor the values they espouse by putting action to their words and agreeing to a fair contract without having to go through the impasse process.
|
|
In Unity,
The HTEC Bargaining Team
Hayden Gore, HTM Chula Vista
Grady Gumner, HTE Mesa
Charley Jacob, HTH North County
Jennifer Merrill, HTE Point Loma
Chris Mutter, HTH International
Chris Olivas, HTM North County
Roxanne Sepehri, HTE North County
Carly Sumrow, HTM Chula Vista
Mary Williams, HTM Point Loma
|
|
|
|
