|
UESF
Feature
|
|
District attempts to cannibalize contract
The district is proposing to take away prep periods from teachers like Dr. Ray Hill, AP Science teacher at Lowell High. Hill says taking away prep periods amounts to a pay cut. He thinks, “The district should be concerned with increasing prep time for all teachers, rather than taking it away from some.”The district and union “sunshined” or publicly presented their bargaining proposals at the January 11 School Board meeting. Negotiations for a successor agreement or entirely new contract for 2004-2006 have formally begun.
The district presented 32 pages of proposals, mostly of current contract language with strike-through lines or takeaways. UESF submitted six pages of suggested improvements – clarification of unclear contract language, changes necessitated by legal mandates, and professional and economic improvements. See SFUSD's bargaining proposals for Certificated.
“The district’s proposals attack professional and union gains,” says Dick Hemann, California Federation of Teachers (CFT) representative who is working with UESF’s negotiations team. “Their tone is a double kick in the teeth. They are not offering any salary enhancement other than what they’re willing to cannibalize from existing provisions in the contract like eliminating sabbaticals and reducing Advanced Placement prep periods and substitutes’ pay steps. At the same time, they have proposed eliminating decision-making authority by any members of the bargaining unit.”
“Our focus is clear. We’re fighting for the benefit of children and the rights of those of us who work directly with these children,” says Janet Eberhardt, paraprofessional on the union bargaining team.
Having helped to negotiate three prior contracts, Eberhardt predicts these will be very difficult negotiations. “The state budget is only part of the problem,” she says. “The bigger part has to do with control issues of the district administration.
“Good leaders listen. They respect those of us who are working on the front lines, teaching children every day. Our input needs to be valued,” Eberhardt explains.
Main issue is priorities, not budget
Shannon O’Hara, California Teachers Association (CTA) representative agrees that the governor’s budget is not the main issue. “Budgeting is a fancy word for setting priorities,” he says. “The district must decide if the people who work with the children of San Francisco – teachers, education support and paraprofessionals – are a priority.”O’Hara points out that in 2002-2003, SFUSD shortchanged classroom instruction by about $33.9 million. A recent budget analysis by CTA concludes that SFUSD was not putting enough resources into direct classroom instructional support and shows that the district spent only 54.69% of its budget in the classroom or less than the minimum Education Code requirement. “Most large districts in California average 62%,” he explains. “They would have had to have spent an additional 7% just to be average.” He adds, “And, the district’s income from the state climbed by 4% this year as well.”
District proposals attack quality program and affront our dignity
Betty Robinson-Harris, Child Development Program (CDP) representative to UESF’s bargaining team sees the district’s proposals as “an affront to our dignity and an attempt to undermine our union. Their proposal to eliminate the CDP Taskforce shows disregard for those of us who know what it takes to keep the program running smoothly.”“Research,” she says, “shows that early childhood education is the greatest indicator of school success, yet, they seem to want to eliminate any incentive to stay in the program. Their proposed cuts target our most experienced, highly credentialed staff.” Confused by proposals to eliminate the salary schedules for CDP teachers as well as the preference for part time teachers to get full time positions, she asks, “Doesn’t common sense dictate that those who already know our program and staff would have a greater chance of success than a newcomer?”
“Also, they want to prohibit a CDP teacher from working two part time jobs which would save, not cost, money,” she says. “When one person works two part time jobs, the district pays for only one benefit package instead of two.”
Taking away sub pay steps, benies would negatively impact all of us
“District proposals to take away substitutes’ benefits and pay steps are an assault on all of us, and if implemented will have a negative impact on everyone,” according to UESF Vice President, Substitutes, Sandra Mack. “When subs are unavailable, classes are dispersed, interrupting the classroom instructional program. We must attract quality substitutes, not send them packing.”Proposals to reduce Advanced Placement prep periods, eliminate extra pay for National Board certification, and reduce the Peer Assistance and Review program are attacks on education quality, says Susan Solomon, elementary rep to UESF’s bargaining team.
Proposals on UBCs are counterproductive shot at undermining union
“District proposals regarding UBCs attempt to undermine our union and attack our having a say over our work lives and students’ learning conditions,” says Solomon. “And, they’re counterproductive!”“For example,” she explains, “cutting the required number of meetings between principals and UBCs from once a month to five a year will negatively impact our school site. Our UBC helps the principal with yard duty schedules, staff allocations and other areas that contribute to the smooth running of the school.”
Proposal to negotiate with paras only after teachers settle is divisive
“Another example of the district’s wanting to undermine our union,” says Solomon “is their proposal to negotiate with paras only after settling with teachers. That’s divisive. Paras should not be left to fight over crumbs. We must fight divide and conquer tactics, whether they’re aimed at paras, subs, AP teachers, PAR coaches or those who have earned sabbaticals.”She asks, “Do they think we’re stupid? Are we supposed to fall for a line that we may get raises next year as long as we give up sabbaticals, AP preps, National Board pay, sub pay steps and a career increment?
Along with Eberhardt, Solomon, Mack, and Robinson-Harris, the other elected members of UESF’s Executive Board who are on the union’s bargaining team are: Larry Blake, Jane Blanchard, Dennis Kelly, Susan Kitchell, Claire Merced, Linda Plack, Bradley Reeves, and Deborah Sanford-Page.
Members can help bargaining team
The success of UESF’s negotiations depends upon the solidarity and support of the membership. Attend workshops on how to organize activities at your site to support the bargaining team at UESF’s Spring Membership Conference, Saturday, March 12 at Washington High from 9:00-3:30. Hundreds of members have already filled out “Solidarity Surveys” indicating their support and detailing the areas in which they will help.
