|
Negotiations took a turn for the worst on May 21st when the attorney representing PVUSD joined their negotiating team. He presented a proposal that reflected the district's position two months ago and added a new demand for PVFT give-backs.
Up to this point we have been negotiating three reopener issues: compensation, the effects of staffing ratios and the grievance procedure. The new member of their negotiating team stated that there was no reason why he could not add any more items that he wished, implying that he would not be bound by all the previous negotiating sessions we have participated in. As we proceeded through the points of contention in their proposal he told us that he was unfamiliar with the reasons we had objected in the past. Much old ground had to be covered again.
We have proposed that the last step of the grievance procedure be changed to Binding Arbitration. At this point the district has agreed to Binding Arbitration, in principle, but they want the loser to pay all the associated costs, which could be substantial. Our local could risk the equivalent of bankruptcy if we ever lost an arbitration case so this is very undesirable. Our latest proposal asking to split the costs of the arbitrator and the court reporter with the district was flatly rejected. No compromise was offered. No expense limitations were suggested. Just "No". This is a step backwards.
Regarding the staffing ratio, our intent is to recognize teachers with combo classes by excusing them from extra supervisory tasks during the school day. (An example of a combo class is teaching French 3 and French 4 in the same classroom at the same time because there were not enough students for either class alone.) We and the district have agreed to a site vote, each year, to determine if these teachers will be excused. All that remains is for us to agree on a definition of combo classes. In their latest proposal the district removed our suggested definition and did not offer one of their own. Then they stated that they were unwilling to give any consideration, at all, to teachers with combo classes in middle school or high school. This is a step backwards.
Our latest proposal had dropped any mention of compensation however, compensation has proven to be equally tough to solve. When we, the PVFT, proposed compensation as a reopener, we intended to negotiate how much our union pays the district for our union president's time. At the moment we pay the district for 100% of his actual salary and benefits. We want to pay a fixed amount that doesn't vary with our president's step and column. This would help our budgeting and, hopefully, would be cheaper for us. The district has refused to agree to this. Furthermore the district refuses to acknowledge any limitation on the topic of compensation. They have asked us to cut 6% of our benefit expense and to keep it at that fixed amount forever. Although this is a minor improvement from their previous position it would still result in our eventual financial collapse (see the analysis of benefit caps on the Negotiations > Current information page). At the same time they have added a new demand for 5 furlough days, which more than offsets the minor benefit cap change. This is a step backwards.We have responded with a list of contractual reasons why they cannot even ask us to do that and we see no reason to agree to their request.
The district's proposal was so unresponsive that we no longer see a good faith effort on their part to reach an agreement. Both the district and PVFT support declaring an impasse and we are both taking the necessary steps to start the process.
|
