Re: Charter schools and union busting

[Cbgord@aol.com]

Though I have no direct experience with charters, George's list of reasons  
why most charters aren't unionized rings true to the realities of new small  
(non-charter) schools in Oakland. Even though all of the teachers in these  
schools are within the bargaining unit represented by our union, Oakland  
Education Association (OEA), the teachers in these schools tend to be much less  
involved in the union in, even less conscious of its existence. And I'd say  nearly 
all of the reasons George gives for why charters remain nonunion apply in  
these cases, too. 
 
In addition to the proliferation of new small (non-charter) schools within  
the district, Oakland has more charters per capita than any other urban 
district  in Calfornia (close to 30 now). It also has several "internal charters" the 
 district started up under the auspices of a nonprofit (Education for Change) 
it  set up and runs with one of its "former" administrators! 
 
The latest very dangerous development comes with our recently approved,  
concession-filled contract between OEA and the state-controlled district. The  new 
contract paves the way to what some of us call "back door charters." The  
district can now form new schools waiving a wide range of contract provisions,  
and the union's ability to stop such waivers is marginal at best. Prior to this 
 latest concession, school site faculties already had the ability to 
initiate,  vote upon, and obtain contract waivers for sustainable site-based reforms. 
This  concession imposing waivers upon new school staffs within the bargaining 
unit  seems to parallel the trend of unions organizing charters, bringing new 
members  in, but granting significant contract waivers. 
 
Craig Gordon
 
 
 
 
In a message dated 5/23/2006 11:58:36 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
learn@jps.net writes:

At 04:02  AM 5/23/2006 -0400, George Schmidt wrote:
>5/23/06
>
>Does  anyone here know why charter school staffs aren't unionized?

Some are,  most aren't.

Some possible reasons that may explain some of the  cases:

It's easier to organize one large employer than many small  ones.

Some local unions have not had the experience in many years of  organizing a 
new group of workers, as opposed to just signing up new  members in an 
already established unit.

Some charter school  operators (entrepreneurial types) do everything they 
can to thwart union  organizing.

Labor law today favors employers who resist organizing  attempts. Legal 
provisions that protect employee rights to organize are  not enforced in a 
timely manner, which means that organizing attempts are  broken long before 
judgments are handed down.

Some charters are  small. Idealistic teachers believe they have no need for 
a union. In some  cases they believe they are in control of the charter.

Some teachers  make such strong emotional and ideological investments in 
charters that,  like true believers in any cause, their commitments distort 
their ability  to make objective judgments regarding the charters, even when 
it concerns  their own self-interest.

Many charters are relatively new. Teachers are  so used to putting up with 
things that it will take a few years before  they decide conditions in some 
of these charters are  unacceptable.

In some charters, turnover is so very high that teachers  don't stick around 
long enough to complete an organizing  drive.



George Sheridan

Rita Mae Brown wrote, "The reward  for conformity was that everyone liked 
you except  yourself."