Buried deep in the last paragraph on the 37th and final page of the most recent Teachers Union contract (Click here for copy) under Article XXI is a clause which states:
C. In the event the parties commence negotiations for a successor Agreement as provided herein, and such negotiations are not concluded before August 31, 2010, then, in such event, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect until a successor Agreement is executed; but in no event beyond August 31, 2011.
Could this "evergreen clause" finally give the Committee the leverage it needs to make some important contract revisions?
Why would that be a good thing?
Overlooking the opportunity to restructure payroll and benefits costs, this could provide an opportunity to "re-visit" language and work rules in several other areas -- the starting date of classes, staff attendance policy, scheduling, review procedures, grievance procedures, etc. This could begin to give the Administration the tools it needs to start operating schools where employees are expected to do their job correctly or be terminated. There would be no union intervention if you didn't do your job, got arrested, or were found to be too "impaired" to do what you were being paid to do.
Is this legal?
I'm not a lawyer -- nor do I play one on TV. But last October the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in a case involving the Boston Housing Authority that muncipal contracts are limited to three years and can not be extended under the terms of an "evergreen clause". In supporting this ruling, The Mass Municipal Association wrote
This SJC decision is a major victory for the taxpayers as its main effect will be to take away the union incentive to drag out contract negotiations for months and sometimes years after the contract has expired in order to increase leverage for their demands, with no downside to their dilatory tactics. (Click here for full letter).There is also a good news article on the impact this ruling has on local governments (click here).
Have you no respect?
I have great respect for the teaching profession and a great many of it members. My mother was a teacher, my daughter is studying to be a teacher, my kids have all had (and still have!) some great teachers. I recognize that I don't have the patience to be a teacher -- although I have certainly benefited from many great teachers over the years. I think good teachers should be given incentives to stay in the profession. I think it is outrageous that a union can force a District to keep people who aren't great teachers. These people negatively impact not only their students but the reputation of their colleagues. I also think it is completely unfair that enthusiastic, well-trained, teachers are terminated every year while others who have not updated a lesson plan since 1982 are not only retained, but also given a raise.
The SEA contract expired on August 31, 2010. It has been in negotiation since 2009. Recognizing that no progress was being made, a prior School Committee called for outside mediation in 2010. Nothing has been heard since. Recently a school dance was cancelled because the teachers union was unwilling to provide chaperones without a new contract. (Despite the fact that, under the terms of the existing contract, teachers are entitled to $90 "extra duty compensation" to attend a school dance.) I assume these small-scale job actions will increase as the union begins dragging more parents and students into their contract battles.
Maybe the idea of having the entire contract re-written will offer incentive to resolve the situation?
Maybe the idea of having the entire contract re-written will offer incentive to resolve the situation?