Marlboro Contract Negotiations – A Case Study

Although the details are under wraps until the contract is ratified, the Marlboro teachers union is celebrating big time. According to their website, they got big raises for the single concession of moving to the state health insurance plan. Their path to victory is quite illuminating.

As often happens, negotiations reached an impasse and the parties turned to the state for mediation. The state mediator is called a “fact-finder” to disguise his role as a state flunky who’s received the teachers union’s seal of approval. His findings of fact were so uproariously ludicrous that the Marlboro school board promptly posted his report.

According to the report, the final offers still in dispute prior to his arrival were as follows:

Marlboro School Board:

• Employees working 20 hours a week must now earn 30 hours a week to receive health benefits (current employees get grandfathered)
• Healthcare – Employees must contribute $494 per year for single plans and $1048 for family plans
• Increase co-pay from $15 to $30
• Increase prescription brand co-pay from $20 to $30
• Increase teacher salaries by 13.57% over the next three years

Teachers Union:

• No to all the above
• Increase salaries by 21.55% over the next four years
• Eliminate dental cap payment of $785.16

So, in addition to the raises teachers receive for progressing along the salary guide, the Marlboro teachers union wanted another 21.55% raise over four years, and they were demanding this during the worst recession in thirty years.

How does the “fact-finder” characterize their demand? “The Association argues that its proposals best serve the interest and welfare of the public.”

Let’s look at that line again. The teachers union is demanding annual raises of 5% during a recession and housing crisis in “the interest and welfare of the public.” By a show of hands, how many people think the union is demanding big raises because they want more money, period? Now, how many believe the teachers union is demanding more money to benefit the community? Yeah, that’s what I thought.

Well, this may shock you but the state flunky, I mean “fact finder”, agreed with the teachers union. “While the public welfare is a broad measure, it requires consideration of fiscal responsibility as well as the compensation package needed to attract and retain a highly productive teaching staff with high morale and dedication to their important tasks.”

Let’s talk about fiscal responsibility. How is the school district going to pay for these salary raises? “The District’s financial situation has been reviewed and shown capable to support the [fact finder] recommendations made.”

You hear that? The district has the money. They can just take it from the taxpayers. Recession? What recession? Pay up.

The “fact finder’s” recommendations? No change to benefits, no employee contributions to health benefits, and salary increases of 13.14% over three years.

Why are half-time employees entitled to full-time benefits? “The board’s proposal to increase the number of hours of eligibility from 20 to 30 would immediately add a large number of bus personnel, instructional and library assistants to the ranks of the uninsured. Employees who currently work six hours per day could readily find themselves working five and one-half hours and thereby not qualifying for health coverage. While the board would achieve its goal of reducing insurance cost, the community would suffer more from the loss of these talented and dedicated employees.”

That’s a remarkable finding considering the board recommended all current employees “who work twenty (20) hours or more shall retain health benefits” but I guess the “fact finder” had to find some reason to justify full-time benefits for half-time employees, even if it meant lying.

As for the rising costs of health care, they are “far from the crushing increases the board likes to portray.”

True, six school districts in Monmouth County require employee contributions to health benefits but they’re a minority. “The district may point to the private sector where contributions may be more common, but it is not in the private sector.”

There you have it. A state employee demanding that all public employees be immune from the economic pressures confronting us serfs, the lowly taxpayers.

Well, the boldest and bravest among the Marlboro school board said no before they said yes. As reported by the teachers union –

At the Nov. 17 board meeting, MTEA President Diane Saks made it clear that the MTEA was not going to back down from a fight. In a packed auditorium filled with MTEA members and scores of supportive parents, Saks told Board President Cynthia Green that “you treat the collective bargaining process like some sort of obstacle standing in the way of your goals . . . We are educators and we are not afraid!”

The teachers union also organized hundreds of parents including one hack who wrote a letter to the editor demanding higher salaries and no employee contribution to benefits no matter how high her taxes rise.

The following week, the Marlboro school board caved.

Here’s what we need to remember going into contract negotiations. Nobody, absolutely nobody, can compel the school board to ratify a contract. Nor can anybody compel the teachers union. As far as I’m concerned, our district will continue operating under the current contract until we agree to a new contract that’s better for our community and better for our teachers. Anything less would be lunacy. >>> Read more!

Un-Earned Credits and Degrees

The contract between the Matawan-Aberdeen School District and the teachers union states the following:

Salary guide column changes, based upon newly earned degrees or credits shall be effective on February 1 of each calendar year, where full documentation is submitted to the administration by January 15th of the same year. This shall in no way affect the practice of granting column change credit for September 15th payrolls which are fully documented by September 1 of each year.

Here’s the scenario:

A teacher submits a transcript from Walden University, a virtual college accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, demonstrating he has completed the necessary coursework to entitle him to an upward adjustment on the salary scale.

The contract demands that he submit “full information” of the “earned degrees or credits”.

Has the teacher satisfied the conditions of the contract to warrant a raise? I say no.

At last night’s Committee of the Whole meeting, I argued that Walden University does not authenticate the website user beyond a simple username and password. Therefore, we have no idea who submitted the coursework or participated in classroom discussion.

In a brick and mortar school, we know who is attending the class and submitting the work. At Walden University we simply have no evidence whatsoever that the person “earned” the credits or degree.

Since we have two weeks before the school board takes any action, I suggested the board advise the administration to request additional information from the teacher. I said I would be satisfied with any “smidgen” of evidence that the teacher had done any work towards her credits. For example, the teacher could email her work assignments to the administration or the university could provide information that her classes included some element of “in-person” participation as well.

Ultimately, only Mr. O’Connell and Dr. Delaney agreed the administration should inquire if there was any evidence the credits were “earned” but we were rebuffed by the majority. (Interestingly, O’Connell, Delaney, and I also comprise the technology committee.)

Dr. Gambino felt we didn’t have grounds to distinguish between a brick and mortar school versus a virtual school. I believe the situations are entirely different. We are not measuring how much effort is necessary to “earn” a degree. If a person attends one class, he has theoretically “earned” his credits. In an online environment, however, we have no evidence that he ever “attended” a single class or submitted a single assignment.

Anybody with the username and password could have done everything on the teacher’s behalf. Considering the ease, the financial incentives, and the anecdotal evidence of online abuses, this isn’t a farfetched scenario.

Mr. Ruprecht suggested that requesting additional information was nearly akin to accusing the teacher of fraud. I objected to that characterization. We are merely adhering to the plain language of the contract that the teacher provides “full information” that the credits were “earned”. If a teacher’s “word” is sufficient, then why does the contract require “full information”? Why not “any information” or a teacher’s “written notice of completion”? Why shouldn’t we stick to the plain language of the contract?

Mr. Ruprecht also held the board had already established a “past practice” by approving prior online degrees and credits without requesting additional information. I argued that “past practices” could only be established upon informed consent. Since online degrees are a relatively new phenomenon and the board was unaware that teachers could receive credits and degrees without actually doing any work, no “past practice” had been established. On the contrary, approving the current request could establish a past practice and bar us from ever requesting additional information.

I plan to revisit the issue at the next board meeting when we’ll be able to receive guidance from the board attorney. In the meantime, those teachers planning to enroll at cheap and easy online schools should be forewarned. Salary guides are determined by contract and the current contract expires on June 30th. There’s no guarantee the school board will recognize any school of low standing after that cutoff date. After all, the raises for earned credits and degrees were designed to encourage teachers to help students, not to help themselves at taxpayer expense. >>> Read more!

The Matawan-Aberdeen Teachers’ Contract

Click here to download the 2004-2007 teachers contract for the Matawan Aberdeen Regional School District.

The expired contract between the Matawan Aberdeen Regional School District and the Matawan Regional Teachers Association is eerily reminiscent of an old television show. Everything seems so reasonable until you think through all the contract’s ramifications and then it hits you – You have just entered . . . the Twilight Zone.

The contract begins by stating that, as required by law, the school board recognizes the teachers association as the sole representative of the teachers. But the contract then goes a step further. The board is precluded from offering a separate contract to any teacher. If the board wants to recruit a superstar teacher and offer him a signing bonus, they can’t. If the board wants to offer younger teachers the choice of a 401K plan and higher salary in lieu of a defined benefits plan, they can’t. Meanwhile, a teacher has no ability to negotiate a contract on his own behalf even if he could get a better deal from the school district.

The contract then discusses the four step grievance process for any teacher who feels aggrieved

Next comes the teacher’s bill of rights such as the right to have prior written notice and union representation any time the superintendent wishes to discuss a teacher’s unsatisfactory performance.

Then there is the teachers union bill of rights. Yes, even the teachers union has a bill of rights such as free use of school facilities and school equipment and the right to demand that all teachers who are union officers be given reduced work schedules, effectively subsidizing union salaries.

Article VI defines a work day. Elementary teachers are required to work a grueling 6 hours and 45 minutes a day, but this includes a 45-minute lunch break and another 45-minute “preparation” break. A high school teacher’s workday is 18 minutes longer but that’s because the preparation break is 22 minutes longer.

If a teacher is asked to attend a 5-minute meeting during his lunch break, he shall be compensated $10. So, if a supervisor needs to meet with a teacher during the lunch break, he’ll need to get budgetary approval first.

The work year is 187 days but teachers get 10 sick days and 2 personal days with unlimited rollovers for unused days. At 175 days, teachers are almost working half a year. If teachers could endure an 8-hour work day, they would only have to work 30 weeks a year.

Teachers also get two salary increases per year – yes, two salary increases, one to compensate them for inflation and another in consideration of their increased experience. During the first ten years, the combined annual salary increase only runs about 2% but, after a teacher completes his tenth year, his salary begins jumping over 10% a year.

Teachers also receive an extra $9,000 per year for completing a masters degree plus 30 credits even though the added education doesn’t improve student performance according to a recent study by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

The teachers union has refused to negotiate a new contract with the board, preferring to go directly to arbitration. What do they want? In the words of Samuel Gompers, they want “more, more, more.” After all, their pension contributions have gone up from 5% to 5.5%. That our teachers already earn higher salaries and more generous benefits than the average local taxpayer doesn’t concern them.

The contract does include full health benefits but does not mention state mandated benefits such as tenure after 3 years and full retirement benefits after 25 years and reaching the age of 60.

Does the contract include any teacher responsibilities? Absolutely. Teachers are required to show up for work and “to help insure the safety of students”. Are they required to teach? Well, the contract does mention “professional and statutory obligations” but even new teachers without tenure can only be removed with “just cause”.

The contract obviously makes reforming a school and reining in costs extremely difficult. So, why use such a contract? Because it is boilerplate. Nearly every school district uses an almost identical contract. You don’t have to worry about legal issues or lawyer fees. You don’t have to worry about protracted fights with the teachers union. In other words, the school board chooses to use this contract because it’s cheap and easy. The fact that such a contract is detrimental to our students is irrelevant.

What to do about it? Simple. Draft a new contract that protects our community and our children. Define performance standards and empower the superintendent to remove any teacher who doesn’t meet such standards.

Restrain salaries to average wage increases plus a salary jump for every five years of experience rather than the current one year of experience. In addition, offer teachers financial incentives for exceeding educational standards and restraining departmental budget increases.

If any of these provisions are contrary to state law, pursue a waiver through the state legislature. If the teachers union chooses to fight, then fight.

Considering that the upcoming annual budget will approach $65 million, I’m certain we can afford the legal fees necessary to ensure our children get a proper education. We’ve banned candy from the school vending machines. We should do the same with an employment contract that is far more hazardous to our children’s well being. >>> Read more!