April 14 Bargaining Update
HTEC Members,
Yesterday afternoon our bargaining team met with the CMO’s bargaining team for our first in-person negotiating session.
Our team had high hopes for the session, as the CMO’s hired attorney notified us via email on March 23 that they would finally have a salary proposal to present at this session. Unfortunately, we were notified Wednesday evening that the CMO was unable to finalize a proposal and would not be presenting one at this time.
During the meeting, the CMO blamed the lack of a proposal on a drop in enrollment and attendance due to the pandemic that will impact their state funding for this school year. However, even if that is accurate, it would stand to reason that enrollment and attendance declines are temporary due to the uniqueness of this school year and would be expected to return to normal next year as we continue to make our way out of the pandemic. The purpose of a large annual surplus and exceptionally large reserve (right now HTH has a giant 26% reserve whereas only a 3% reserve is required by law) would be to address temporary funding challenges such as this.
The CMO could have chosen to make a salary proposal coupled with their budget concerns (even a proposal they weren't sure we would accept) to at the very least show that they hear our repeated pleas (at this point we're being very clear and fervent) for a more equitable compensation framework and that they honor the work we do and the sacrifices we have made since the start of the pandemic. They chose not to do this, and instead left our bargaining team and members waiting once again.
Members of the CMO bargaining team expressed verbal appreciation for the work we've done during the pandemic and a desire to value and honor us. We let them know that at a certain point words like that ring hollow when they aren’t accompanied by action to back them up. We really want to believe! These are people we know and love and so the disconnect feels so jarring and personal. We need the accompanying actions to showcase that they want to innovate our working conditions and create the highest quality environment for teachers and students.
The CMO did present four counter proposals on non-fiscal topics:
|
|
Evaluation
Full Proposal Here
The CMO’s counter proposal on evaluation largely accepted our initial proposal where HTEC members and members of the CMO come together to create a unique and dynamic model for evaluations that fits what we do with students. Their proposal also accepted our initial proposal that educators have the right to be notified, be given the opportunity to review, and have the option to provide a written response to any materials placed in their personnel file.
While the short session that was planned didn’t give us the opportunity to finalize an agreement on this topic, we’re hopeful we’ll have a tentative agreement at our next bargaining session.
|
|
Grievance Procedures
Full Proposal Here
The CMO agreed to a process for addressing situations where the contract is either violated or there’s disagreement on how a section of the contract is applied that concludes with binding arbitration for most contractual issues. This is important as it gives us as educators the ability to enforce the terms of the contract, making it a meaningful binding agreement between our Collective and the CMO.
However, the last line of the proposal says educators can only challenge the process by which they are disciplined, such as whether timelines or deadlines were adhered to, not the merits of a bad evaluation or discipline.
Our team asked the CMO if this meant that an educator who was innocent of the accusation against them would have no recourse to challenge the discipline issued to them, which was confirmed. The CMO stated that it could be possible that an alternative process could be outlined in the contract article that covers discipline, but no such process was proposed.
While we believe we’re moving closer to agreement on the Grievance Procedures, our bargaining team does not believe it's fair to agree to a process that allows for innocent educators to be disciplined without any defined opportunity for recourse.
|
|
Safety
Full Proposal Here
The CMO made only minor changes to the formatting and order of our previous proposal on Safety. Like Evaluation, we believe we could have reached a tentative agreement on this proposal if the CMO was available for a longer bargaining session. We asked them if in the future our bargaining sessions could be full days because we're anxious to arrive at a final contract.
|
|
Organizational Security
Full Proposal Here
The CMO proposed withholding HTEC dues from paychecks evenly throughout the year. As mentioned previously, HTEC/CTA/NEA union dues are only charged for 10 months from September through June. The CMO’s proposal would divide the total annual amount for dues by 22 paychecks and start withholding them in August to better align with how they do payroll right now. This would result in a smaller withholding for dues each paycheck but no other difference.
|
|
|
Our bargaining team presented two counter proposals and one initial proposal:
|
|
Hours
Full Proposal Here
Our counter-proposal on hours removed the CMO’s proposal that they be able to add instructional days to the calendar without bargaining over the change. We strongly believe that we should be at the table and have a say on changes to the length of the instructional year.
We also compromised on pay for educators participating in the Odyssey. We again raised concerns over the legality and CalSTRS impact of new teachers having a longer work year due to added days for Odyssey without having pay attached to the days. However, we acknowledge that the work required for Odyssey participants is different from teaching during the school year, and proposed a pay rate of $30 an hour for those required to attend.
Our proposal also emphasizes the need for all of us to be able to attend to our basic human needs by having a daily 30-minute duty-free lunch. We understand that emergencies are possible that would make it unsafe for educators to be able to leave their students; however, events that could be reasonably planned for like inclement weather should not result in educators having no time for lunch.
We also reverted back to our proposal that we not be required to remain on campus for more than 8 hours a day, including lunch. We are all professionals and do countless hours of planning, prepping and grading both at school before and after hours as well as at home. We shouldn’t be arbitrarily forced to work at school if that could be done elsewhere and we prefer that option.
Finally, our counter-proposal for classroom coverage compromises with a rate of pay of $40 an hour. We did propose a requirement that school directors make an attempt to secure a substitute or ask for volunteers prior to requiring us to cover a class.
|
|
Leaves
Full Proposal Here
Working off the CMO’s last proposal, we countered with sick leave accruing at a rate of 1 hour for every 19 hours worked, with a cap of 80 hours a year. This would allow full-time educators the opportunity to earn the industry standard 10 days of sick leave per year. The school’s previous proposal had no cap on how much could be earned, but at their rate of accrual, an educator working 8 hours a day for 190 days (full-time employment) would earn just 6.25 sick days per year. We want to think big about what working conditions for teachers could look like in a truly liberatory environment, so it feels like we should at LEAST get to the industry standard in our first bargained agreement.
With acceptance of the school’s method to accrue sick leave on an hours-worked basis, we included a provision that includes time on a paid leave in calculating “hours worked.” This is to prevent a situation where someone using sick leave takes two hits in their accrued time in that they would have less sick leave saved while also not earning additional leave for the period they are out.
We also proposed that educators be granted advanced credit for sick leave if approved by their site director. This is intended to prevent a situation where an educator must come into work if they are sick at the start of a school year and haven't earned any sick time yet.
Other changes from the CMO’s previous proposal are for educators to be able to use four of their sick days for personal business at their discretion (we initially proposed 5 days for limited personal necessities and 4 days for discretionary personal business), and that bereavement leave apply to the death of a sibling-in-law in addition to other family members we'd previously named.
|
|
Reassignment and Transfers
Full Proposal Here
Our initial proposal for Reassignments and Transfers was focused on educators transparently being notified of vacancies that exist at all 16 schools to allow them the opportunity to apply for them if they want to change schools. While our proposal of course doesn't guarantee an educator the right to change schools, it does require that they be notified if they are not selected and the reasons why they weren’t granted a transfer for the sake of transparency.
|
|
Our next bargaining session is scheduled for a full day on April 28. We again requested more frequent scheduling of bargaining dates to give us the opportunity to reach agreement on a full contract before the end of the school year. The CMO stated they preferred to continue bargaining every two weeks and provided availability for two sessions in May.
|
|
The HTEC Bargaining Team
Avery Barnes, HTE Chula Vista
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
Julie Ruble, HTM Mesa
Roxanne Sepehri, HTE North County
Carly Sumrow, HTM Chula Vista
Mary Williams, HTM Point Loma
|
|
|
|
