This could be a busier than usual election year for labor if the mega sales tax and other issues, good and bad, get enough signatures to get on the ballot.
Petitioners begin hitting streets for signatures
By RUDI KELLER
Columbia Tribune
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Over the coming months, at street fairs and in shopping districts, Missourians will be approached by people with clipboards asking them for their signatures on initiative petitions.
ACTIVE INITIATIVES
Ideas embodied in those proposals include higher tobacco taxes, repealing personal property taxes and eliminating the state income tax. There are initiatives to limit campaign contributions, reduce the size of the Missouri House of Representatives and to allow early voting.
In all, 34 petitions have been certified for circulation by the Secretary of State, with more in the pipeline. It takes 92,000 to 100,000 signatures to put a statutory change on the ballot and 147,000 to 159,000 signatures to put a constitutional change before voters. The ranges are based on where in the state signatures are collected.
Two proposals would make it far more difficult for lawmakers to alter laws passed by initiative. Under the proposal, lawmakers would have to muster a three-fourths majority to do so. The petition drive on that issue was sparked by actions this year to rewrite voter-approved laws on dog breeding, renewable energy, the minimum wage and nuclear power plant construction.
Freshman Rep. Scott Sifton, D-St. Louis, a spokesman for “Your Vote Counts,” said he conceived the idea soon after taking office. “I was only in Jefferson City a few weeks, and I was beginning to wonder if we were going to do something other than overturn what voters decided.”
Under the proposal, the supermajority rule would apply forever and even technical changes to smooth implementation would be subject to the requirement. Non-controversial technical changes should have no trouble meeting the threshold, Sifton said. The aim, he said, is to prevent attempts to weaken or repeal laws proposed and approved by voters.
“When millions of Missourians weigh in on an issue they are entitled to substantial deference,” Sifton said. “This is a standard that requires bipartisanship and cooperation from legislators from all regions of the state.”
But the high standard and open-ended nature of the requirement has put off at least one group that has fought battles with lawmakers.
Missouri Jobs with Justice, which pushed the successful 2006 initiative to increase the state minimum wage, is awaiting certification of its proposal to increase it again, this time to $8.25 an hour. The group has fought attempts to take away the cost-of-living inflation adjustment included in the 2006 measure.
“They have attempted to change this every year and voters have spoken out, and they have not succeeded,” said Lara Granich, the group’s executive director.
But right after it passed, supporters and opponents agreed a change was needed — the overtime rules in the measure had an unintended impact on how hours are counted for firefighters. “That is a good example of the common-sense things that would be hard to do if that passed,” she said.
A similar result was achieved this year when Gov. Jay Nixon stepped into the fight over dog breeder rules. With those seeking an outright repeal on one side and those wanting no change on the other, Nixon negotiated a compromise acceptable to almost all the groups involved. The Humane Society of the United States, which had funded the initiative, was one of the groups not pleased with the deal, and it has put $146,000 in the Your Vote Counts campaign.
Granich said her group will stay out of the Your Vote Counts effort even as it gears up for another fight over the inflation adjustment. The Missouri Department of Labor and Industrial Relations recently announced that, because of 4.2 percent inflation in the past year, the state minimum wage beginning Jan. 1 would be $7.25 an hour.
The federal minimum has been $7.25 an hour since July 2009, so the lowest-paid workers in the state will not receive a raise. But because the state and federal wages are now equal, business groups will be pushing lawmakers again to repeal the adjustment before rising prices push the minimum wage above the federal standard.
The latest adjustment “underlines the need to break Missouri’s minimum wage away from the automatic escalator to which it is currently tied,” Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry President Dan Mehan said in a news release. “It causes uncertainty and positions Missouri to eventually raise its minimum wage to uncompetitive levels.”
Mehan said the chamber would fight the new minimum wage initiative as well.
Reach Rudi Keller at 573-815-1709 or e-mail rkeller@columbiatribune.com.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Groups discuss effects of cuts to social services
By RUDI KELLER
Columbia Tribune
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Office consolidation and payroll cuts in the Missouri Department of Social Services are hurting families and communities, a coalition of union and advocacy groups was told yesterday during a statewide video conference.
Organized by Missouri Jobs with Justice, the Missouri State Workers Union and Missouri Interfaith Impact, the video conference discussed the impact of changes in the Family Support Division. The conference originated on the University of Missouri campus and was linked via the Internet to groups in Springfield, Kansas City, St. Louis and Kirksville.
“We wanted to give the clients and workers affected by the changes a voice about the impact on them and how services are provided,” said Kelly Anthony of Missouri Jobs with Justice. “We are about to go into another legislative session. It is important to highlight what happens to counties when these people leave.”
The Family Support Division takes applications for food stamps, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families and other welfare programs. Although state law requires the department to maintain an office in every county, the department has responded to budget cuts by leaving a single employee in many counties and consolidating work in regional locations. That happened in Central Missouri earlier this year when Audrain County caseworkers were moved to the Columbia office.
When the change was announced in July, social services Director Ron Levy said it would make the department stronger. “As a state agency, we are always looking for ways to improve operations while providing the tools needed to strengthen Missouri families,” he said in a news release issued when the change was made. “By being more efficient in the work we do behind the scenes, we can improve those frontline services that impact families.”
But Lacy Proctor of Centralia, a caseworker who was moved, said the overwhelming burden of work — the average caseload is 750, she said — and other inconveniences have hurt morale and made efforts to bring people out of poverty less effective.
“I feel a loss of purpose,” said Proctor, who credited quality casework when she was pregnant with helping her stay in school and obtain the degree that helped her get her job. “You feel like you are destined to fail every single day when you walk in the door.”
The groups participating are being asked to endorse a series of recommendations that would stop the consolidations, add workers to bring the average caseload down to 300 and increase state revenue to provide more funding for social services. Action on caseloads would require 441 new workers statewide at a cost of $12 million annually.
Consolidation can hurt small communities that relied on the handful of jobs at the county welfare office, said Dave Strickler, Mayor of Edina, the county seat in Knox County. Edina has a population of 1,100, and there were seven jobs at the social services office before consolidation, he said.
The jobs moved to Kirksville, 25 miles away. Coupled with cuts by the Missouri Department of Transportation and the U.S. Postal Service, it means harder work to fight the decline of small cities, he said.
“I thought I could count on our government to be here for our community,” he said. “People still live in Edina, and we still need our government.”
Reach Rudi Keller at 573-815-1709 or e-mail rkeller@columbiatribune.com.
By RUDI KELLER
Columbia Tribune
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Office consolidation and payroll cuts in the Missouri Department of Social Services are hurting families and communities, a coalition of union and advocacy groups was told yesterday during a statewide video conference.
Organized by Missouri Jobs with Justice, the Missouri State Workers Union and Missouri Interfaith Impact, the video conference discussed the impact of changes in the Family Support Division. The conference originated on the University of Missouri campus and was linked via the Internet to groups in Springfield, Kansas City, St. Louis and Kirksville.
“We wanted to give the clients and workers affected by the changes a voice about the impact on them and how services are provided,” said Kelly Anthony of Missouri Jobs with Justice. “We are about to go into another legislative session. It is important to highlight what happens to counties when these people leave.”
The Family Support Division takes applications for food stamps, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families and other welfare programs. Although state law requires the department to maintain an office in every county, the department has responded to budget cuts by leaving a single employee in many counties and consolidating work in regional locations. That happened in Central Missouri earlier this year when Audrain County caseworkers were moved to the Columbia office.
When the change was announced in July, social services Director Ron Levy said it would make the department stronger. “As a state agency, we are always looking for ways to improve operations while providing the tools needed to strengthen Missouri families,” he said in a news release issued when the change was made. “By being more efficient in the work we do behind the scenes, we can improve those frontline services that impact families.”
But Lacy Proctor of Centralia, a caseworker who was moved, said the overwhelming burden of work — the average caseload is 750, she said — and other inconveniences have hurt morale and made efforts to bring people out of poverty less effective.
“I feel a loss of purpose,” said Proctor, who credited quality casework when she was pregnant with helping her stay in school and obtain the degree that helped her get her job. “You feel like you are destined to fail every single day when you walk in the door.”
The groups participating are being asked to endorse a series of recommendations that would stop the consolidations, add workers to bring the average caseload down to 300 and increase state revenue to provide more funding for social services. Action on caseloads would require 441 new workers statewide at a cost of $12 million annually.
Consolidation can hurt small communities that relied on the handful of jobs at the county welfare office, said Dave Strickler, Mayor of Edina, the county seat in Knox County. Edina has a population of 1,100, and there were seven jobs at the social services office before consolidation, he said.
The jobs moved to Kirksville, 25 miles away. Coupled with cuts by the Missouri Department of Transportation and the U.S. Postal Service, it means harder work to fight the decline of small cities, he said.
“I thought I could count on our government to be here for our community,” he said. “People still live in Edina, and we still need our government.”
Reach Rudi Keller at 573-815-1709 or e-mail rkeller@columbiatribune.com.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Hearing on the Human and Economic Impacts of Downsizing and Consolidation within the Missouri Department of Social Services
WHEN: Saturday, October 29th, 10:00 a.m. -2:00 p.m.
WHERE: University of Missouri, Lafferre Hall, Room W0015
The Missouri Jobs with Justice Public Good Project, the St Louis Workers' Rights Board (WRB), Missouri Interfaith IMPACT and CWA 6355 are organizing an investigative hearing on the substantial downsizing of Department of Social Service offices across the state, shining light on the broad impact on rural and urban populations in Missouri. Many counties have already experienced the "downsizing," limiting opportunities for families and children in those counties to apply for and/or receive critical social services. This hearing will illuminate the problems caused by downsizing in local communities, the strain it will put on other parts of Missouri’s safety net and its providers. Testimony will also provide alternative solutions and recommendations from front-line workers in the Family Support Division and the Children’s Division, impacted civic leaders, and concerned community members. A panel of statewide leaders, including those from the faith community, social service provider networks, and Missouri’s farming community will hear testimony and issue a report with final recommendations to follow.
The conveners of this hearing believe that the role of public workers and the public sector are as protectors of their neighbors in times of crisis, and as promoters of economic opportunity and self-determination within their own communities. Closing state office buildings in Missouri counties will harm the members of the community, as well as negatively impact the economic sustainability of these local communities. Members of these communities who rely on critical and often immediately-needed services will face significant obstacles to access, and it puts Missouri’s citizens at risk.
Do you have a story to tell about a time when you needed the social safety net? To share your experience, please email Kelly Anthony at Kelly@mojwj.org
To find out more about this hearing, please contact Kelly Anthony at HYPERLINK "mailto:Kelly@mojwj.org" Kelly@mojwj.org or 314-644-0466.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Police officers union backs fired cop who wants his dog back
Columbia Tribune
The Columbia Police Officers Association is supporting fired Officer Rob Sanders in his quest to purchase his police dog, Fano, from the city.
Citing a passionate response by many police officers, the Columbia Police Officers Association has thrown its support behind a fired cop who wants to purchase his canine partner from the city.
The association is requesting the 3-year-old dog, Fano, be released from city ownership to former Officer Rob Sanders, who was fired for shoving a man in a holding cell in August. Sanders’ supporters tried to drum up support to get the city to either give or sell the dog to Sanders.
The Columbia City Council has requested a report detailing the dog’s worth and the potential liabilities of selling the animal. The police department at one time told Sanders it would sell him the dog for $10,800. Sanders came up with the money through public donations, but the offer was rescinded by Chief Ken Burton when he learned about potential liabilities.
“Some are very passionate about the issue,” union Executive Director Ashley Cuttle said. “Some just wanted” the union “to step up and do what they thought is right.”
In the union’s letter to the council, Mayor Bob McDavid and City Manager Mike Matthes, Cuttle details an estimated $2,700 in kennel fees to house the dog until a new handler can be trained. She also estimates the dog’s worth to be as much as $6,500 and current medical issues that include two missing teeth.
The letter tackles the city’s presumed liability issues by noting a Missouri statute that addresses dog bites without provocation and owner liability for damages. Cuttle said the statute places liability on the owner. City Attorney Fred Boeckmann previously said he could foresee a situation in which others could allege the city knew the dog to be vicious and threatening if it ever bit someone.
Cuttle and Sanders’ supporters will be present for Monday’s city council meeting, where council members could decide the matter.
Occupy STL Protestors Ready To Hit The Streets, With Unions By Their Side
KMOX Radio
October 14, 2011 6:53 AM
ST. LOUIS (KMOX) - Those “Occupy St. Louis” protestors who’ve called Kiener Plaza home the last several weeks get a big boost later today.
They’ll also be on the move.
Hundreds of local union members are reportedly ready to march side-by-side with the “Occupyers” this afternoon.
What message does group spokesman Derek Wetherell hope observers take away?
“The corporate sponsorship, pretty much, of votes and politician’s voting decisions,” Wetherell tells KMOX News. “I feel like they don’t always necessarily vote in favor of the people they’re representing.”
As for outside claims that the local Occupy movement looks somewhat disorganized, Wetherell admits each Kiener Plaza protestor has their own reason for being there, but the larger cause of stopping corporate greed unites them all.
Protestors plan to march on several downtown banks and then on to the Arch Grounds beginning at 3:30 Friday afternoon.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
KOMU: School Board Sends Version Back to Committee
Click on the title of this post to see KOMU's take on the CPS board sending their collective bargaining policy back to the Policy Committee.
School board delays collective bargaining decision
Columbia Tribune
By CATHERINE MARTIN
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
After months of discussion and disagreement from teacher groups over the direction of a collective bargaining policy, the Columbia Board of Education decided last night to hold off on a decision and instead create a more customized policy.
No district policy is in place for collective bargaining. But in 2007, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that public employees, including teachers and educational support staff, have a constitutional right to collective bargaining, a negotiation process used to reach agreements on work conditions, benefits and other issues.
The school district’s policy committee began seriously discussing a policy in the spring with a plan to vote on it in the fall. Superintendent Chris Belcher recommended a policy from the Missouri School Boards’ Association that called for exclusive representation, deeming it the safest route legally. When the policy came up for discussion at last night’s meeting, board member Jonathan Sessions made a motion to send the proposal back to the policy committee for discussion.
“The reason I’m making this motion is purely because I think we have a lot of confusion. … The board received an email just today from someone who truly didn’t understand what’s going on. That’s just one concern,” Sessions said. “The other concern is that we can do better than this. We can have a custom policy that is for Columbia rather than just taking one of two options off the shelf.”
Board member Michelle Pruitt quickly seconded Sessions’ motion.
“I think it’s just an example of the fact that … this is a process,” Pruitt said. “I think it’s very good to look carefully at the process. It’s something that’s being done externally to the district that we have to react to, but we need to make sure our process is the best one for our district.”
The board voted 6-1 to table the motion, with board President Tom Rose opposing. Before the vote, Belcher asked permission to employ outside legal counsel to help the district craft its own policy.
The presidents of Columbia’s two teacher organizations said the decision wasn’t a surprise. Columbia Missouri State Teachers Association President Kari Schuster, whose organization opposed the exclusive-representation policy Belcher recommended, said she and CMSTA were pleased with the decision to discuss the issue more.
“I hope they will take input from both teacher organizations and will get an outside legal source to look to for advice,” Schuster said. “I think there’s been a lot of confusion … and this gives them time to go back and educate the masses.”
CMSTA still opposes a policy involving a binding contract with one agency, which would be “harmful to the district in many ways,” Schuster said, but hopes the policy committee will find a compromise.
The Columbia Missouri National Education Association also is willing to compromise, President Susan McClintic said, but would have preferred the board approve Belcher’s recommended policy. CMNEA has been asking the district to adopt an exclusive-representation policy for years, McClintic said.
“It’s not choosing any group, it’s not choosing a right, it’s not choosing anything except to create a process,” she said.
CMNEA wouldn’t support any policy that allows bargaining with multiple representatives, McClintic said, because it is “unconstitutional.”
The district’s policy committee will meet at 4:30 p.m. Oct. 31 at the board office, 1818 W. Worley St.
The board also approved a new technology plan, art and music curriculum and a modified bullying policy.
Reach Catherine Martin at 573-815-1711 or e-mail cmartin@columbiatribune.com.
By CATHERINE MARTIN
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
After months of discussion and disagreement from teacher groups over the direction of a collective bargaining policy, the Columbia Board of Education decided last night to hold off on a decision and instead create a more customized policy.
No district policy is in place for collective bargaining. But in 2007, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that public employees, including teachers and educational support staff, have a constitutional right to collective bargaining, a negotiation process used to reach agreements on work conditions, benefits and other issues.
The school district’s policy committee began seriously discussing a policy in the spring with a plan to vote on it in the fall. Superintendent Chris Belcher recommended a policy from the Missouri School Boards’ Association that called for exclusive representation, deeming it the safest route legally. When the policy came up for discussion at last night’s meeting, board member Jonathan Sessions made a motion to send the proposal back to the policy committee for discussion.
“The reason I’m making this motion is purely because I think we have a lot of confusion. … The board received an email just today from someone who truly didn’t understand what’s going on. That’s just one concern,” Sessions said. “The other concern is that we can do better than this. We can have a custom policy that is for Columbia rather than just taking one of two options off the shelf.”
Board member Michelle Pruitt quickly seconded Sessions’ motion.
“I think it’s just an example of the fact that … this is a process,” Pruitt said. “I think it’s very good to look carefully at the process. It’s something that’s being done externally to the district that we have to react to, but we need to make sure our process is the best one for our district.”
The board voted 6-1 to table the motion, with board President Tom Rose opposing. Before the vote, Belcher asked permission to employ outside legal counsel to help the district craft its own policy.
The presidents of Columbia’s two teacher organizations said the decision wasn’t a surprise. Columbia Missouri State Teachers Association President Kari Schuster, whose organization opposed the exclusive-representation policy Belcher recommended, said she and CMSTA were pleased with the decision to discuss the issue more.
“I hope they will take input from both teacher organizations and will get an outside legal source to look to for advice,” Schuster said. “I think there’s been a lot of confusion … and this gives them time to go back and educate the masses.”
CMSTA still opposes a policy involving a binding contract with one agency, which would be “harmful to the district in many ways,” Schuster said, but hopes the policy committee will find a compromise.
The Columbia Missouri National Education Association also is willing to compromise, President Susan McClintic said, but would have preferred the board approve Belcher’s recommended policy. CMNEA has been asking the district to adopt an exclusive-representation policy for years, McClintic said.
“It’s not choosing any group, it’s not choosing a right, it’s not choosing anything except to create a process,” she said.
CMNEA wouldn’t support any policy that allows bargaining with multiple representatives, McClintic said, because it is “unconstitutional.”
The district’s policy committee will meet at 4:30 p.m. Oct. 31 at the board office, 1818 W. Worley St.
The board also approved a new technology plan, art and music curriculum and a modified bullying policy.
Reach Catherine Martin at 573-815-1711 or e-mail cmartin@columbiatribune.com.
School board sends collective bargaining options back to committee
It's back to committee for a collective bargaining election policy in the Columbia Public Schools. It is frustrating that some board members don't understand that they must honor the constitutional rights of teachers. The reporter got the details of the HH and HA policies wrong below, but that doesn't really matter. The bottom line is teachers deserve their constitutional right to choose their exclusive representative. We need to keep telling our school board members that simple truth.
Monday, October 10, 2011 | 11:24 p.m. CDT; updated 9:00 a.m. CDT, Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Columbia Missourian
BY GARRETT EVANS, JAMES AYELLO
COLUMBIA — Columbia School Board members decided by a vote of 6-1 to send two collective bargaining options back to the board's policy committee for further consideration.
The Missouri School Board Association has created multiple policies that state school districts can choose from in order to negotiate with their employees. These policies are guidelines to help districts create an effective collective bargaining process.
The first policy, called HH, would allow either for an exclusive representative, such as a teachers association, to collectively bargain with administrators, or it would let multiple representatives collectively bargain with those administrators.
The second policy, HA, provides legal ground rules for districts to negotiate with employee associations. This policy outlines election rules for employee groups and recognizes which groups are allowed to collectively bargain.
Board member Jonathan Sessions made the motion to send both policies back to the policy committee for review.
"My reasoning for making this motion is purely that I think we have a lot of confusion, and the board received an email today from someone that truly did not understand what was going on," he said. "We can do this better."
Sessions said Columbia could have a custom policy, rather than one of the two sample options that covers 520 of the state's districts.
Board member Michelle Pruitt agreed and said that the motion was "not a bad idea."
"It's very important we get the process correct on this particular policy," she said. "We have to make sure our process is the best for the district."
Superintendent Chris Belcher noted that if the motion did pass, he would ask for permission to seek outside legal counsel that specializes in creating policy exclusive to individual districts in Missouri.
He said the Missouri School Board Association has always said these policies do not constitute something that you should just adopt, they are only frameworks to start discussion.
Belcher said he applauded the board for being so considerate of the influence they have gotten from both sides of the issue.
"Certainly you want to please everybody, and this will give us some more time to see if we can get closer to that goal," he said.
Board member Christine King also supported the motion and called the two policies "polar opposites." She said there are many community voices that need to be heard.
Tom Rose was the only board member to oppose reviewing the plans further.
"Should we decide to send this back to policy committee for revision I believe and hope that most of the policy as written will remain, and that only a few points will be changed to come to a consensus if we can't," he said.
Rose said he believes that even with legal counsel the board will still have to make a difficult choice.
"We are still going to have make a hard decision that not everyone is going to agree with," Rose said.
The policy committee meets the last Monday of every month.
Monday, October 10, 2011 | 11:24 p.m. CDT; updated 9:00 a.m. CDT, Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Columbia Missourian
BY GARRETT EVANS, JAMES AYELLO
COLUMBIA — Columbia School Board members decided by a vote of 6-1 to send two collective bargaining options back to the board's policy committee for further consideration.
The Missouri School Board Association has created multiple policies that state school districts can choose from in order to negotiate with their employees. These policies are guidelines to help districts create an effective collective bargaining process.
The first policy, called HH, would allow either for an exclusive representative, such as a teachers association, to collectively bargain with administrators, or it would let multiple representatives collectively bargain with those administrators.
The second policy, HA, provides legal ground rules for districts to negotiate with employee associations. This policy outlines election rules for employee groups and recognizes which groups are allowed to collectively bargain.
Board member Jonathan Sessions made the motion to send both policies back to the policy committee for review.
"My reasoning for making this motion is purely that I think we have a lot of confusion, and the board received an email today from someone that truly did not understand what was going on," he said. "We can do this better."
Sessions said Columbia could have a custom policy, rather than one of the two sample options that covers 520 of the state's districts.
Board member Michelle Pruitt agreed and said that the motion was "not a bad idea."
"It's very important we get the process correct on this particular policy," she said. "We have to make sure our process is the best for the district."
Superintendent Chris Belcher noted that if the motion did pass, he would ask for permission to seek outside legal counsel that specializes in creating policy exclusive to individual districts in Missouri.
He said the Missouri School Board Association has always said these policies do not constitute something that you should just adopt, they are only frameworks to start discussion.
Belcher said he applauded the board for being so considerate of the influence they have gotten from both sides of the issue.
"Certainly you want to please everybody, and this will give us some more time to see if we can get closer to that goal," he said.
Board member Christine King also supported the motion and called the two policies "polar opposites." She said there are many community voices that need to be heard.
Tom Rose was the only board member to oppose reviewing the plans further.
"Should we decide to send this back to policy committee for revision I believe and hope that most of the policy as written will remain, and that only a few points will be changed to come to a consensus if we can't," he said.
Rose said he believes that even with legal counsel the board will still have to make a difficult choice.
"We are still going to have make a hard decision that not everyone is going to agree with," Rose said.
The policy committee meets the last Monday of every month.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Roper wrong about CMNEA positions
Columbia Tribune
CMNEA favors the exclusive representative policy because it is how bargaining is done throughout the country. No contract has been successfully bargained using multiple representation.
Roper questioned how CMNEA as an exclusive bargaining agent could help schoolchildren. Next to parents, our students’ best advocates are teachers. They work with students daily and know their needs. Teachers have successfully bargained issues such as textbooks, proper lunch times and recess breaks, technology, lower class sizes and increased services to special-needs students. Achievement is higher in states where teachers bargain. The top states in the areas of graduation rate, SAT scores, ACT scores and NAEP reading and math scores have all been bargaining for 30-plus years.
Columbia educators deserve a voice at the decision-making table — they deserve collective bargaining and have a right to representatives of their own choosing.
Kathy Steinhoff
membership chair, CMNEA
301 Fredora Ave.
Teachers are free to make a choice
By SUSAN MCCLINTIC
CMNEA President
Columbia Tribune
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Great things are happening in public education as our local school district works toward creating a policy to address the collective-bargaining rights of its teachers. As Columbia Public Schools moves forward, it is important for everyone to have a clear understanding of the exclusive representation process that leads to collective bargaining, as well as how it can benefit teachers and students.
Collective bargaining is a collaborative process of negotiations used by both employers and employees to arrive at a binding agreement concerning working and learning conditions, benefits, safety and health. You’ve probably heard collective bargaining pits administrators against teachers; this is not true. In districts across the nation, collective bargaining has provided teachers and employers with the opportunity to improve the working conditions for teachers and the learning conditions for students. (An article on teacher unions published in Princeton University’s “Excellence in the Classroom” journal cited three studies that found student-teacher ratios were 7 to 12 percent lower in districts with collective bargaining — a clear benefit to students.)
In 2007, the Missouri Supreme Court reaffirmed the constitutional right for public employees to collectively bargain, but it did not create the process for establishing a representative. This responsibility falls on each local school district. The Missouri School Boards Association created two model policies for districts to consider. One version calls for the traditional election of a single representative, while the other allows for the election of multiple representatives.
With the multiple representation option, there will be two or more representatives — probably one from the Columbia Missouri State Teachers Association (CMSTA) and one from the Columbia Missouri National Education Association (CMNEA) — with voting rights based on percentages of their membership.
While this sounds like a sensible option, multiple representation has some faults. If CPS educators were to choose this option, employees who are not members of CMNEA or CMSTA would have no representation, no vote, no voice. That means about one-third of CPS employees would not benefit from this type of collective-bargaining agreement. In addition, reaching a binding contract with two or more groups has no legal precedent. Multiple representation is like sending all Senate candidates to Jefferson City and telling them to conduct business based on the percentage of their groups’ membership. Multiple representation is not a democratic process and is awkward and inefficient.
Our other option is exclusive representation, in which all teachers, regardless of their memberships, would vote to select a bargaining agent to act as our voice in discussions and negotiations. Parkway, Fort Zumwalt, Wentzville, Rockwood, Park Hill, Independence and Francis Howell are some Missouri districts that have successful collective-bargaining agreements with their employees through an exclusive representative. Students and teachers in those districts are seeing the benefits of having a professional, dedicated, representative organization that works collaboratively to solve problems and move the district forward for the betterment of the entire community. That is the relationship the CMNEA has striven to have with CPS and would continue to have if chosen by the teachers as their exclusive bargaining representative.
What if CMNEA is chosen by the teachers as the bargaining agent? Does that mean teachers will be forced to join CMNEA to have representation?
No. For many years, CMSTA was the exclusive representative in CPS and teachers had to be a CMSTA member to serve and vote on their committees or speak to the school board. CMSTA did not work for a binding agreement. The exclusive representation policy currently under consideration is different. This policy allows each educator to vote on a binding contract. The elected exclusive rep has a duty of fair representation, a duty to represent everyone in the bargaining unit for all items in the contract. If CMNEA becomes the exclusive bargaining rep, our organization would represent the interests of every teacher in CPS, not just those who are CMNEA members.
Will teachers have to pay a fair share fee?
Fair share brings more confusion and conversation. Fair share is a negotiated fee charged to the non-union members of a bargaining unit to cover the cost of the bargained agreement. No public school collective-bargaining agreement in Missouri includes fair share. No educational employee in Missouri can be forced to join or drop any group based on whether he or she belongs to the exclusive representative group. CMNEA does not support the use of fair share.
CMNEA supports the democratic right of teachers to choose who can best represent them with a single voice on the issues affecting their classrooms and their students. We believe the agreements the exclusive representative and the school district arrive at will be beneficial for all parties involved. We believe teachers in Columbia Public Schools have the right, the wisdom and the integrity to decide for themselves who that voice should be.
The Supreme Court has clearly ruled on representation. It has never been clearer that CPS educators deserve their civil right to vote for an exclusive representative of their choice.
Susan McClintic is a teacher and past president of CMNEA.
CMNEA President
Columbia Tribune
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Great things are happening in public education as our local school district works toward creating a policy to address the collective-bargaining rights of its teachers. As Columbia Public Schools moves forward, it is important for everyone to have a clear understanding of the exclusive representation process that leads to collective bargaining, as well as how it can benefit teachers and students.
Collective bargaining is a collaborative process of negotiations used by both employers and employees to arrive at a binding agreement concerning working and learning conditions, benefits, safety and health. You’ve probably heard collective bargaining pits administrators against teachers; this is not true. In districts across the nation, collective bargaining has provided teachers and employers with the opportunity to improve the working conditions for teachers and the learning conditions for students. (An article on teacher unions published in Princeton University’s “Excellence in the Classroom” journal cited three studies that found student-teacher ratios were 7 to 12 percent lower in districts with collective bargaining — a clear benefit to students.)
In 2007, the Missouri Supreme Court reaffirmed the constitutional right for public employees to collectively bargain, but it did not create the process for establishing a representative. This responsibility falls on each local school district. The Missouri School Boards Association created two model policies for districts to consider. One version calls for the traditional election of a single representative, while the other allows for the election of multiple representatives.
With the multiple representation option, there will be two or more representatives — probably one from the Columbia Missouri State Teachers Association (CMSTA) and one from the Columbia Missouri National Education Association (CMNEA) — with voting rights based on percentages of their membership.
While this sounds like a sensible option, multiple representation has some faults. If CPS educators were to choose this option, employees who are not members of CMNEA or CMSTA would have no representation, no vote, no voice. That means about one-third of CPS employees would not benefit from this type of collective-bargaining agreement. In addition, reaching a binding contract with two or more groups has no legal precedent. Multiple representation is like sending all Senate candidates to Jefferson City and telling them to conduct business based on the percentage of their groups’ membership. Multiple representation is not a democratic process and is awkward and inefficient.
Our other option is exclusive representation, in which all teachers, regardless of their memberships, would vote to select a bargaining agent to act as our voice in discussions and negotiations. Parkway, Fort Zumwalt, Wentzville, Rockwood, Park Hill, Independence and Francis Howell are some Missouri districts that have successful collective-bargaining agreements with their employees through an exclusive representative. Students and teachers in those districts are seeing the benefits of having a professional, dedicated, representative organization that works collaboratively to solve problems and move the district forward for the betterment of the entire community. That is the relationship the CMNEA has striven to have with CPS and would continue to have if chosen by the teachers as their exclusive bargaining representative.
What if CMNEA is chosen by the teachers as the bargaining agent? Does that mean teachers will be forced to join CMNEA to have representation?
No. For many years, CMSTA was the exclusive representative in CPS and teachers had to be a CMSTA member to serve and vote on their committees or speak to the school board. CMSTA did not work for a binding agreement. The exclusive representation policy currently under consideration is different. This policy allows each educator to vote on a binding contract. The elected exclusive rep has a duty of fair representation, a duty to represent everyone in the bargaining unit for all items in the contract. If CMNEA becomes the exclusive bargaining rep, our organization would represent the interests of every teacher in CPS, not just those who are CMNEA members.
Will teachers have to pay a fair share fee?
Fair share brings more confusion and conversation. Fair share is a negotiated fee charged to the non-union members of a bargaining unit to cover the cost of the bargained agreement. No public school collective-bargaining agreement in Missouri includes fair share. No educational employee in Missouri can be forced to join or drop any group based on whether he or she belongs to the exclusive representative group. CMNEA does not support the use of fair share.
CMNEA supports the democratic right of teachers to choose who can best represent them with a single voice on the issues affecting their classrooms and their students. We believe the agreements the exclusive representative and the school district arrive at will be beneficial for all parties involved. We believe teachers in Columbia Public Schools have the right, the wisdom and the integrity to decide for themselves who that voice should be.
The Supreme Court has clearly ruled on representation. It has never been clearer that CPS educators deserve their civil right to vote for an exclusive representative of their choice.
Susan McClintic is a teacher and past president of CMNEA.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Union Workers Join Growing Anti-Wall St. Protests
Even NBC agrees, "There's something happening here..."
Occupy Como protest follows national movement
Stephen Stills song, For What It's Worth starts with lyrics that are appropriate today - "There's something happening here, what it is ain't exactly clear..." Following the demonstrations across Europe, the labor union uprisings in Wisconsin, Ohio and other Midwestern states and the Arab Spring movement, comes Occupy Wall Street. And although the mainstream media clearly don't know what it's about, ("But they don't have a list of legislative demands!") working people who make up the bottom 99% of America understand it in our bones. This is about the abuse of money and power by the top 1% who control 40% of the wealth in our country. And it's about the failure of the vast majority of our political leadership to represent us, the 99%. And it's about the frightening future that we - and our sons and daughters - face in a world organized to maximize profit for the top 1%, while keeping the rest of us scrambling to piece together a decent living.
You can do more than watch the occupation on TV, you can go to City Hall and be a part of Occupy Como. Union members know better than most that we need some basic change in this country. Join the group at City Hall for however long you have and take them some food, drinks, blankets or cash to keep them going. As the 1970 Gil Scott Heron song says, "The revolution will not be televised."
Occupy Como protest follows national movement
Protesters hold up signs Monday in front of City Hall at Eighth Street and Broadway, participating in an effort that has lasted more than a week in conjunction with a nationwide protest movement. A group known as Occupy Como has led the local effort, and many who joined in Monday night were specifically focused on protesting the proposed rezoning of Columbia’s Regency Mobile Home Park.
The largest group came last night to speak out on a specific local issue, but a minority of those participating have had a presence there night and day for eight full days. Those demonstrators are the members of a group known as Occupy Como.
The protests are modeled after the significantly larger Occupy Wall Street, a protest movement against corporate greed that has raged in New York City for more than two weeks. Similar movements have sprung up in cities throughout the country, including in Missouri. Social networking websites have added fuel to the cause: Occupy Kansas City has more than 1,500 “likes” on its Facebook page, and OccupySTL has more than 3,000. Columbia’s has more than 1,000.
Jef Hamby, an organizer for the group, said there are about 15 “core” members who have had a frequent presence at City Hall. He said others have joined in from time to time, inflating the number of those in front of City Hall to about 30 on Saturday and more than 50 yesterday.
Sierra Jackson, who said she is preparing to start school at Columbia College, said she ran across the demonstrators Thursday while walking downtown and took a minute to hear them out. She said she has been standing with the group each day ever since.
“I would like it to be one voice, one vote — not a dollar a vote,” Jackson said.
The crowd yesterday was made up mostly of those who oppose a measure to rezone the Regency Mobile Home Park in favor of a student housing complex. From conference rooms inside City Hall, where Columbia City Council members calmly discussed a planned new parking garage during a pre-meeting work session, the shouting and chanting of the demonstrators — and honking from passing motorists — could be faintly heard.
And while demonstrators who came to address the Regency rezoning proposal were focused on a specific civic issue, Hamby said the point of Occupy Como is to bring groups with different ideas and causes together. Hamby said that although those who have stood in front of City Hall since the beginning of the demonstration have differed in their backgrounds and their reasons for being there, there has been a central theme in their presence: that 99 percent of the country’s population is getting left behind by the 1 percent who are at the top of the economic pecking order and who make “all the decisions” for the rest of the country.
Although Occupy Como and other protest groups are in part taking aim at the political elite, the group has adopted bylaws and takes votes on issues. Hamby said the group has adopted principles of Occupy Wall Street and made some rules of its own. Hamby said he did not know how long the group would continue to camp out in front of City Hall.
Reach Andrew Denney at 573-815-1719 or e-mail akdenney@columbiatribune.com.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Labor Movement Rolls Into Wall Street Occupation
The occupation of Wall Street is getting interesting, with the labor movement getting involved. There is even a local angle - have you seen the occupation at City Hall (and across from Landmark Bank and Boone County Bank)? Stop and talk to these young people. I did and they are articulate on why they are there: they don't want their future taken from them to pay for more corporate profits. The COMO Facebook address is: http://www.facebook.com/OccupyCOMO?sk=wall. Who said, "Young people today are so apathetic." Not all of them!
Friday Sep 30, 2011 9:22 am
An Occupy Wall Street participant at Zuccotti Park a.k.a. Liberty Plaza, on September 26. (Photo by Sasha Kimel on Flickr.)
The steel and concrete of Lower Manhattan comes alive every day during rush hour, when gray suits pulse through subway tunnels and the city's arteries get choked with street vendors, construction workers and other folks hustling to make a living. Now that a bunch of rabble-rousers have occupied the neighborhood, the workers who form Gotham's backbone are starting to reclaim their turf as well.
It may be too early to draw parallels between the Occupy Wall Street protests at Zuccotti Park (aka Liberty Plaza) and their antecedents in Tahrir Square and Madison. But the movements suggest a general trajectory of grassroots organizing: a spark of protest led by younger activists, followed by the support of labor organizations, bringing up the rear and then moving to the fore.
By Wednesday, the Village Voice reported, the historically militant Transport Workers Union had voted to back, and provide food and services to, the Occupy Wall Street movement. In a video recorded during an evening protest, TWU Local 100 member Christine Williams declared, "The people have finally woke up. And we're here and we're staying and we're not going anywhere."
TWU spokesperson Jim Gannon told the Voice: " A motion was brought up to endorse the protests' goals; I don't know why it took us so long to do it." Better late than never, the union says it now plans to amass on the afternoon of October 5 and march to Zuccotti Park.
Other labor-oriented solidarity actions have been undertaken by professors at the City University of New York affiliated with the Professional Staff Congress union (of which this author is also a member). Their group, Solidarity with OWS, is organizing a demonstration against police abuse this Friday afternoon. (Other notable lefty academic allies include Frances Fox Piven, Christian Parenti, and Stanley Aronowitz.)
According to Crain's New York Business, local unions are collaborating with community-based groups such as Make the Road New York, Coalition for the Homeless and Community Voices Heard -- all organizations that are in daily contact with the struggles of the city's poor and working-class.
The city's doormen, security guards and maintenance workers see common ground with the occupation, too. The Huffington Post reports that their union, SEIU 32BJ, said that a planned October 12 rally would embrace the current protests' theme:
The convergence between the Wall Street occupation and labor activism may escalate in the coming days amid a standoff between New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and public sector workers. The statewide Public Employees Federation just voted narrowly to reject a five-year contract that would have staved off layoffs at the expense of higher healthcare costs and wage freezes. On Tuesday, PEF union president Kenneth Brynien told reporters that when members saw the concessions demanded of them, "The sacrifices were too great, and they said, 'Enough is enough."
That axiom would fit nicely among the panoply of anticapitalist slogans that protesters have displayed in Downtown Manhattan, proclaiming "People over Profit" and "Heal America, Tax Wall Street."
As sister campaigns emerge in other areas under the banner of "Occupy Together," the Wall Street actions could serve as a kind of petri dish for future protest tactics, building on the occupational groundwork laid by smaller demonstrations, such as a recent encampment at City Hall to protest budget cuts, and a Wall Street protest in May that drew union support from 1199 SEIU and the United Federation of Teachers.
As ITT's Akito Yoshikane reported, the lifeblood of the protests has been the young and the frustrated. But the occupation also represents swelling resentment across all sectors of society -- covering expressly the 99 percent of us who are getting screwed and shafted by corporate moguls and, more tragically, our own elected representatives.
Yet the proactive anger has been building in the labor movement far from Wall Street. An editorial by the Socialist Worker points to protests in recent months -- by longshoremen in Washington, striking hospital workers in California, and the groundbreaking Verizon strikers -- as signs of new "fighting mood" among the rank and file:
It may be too early to draw parallels between the Occupy Wall Street protests at Zuccotti Park (aka Liberty Plaza) and their antecedents in Tahrir Square and Madison. But the movements suggest a general trajectory of grassroots organizing: a spark of protest led by younger activists, followed by the support of labor organizations, bringing up the rear and then moving to the fore.
By Wednesday, the Village Voice reported, the historically militant Transport Workers Union had voted to back, and provide food and services to, the Occupy Wall Street movement. In a video recorded during an evening protest, TWU Local 100 member Christine Williams declared, "The people have finally woke up. And we're here and we're staying and we're not going anywhere."
TWU spokesperson Jim Gannon told the Voice: " A motion was brought up to endorse the protests' goals; I don't know why it took us so long to do it." Better late than never, the union says it now plans to amass on the afternoon of October 5 and march to Zuccotti Park.
Other labor-oriented solidarity actions have been undertaken by professors at the City University of New York affiliated with the Professional Staff Congress union (of which this author is also a member). Their group, Solidarity with OWS, is organizing a demonstration against police abuse this Friday afternoon. (Other notable lefty academic allies include Frances Fox Piven, Christian Parenti, and Stanley Aronowitz.)
According to Crain's New York Business, local unions are collaborating with community-based groups such as Make the Road New York, Coalition for the Homeless and Community Voices Heard -- all organizations that are in daily contact with the struggles of the city's poor and working-class.
The city's doormen, security guards and maintenance workers see common ground with the occupation, too. The Huffington Post reports that their union, SEIU 32BJ, said that a planned October 12 rally would embrace the current protests' theme:
"The call went out over a month ago, before actually the occupancy of Wall Street took place," said 32BJ spokesman Kwame Patterson. Now, he added, "we're all coming under one cause, even though we have our different initiatives."The General Assembly, a proudly amorphous body that is helping coordinate the demonstrations, has set up a Labor Support and Outreach Working Group, which, according to September 29 meeting minutes posted to the Assembly's website, has encouraged protesters to join a demonstration of the Communication Workers of America nearby. Organizers are reportedly gearing up "to carry out a very creative direct action in support of the phone workers."
The convergence between the Wall Street occupation and labor activism may escalate in the coming days amid a standoff between New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and public sector workers. The statewide Public Employees Federation just voted narrowly to reject a five-year contract that would have staved off layoffs at the expense of higher healthcare costs and wage freezes. On Tuesday, PEF union president Kenneth Brynien told reporters that when members saw the concessions demanded of them, "The sacrifices were too great, and they said, 'Enough is enough."
That axiom would fit nicely among the panoply of anticapitalist slogans that protesters have displayed in Downtown Manhattan, proclaiming "People over Profit" and "Heal America, Tax Wall Street."
As sister campaigns emerge in other areas under the banner of "Occupy Together," the Wall Street actions could serve as a kind of petri dish for future protest tactics, building on the occupational groundwork laid by smaller demonstrations, such as a recent encampment at City Hall to protest budget cuts, and a Wall Street protest in May that drew union support from 1199 SEIU and the United Federation of Teachers.
As ITT's Akito Yoshikane reported, the lifeblood of the protests has been the young and the frustrated. But the occupation also represents swelling resentment across all sectors of society -- covering expressly the 99 percent of us who are getting screwed and shafted by corporate moguls and, more tragically, our own elected representatives.
Yet the proactive anger has been building in the labor movement far from Wall Street. An editorial by the Socialist Worker points to protests in recent months -- by longshoremen in Washington, striking hospital workers in California, and the groundbreaking Verizon strikers -- as signs of new "fighting mood" among the rank and file:
Workers haven't yet prevailed in all of these struggles, nor will all of them win in the future. But what unites these fights is the activism and solidarity on display, despite a hostile corporate media and aggressive employers.Whether organized labor is finally catching up to youth activists, or the young occupiers are at last rekindling an older legacy of mass resistance, the cross-fertilization of movements is underway. Don't ask the diverse alliance to state their agenda -- the movement is organically structured, with no formal "list of demands" yet, and that's part of the fun. Not everyone came to Wall Street knowing exactly what they wanted, but everyone there today knows they've had enough, and that they're not the only ones.
Labor's new sparks of resistance are proof positive that the defiant spirit of the battle in Wisconsin last winter wasn't a flash in the pan, but a sign that growing numbers of working people are rediscovering their capacity to struggle. After decades of a one-sided class war, the fightback has begun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)