Re: [arn-l] Charter schools and union busting

[Susan Harman <susanharman@igc.org>]

George—
I can tell you why my once-was charter wasnt unionized. I think we ran 
a very democratic school, in which teachers didnt feel the need to 
unionize to fight for their rights. We paid decent salaries 
(arbitrarily based on Oaklands scale, which, of course, was won by the 
OEA), and had good benefits. Working conditions were pleasant.
We did talk about organizing in the beginning, but nobody was very 
interested. And the union president and I would joke from time to time 
about him coming to sign us up. It was always OK with me, but it never 
happened.
Also, Oaklands charters are all small, and may not be worth OEAs time 
to organize. And I believe some of the directors would be actively 
hostile to any attempts.
As for the "internal" charters, teachers were told they had to sign 
away their right to join when they signed a contract. Not sure how they 
got away with that. The two current internal charters (with many more 
to come) are almost entirely very young teachers, who may not know they 
have rights.
Susan

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Peter Farruggio <pfarr@cal.berkeley.edu>
> Date: Fri Jun 2, 2006  10:36:51 AM US/Pacific
> To: arn-l@interversity.org
> Cc: ca-resisters@interversity.org
> Subject: Re: [ca-resisters] [arn-l] Charter schools and union busting
> Reply-To: ca-resisters@interversity.org
>
> I'll add this to the equation.  From my experience in the San 
> Francisco Bay Area, the trend is that these charters and small schools 
> are seen as laboratories for change, and attract idealistic young 
> people who see teaching in "savage inequalities" communities as a way 
> to practice social reform.  They largely buy into the propaganda about 
> career urban teachers being losers and mercenaries, in some cases 
> because they have worked as teachers in the large, overcrowded, 
> dilapidated urban schools for a few years alongside some colleagues 
> who are horrible, uncaring teachers.  In devastated school districts 
> like Oakland, these horrible teachers are a small minority, but 
> nevertheless a notable presence that reflects chronic underfunding, 
> bureaucratic mistreatment of good teachers, and low salaries/lousy 
> benefits.  These young idealists mostly come from suburban middle 
> class backgrounds, and have no experience with labor unions, and buy 
> in to the propaganda that "the union" is primarily the refuge of 
> scoundrels, these horrible teachers who soak up much of the union's 
> resources in protecting their jobs.
>
> I predict that few of these young idealists will stick around in our 
> low income communities for more than 2-3 years, because it will take 
> them that long to realize that the corporate standardista strategy is 
> to standardize their "laboratories" by stamping out any forms of 
> progressive pedagogy (if such even exists at their small schools) and 
> militarizing the instruction.  Yes, I believe that the smallness of 
> the schools does bring greater potential for building a community 
> atmosphere and relating to the students as human beings.  This 
> improved school climate, especially in contrast to the prison-like big 
> secondary schools, makes for a pleasant work atmosphere; but the charm 
> wears off as the idealists see that they are expected (ordered) to 
> deliver a test-prep curriculum and that the illusion of democratic 
> decision-making is just an illusion.  I taught an intern who had gone 
> through this experience in the infamous Edison charter school in San 
> Francisco (since closed down) over a two year period, and who quit in 
> disgust after trying to unionize.  I had other interns who were going 
> through something similar as they taught in the newly opened military 
> charter school in Oakland, and I witnessed the one-step bureaucratic 
> takeover of the small schools in Oakland last year by the 
> state-appointed dictator, wherein the original idea of encouraging the 
> creation of  unique, grass roots  new schools by teams of 
> reform-minded educators/parents/community organizations was quashed by 
> the imposition of mandated curriculum (Open Court, etc) and 
> one-size-fits-all formulae.
>
> The small schools in Oakland are part of the union-shop contract, and 
> thus the young idealists benefit from the union-negotiated salary and 
> benefits (such as they are) and the due process job protections, but 
> for most of them these things are not important because they don't yet 
> have dependents to support and they don't see teaching as their 
> long-term career.  As the bureaucratization of their small schools 
> becomes apparent to them, we'll see how their consciousness forms.  
> Will they stay in our working class communities and fight to make the 
> union an instrument for social change, or will they just go away?
>
> Pete Farruggio
>
>
>
>
> At 09:39 AM 6/2/2006, you wrote:
>
> 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."
>
>