For every one union that accepts concessions, several more refuse to give anything back
We would like to thank Michigan-based Internet blogger Susan J. Demas for informing us about the Central Michigan University faculty union’s offer to forego a salary increase if the university would cap tuition.
Ms. Demas is correct. Some education labor unions are capable of acting in a selfless manner during an economic emergency, and we at Education Action Group go out of our way to publicly congratulate them when we occasionally identify them.
Now if Demas could just convince her friends in hundreds of other teachers unions to be equally unselfish, public schools would have a lot more money to spend on students.
Unfortunately, far too many local unions have refused to make any type of contractual concessions, despite the dire financial condition of their school districts. They happily stand by and collect their automatic annual raises, longevity bonuses and reimbursement for unused sick days, while schools lay off younger teachers, enlarge class sizes and cancel student programs.
The unions seem to think their members should be held harmless, even as school districts struggle to scrape together enough money to maintain basic services. They believe they should be treated differently than millions of private-sector employees who have been forced to accept lower wages and fewer benefits to keep their jobs.
Ms. Demas may be a gifted writer and passionate defender of organized labor, but even she would struggle to explain situations like the following:
The Traverse City school district is facing a $5 million budget deficit. A whopping 87 percent of its general fund budget it spent on labor costs. So the school board offered the union a deal – accept a temporary 5 percent salary cut, freeze step salary increases for a year, and pay a little more toward health insurance costs, and the district would not lay off a single teacher.
The union said “no” and the teachers were laid off. They were young teachers, anyway. Why should veterans give up their goodies to keep a few young colleagues working?
In Northville, the district is trying to eliminate a $12 million deficit, but had trouble negotiating a new contract with its teachers union. That’s because the union insisted on keeping expensive health insurance coverage through MESSA, an insurance carrier owned by the state teachers union. The district could save millions by shopping the open market for less expensive coverage, but the union said “no.”
In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the union was told that it could save 200 teachers from layoffs if it agreed to allow its members to pay a small share of pension costs. The union said “no” and the layoffs occurred.
The Milwaukee union also went to court to force the cash-strapped school district to maintain prescription coverage for the sexual stimulant Viagra, even though that questionable “benefit” cost taxpayers nearly $1 million per year. How many teaching jobs could be saved with $1 million?
In Highlands, Pennsylvania, the school board, facing a $5 million deficit, asked the teachers union to accept a temporary wage freeze to contribute to the district’s goal of saving roughly $700,000 over one year. The board figured the union might cooperate, since it has a new contract that gives teachers a pay increase of about 2.6 percent every year.
But the union said “no.” They will keep their pay increases, thank you, and the hell with the students and everyone else.
We can cite dozens upon dozens of examples like this. Perhaps Ms. Demas could explain the general teachers union reluctance to give back a little so students could gain a lot.
The ball is in your court, Susan.
-###-
