By Jack Gerson, retired Oakland teacher and former executive board and bargaining team member
On
Friday (March 1), the bargaining teams of the Oakland school district (OUSD)
and the Oakland teacher's union (OEA) reached a tentative agreement that received a mixed reception by OEA members. Yesterday (March 3), after
several hours of heated debate, OEA members voted to ratify the agreement,
1141 to 832, or 58% for, 42% against. That’s an unusually big “no” vote on a
contract recommended by a union leadership which had just organized a spirited
strike that shut down Oakland schools for seven school days. At cluster meetings
and at OEA’s Representative Council (delegate assembly) on Saturday (March 2),
bitter accusations were made by teachers who thought the agreement was far less
than the union could win by continuing to strike.
Why this division? Despite the union leadership hailing the
agreement as "historic", it is far from that. There were several
complaints:
OEA had demanded no school closures (earlier this year, OUSD announced plans to
close 15 schools and consolidate nine others). The OEA leadership said this was a critical
demand. But in the tentative agreement, they settle for a 5 month
"pause" in school closures. That's not worth much: the pause will end
at the beginning of August, in time for OUSD to close schools before next
school year starts. It will be much harder to fight those school closures in
the summer, with teachers and students on vacation, than it is right now during
the strike. And if the schools are closed, we can expect the available school
properties to be disposed of: some to charter schools, some to real estate
speculators who will drive housing costs still higher -- more teachers leaving
Oakland, more homelessness. Many teachers spoke out against the “pause”.
School nurses said that their overwhelming need was for OUSD
to lower their workload and hire more nurses. But the tentative agreement
provided no change in nurses’ workload – just cash bonuses which the nurses had
repeatedly told the union’s bargaining team they didn’t want to settle for.
Several nurses told the Saturday meetings that “We were thrown under the bus.”
OEA had demanded a reduction of maximum
counselor workload to 250 students (From
the current 600). But they agreed to 550 next year and 500 the following year. Every
little bit helps, but this will only help a little bit.
OEA had demanded a reduction of class size
maximums by 4 per class in high
needs schools (about half of Oakland schools) and by 2 elsewhere. But in the
tentative agreement, they settle for 2 in high needs schools and 1 elsewhere phased
in over three years -- better than nothing, but far less than what's needed, as
many teachers said.
OEA had demanded a 12% pay increase over three
years: 3% retroactive to
the start of the 2017-8 school year, another 4% retroactive to the start of the
2018-9 school year, and another 5% for the 2019-20 school year. But they agreed
to 11% over four plus years, starting January 1, 2019. And since the last 2.5%
increase won’t take effect until the last day of year 4, it’s essentially an
increase for the following year – so this is 11% over five years, or 2.2% per
year, well below the cost of living increases. The original demands were meager
enough: Oakland teachers are the lowest paid in Alameda County, an area where
housing costs and overall cost of living are among the highest in the country.
The proposed increases in the tentative agreement will be less than inflation,
which will do nothing to help young teachers to make end meets, and so the
exodus of teachers out of Oakland will continue.
OEA had made solidarity with other school
worker unions a main theme. Indeed,
on Friday OEA called for a picket with community members and SEIU Local 1021
(representing OUSD classified workers) to block the school board from meeting
and adopting a budget which would cut over 140 jobs, mainly of SEIU members. But
at about 2pm, OEA President Keith Brown told the pickets “We have a TA! We
Won!” and urged them to disperse. The optics of this are very bad and were not
lost on SEIU members. One wrote on Facebook:
As a SEIU member who has been picketing in the
rain or shine for the past seven strike days, I feel betrayed. I feel used…
I thought our collective goal Friday was to shut down the Board Meeting.”
Students pack school board meeting |
[Breaking News: Today (Monday, March 4), hundreds of students
and several teachers called in sick to protest at an emergency school board
meeting called during school hours to try to minimize student and school worker
presence. Despite impassioned speeches from scores of students and several
teachers and other school workers, and over the protest of virtually all of
those present, the school board voted to make $22 million in cuts: to school
libraries; to restorative justice programs; to the Asian Pacific Islander
support program; to the foster youth program; and to lay off well over 100
classified school workers.]
On balance: It’s important to acknowledge that Keith Brown and
his team were able to lead a spirited strike supported and carried out by over
90% of OEA members. In contrast, OEA’s punishing 27-day strike in 1996 was
beset by divisions within the union and within the community, as some charged
that it deprived black students of essential schooling. None of that this time
– the union was unified throughout the strike, and it had substantial support
from students, parents, and community.
And it’s not helpful to characterize the contract as “a
sellout”, nor to say that the bargaining team or the officers are “sellouts.” I
believe them when they say that they’re convinced that this was the best deal
that could be had at this time. I believe them, but I don’t agree with them.
Why not?
First, I think that the leadership was heavily influenced by
their state parent, the California Teacher Association (CTA). CTA is overly
legalistic and cautious, and it is closely tied to the state Democratic Party.
Under CTA’s influence, the leadership team was far less transparent during the
strike than it should have been. Decisions were made by a small group
consisting largely of OEA’s officers and CTA staffers, with even the union
executive board members telling me that even the executive board was out of the
loop. One lesson is: more transparency is needed, and especially needed is an
elected strike committee to work directly with the officers, the executive
board and, as often as possible, Rep Council and picket captains.
Second, and related, I think that there was a reluctance to
aggressively confront corporate targets physically with militant actions. To
overcome the intransigence of the corporate-funded and controlled school board,
it’s necessary to convince corporate Oakland that the union is prepared to see
that there’s no business as usual.
Hesitancy to do that was evident in the reluctance of the OEA leadership
to vigorously pursue a proposal to rally and picket at the Port of Oakland,
which could and should have occurred several days ago and would have had the
support of dockworkers (ILWU Local 34 had already voted its support). Instead, CTA
staff and OEA officers expressed fears that the union would be legally liable
if it picketed at the port (it wouldn’t: the park and roads at the port are
public property, picketing there is legal and that right has been exercised
numerous times, including more than once by OEA).
Finally, last Thursday (February 28), Rep Council voted overwhelmingly to picket at the port on March 5 (tomorrow). It’s no accident that OUSD improved its offer and rushed to settle when they did: one big reason was to preempt the port action. Had OEA not settled on Friday, and especially if it followed the Port action with militant rallies and sit-ins aimed at the big real estate and financial interests in downtown Oakland, I think that the corporate masters would have told state and city politicians to cough up some money, and told their school board puppets to settle up.
Finally, last Thursday (February 28), Rep Council voted overwhelmingly to picket at the port on March 5 (tomorrow). It’s no accident that OUSD improved its offer and rushed to settle when they did: one big reason was to preempt the port action. Had OEA not settled on Friday, and especially if it followed the Port action with militant rallies and sit-ins aimed at the big real estate and financial interests in downtown Oakland, I think that the corporate masters would have told state and city politicians to cough up some money, and told their school board puppets to settle up.
The union leadership repeatedly credited OEA's militant and
spirited picket lines and mass rallies with what they proclaim as an historic
win. But then they turn around and say that the meager tentative agreement is
"the best that can be won at this time" because, they claim, support
was beginning to ebb. I saw little evidence of that: thousands of teachers
turned out to picket, march and rally on rainy days all week. I think that
there's another reason: the union leadership is for the most part close to
liberal Democrats like state superintendent of schools Tony Thurmond, who
stepped in late this week to mediate the dispute and broker the deal. Thurmond
and other Democrats represent corporate interests and the state, both of which
wanted an end to this disruptive strike. I am sure that they pressed the OEA
leadership directly as well as indirectly (through their influence with
community activists and with CTA, OEA's statewide parent union).
It’s important to move forward now: to do what wasn’t done
during the strike – a complete end to the school closures; a full moratorium on
charter school growth; restore all the cut programs and all the jobs that were
cut; take the spirit that dominated the strike and rekindle it into a militant
movement that confronts corporate Oakland – at the Port, in the City Center, at
all the seats of corporate power. Confront them, and demand that the priorities
be set straight: Adequate funding for quality public education and for
essential social services, not for privatization and corporate profit.
No comments:
Post a Comment