So Deval gets up in front of an angry union crowd and plays “good cop” vs. union-buster Scott Walker. Walker just came out with it. But Deval is doing the same thing, only covertly. He is busting the teachers’ union by promoting charter schools and other Race-to-the-Top “turn-around” nonsense, privatizing public services, e.g., schools and park management, and slashing many public services while giving away hundreds of millions of dollars to corporations on that bogus “job creation” pretext. And liberals let him get away with it. Teachers and other union workers in that crowd actually applauded him. I guess that’s one result of our poor education system; people can’t read the writing on the wall.
Please share widely!
…that unions should inherently give up collective bargaining, though.
Not fully endorsed, but this is fertile ground for discussion, in my opinion.
I do think Shirley has raised an issue here. All unions are going to face a squeeze.
<
p>
… that I’m not aware of that prevents traditional public school teachers from working at charter schools??
<
p>
<
p>If charter schools are public schools, what’s the hold-up (if any) for the teachers to teach at charter schools? I get that charter schools can hire ‘outside’ the union but that’s, as I understand it, not a requirement: so what is it; is it an actual rule; is this a de facto limitation; or just a limitation self-imposed by the teachers?
<
p>I think it’s very easy to ‘bust’ a union that insists upon an adversarial stance… In such instances you’re ‘bust’-ing the union against it’s own intansigence. It’s also easy to be the ‘bust’-er by adopting just such a stance. (That is what is occuring in Wisconsin.) But is such an adversarial stance justified? Or even relevant, here?
They’re private institutions that use public money. The teachers union has a contract with the school district, any teacher employed by the district is covered under that contract. Charter school employees, not being employees of the district, but rather private non governmental entities, aren’t covered by those contracts.
<
p>You seem to be confusing the teachers union with a hiring hall, that’s not how industrial unionism works.
<
p>You’re deeply misinformed.
<
p>Definition of CHARTER from www.m-w.com
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>By even the loosest definition of ‘private’, charter schools are not private. They are not allowed to charge students fees, cannot make admissions decisions and cannot deliver a curriculum not sanctioned by the state.
<
p>They are chartered to do what traditional public schools do, but with more leeway in the methodology employed.
<
p>
<
p>The charter itself is the contract and, by design, is fungible. There’s nothing stopping a charter being written that explicitly provides for some benefit or other. That’s the whole idea. So far as I know, no charter has ever been written the explicitly bans union teachers. So, I ask again: what’s stopping union teachers from teaching in charter schools?
I’ll concede that I used a decidedly political definition of public, so technically, charter schools are public schools, however, they are operated by private entities and their assets are not public. Personally, I find this definition of ‘public’ troubling.
<
p>As to your question, however, why can’t union teachers teach in charter schools? With the exception of Horace Mann charters, the answer remains what I said above,
<
p>
<
p>As the state says,
<
p>A teacher in a Commonwealth charter, by definition, isn’t in a union unless the teachers at that school elect to form a union. There’s nothing barring the teachers at the school from forming a union. However, folks who think union membership should be far more of a default position view the fact that teachers at a charter have to go through the process of forming a union, when otherwise all teachers would be in the union by dint of the existing contract, as a form of union busting. It’s the same view that private sector unions have of contracting out union work – it erodes the power of the union.
… is that the answer to my question (“what prevents union involvement in charters?”) is “nothing”… and that further specific charters are already written to include unions and that other charters take, at best, a neutral position..
<
p>And so, what you are further telling me is that this isn’t enough for you?
<
p>When did ‘union busting’ become synonymous with ‘failure to genuflect while rolling out the red carpet’…?
<
p>
<
p>But that’s not the default now… No teacher is compelled to be in a union and signing the contract isn’t the same thing as becoming a member in the union.
<
p>The decision to recognize the union as a bargaining partner and to offer all hires the contract negotiated with the union is a decision made on the other side of the table from the union, that is to say, by the state and is not contingent upon union membership. The state could, if it wanted to, bargain with the union and bargain with individuals. It does not do that. That would look more like union busting.
…charter school teachers from unionizing internally, and possibly forming their own chapter within the AFT or MTA? I hope not.
Deval isn’t eliminating collective bargaining rights. He’s not banning union organizing. He’s not tampering with union dues. He’s not making people vote every year on whether to have a union. He’s not voiding union contracts.
<
p>Just because he’s doing things that the unions and their members don’t like doesn’t mean he’s anti-union. He continues to talk, bargain, and negotiate with the unions; Scott Walker won’t.
<
p>That’s the difference.
…can’t read the writing on the wall.
Walker’s proposal would not merely ban most collective bargaining, but it would also make it harder for unions to collect dues and make union elections a yearly affair that would cumulatively make it much more difficult to organize.
<
p>These are fundamental assaults on the very structure that forms a union. I don’t think anything Deval has done has come close to this. Given that most unions (including teachers) supported Deval in the last election, is it possible that they in fact can “read the writing on the wall” and could see that Deval was by far the best option for labor?
Maybe most unions thought that the alternative was worse. That’s certainly what I thought. Not a great endorsement, really.
<
p>But Deval Patrick has come a long way — or gone a long way — since he spoke eloquently and persuasively about rejecting cynicism and convinced so many of us to work so hard for him. As a former schoolteacher, a parent, and a person who cares in his gut about public education, I think his support of charter schools is unfounded, reckless, and destructive. And casinos? Please…
<
p>And yes, both Baker and Cahill would have been worse.
too uneducated to read what Shirley is writng on her walls.
<
p>MedfieldBlueBob has it correct. While disagreeing with public sector unions on some issues, Governor Patrick hasn’t pulled a “walker” and attempted to destroy a workers’ right to organize and bargain. And while Shirley hates tax incentives like the Liberty Mutual project, because of Governor Patrick, Mayor Menino and the Boston City Council, that project is providing construction jobs as we speak. (Union construction jobs by the way) That is why so many union members from all sectors cheered the Governor for opposing a Republican Governor’s attack on basic rights.
<
p>They have jobs building the wall Shirley wants them to read.
that these tax “incentives” don’t really sway corporate decisions; Liberty Mutual was ready, able and willing to build whatever it is building without the $50 million in public tax money the governor, mayor and city council gave them; the company doesn’t even need financing for the construction, just using household petty cash for the whole thing. The politicians want to give away taxes to get campaign contributions and toot their horns about “job creation,” not because they care about collective bargaining rights. You could have had the jobs without losing the $50 million.
<
p>Now they pols will cry poor and cut services … and demand more public labor concessions and privatize services to be “efficient.” Maybe you’re fine with union-busting of other unions, teachers and public works unions, as long as you have what you want. But when the pols decide to bust yours, you’ll have no one left to stand with you. I thought at the State House rally that public and private union people were supporting each other, which is important because splitting those two groups is part of the conservative game plan. I’m surprised to hear you talk like this now.
<
p>Walker came out with it, but there are many other ways to skin the labor cat. Stay tuned, see what happens if you keep making excuses for the politicians who are undermining you gradually, one step at at time. How do you cook a frog? Turn up the heat very slowly, so it never realizes when it’s time to jump out of the pot.
But that’s not the point. Again, Shirley is pointing at something we need to look at.
Shirley knows much more about your own situation, your own union, and your own interests, than you do. You should have realized that by now.
oh sage one.
I’ve seen a clip of his speech, and it certainly does sound like he was getting enthusiastic applause.
<
p>I have to say, though, that from where I was standing — which wasn’t that far away, and was kind of in the middle of things — the reception was much more lukewarm and ambiguous. No one was jeering him, of course — he was politely received, and he certainly got some applause — but other speakers were much more warmly received, and I heard a number of groans at various places. Someone posted a comment here about “dumb union members”. I didn’t get that impression.
way to bust unions, though that was part of the rationale when the right picked up the charter idea (originally formulated by a liberal UMass professor to empower teachers). We can be grateful that charters have mostly knocked the voucher argument off the map. If funding weren’t at issue, I don’t think we would complain much about charters one way or another.
<
p>Referring to charter schools as public schools is just plain misleading. Charter schools are publicly chartered, privately owned and operated schools. As opposed to regular public schools, which are publicly funded, owned, and operated. Referring to charter schools as public schools serves no useful purpose.
<
p>What’s of more concern is the threat of legislation granting municipalities the authority to dictate health care plans. There is a fiscal need for lower health costs for public employees; however, the Governor and the legislature plan to deny collective bargaining on the issue. If unions weren’t cooperating on health care costs, that would be one thing, but there’s no evidence that communities have even tried to negotiate changes.
Well, my town certainly has spent a lot of time negotiating changes, or at least trying to. My recollection is that teachers in the City of Quincy went on strike over health benefits a few years ago. I have read many articles about municipalities attempting to negotiate health benefits.
<
p>The dynamic of collective bargaining is that if there is no agreement, the benefit package stays in place with no changes. The only element of the bargain that is at risk in a “no contract situation” is the annual salary adjustment, but step and track changes take effect in any event, so most employees still get some increase.
<
p>To really make any progress with moderating premiums, a city or town needs to deal with health insurers on a united front for all employees. This, in turn, requires cutting a deal with all bargaining units. If one unit will not go along, it is very difficult to realize any savings.
<
p>Collective bargaining of health benefits is one way of making decisions. It was not carved in two stone tablets and carried down from Mt. Sinai by Moses. From the standpoint of the employer, it is a very poor way of managing health care costs.
of a single system out here trying to negotiate changes, with the exception of Springfield, which, in receivership, was not your typical negotiation. You name Quincy and what other community? That’s 2 out of 351. I can name several more that haven’t tried to negotiation–probably because we’ve been working together out in WesternMass to keep costs down.
<
p>My health insurance comes through the Scantic Valley Trust; it serves East Longmeadow, Longmeadow, Wilbraham, Hampden. I teach in East Longmeadow. I’m a selectman in Granby; we haven’t negotiated on the GIC because we belong to the Hampshire Council of Governments–which, incidentally, outperforms the GIC.
<
p>I’m not saying there aren’t other towns that have tried and failed to negotiate benefits, but I’d like to hear more examples than two.
<
p>Another thing to consider: health benefits and pensions are deferred wages in Winsconsin. That’s definitely the case with pensions here in Massachusetts and probably true of health insurance.
Isn’t saying
<
p>
<
p>kind of like saying, “If calories weren’t a problem, I don’t think anyone would complain about eating cheesecake, one way or the other.”
<
p>or, a seasonal variation, “If driving and the cold weren’t a problem, I don’t think anyone would complain about snow in the winter, one way or the other.”
<
p>Of course charters wouldn’t be a huge issue if funding weren’t a problem, but the money they take away from local school systems is a colossal problem that is very difficult for individual communities to grapple with while maintaining their publics school system.
charter schools in Massachusetts haven’t been about union-busting. If we’re going to criticize them, then let’s be specific about the problems, which, in spite of the Patrick Administration’s malfeasance in Gloucester, center on money.