October 4 Certificated Bargaining Update
HTEC Members,
Yesterday afternoon we met with the CMO for another one-hour bargaining session. During that meeting, their bargaining team presented an updated comprehensive contract proposal, which continues to include proposed agreements on Hours, Leaves, Benefits, Class Size, Effect (duration), and Recognition, while also adding an agreement on Layoffs.
We are extremely close to agreement on Transfers and Reassignments, as well. We only differ over how to best capture the intent of our verbalized agreement on when teachers can be involuntarily transferred to another school.
While we recognize that we have made substantial gains in many areas, we still remain far apart on a fair and transparent grievance process that would hold HTH accountable when it has wrongfully terminated or disciplined a teacher.
The CMO continues to propose that the CEO should be the final arbiter of the grievance process. Their proposal assumes that, in such cases, the CEO will always act impartially and operate in the interest of fairness. Regardless of who the CEO is at this moment, the history of HTH shows us that we cannot always rely on the person holding that position to act in a way that is just and fair.
For example, the previous CEO personally fired one of the Collective’s original organizers in a way that the CMO’s own bargaining team has told us was “atypical.” Under the CMO’s proposal, that teacher would have to appeal their “atypical” termination to the very same person that fired them so atypically. Under this type of grievance process, no teacher could ever expect a fair result.
Additionally, the failure to secure a fair and transparent appeal process would undermine much of the progress we have made since forming our union:
- Is ending “at-will” employment truly progress if the organization can fire a teacher without cause?
- What value does accruing sick days have if the CMO faces no repercussions for firing teachers that use them?
- How many teachers will reach the top of our payscale if the CEO can rubber stamp firings that occur for no other reason than to save money?
The CMO stated that teachers will be able to challenge the school’s failure to follow the progressive discipline process through binding arbitration. They believe procedural safeguards alone are enough to create a fair system. However, under the CMO’s proposal teachers would not be able to appeal the reason for their termination. Following the progressive discipline process is meaningless if a teacher is not guilty of the accusations made against them and does not have the ability to challenge those accusations in front of a neutral third party.
The CMO also continues to state that allowing a teacher to appeal their dismissal to a neutral third party results in someone from outside the organization making decisions without understanding the culture of HTH. We disagree with this logic. In arbitration, each side has the ability to argue their position before a neutral party who has experience in settling exactly these types of disputes. We believe that their position will allow the CMO to maintain a de facto system of “at-will” employment, under which teachers can continue to be fired for “not being a good fit.”
Ironically, for the first time the CMO inserted language into their Management Rights proposal that would bring in a neutral third party to help resolve differences between educators and the CMO if we do not agree with changes they want to implement during a declared state of emergency. It is not lost on us that the CMO is okay with utilizing a neutral party from outside the school community when it is in their interest.
|
