Bargaining Updates

May 21, 2010

The results from the ratification vote on the tentative agreement are as follows:

YES: 2,000 (93%)       NO: 150 (7%)

The agreement has been ratified by TALB members and will now need to be approved by the School Board at an upcoming meeting. Thank you for participating in this vote.

Click here to read the three-year tentative contract agreement made between the District and TALB on May 7, 2010.

TA RATIFICATION INFORMATION & FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

May 9, 2010

Click here to read the three-year tentative contract agreement made between the District and TALB on May 7, 2010.

Ratification ballots will be sent to school sites this week. The TALB membership will vote to ratify the tentative agreement and ballots will be due on Friday, May 21st at 4:30PM.

April 23, 2010

TALB and the District have their last scheduled bargaining session on May 7. While the parties may need to schedule additional sessions, this is an important meeting as TALB and the District are getting closer to an agreement on furlough days and benefit issues.

There appear to be two significant sticking points. The first issue is TALB’s request that any agreement on savings (e.g., furlough days, health benefits) in exchange for saving jobs needs to be verifiable – meaning the District needs to provide data to demonstrate that the savings produced in the agreement is actually applied to restoring the jobs of TALB members. The second issue is the District’s request to immediately reopen on salaries and benefits next year after we have just agreed on a deal for next year. The District’s position on this second item is critical as it would leave TALB members wide-open to a District attempt to reintroduce the uncapped health benefit premium co-pay issue just months after agreeing to drop it.

At their April 21st meeting, the TALB Board of Directors voted to schedule a General Membership Meeting on May 18, 2010. If we are unable to reach a settlement on May 7, the TALB Bargaining Team will provide an update at the General Membership Meeting on where we stand, answer questions, and solicit direction on where we need to go. If we do reach a settlement, we will have the General Membership Meeting and respond to questions in advance of a general membership ratification vote.

The time of the meeting will be 4:30 p.m. At this writing, the location is “to be announced” as we need to submit the required LBUSD site application. As soon as we have approval on a location we will distribute the information.

April 20, 2010

TALB and District bargaining teams met on Friday, April 16, in an effort to reach a compromise on compensation, health benefits, and other unresolved issues. Initially it appeared that weeks of hard discussions between the two teams had resulted in District agreement to withdraw their proposal on uncapped monthly health benefit premium co-pays for 2010-2011 and beyond. However, an insert at the end of their proposal indicated that they were not proposing an actual settlement and would immediately re-open negotiations before the ink is even dry on the contract and again likely put their uncapped health benefit premium co-pay right back on the table. In other words, their proposal wasn’t actually an attempt to settle a contract for 2010-2011, rather a sleight of hand maneuver that just makes it appear they have dropped the most onerous part of their proposal, allowing them to bank the furlough days savings; and then make an unimpeded run at the 5% premium co-pay and possible additional furlough days unrelated to job savings.

There were many other important details and nuances about their proposal that were omitted from the District’s April 16 “Bargaining Update”. Here is a side-by-side comparison of where we stand followed by some analysis regarding how it will impact TALB members.

On the surface the District’s latest proposal appears to be a move towards settling the contract because they dropped their most onerous proposal to impose a 5% uncapped premium co-pay on health benefits. However, a closer analysis reveals a more complicated situation.

• The withdrawal of the 5% monthly premium co-pay is a positive move by the District. TALB negotiators have been persistent about this issue for several weeks. This is a move by the District that may move us in the direction of settling our contract in the near future. However, the “Devil is in the details” and the detail in this case is a “poison pill” they included in their April 16 proposal. After making a proposal for 2010-2011 that drops the benefits co-pay and includes salary cuts in the form of 5 furlough days, they added a line that calls for reopeners on salary, benefits, and work days/hours for 2010-2011. This was not a typo -- they are asking TALB members to agree to take cuts for next year, and then as soon as a state budget is passed, agree to bargain with the District for additional cuts for that same year. They seem to be saying they want a contract, but only if they can also have the right to come back and change the contract before the ink has dried. Inexplicably, they also want to begin negotiations for 2011-2012 on October 1, 2010, -- at least 10 months before there will even be a state budget available for the year in question. For some reason, they omitted these important points from their most recent communication.
  
  
• The District continues to generally propose to “save 200 jobs” in their proposal – does this mean they will lay off 300 teachers…400 teachers? We just don’t know because it is not a concrete proposal. TALB has repeatedly asked how they will account for the jobs (at the layoff hearings they have already admitted that they have over-noticed teachers, so TALB wants to make sure they are not saving “phantom” jobs they never intended to reduce in the first place). The District consistently refuses to provide any specific information on this topic. They also have rejected TALB’S proposal to provide modest assistance to TALB members who do get a laid off. We have proposed a cap on the number of layoffs (250) and a modest $1,000 stipend to help TALB members who may be struggling without a job in September.
  
  
• The District’s April 16 Bargaining Update indicated that TALB’s accounting of savings in recent proposals was “misleading”. However, we were using figures that they provided at the bargaining table. We are unsure why the District now says those same figures, their figures, are misleading. Bargaining has been difficult in this round both because of the challenging economic circumstances and because the District has often said one thing in public and done another at the bargaining table. Consider a few additional examples:
  
  
  • On February 24 the District announced they had made a proposal earlier in the month that was “aimed at reducing the final number of layoffs. The problem was they had never actually made such a proposal to TALB. It wasn’t until March 11 that they actually made a very general proposal to “mitigate layoffs” in exchange for benefit cuts and furlough days.
    
    
  • On April 1 the District gave TALB a proposal that included a series of health benefit “tentative agreements” between the parties. The problem was that there actually were no tentative agreements on those issues. In their next proposal on April 16 they withdrew their “tentative agreement” language and characterized the agreements as “conceptual”– which is also misleading as TALB has not agreed to any changes to health benefits unless those changes are part of a complete agreement on compensation.
    
    
  • On March 11 the District proposed to save jobs in exchange for salary and health benefit cuts. On April 1 they removed it from their proposal. On April 16 they put the job saving proposal back in their proposal.
    
    
  • And then they sent out their most recent flyer describing terms of a proposal for 2010-2011, but then, as described above, left out the fact that they really weren’t proposing a final deal, just a proposal for salary and benefit cuts with an option for more proposed cuts sometime later this year.
    
    
• The District and TALB have reached some common ground on using health benefit savings and furlough days to help deal with budget issues and save jobs; but to date there is no agreement. A contract is contingent on a complete and transparent agreement that doesn’t promise one thing but then undermines the agreement playing games with the term and reopeners. Issues that are in the mix on both sides include changes in Rx (maintain same benefit but switch provider to save on premiums); eliminating the Pacific Care HMO (the Blue Shield HMO provides nearly the same network of physicians), combining the two Delta plans (no loss in coverage or benefit). The District has also included other proposals including prorating benefit contributions for part-time employees. Modifications such as these, while not desired, save money while still protecting the core heath care options in the contract. One issue the District has not mentioned in their updates is that they are also considering abandoning the PPO by taking managers (and maybe classified) out of the benefit pool. This is evident because they are unwilling to agree to keep all eligible employees in the pool, and therefore keeping it more cost effective for both active TALB members and retirees.
  
  
• The District has proposed 5 furlough days for TALB members. The District has been unwilling to agree to an equal percentage pay cut for administrators who make a longer year and make a higher salary.

Hopefully some of these concerns can be resolved when negotiations resume on May 7 when we can finalize a tentative agreement that TALB members can ratify.

April 12, 2010

District and TALB Bargaining Teams last met on Friday, March 26, and Thursday, April 1. In response to ongoing budget shortfalls and the District’s proposal to save jobs in exchange for “furlough days”, TALB made a comprehensive proposal that would save approximately $11 million in contract related costs over two years.

The TALB proposal on March 26, included 4 furlough days over two years vs. the District proposal of 3 days over one year. While the TALB proposal rejected the District gambit to secure an uncapped 5% monthly health benefit premium co-pay, it included savings in ongoing health benefit costs and a greater savings than the District proposal in the form of temporary “furlough” days. TALB proposed to apply the savings generated by the proposal to save jobs by limiting layoffs to no more than 250 TALB bargaining unit members this year.

The Bargaining Team believed this was a fair compromise in difficult times and that it would result in a contract settlement because it included the core components and overall savings that the District had been seeking; including comparable overall savings in salary and health care to the District’s proposal; and saving jobs.

The TALB proposal also included a modest ($1,000) stipend to assist those teachers who do get a May 15 layoff notice with costs associated with job loss, including resume writing and health care costs. TALB had hoped to pay for the stipends by settling the contract with job savings and then using the money that would have been saved on substitutes for the layoff hearings to pay for the stipends.

Lingering concerns hung over TALB negotiators going into April 1 negotiations. The first concern was the District’s ongoing PR attempt to convince teachers that the District would actually save jobs in exchange for furlough days. While the District’s public stance was focused on an undefined furlough days for jobs scenario, at the Bargaining Table the District continued to demand a 5% uncapped premium copay on health care. TALB negotiators were adamant that this idea was a “no go” for TALB members as it would provide limited short term savings and not help with the immediate financial problems, but would cost members several hundred dollars per month in coming years, even when finances for the District had improved. In short, the District was just using the economic crisis and layoffs as a smokescreen to secure a health benefit concession they have sought for many years.

The second concern for the team was that TALB had previously questioned the District on how it could actually deliver on their promise to “save jobs” in exchange for savings from the contract when it appeared that the District’s financial position in the coming few years was such that they would need both savings from bargaining AND savings from layoffs to help balance the budget. We had explained to them that their fiscal thinking seemed flawed because if they wiped out any savings resulting from negotiations by applying it to saving jobs this year, they would end up with a bigger fiscal problem next year, resulting in even more teacher layoffs and job loss. In short, it appeared their proposal would actually cost jobs, not save jobs.

BARGAINING GOES SIDEWAYS ON APRIL 1... After a positive morning where progress was made discussing the Transfer Process, the District proceeded to reject TALB’s settlement proposal on salary and benefits (described above) by presenting a truly bizarre counter-proposal.

• They conceded that our proposal saved about 11.8 million over two years, vs. their proposal which saved about 12 million dollars over one year. They agreed that our proposal made a significant impact towards helping towards the district’s two-year financial shortfall.
  
  
• They withdrew their 5% monthly premium co-pay proposal but replaced it with an even more devilish proposal that would require TALB to agree to $6.3 million in benefit cuts by this July, or face pay cuts in the form of additional furlough days, equaling $6.3 million.
  
  
• And then (here’s the weird part), they indicated they could not use any savings produced by our proposal to mitigate layoffs because they needed the money saved by furloughs and benefit cuts to help balance the budget and avoid even greater cuts in the near future. As a result, and after all the PR banter they put out in the prior weeks, their counter proposal did not include any layoff mitigation in exchange for furlough days or benefit cuts.

And that was just the beginning. Their proposal also included a series of supposed “tentative agreements” with TALB over health benefits. The items included had been dealt with in good faith in earlier negotiations, but there had been NO tentative agreement on anything at that point.

The combination of a withdrawal of their offer to save jobs, and then portraying non-existent “tentative agreements” is simply bad faith bargaining. As a matter of process, it hinders the effort to work together to get an agreement. But what is interesting is that the District appears to have finally conceded what TALB has been saying for weeks, that their proposal on furloughs and benefits cuts was not really about saving jobs…that they really wanted both furloughs/benefit cuts AND layoffs.

We go back to the bargaining table on April 16. Thanks to all of our members for input on bargaining, messages of support for the TALB team, and unity.

March 29, 2010

The District and TALB Bargaining Teams met on Friday, March 26, for scheduled negotiations. The talks focused on reaching a compromise agreement to address layoffs, the budget shortfall and protect health care. We also continued discussions on the transfer process. The talks are challenging, but both parties are working at the table to reach agreement. The District indicated that it would need to meet in Special Session with the School Board before proceeding, and we could then reconvene on Thursday, April 1, and continue discussions.

The TALB Team continued to oppose the District’s proposed uncapped 5% monthly health care premium co-pay proposals. Under the District’s proposal the out of pocket expenses for TALB members would escalate annually and eventually result in several hundred dollars per month, per member, for health care. The District reports that health care premium increases are projected to increase by double digits in each of the next two years, and employees would have to pay this percentage increase on their co-pay premiums.

The TALB Bargaining Team includes: Bargaining Chair Barry Welsch (Jordan), Michelle Shipp (Newcomb), Gina Bonetati (Prisk), Patsy Williams (West CDC), Patria Daliva (Anaheim Head Start), Corrin Hickey (Lakewood), John Van Tress (Jordan), Mark Ennen (Newcomb), Kevin Quinn (Edison), Kecia Woods (Madison), Chris Callopy (Assistant Executive Director), and Joe Boyd (Executive Director).

March 21, 2010

Negotiations with the District have been challenging. Unfortunately, the District’s recent “Bargaining Updates” serve to undermine the process and genuine efforts of both the TALB Bargaining Team and the District Bargaining Team as they attempt to reach a fair compromise.

For example, the District’s recent March 12 “Bargaining Update” suggests that the District has proposed to save “at least 200 jobs “. Their actual proposal on March 11 did not include any kind of assurance that at least 200 jobs would be saved. They made this claim and then actually attached their proposal, allowing attentive readers to see that their rhetoric and their proposal were not the same.

In fact, they said (not proposed) that “about” 200 jobs saved was an "estimate" only after the TALB team asked the question. They never actually made a written proposal to save 200 jobs and they still haven’t. They were also very clear that any jobs saved were only for one year and those same TALB members were at risk of being laid off in the following year.

In the same “Bargaining Update” they admitted that 200 of those who got layoff notices “were to provide necessary alternatives to the layoff process" -- which means they added 200 notices for no other reason than to buffer their layoff by an extra 200 to account for mistakes that they think they have made in the process; so at least 200 unfortunate human beings are being put through this process for absolutely no reason. Is it coincidental that in negotiations they are saying they will “save” 200 jobs they never actually intended to cut?

For additional Questions and Answers that we've been getting, read the March 21st issue of the UPDATE newsletter here.

March 8, 2010

This week the District will deliver hundreds, maybe even close to 1,000, layoff notices to TALB unit members. The effect this move will have on our schools will be felt for years to come. Responsibility partially lies with the State Government who is responsible for funding our schools. Voters/taxpayers also bear some responsibility for their refusal to support school funding measures such as Measure T. But the depth of layoff is also attributable to recent decisions made by our School Board.

VOODOO CUTS? The District already has slated many more teachers for layoff than is ultimately necessary, even with the severe drop in funding. Retirements, leaves, and the reported plan to partially restore Class Size Reduction in some schools using site based categorical money means that the final layoff tally will be less than the announced layoffs of about 700 teachers.

Now reports are surfacing that the District will issue nearly 1,000 layoff notices…far more than even their announced cuts can justify. We can only speculate on their reasons for such a massive issuance of layoff notices. It could be part of an attempt to secure salary and benefit reductions by over issuing layoff notices and then offering to “trade” salary reductions (e.g., furloughs) and benefit cuts for jobs they never planned on cutting in the first place. Or it could be because the layoff process is woefully disorganized and they are “over-noticing” teachers because their credentialing and seniority data is disorganized and they can’t accurately pinpoint who really should get a notice, so they are casting a wide net.

Whatever the reason, it is simply wrong for the District to issue one more notice than is absolutely necessary. Putting as many as 500 additional teachers through this process if they are ultimately not going to be laid off is just not the way to treat people. It is also hard to escape the irony that at the same time they may issue nearly 1,000 notices, the District reported in January that they had just about 1,000 managers. (Read more from the UPDATE newsletter here.)

February 21, 2010

The TALB Bargaining Team and the District Bargaining Team continue to meet in negotiations with the goal of bargaining a reasonable and fair contract package given the difficult economic circumstances. Our ability to get a fair contract mostly depends on our own solidarity. We are getting measured pressure from the District to take cuts in both salary and benefits. In response we are looking for measured ways to achieve ongoing savings and still protect the core integrity of our health benefits structure and our salary schedule.

CAN’T WE JUST TAKE “FURLOUGH DAYS” AND AVOID LAYOFFS? Three “furlough days” (which is more accurately described as reduction in the school year and prorated reduction in pay), is one District proposal. The District is also proposing health benefit cuts via a 5% employee co-pay on insurance costs and a series of other benefit changes. The District is also proceeding with a layoff of 651 teachers. They are not offering to trade one for the other. Taking 3 “furlough days” will not avert layoffs, for these reasons:

• The District unilaterally controls the decision to layoff teachers. Agreeing to “furloughs” in exchange for a reduction in layoffs requires the district to give TALB contractual input on overall District staffing, including management staffing (management staffing patterns are not negotiable under the bargaining law). Without such an agreement any trade off of salary reductions for layoffs is unenforceable. Given the fact that the District has so heavily opted for teacher layoffs while preserving managers (see information later in this UPDATE), such an agreement without control over staffing would likely only save managers, not teachers, and there would still be no guarantee of layoff protection this year or next.
• A reduction in the number of layoffs will likely occur anyway. The budget situation is difficult and will continue for another year, at least. However, the District has decided to layoff more teachers than necessary. In fact, they clearly will re-hire a number of the 651 teachers targeted for layoff due to attrition AND because they already plan to restore CSR at a number of schools using categorical funding. Therefore, any agreement to “trade” salary for layoffs would really be a phantom trade for jobs that would have been restored anyway.
• Avoiding layoffs would require an ongoing double digit salary decrease, not a 3 day furlough. It would take a double digit salary reduction and severe benefit cuts in order to completely eliminate layoffs as proposed by the District. They want pay cuts in addition to layoffs, not one or the other.
• The funding shortfall requires ongoing savings. So called “furloughs” are a short term reduction in pay (at this time no more than 3 years). Staffing costs are ongoing. When “furloughs” end, the Districts will likely be left with a cash flow problem that could then require layoffs …the very layoffs the furloughs were intended to avoid. Exacerbating matters is the fact that this is not a one-year problem and some additional amount of cuts will be necessary next year.
• Cannibalizing our contract to pay for programs that taxpayers refuse to support will lead to long term school funding reductions. Programs cuts (meaning jobs) return before salary cuts are restored, when the funding does return the programs will also return, but any salary cuts typically take more time to recover. Any pay cut (including “furloughs”) will also hurt retirement. In a best case scenario we are faced with multiple years of no or little salary increases and regular attacks on our benefits. If we also volunteer to give up our own compensation to pay for programs the taxpayers should pay for, there will be little incentive to increase school funding. The result will be that our salary, retirement, and health benefits will face long term reductions. The youngest of our members will pay the biggest price for these reductions since they still will have many years left to work.

WE NEED TO FIGHT LAYOFFS AND DEFEND THE CONTRACT… To their credit, the District has been clear that they can't avoid layoffs nor can they give up their management rights on staffing in order to assure TALB that “furloughs” would avert layoffs. In return TALB has been diligent in attempting to craft a deal that provides ongoing savings (maybe even more than the furlough days) and protects the integrity of our contract.

We also need to continue fighting layoffs. TALB made unsuccessful proactive attempts to fend off layoffs by working with the District on a parcel tax measure last November and by supporting statewide temporary tax increases last May. We attempted to rally our members and supported these efforts as we knew that layoffs were coming if we could not increase funding. Now, without extra funding, we must fight off additional cuts proposed by the state. The LBUSD could lose an ADDITIONAL $20 million in local funding if we don’t convince our legislators to stop the cuts to our local schools. Please support this effort to fend off more layoffs by attending a PROTEST RALLY on March 4 at Wilson High School. The rally starts at 4:15 and will include CTA President David Sanchez and a guest appearance by Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine fame. See your TALB Rep for details on the rally or go to www.talb.org.

ARE THE LAYOFFS EXCESSIVE? IT IS A QUESTION OF PRIORITIES. By any measure the layoff of 651 teachers slated to get a March 15 pink slip is tragic. For the teachers who get the layoff notice it is a professional, economic, and personal loss. For the tens of thousands of students they would have taught and the lives they would have enriched, it is an unquantifiable loss of an adult role model that may have made the difference in their lifetime. For the teachers, nurses, and librarians who are left behind to do more with less, and without their colleagues, the challenge will be to keep the schools functioning with resourcefulness, spit and bubble gum – while avoiding the demoralizing impact of the cuts and the attacks on salary and benefits.

Unfortunately, it appears the School Board has elected to lay off more, maybe far more, teachers than necessary. FIRST, the District has been clear that it plans to retain CSR in some schools by using categorical funds. This will mean many of the teachers who are on the layoff list due to the elimination of CSR will be rehired. SECOND, the District has not accounted for even a conservative number of retirements. While the School Board aborted the Early Retirement incentive there will be a predictable number of retirements and the layoff decision should have at least minimally accounted for this attrition. FINALLY, instead of reducing the management corps, the District decided to focus the reduction of staff on teachers. A whopping 87% of the layoffs announced last week are considered as certificated non-management (i.e., teachers). A scant 11% of the layoffs are considered as managers by the district. Currently only 58% of all district employees are considered certificated non-management and 14% are classified as managers. So, if this pattern continues it appears that the already “healthy” management ratios will actually increase as the result of this budget crisis, not decrease as logic and common sense might suggest. If the District focused savings on some of these jobs away from the classroom, the result would be fewer teacher layoffs.

Add it all up, and there are probably 200 teaching jobs that should not even be slated for reduction. It is not clear why the District is taking this approach after working so hard to preserve the classroom program last year. In the case of the elementary CSR it may be a misguided and likely illegal gambit to rehire formerly probationary and permanent elementary teachers into temporary jobs. Or it may be an attempt to use the shock value to put pressure on TALB to accept salary and benefit cuts at the bargaining table. Whatever the reason, the District should not put more people through this process than is absolutely necessary.

January 25, 2010

Rumors abound concerning what cuts the School Board will make in response to state cuts in education funding. The School Board has a meeting scheduled this week (January 27) to discuss the cuts. The Board is then expected to take action on specific cuts in early to mid-February (meetings are scheduled for Feb. 2, and 16, and possibly on Feb. 9).

At the last School Board meeting District administrators estimated that the 2010-2011 budget will require approximately $40 million in cuts. The District budget projections are fluid at this point resulting from the fact that Sacramento will not produce a final budget until the Summer, or even later.

WILL THERE BE LAYOFFS? It seems all but certain that layoffs will occur. The severity of layoffs that directly impact the classroom (e.g., teachers, nurses, and librarians) depends on what specific programs are cut by the School Board.

The success of the early retirement incentive will also impact the number of layoffs. If it is successful, there will be fewer layoffs due to the resulting increase in retirement attrition.

WILL THEY KEEP THE CUTS AWAY FROM THE CLASSROOM? TALB continues to advocate cuts that are away from core classroom programs. We all hope attrition will result in as few job losses as possible. There is no joy in pressing for cuts in any sector of the District that will lead to loss of a job for any district employee, certificated, classified, or management. That said, there will be cuts and there are areas that the School Board can consider for reduction in the near term that will preserve classroom programs and least impact students.

The fact that we can make additional cuts away from the classroom was evidenced by District financial information presented to the school board at a recent meeting.

According to their data:

• The LBUSD has 7,465 LBUSD employees
• 4,308 employees (58%) are considered “certificated non-management” and are, for the most part, working directly with students in some manner (e.g., TALB bargaining unit).
• 1,035 (14%) employees are considered as “certificated management” (541) or “classified management” (494) by the District.
• The remaining 2,122 (28%) are “classified non-management.” (e.g., CSEA bargaining unit.)

The District figures translate into roughly 1 “certificated manager” for every 8 teachers, nurses, and librarians; AND about 1 classified manager for every 4 classified employees.

The combined certificated and classified non-management/management ratio is about six non-management employees for every one management employee. (6 to 1…now that is class size reduction).

Even a casual observer of the budget might conclude that the district should be able to manage the District by making a sensible reduction/reorganization in management in order to protect core class room programs. Is it unreasonable to think that the District could run effectively in such lean times by reducing the number of managers from over 1000 to say, 800?

January 11, 2010

Negotiations are scheduled on January 14, 22 and February 3, 11, and 18. Continued pressure on the District due to budget cuts combined with their proposals to cut salaries and benefits are sure to challenge our bargaining team and require the solidarity of our members.

The good news is that last year’s negotiations, albeit difficult, were conducted in a climate of mutual respect and fairness. The bad news (besides the school funding cuts) is that we are getting sporadic reports that some site level managers have already been creating discord with inappropriate statements about upcoming negotiations.

In advance of bargaining, our members report that some Principals are attempting to influence or interfere with negotiations by advising TALB members that they should lobby TALB to agree to unpaid “furloughs” (furlough is not really an accurate term, they really mean a shortened school year). In some cases this interference is overt, with direct pressure applied to TALB members. Mostly it is subtle and involves an informal conversation with a small group, or a vague reference in a staff meeting. Such tactics are considered “unfair” by the state agency that helps monitor and enforce laws governing public sector bargaining.

These administrative “conversations” are also strange considering we have not yet started to bargain and the District has not made any specific proposals. They may be in response to the strong response to our bargaining survey earlier in the year. They may be the rogue and random acts of a few site managers acting independently of LBUSD. Regardless, such tactics are unfortunate since they don’t promote an agreement and the misinformation leaves out the fact that so-called “furloughs” not only shorten the school year; they decrease pay, and retirement.

Why would the LBUSD even propose furloughs or any pay cuts for classroom/school based employees before imposing other cuts, including true furloughs for administrators who are not school based and already work a much longer year(and at higher pay) than classroom/school based employees? This would both save money and avoid a cut in the school year altogether. Recall last year, the District proposed a cut to the Head Start teacher work year, but withdrew the proposal when asked to defend the fact that administrators associated with the program were working (and getting paid) for often more than 20 days beyond the instructional year.

Bargaining this year will be hard enough based on the economic situation. We will have legitimate disagreements with the District over how to prioritize spending with limited resources. Coming off very difficult, but mutually respectful negotiations last year, we hope the District will not make a practice of interfering with the “good faith” that will be required to resolve this year’s contract.

Click here to download and print this article from the UPDATE newsletter.

December 7, 2009

The School Board has approved an open enrollment period for an early retirement incentive. The plan will now move forward depending on a participation level that results in budget savings and mitigation of layoffs. On the reverse side of the UPDATE is an FAQ dealing with a few of the most common questions concerning the early retirement incentive.

Negotiations for a new contract are scheduled to begin in January. The District and TALB have agreed to several dates in January and February. The District has made proposals to cut salary and benefits. Our Organizing Team is already meeting every other week to prepare for the difficult months ahead as we organize to prevent cuts to our salaries and benefits.

November 23, 2009

District representatives met with the TALB Bargaining Team for an “informational” meeting to explain their plans regarding an early retirement incentive program. The good news is that the District is moving forward with a plan. Dating back to last school year, TALB has been encouraging the District to explore options and, if viable, implement a plan that will both provide an incentive and save money. They finally appear ready to proceed. However, the District has also made it clear that they are going to move forward unilaterally and implement a plan as they see fit. They are not considering alternate incentives to what they have already developed. We do hope they will at least accept some friendly input that will help their plan to succeed.

The plan, which still needs School Board approval, consists of an annuity that can be paid out over a minimum of 5 years to a maximum of lifetime, with numerous options in between. For example, a participant who retires with a final pay of $76,500 could receive approximately $760 a month for 5 years or about $211 a month for life. The annuity is based on a District contribution of 60% of final salary for each participating employee. Each eligible employee will get a breakdown of options and what their payout would be based on their salary. The District plans to offer this incentive to certificated K-12 non-management employees. We have posted information on the District’s draft plan at www.talb.org so you can see more detail. We have also posted the 2009 STRS retirement handbook. If approved by the School Board, you can expect to receive more information sent directly to you if you are eligible for the plan.

Will this incentive persuade a substantial number of future retirees to leave their jobs early? The District seems to think so. At this meeting the District would not say exactly how many additional employees will need to participate in order for the plan to move forward. They report that they want to make a decision once they have a firm number of participants. In other words, they are reserving the right to proceed with the plan or withdraw it, depending both on “how many” sign up and “who” they are. The reason for their unwillingness to give a firm number is that they believe there is greater savings in certain positions. If a potential retiree is in a job that will not be replaced, that retirement will result in greater savings than a potential retiree whose job requires a replacement. This logic works assuming the District has a plan on what they will cut next year. For example, at the secondary level their figures show they need to cut 36 jobs to save about $1.5 million next year. But when we asked what programs the 36 positions will come from they were unwilling to respond. Based on the consultant’s presentation, it looks like they will need to have at least a total of 210 folks willing to retire for the plan to go forward.

Another key to success will be how effectively the District implements the plan. Right now they are considering a timeline that requires potential participants to decide between December 1 and January 15 whether or not they will participate. We have asked them to extend this timeline to allow folks time to communicate with STRS so they can make an informed decision. We believe an extended timeline will increase participation in the plan and therefore increase the chances that it will actually be implemented. We have also asked the District to assist with this process by setting up STRS counseling sessions in the District. Finally, we asked that the District allow participation in the plan to remain confidential until it is clear that the plan has enough participants and it will proceed.

The District reports that the main reason for the early retirement incentive is to mitigate layoffs. TALB supports this goal. It is important to maintain perspective that even if this plan is successful, the immediate financial savings are somewhat modest relative to the likely cuts that will be required with or without this plan. The next step is to see if the School Board approves a plan at their December 1st meeting.

November 9, 2009

The District's survey of 900 TALB bargaining unit members regarding seniority and credential continues to cause distress and confusion. TALB continues to receive complaints about the District seniority and credential survey process. Many of the complaints result from the fact that some Principals are having one-on-one or group meetings and providing inaccurate information about layoffs, seniority dates, and so on. In fact, we have discovered that Principals were told to have the meetings, but apparently were not provided with a script, talking points, or adequate training. The result is that each school is getting a different story or interpretation of the situation . . . many times not accurate. Of course, this is not a good thing in dealing with such a stressful and demoralizing process.

TALB has sent a six-page letter to the District outlining our concerns with this process. It has been mailed to each Site Association Representative. Click here to read the letter. The letter provides a good overview and context for our concerns and problems with the process.

In an effort to clarify some of the misinformation that is out there, we also want to provide a brief FAQ on some important layoff related matters. Normally, we would not need to do this until and if the District actually proceeded with a layoff, however, as a result of the confusion we wanted to address a few key issues immediately. Remember, the list of "900" is not a layoff list; it is a request for information. If you have not read the last few UPDATES containing important information on this process, see the Oct. 9th, Oct. 27th, and Nov. 9th issues. You can also get a full run down on layoff rights and rules here.

November 5, 2009

Click here for TALB's Bargaining Proposals

October 27, 2009

1441 surveys were returned. THANK-YOU for your support and participation in this important activity. This information was used to assist in the creation of our draft proposals (subject to approval by the Representative Council) and will inform our bargaining and organizing.

Here are the summary results of the survey.

87% of respondents indicated that “TALB should oppose all attempts to cut salary.”
90% of respondents indicated that “TALB should oppose a cap and cut to health and welfare benefits.”
92% of respondents indicated that “The District should work with TALB to negotiate an early retirement incentive to save money.”
84% of respondents believe “there are other cuts that the District can make to save money before attempting to cut (my) salary and benefits.”
37% of respondents indicated that they “believe the transfer process is fair, objective, and works well for TALB members.”
17% of respondents indicated that “they did not understand the transfer process.”
Respondents indicated the 3 most important items to protect in the contract were BENEFITS, SALARY, and CLASS SIZE.
78% of respondents indicated they were “satisfied with the school calendar last year.”
90% of respondents indicated they did receive the TALB UPDATE twice per month.

A complete report on the survey results will be provided to your school site TALB Association Representative at the October Rep. Council.

August 27, 2009

You should have a “Negotiations and Calendar Priority Survey” already in your box. If you don’t have one, please ask your site Association Representative for a survey. Please fill it out immediately and return it to TALB as directed on the survey. We often hear from our members over the phone, email, and site visits…but we need to hear from each and every member this year so we know where you stand and what you are willing to do with your fellow TALB members to defend our contract.

May 21, 2009

The District and TALB have agreed on a one-year agreement that protects and maintains salary and benefits and all other protections in both the K-12 and Head Start/CDC contracts.

In addition, the agreement provides several long overdue language improvements in the CDC/Head Start contract AND adds language in both contracts concerning protection 403b plans.

Download a copy of the Tentative Agreement here.

January 12, 2009

Bargaining continues to be very deliberate. This may change if budget cuts are finalized. We have spent a great deal of time getting into specific details on language in both the CDC-HEAD START and K-12 contracts that have not been addressed in several years. A few specifics on the last few sessions:

The December 17 session included a presentation on the first interim report (financial report). In a normal year, the presentation might have been more useful, but given the current state of uncertainty with the State Budget, it did not deal with the reality of looming cuts. The team asked questions regarding the report and the implications of future state funding reductions. We also spent a significant part of the day going line by line through the K-12 transfer process. A number of questions and concerns were raised regarding language in the contract and about procedures that are followed that are not included in the contract. Our team determined that a comprehensive proposal from TALB on the transfer process is necessary to assure that the process is accurately outlined in the contract -- and possibly propose changes in that process (e.g., exclusions to the transfer process, committee make-up and duties, application of seniority, withholding of openings by site admin.). We also concluded a discussion on Head Start evaluations that resulted in mutual agreement that formal evaluations of Head Start teachers are not required on an annual basis under the Federal guidelines.

We met again on January 9th. We presented a comprehensive proposal to the district on K-12 Transfers. Assistant Superintendent Kim Stallings also met with the team and provided a fairly bleak, but realistic, outlook on the State Budget. The LBUSD is now projecting a $50 Million mid-year cut due to the budget crisis. The bad news is no one quite knows how this will be accomplished. The “good” news is that every other school district is in the same boat – and LBUSD finances are somewhat more stable than many surrounding districts. Until lawmakers and the Governor act on the budget crisis, all school districts are left in limbo on what the future holds.

Future bargaining dates have been set, as follows: 2/11, 3/2, 3/11, 3/18, and 3/26.

December 8, 2008

Bargaining is in full-swing. Initial bargaining sessions have focused on CDC/Head Start contract proposals. Class size ratios, safety and parking, ongoing employment, and job descriptions have all been discussed. Association Rights have also been discussed in both the K-12 and CDC/Head Start contracts. We have two remaining bargaining dates scheduled in December (12/11 & 12/17). We expect to discuss the budget and begin discussions on transfer and assignment in the upcoming sessions.

November 21, 2008

We know the next few years are going to require cuts to the district budget due to cutbacks in school funding. While we do not yet know the exact extent of the cuts for this year, we do know that cuts are going to happen. TALB’s position on this matter is clear – keep the cuts away from the classroom and our students. But we want to use your expertise and knowledge so we can provide the District with some assistance in identifying cuts that will not hurt our classrooms or our students.

Please click here to fill out the District Budget Survey to provide your input.

October 29, 2008

Initial bargaining dates with the District are:

• Friday, Nov. 7th
• Monday, Nov. 24th
• Thursday, Dec. 4th
• Thursday, Dec. 11th
• Wednesday, Dec. 17th

September 17, 2008

TALB has submitted full contract proposals to the District. Click here for a copy.

September 1, 2008

TALB expects to have initial proposals ready to go by September 1. TALB Bargaining Chair Barry Welsch has worked with the Bargaining Advisory Committee to take all of the input provided in the Spring membership surveys and come up with initial proposals for K-12 and CDC/Head Start. Welsch has also briefed the Board of Directors and the Representative Council on the Contract changes from last year’s negotiations and the results of the bargaining survey.