UTR Contract Bargaining Proposal by Nathan Sampson

Some personal opinions on the recent UTR initial contract bargaining proposal to the West Contra Costa Unified School District.

My name is Nathan Samson. I currently teach Economics and U.S. Government at De Anza High School to seniors. This is my third year in the district, and my second full year at De Anza. I am transferring to El Cerrito High next school year, which means I will still be a member of the UTR. The following is a personal reflection on the initial bargaining offer that UTR proposed to the district.

I found out about the proposal through the newsletter or bargaining alert that the UTR produces. Sometimes, war between the classes may be hidden from sight, because the working class is simply not in motion, is not that militant, and has not taken action on a mass scale independently from its bureaucratic union leaders and parties that represent the rich and powerful, like the Democrats and Republicans. But that does not mean that class war has disappeared. And it certainly doesn't mean that a harmony between capital and labor exists. Far from it. If that were so, we would not be having contract negotiations with our employer at the present time.

In fact, the class interests of the workers are opposed to the class interests of the bosses or employers, whether public or private. The idea is a simple one and should guide our actions during contract negotiations. That is not the case with the current leaders of the UTR or the CTA. Take the wording of the proposal, for instance. “The United Teachers of Richmond proposes that the terms and conditions set forth in the current collective bargaining agreement be extended . . . with a term commencing on July 1, 2008 and expiring on June 30, 2009” This proposal has no militancy, no fight in it, whatsoever. It is flat and limp. They put forward three reasons that such a proposal is appropriate.

First, they assert that “ The Governor’s current budget proposal still guts education funding for our District.” My goodness. How far do we want to give in to the state? This is a green light for the state to take away the many gains or provisions in our current contract. We are implying that it is an accomplished fact that the state is cutting money to education in the current budget and we are helpless to do anything about it. I get the feeling from the leadership’s argument that they are compromising with the state to avoid a struggle by the rank and file of the UTR against the state. And we only have 2000 dollars in our strike fund.

The leadership is not preparing for struggle, because their whole outlook and strategy is geared towards compromise and working with the powers that be. This line of reasoning sends the message that the UTR is willing to accommodate the needs of the state. It is a tacit concession of weakness. Thus, we are bargaining from a position of weakness, not one of strength.

The UTR is very contradictory, because they have asked us to write our state reps and Senators to denounce the cuts to education. The UTR also says that the latest proposal “ would prevent any cost-shifting on health insurance for next year. That would give us time to see what happens with state funding and our parcel tax.”

We know that in industry after industry the bosses have gone after health care. Our industry is no exception. The district has been up front about not extending health care benefits, and has proposed to increase the co-pay each time we visit the doctor. Now that our union has conceded that education budget cuts are inevitable, that will give the go-ahead to the state to take away our health benefits.

Finally, the leadership of the UTR says that “A successful parcel-tax measure that provides additional resources would help make a successful settlement possible.” The vote on the parcel tax won't happen until November. That means that it is likely we will not have a settlement until then. We will be working without a contract for 5 long months. And what if it passes. That is no guarantee that the state would give us what we want or ask for, especially with the historic budget cuts to education that have been proposed.

In addition, the leadership of the UTR wants the parcel tax to pass in its current form, that is, the same dollar amount to be taxed on property. I forget the exact figure. In other words, they are not asking for a tax increase. Rick Willis, UTR Chief Negotiator, said so at the last UTR Rep Council meeting. Why? Because of the proposed budget cuts and the tough economic situation. Additional resources! I don't think so. It would be the same amount of funding. What gives? I smell givebacks.

We have put ourselves in a position of weakness. I do not see us bargaining from a position of strength with the current proposal. I have a strong feeling the district is going to reject it, because they will smell weakness in it.

Yours,
In Struggle,
Nathan