Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Stuff you may not know about Illinois
Next Post: Happy 4/20!
Posted in:
*** UPDATE *** ABC 7…
In a statement, a CTU spokeswoman called the request a “publicity stunt.”
“We have hundreds of members in Springfield right now fighting for revenue,” the statement said. “CTU does not have binding interest arbitration because we choose to negotiate and write our own contracts—plus police and fire, as he referenced, cannot strike. We can’t say we’re interested in this until we know the rules of arbitration and under what terms.”
OK, then get them the rules and terms.
* From Chicago Public Schools…
April 20, 2016
Karen Lewis
Chicago Teachers Union
222 Merchandise Mart Plaza, Suite 400 Chicago, Illinois 60654
Re: Proposal for Final and Binding Arbitration In Lieu of StrikeDear Karen,
We are disappointed that the CTU decided to reject the Fact Finder’s recommendation. We are also aware of your public comments that the “clock is ticking” toward a strike. In our view a strike whether in May or in August or in September would be devastating to our students and parents. Further, we are at a loss as to how a strike would solve or even advance a solution to the considerable challenges that CPS faces. The best course is for CPS and CTU to join together in Springfield for long term sustainable funding for our schools. A strike is counterproductive and would only fuel the anti-CPS forces in Springfield.
To avoid disruption to our schools and to advance our partnership in Springfield, we are asking that CTU agree to final and binding interest arbitration in lieu of a strike. As you know, final and binding interest arbitration is permitted pursuant to section 12 (a-10) (d) of the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act. Interest Arbitration has been used in Chicago for our Police and Fire contracts for decades. I believe that teachers are just as important as our policemen and firemen. The extraordinary circumstances that CPS currently faces demands that we use every means available to avoid disruption to our schools and our families.
We very much hope that you will give this offer your serious consideration. We would be most appreciative if we could have your response by April 27, 2016.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Forrest Claypool
Chief Executive Officer
If they resolve this equitably with binding arbitration, it would go a long way to show that AFSCME’s very similar legislative proposal was right all along.
…Adding… So the other side, I suppose, is CTU’s desire to protect its right to strike, something that AFSCME was willing to give up. If the union rejects this arbitration offer, it’ll be signaling that the right to strike gives it more leverage and is more valuable than entering arbitration. But rejection will also show that opponents of the AFSCME bill may not be right when they claim that arbitration generally favors unions.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Apr 20, 16 @ 9:35 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Stuff you may not know about Illinois
Next Post: Happy 4/20!
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
This is not the time for the Chicago Teachers to strike. Life is about timing sometimes, and this is not the right time.
Karen and company….live to fight another day.
Meet in the middle as best you can, and then hold the big Press Conference about being a partner, being there for the kids, blah, blah, blah.
Comment by Jack Stephens Wednesday, Apr 20, 16 @ 9:43 am
I’m not sure Lewis and the teachers union are realistic in what can be achieved.
Comment by Southwest side Wednesday, Apr 20, 16 @ 9:46 am
I honestly don’t know if this is a good idea for them but man what I wouldn’t do for interest arbitration right now.
Comment by Honeybear Wednesday, Apr 20, 16 @ 9:50 am
==it would go a long way to show that AFSCME’s very similar legislative proposal was right all along==
Only if the goal was finding an equitable resolution. If Rauner wanted to make things really interesting, he’d offer an amendment to the arbitration bill that included the request from the municipal league to require arbitrators to consider the current financial situation of the government entity before awarding pay or benefit increases.
Comment by AC Wednesday, Apr 20, 16 @ 9:51 am
Big difference here. CPS believes their proposal is one a neutral 3rd party would find reasonable. Rauner knows his proposal is not reasonable, therefore he would not want to be subjected to a 3rd party review.
Comment by Red Dig Wednesday, Apr 20, 16 @ 9:52 am
Whilst personally supporting this ask, don’t see how Rauner could support it without being more hypocritical. It would be asking the union to give up the very power he says is so important for himself to retain in the afscme issue.
Comment by Blooms of Spring Wednesday, Apr 20, 16 @ 9:52 am
Without commenting on the merits I don’t see the Teachers Union agreeing to binding arbitration.
Comment by Stones Wednesday, Apr 20, 16 @ 9:58 am
===If they resolve this equitably with binding arbitration, it would go a long way to show that AFSCME’s very similar legislative proposal was right all along.===
It would behoove CTU to follow along and if it gives AFSCME cover too, that’s how Labor sticks together.
Both Unions understand this. The hope is they both play it to the leverage.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Apr 20, 16 @ 10:01 am
Having been completely screwed by “binding arbitration,” all I can say is, make sure the “arbitrators” aren’t selected by the opposition.
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Wednesday, Apr 20, 16 @ 10:03 am
“Only if the goal was finding an equitable resolution. If Rauner wanted to make things really interesting, he’d offer an amendment to the arbitration bill that included the request from the municipal league to require arbitrators to consider the current financial situation of the government entity before awarding pay or benefit increases.”
Rauner wants no limits on subcontracting. That is what an arbitrator would probably object to as being unreasonable. The other stuff is just gravy to him. Sure he’d love to freeze wages, institute merit pay, and double costs for health insurances but privatization is how he wants to break the union and make his friends a lot of money.
Comment by steward Wednesday, Apr 20, 16 @ 10:07 am
>Both Unions understand this. The hope is they both play it to the leverage.
What!?! You can create leverage by resolving issues instead of creating crisis? Say it isn’t so! /s
Comment by Earnest Wednesday, Apr 20, 16 @ 10:07 am
“… the anti-CPS forces in Springfield.” Lol.
Comment by Ottawa Phil Wednesday, Apr 20, 16 @ 10:12 am
“If they resolve this equitably with binding arbitration, it would go a long way to show that AFSCME’s very similar legislative proposal was right all along.”
CTU has much more power than AFSCME. How many times has CTU called strikes compared to AFSCME? I don’t think they are a good comparison. That said, if CTU agreed to arbitration it would help public perception of the AFSCME arbitration bill. Perhaps legislation calling for binding arbitration for all public unions, when there is an impasse, would solve this. Police and other vitals have given up their right to strike and arbitration seems to be working for them.
Comment by Jimmy H Wednesday, Apr 20, 16 @ 10:13 am
“Interest Arbitration has been used in Chicago for our Police and Fire contracts for decades. I believe that teachers are just as important as our policemen and firemen….”
Yes they are. Especially since 2.5 months off in Summer is detrimental enough for students education (summer learning loss). Adding more time off in no way would help the students. If they can continue to function in the fire and police realm despite disputes (as they are required to do), teachers also should continue to teach in schools.
Comment by Just Sayin' Wednesday, Apr 20, 16 @ 10:14 am
Rich if they dont agree to arb that also seems to indicate that arbitrations are not the union friendly places the gov makes them out to be.
since the arbitrators have to be agreed to i am not sure why the gov keeps saying that, other then he fears an actual fair review of the proposals.
thats said i think the interest arb process needs modified. my compromise is pass the no strike, but gove the arbitrator full authority to decide the final award. the current process requires the arbitrator to pick either managements or the unions last proposal. let the arb have authority like a judge to craft a resolution, not just pick the lessor of two weevils (farside fans unite)
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Apr 20, 16 @ 10:15 am
==privatization is how he wants to break the union and make his friends a lot of money==
Very true, and that’s the reason why he’d never agree to it, because he doesn’t want an equitable resolution, he wants the unions decimated. It’s very telling that in the managent offer they wanted to remove cost analysis for subcontracted bargaining unit work, they don’t care if it costs more.
Comment by AC Wednesday, Apr 20, 16 @ 10:16 am
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Apr 20, 16 @ 10:01 am:
“It would behoove CTU to follow along and if it gives AFSCME cover too, that’s how Labor sticks together.”
Yep!
Comment by Jimmy H Wednesday, Apr 20, 16 @ 10:17 am
I also have to wonder if this is the “Teamster Feint” if you will. Offer reasonableness to a union to isolate them and get them out of the fight. Arbitration to CTU and then stick it hard to AFSCME when “impasse” is declared by the ILRB. I think this is somehow showing the timing strategy on the Rauner side. I just haven’t figured out what it means. One thing I know. It shows that they think they can neutralize CTU before the AFSMCE contract goes nuclear. AFSCME and CTU have been doing A TON of support of each other. Many of my sisters and brothers have been at EVERY CTU action.
Comment by Honeybear Wednesday, Apr 20, 16 @ 10:19 am
Agreed that now is not a great time to consider a strike. However, those 2.5 months of summer? Kids can’t read without a teacher standing over them, forcing to do so? Do these kids have a home? Parents? Initiative on anyone’s part? Anyone? Schools provide formal education. I hope every brain cell doesn’t shut down the moment a student leaves the building! If so, it explains a whole lot about students’ motivation and the part it plays in achievement and even more so about the critical value of a teacher!
Comment by AnonymousOne Wednesday, Apr 20, 16 @ 10:22 am
Gee, I wonder how many arbitrators were former union employees? That might explain why the arbitrations are so one sided. Does the ILRB set the arbitrating guidelines? I can’t see how any fair system can’t take into account the financial condition of the employer, as is typically the case.
Comment by Zonker Wednesday, Apr 20, 16 @ 10:47 am
===I can’t see how any fair system can’t take into account the financial condition of the employer===
Agreed. However, CTU says CPS is “broke on purpose,” so they’d disagree.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Apr 20, 16 @ 10:48 am
The last time CPS got a fact finder report, they rejected it because they were drastically increasing teacher work hours without compensating them. Now this year, they’ve been decreasing teacher work hours without compensating them. They seem to be hourly when it suits CPS and salary when it suits CPS.
The teachers haven’t had a contract in a year and they’ve lost money as a result. They agreed to a contract that called for a 0% raise a year ago and Forest Claypool threw that out when he came into office. CTU rejected their last offer mostly because of loopholes that CPS assured CTU weren’t really going to be a problem. If CPS was serious, why haven’t they tried to at least tighten up the language that CTU objected to?
CPS is broke, I’ve got it. However, they just announced plans to give more money to Magic Johnson’s company who principals have complained to all the media about doing a ridiculously bad job cleaning. The city is borrowing over a billion and raising 5 taxes for George Lucas if they can. What does George Lucas have to do with the schools? He did donate $25,000,000 to Rahm’s children’s private school.
Comment by Carhartt Representative Wednesday, Apr 20, 16 @ 11:03 am
Zonker I don’t think that is the case. I imagine a better explanation is that management proposals are so unreasonable. Just sayin
Here’s the problem with taking the financial condition of the employer into account. That could be used every single time to nullify contracts. Who gets to determine financial condition. That is a total out for management. Broke on purpose or broke by mismanagement should not punish labor.
Comment by Honeybear Wednesday, Apr 20, 16 @ 11:15 am
===I can’t see how any fair system can’t take into account the financial condition of the employer===
I can. For example the State of Illinois saying they are broke and need to cut pensions. The system, the Illinois Supreme Court pointed out that Illinois created much of its own financial crisis by lowering the state income tax from 5% to 3.75%. The Court also pointed out that the State has sovereign powers to generate revenue. Even Moody’s constantly states that Illinois is a wealthy state with powers to generate revenue. But, Illinois chooses to have the 3rd lowest state income tax out of the 43 states that have an income tax. Yet the Governor constantly claims there is no money for higher ed, or to maintain state employee’s health ins, etc. Granted there are many differences between CPS and the State of Illinois. But there may also be some similarities when employers claim there is no money - especially when a chunk of CPS’s money comes from the State.
Comment by Joe M Wednesday, Apr 20, 16 @ 11:34 am
THE RAUN Man is just plain giddy over this development.
Comment by Blue dog dem Wednesday, Apr 20, 16 @ 11:41 am
CPS’ financial situation along with CTU’s past informal acceptance of the Districts offer suggests an arbitrator would impose that tentative agreement. CPS has limited risk as opposed to the State where the parties are so far apart that an arbitrator could really impose harm thru binding arbitration. It is not an apples to apples conparison
Comment by Sue Wednesday, Apr 20, 16 @ 12:00 pm
Joe M. you seem to be inferring that just because people in the state still have some money in their pockets, arbitrators can base their rulings on forcing the state or taxing body to take it, and give unaffordable compensation based on actual current revenues and debt. I guess if you believe that the state OWNS all assets of the people, and only let’s people have use of assets at their sufferance, that makes sense. In any sort of free America, it doesn’t. Arbitrators should be forced to rule based on available funding and financial situation of employer, NOT some hypothetical plundering of the people to meet the wants of the union. I guess only those of us who care about the people’s needs and rights would care about that.
Comment by Zonker Wednesday, Apr 20, 16 @ 12:30 pm
Question: What would a fair arbitration process do when it establishes that current compensation is far above average and not justifiable by quality of work, job conditions, and job requirements? A pay cut may be the “fair” thing to do. To my knowledge, that’s never happened in Illinois. So much for a “fair” system.
Comment by Zonker Wednesday, Apr 20, 16 @ 12:33 pm
==as opposed to the State where the parties are so far apart that an arbitrator could really impose harm thru binding arbitration. ==
I’m not sure I understand that Sue. The main stumbling point for AFSCME seems to be the State’s (Rauner’s) insistence that state and state university employees start paying about four times what they were for health ins and medical bills. AFSME was seeking the health ins everybody already had for years. And you are saying that would cause irreparable harm? So to me, its once again, Rauner’s fake argument that the State is broke and thus, can’t fund higher ed, state and state university’s health ins etc.
And besides, it is my understanding that in this arbitration process, each side puts forth their final best offer - not necessarily the offer they had been negotiating with. Thus, the arbitration forces each side to moderate the offers they had been negotiating with - to one that has a better chance of being considered reasonable.
Comment by Joe M Wednesday, Apr 20, 16 @ 12:35 pm
Zonker, the Illinois Supreme Court didn’t buy your argument(as shown in the pension case) , and neither do I. Like one of the attorney’s pointed out, its like a young person who murdered his parents, going to the court and pleading please have mercy on me because I am an orphan.
Comment by Joe M Wednesday, Apr 20, 16 @ 12:38 pm
Not likely.
But if CTU wants to walk about May 18, cancel the school year and not schedule make-up days. For once, teachers would have to suffer the economic effect of a strike, instead of negotiating to be paid for make-up days.
Compulsory arbitration should have been in the School Employees Labor Relations Act at the beginning, but we know who writes the laws in this state.
Comment by jack27 Wednesday, Apr 20, 16 @ 1:11 pm
I will support the teachers if they vote to strike. Though I hope both parties can find ways to avoid students not graduating because of this.
Comment by Bleh Wednesday, Apr 20, 16 @ 1:53 pm
==But rejection will also show that opponents of the AFSCME bill may not be right when they claim that arbitration generally favors unions.==
Or maybe it will show AFSCME that they’re better off striking. Just kidding.
CTU has more support in Chicago than AFSCME has statewide, hence CTU’s greater interest in striking.
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Apr 20, 16 @ 2:44 pm
http://www.illinois.gov/ilrb/arbitration/Pages/default.aspx has the results of arbitration hearings for police and fireman’s unions verses public bodies. Its pretty split as to the union winning arbitration or the county/municipality. It should also be noted that in the same hearing, the arbitrators can rule some proposals for the union and some for the municipality/county. Its not all or nothing with either side winning on all points.
Comment by Joe M Wednesday, Apr 20, 16 @ 3:13 pm
That arbitration exists because the IPLRA precludes strikes by police and firefighters. No such thing in the IEPLRA.
Comment by jack28 Wednesday, Apr 20, 16 @ 3:40 pm
Regardless of the merits of the CPS offer, the overwhelming public support for CTU compared to the mayor makes it highly unlikely that the CTU will throw in their cards.
It was wise positioning on Claypool’s part.
But a negotiated agreement seems like the only way out.
Comment by Juvenal Wednesday, Apr 20, 16 @ 6:02 pm