Administrators Union Protecting Bad Bosses or Just Business as Usual?

While the teachers unions have been quick to jump on the evaluation reform bandwagon in hopes of appearing “reasonable” and “professional,” the real movers and shakers behind the Eval Reform movement are primarily interested in making it easier to fire bad teachers.  Their presumption (at least the one conveyed to the press) is that there are a lot of bad teachers out there—how else to explain the deplorable state of public education in America. Never mind that graduation rates are higher than they were in the 40s or 50s and the number of kids from all ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds taking and passing AP and SAT exams is higher than ever.

Yet where in all this hysteria about rotten schools and our duty to the poor, innocent children is the scrutiny of the administrators, the ones who are ultimately responsible for all that occurs in their schools?

In Los Angeles Unified (LAUSD), Superintendent Deasy fired the entire teaching staff at Miramonte Elementary in response to sexual abuse allegations against two teachers, in a PR game intended to trick the public into thinking he and his under-administrators were doing a good job when, in reality, LAUSD ignored many prior allegations against one of the teachers and lost personnel files on him.

Now, in an unrelated case, LAUSD will have to pay $1.4 million to a fourth-grade special needs student who was repeatedly sexually assaulted by a male classmate. The incidents occurred at an after school program where LAUSD failed to provide adequate supervision. There was only one staffer supervising up to 100 students at a time. Consequently, the boy was able to take the 9-year-old to various secluded locations on campus away and sexually abuse her. The girl’s attorney said the district “minimized her harm throughout the trial,” according to the Los Angeles Times, and the “jury found that offensive.”

But hey, $1.4 million is chump change, right? No administrators will be punished. Business as usual will continue. And everyone can go back to presuming the classrooms are filled with pervy teachers protected by selfish unions.

Greece Outlaws Teachers Strike

The Greek government has outlawed a teachers strike set to begin on May 17. The government signed a civil mobilization order banning the strike, something that previously had only been used in times of national emergencies, according the WSWS. This is the first time the tactic has been used preemptively before a strike has even started. Workers who violate the order are subject to being fired, arrested and jailed.

Since the imposition of austerity in 2008, the Greek government has relied on such heavy handed tactics to crush any opposition and keep the public in line. Civil mobilization orders, with the support of riot police, were used to violently suppress strikes by subway, rail and tram workers earlier this year. The teachers’ strike ban follows the Greek government’s latest deal with the European Commission, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and European Central Bank, attacking teachers’ pay and benefits, and working conditions (including the demand they work an extra two hours per week without pay). 10,000 teachers also face being laid off, according to the WSWS.

So far, no civil mobilization order has been defied by the unions, thus encouraging the government to continue making anti-worker deals with the IMF and European Central Bank. However, thousands of people did demonstrate against the civil mobilization on Monday and teachers voted this week whether to defy the mobilization orders and strike. Preliminary results indicate that the majority of teachers do indeed wish to strike, despite the threat of being fired and sent to prison for 5 years. However, according to the WSWS, the public service trade union federation (ADEDY) will not support the teachers and has undermined attempts by its members to protest the mobilization order.

Looked at in isolation, the strike ban in Greece seems like an autocratic attack on democratic rights, which it is. However, similar events are taking place throughout Europe and elsewhere, indicating a concerted effort by governments to extract concessions and givebacks on behalf of an employing class that wants everyone but themselves to pay for their economic crisis. In Denmark, for example, 70,000 teachers were recently locked out for resisting attacks on their working conditions, while teachers in Mexico and public sector workers in Turkey have been accused of terrorism and imprisoned for similar resistance. In the U.S. teachers strikes are banned in many states, while Michigan Governor Rick Snyder has used the state to take over several school districts and impose dictatorial financial managers with the power to remove unions and fire elected officials.

Looming Strike for Teachers in Ramona, CA

Teachers in the Ramona school district in San Diego County have overwhelmingly voted to authorize a strike. CTA officials say that 99% of the teachers participated in the vote, with 75% voting in favor of a strike. The vote does not mean that a strike will necessarily happen, though. Rather, it is a legal requirement before teachers can actually walk off the job, something their union may ask of them in the near future if negotiations with their district fail.

Negotiations are currently stalled, according to the Ramona Patch, in the wake of recent school board decisions to slash teacher pay by 7.8% this year and 9.4% next year. Donna Braye-Romero, president of the Ramona Teachers Association, said “We don’t want to strike. We’ve never wanted to strike. The district is forcing the situation.”

Of course the district is not actually forcing the teachers to strike—they could just shut up and take it. After all, Superintendent Robert Graeff is saying there isn’t enough money and the county Office of Education won’t approve a budget that is in the red. So from their perspective it is perfectly reasonable to “trim the fat” to balance their budget, a claim that is routinely made by bosses in all industries during tough times to justify layoffs and pay cuts. Indeed, this argument is so “reasonable” that the union itself has accepted it, and even conceded pay cuts for the first year of the new contract. Rather than demanding raises, or least maintaining current salaries, with the money coming from the district’s reserves or from slashed administrators’ salaries, the union is merely asking for “restitution” language in the new contract, according to the Voice of San Diego, so that if more money comes in in the future, the extra would go into teachers’ salaries.

California Teachers Association spokesman Bill Guy believes that the Ramona district is intent on breaking the union. This is very likely true. However, that is not a good reason for accepting the bosses’ claims of poverty at face value or for conceding a significant pay cut, something that may very well weaken the union by driving some teachers out of the district. Requesting “restitution” language is itself a significant concession and contributes to the weakening of the union by showing teachers just how weak and conciliatory their union really is.

On the other hand, if the district does not moderate its aggressive stance (17.2% pay cut over the next two years) teachers will almost certainly walk off the job. The struggle would then be the union’s to “win” or lose. If they do walk out, the union will likely end the strike if the district withdraws its demand for a second year of pay cuts, probably even without the “restitution” language. The union will call it a victory, but the teachers will be working for significantly less money than they were before, with little hope of ever making up what they lost.

Supreme Court, Labor Law and the Deskilling of Teaching

The strike is labor's most powerful weapon. It is the most direct and forceful way to pressure employers to cede to workers’ demands. Strikes have become increasingly rare over the past few decades, mostly because of unions’ increasingly dependence on political action (e.g., lobbying, voting as a block, financing campaigns). However, there have been several laws and Supreme Court decisions that have limited when and how strikes could be undertaken or that increased the risks to workers.

In 1938, the Supreme Court ruled in NLRB v. Mackay Radio (NLRB is the National Labor Relations Board) that employers had the legal right to permanently “replace” striking workers. According to a recent piece in Truth Out, there was nothing in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1934 (nor any other law) that gave employers this right. Rather, the court just figured that it was a right of bosses to can their workers when they were troublesome.

In reality, the NLRA was written to reduce labor unrest and aid employers in their quest for profits by limiting when and how strikes could occur and providing legal recourse for employers when they created too much disruption to profits. The Supreme Court merely interpreted the law in way that was consistent with that of the ruling class and that was favorable to their businesses.

Regardless of the rationale, this right of employers severely restricts workers’ right to strike under NLRA. The threat of being permanently replaced makes striking a very risky endeavor, particularly for the majority of workers who depend on their income to support their families and themselves. This threat is often sufficient to make workers think twice and choose not to strike in the first place.

However, the threat of replacing workers is only credible when two conditions can be met: replacement workers must be available and ready to work and the striking workers are not able or willing to stop them. The latter condition has typically been met through the use of force. The first condition occurs automatically for so-called unskilled work during times of high unemployment. Pretty much anyone can work a cash register, so firing all cashiers at a grocery chain is not a big risk for employers. In contrast, for “skilled” workers, like teachers, the threat is much less credible. So long as teachers are required to have a valid credential, which requires a bachelor’s degree, plus a year or two of professional training, school districts cannot permanently replace striking teachers and still keep the schools operating.

The employing class is working on a solution to this dilemma (despite the fact that teachers, like most workers, have become increasingly reluctant to strike). By deskilling the teaching profession, free market education reformers are reducing the need for highly trained, credentialed teachers. For example, pretty much anyone can proctor a standardized test or monitor a room full of children seated at computers engaged in online curriculum or distance learning. The more schools utilize such methods, the easier it becomes to replace relatively well paid, unionized professionals with low paid, non-unionized workers.

Terrorist Teachers Threatened in Mexico

The U.S. may have initiated the absurd propagandistic ploy of equating teachers with terrorists back when Bush’s Education Secretary, Reid Lyon, called the National Educators Association a terrorist organization. However, the Mexican state has taken it a step further, issuing arrest orders against Minervino Morán and Gonzalo Juárez, leaders of the Guerrero Teachers Union (Coordinadora Estatal de Trabajadores de la Educación en Guerrero, CETEG).

The arrest order was issued by Angel Aguirre Rivero, governor of the state of Guerrero, charging the two as instigators of the uprising of teachers who are opposing President Enrique Peña Nieto’s free market reform agenda. Aguirre has accused the two of being “vandals” and “delinquents,” and, more alarmingly, with being connected to the ERPI guerrilla movement, according to the WSWS.

The strike began in February as a protest against Nieto’s free market education reforms, including privatization of public schools, teacher evaluations based on student test scores and a restricting of union rights. In March, the Guerrero government seemed to have conceded to the teachers, signing an agreement with the CETEG that would have preserved free public education and “democratic” teacher evaluations, as well as agreeing to pay back wages lost during the strike.

When the government appeared to be going back on their word, the teachers resumed their protests. Joined by members of the union of public employees (Sindicato Único de Trabajadores Públicos, SUSPEG) and the United Front of Teaching Schools (Frente Único de Escuelas Normales, FUNPEG), the teachers blocked the highway connecting Acapulco with México City in early April. The subsequent police assault resulted in five arrests and three injured teachers.

The strikes shut down numerous schools—20%, according to the Aguirre administration, which threatened to replace teachers with scabs if they did not return immediately to work. On April   10,   legislators met to discuss changes to the Guerrero Education Code. On April 24, according to the WSWS, the legislature rejected union demands, including its demand to be part of the teacher evaluation process. However, the legislature did agree to abolish student fees and keep public education free in Guerrero.

Meanwhile, at the same time legislators were meeting to discuss the changes, vandals attacked the headquarters of all the major parties in the city of Chilpancingo, according to the WSWS, while the police sat idly and did nothing, suggesting that the vandals may have been agents provocateur and not teachers or unionists, though CETEG President Moran suggested that militant factions of his union were involved. The Mexico City weekly Proceso magazine, reported that the vandals also attacked and insulted female reporters.

Regardless of whether the CETEG was behind the vandalism or the assaults, the union is clearly more militant than its counterparts in the U.S., as their highway blockade indicates. However, one should not confuse this militancy with any fundamental philosophical or strategic differences. The union leaders’ primary goals are to maintain their “seat at the table” with the legislators and their elevated status and pay as union bosses. They are not interested in any sort of radical reforms of the Mexican education system. For example, their demand for “democratic evaluations” is merely a call for CETEG to be a “partner” with the Aguirre administration, a vague plea that leaves open the use of student test scores and other arbitrary and unreliable metrics that could be used to punish or fire teachers vindictively, in response to their advocacy or union activities, or in order to cull higher paid veterans.

Likewise, the protests against the privatization of the Mexican education system, like those by their counterparts in the U.S. and elsewhere, never call into question the primary role of public education as a subsidy to the employers which provides them a sufficiently educated and obedient workforce and ample consumers for their goods and services. Whether or not the schools are privatized, the students are still treated as commodities and the teachers are still exploited workers. The main difference is that privatization weakens the size and power of the large national teachers unions and the job security of their leaders.