I
OPINION
Protect an Endangered Species—Teachers!
by Sonja Ungemach
On Sunday, the 4-J teachers ran a full page
id in the Register-Guard to state their position
n the ongoing strike, now in its fifth week. They
nake a strong case: that elementary teachers
should have 30 minutes per day of preparation
ime; that “career-track” teachers should receive
wages in line with teachers in other school dis
ricts in the state; and that, contrary to District
issertions, the current union proposal would not
require an increase in property taxes.
It is this final contention, that their proposal
would not entail a tax increase, that most in
rigues me. The teachers are asking for a change
in priorities—to move the money back into the
classrooms where it belongs. The ad states:
“Last year the District budgeted only 67% for
instruction. Ten years ago instruction repre
sented 71% of the budget. This year’s total
budget increased by 6.48%, but the instructional
portion increased by only 1.7%.”
Knowing what I do of public budgets, whether
federal, state, city or school district, it is always
a question of priorities, not a question ol
whether the money exists. Do we build more
nukes or spend money on conservation and re
newable resources? Do we develop more wea
pons or fund human needs? Do we build a brand
new big city airport or make moderate im
provements to handle growth?
Our career-track teachers (those who have
dedicated their lives to their profession, earn
ing advanced degrees and hours of post-graduate
college credits) are like our old growth forests.
It takes a long time to become one. Old growth
forests are more than mature tree forms for the
timber industry. They support an irreplaceable
ecosystem of wildlife, watershed, clean air, and
plant life. If we cut them down, we lose more
than the trees. Similarly, our teachers do more
than instruct our kids. They provide a secure
environment that nurtures and supports our most
precious resource, the formative minds and
bodies of our children. To underfund the teach
ers is to undermine the faith and hope we have
in our future.
We could choose to relate to our school rooms
as factories where workers are simply inter
changeable parts producing units of education.
Or we could nurture and steward one of our
society’s most endangered species—the devoted,
professional teacher in our public schools.
Does Eugene Value Quality Education?
by a Committee of Teachers
Many Eugene teachers feel angry
and frustrated. They feel betrayed b
a superintendent and school boar
who said they were dedicated to “ex
cellence in education.” Instead, the
have shown the opposite.
As Mayor Obie admitted to Shel
don teachers last Wednesday, the com
munity is saddled with a superinten
dent, a school board, and a selected
negotiator, all of whom have very lit
tie experience in actually bargainin
a contract.
The state bargaining law has work
ed in all but twelve of 5,000 instances
Published Every Thursday
Publishers
Elisabeth Lyman
Lucia McKelvey
Sonja Ungemach
Editor
Lucia McKelvey
Advertising Manager/Editor
Elisabeth Lyman
Production Manager/Editor
Sonja Ungemach
Office Manager/Production
Sheri Longobardo
Assistant Editor
Deborah McGee
Cover Design
Melanie Pratt
Advertising Representatives
Susan Brokaw
Ken Hof
Martha Wagner
Garde Wells
Randy Yost
Contributing Writers
Deborah McGee
Jim Stiak
Lois Wadsworth
Martha Wigner
Photographer
David Stein
Distribution
Daybreak News Ca
Typesetting
Prototype
Camera Work
Graphics Unlimited
Printing
Springfield News
335 West 20th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97405
(503) 484-0519
Copyright 1987 What's Happening.
All rights reserved.
I
Margaret Nichols and Steve Gold
schmidt have managed to subvert this
process. They have thrown out the
I
teachers’ past contract, developed
with other boards over a 14-year
period, and refused to discuss some
35 issues. In addition, they have re
fused to bargain over a 14-month
period, maintaining their initial salary
and insurance offers.
Negotiating Process
Margaret Nichols selected this ne
gotiator, Steve Goldschmidt. She has
known him for some time and knows
of his approach to bargaining as taught
in his class at the University of
Oregon: force the other side to capitu
late rather than to compromise. She
pro
$75
per hour
hired Goldschmidt at
without a cap—a very questionable
business practice. What is his incen
tive for resolving these contract talks?
In addition, she hired Max Riley,
Goldschmidt’s assistant at the Univer
sity, and is paying him on a similar
basis. Superintendent Nichols also in
sisted on a clause in her contract that
barred the Eugene School Board
members, the people’s elected repre
sentatives, from speaking directly to
teachers or to teacher negotiators
about contract bargaining.
What conclusions would you expect
teachers to draw from such a set up?
Every other district in our state has
settled their teacher contracts. In
every instance, except in Eugene, the
superintendent and the school board
have sat down with the teachers to
work out their mutual concerns and
problems. They have sat down with
the past contracts, and using good will
and a give-and-take approach, have
worked out their agreements.
Instead, in Eugene, where quality
education is supposedly valued by the
district and the public, teachers are in
the fifth week of a strike, their sec
ond in eight years. The emotional and
financial stress on teachers and their
families has been enormous. The
average Eugene teacher has lost over
$3,100 so far, money needed to pay
bills and to feed families. Teachers are
looking for better places to teach:
Washington for one, where 91% of the
education funding is suported by the
state. Others feel they should just
leave teaching and work in the private
sector, where they can make more
money, work set hours, and suffer for
less abuse.
After all, what are we asking that
is so terrible, that the district and
public should find so disagreeable?
More Than A
Salary Question
We want to improve our ability to
teach children. Elementary school
teachers are asking for just 10 more
minutes per day of preparation time,
just 30 minutes total. (Ashland re
ceived 50 minutes per day in their
contract settlement.)
We want the right to representation
in any disciplinary action as well as
our evaluation procedure spelled out
in the contract. This, of course, would
help prevent evaluations based on
politics and personalities.
We want the two-track seniority
bargained for part-time teachers, as
the Employment Labor Relations
Board has ordered the district to do.
The District has refused to bargain
this, however. These seniority rights
are important because they insure that
part-time teachers can apply for full
time jobs without losing their past
credit for experience in the district.
We want to be able to attract the
best new teachers to the Eugene
schools to preserve and enhance the
future of our children's education.
How can we do this when Eugene
schools currently pay $1300 less than
Springfield offers to its beginning
teachers? How can we attract good
career teachers when Eugene schools
pay their career teachers $4,000 less
than Springfield does and $3,000 less
than Bethel does? Do Springfield and
Bethel have better economies than
Eugene?
District Has
Surplus Money
The newspaper and the district have
done a good propaganda job on the
teachers’ requests for salaries and in
surance. The district does have the
money, an audited surplus of 6.1
million dollars for last year alone,
more than enough to meet current
teacher bargaining proposals. The
auditors noted that the Eugene school
district is in “excellent” financial
shape. The district, however, has
chosen to hide these funds in “rainy
day” accounts and in materials, rather
than to invest them in the instructional
funds.
All the board and superintendent
have to do is shift this surplus to die
instructional fund to settle. No new
property taxes would result from
agreeing to the teachers’ salary and
insurance proposals.
We teachers trusted this superin
tendent and school board. We trusted
them when they kept assuring us
everything was “going as planned.”
What other employee group working
on a contract basis would continue
working for eight months without a
new contract? What other group
would work these eight months just
to keep the schools open for children?
Did the public care whether we set
ded or not? Did the business com
A Eugene School Board
Member’s Perspective
by Steve Robinson
This is one article the author fer
vently hopes will never get published.
As I write on May 1, 1987, Eugene
teachers have responded positively to
the School Board’s decision to add
Chairman Jack Billings and Superin
tendent Margaret Nichols to our bar
gaining team. I hope the EEA will re
spond with a new willingness to com
promise, which is what we need to
end the longest teacher strike in
Oregon history. But if the strike is still
on, I’d like you to understand the
Board’s position.
Perhaps the Socratic method would
be best. I’ll choose the questions and
answer them as well.
Haven‘t the teachers made big com
promises? Why won't the Board re
spond?
Yes, collective bargaining is a two
way street. But on this road to Skin
ner’s Butte, the teachers sallied forth
from Seattle, while the Board com
menced in Creswell. The EEA put
over 100 separate issues on the bar
gaining table, including a 30% cost
increase, while the Board started with
a small set of important issues and a
3.9% boost (equivalent to inflation).
The teachers have come a long way,
it’s true, but they’re still in Salem
(well, maybe Albany), while the Dis
tict is already downtown.
Why can’t the teachers have what
they "re asking for? Don’t you respect
them?
Of course we respect them! We are
the most pro-teacher Board on the
face of the earth. But we have to bal
ance the expectations of all employee
groups with each other, and with the
ability and willingness of the voters
and taxpayers to fend the District. We
can’t give teachers a big raise and tell
classified employees and adminis
munity? Not until we struck, not un
til the schools were closed did the
public and the business communty
become concerned. No, they didn’t
seem to care about how teachers were
treated, but, rather, how to force
teachers back to the classroom as
quickly as possible.
These same people want us to care,
want us to be professional and expert,
want us to teach their children, to be
responsible in a wide variety of ways
for the growth of their children.
We do want to teach children. We
want to teach, though, with respect
from a district and a community that
value quality education. We want to
teach and to receive a contract that
reflects our education, expertise, and
commitment to our profession.
trators “maybe next time.” And no
way are we going to fund increases
with massive layoffs. That would
damage the quality of education, not
to mention the younger teachers who
would lose their jobs.
Come on, you 're avoiding the issue.
Don‘t teachers deserve whatever they
can get?
Sure they do. So do the rest of us.
I’ve lost count of the number of peo
ple who tell me personally, “I have
a master’s degree and years of ex
perience, and I make much less than
teachers do.” Nationally, teacher
salaries are a big problem and need
to be raised, or we’ll continue losing
the “best and brightest” to more
lucrative work. Locally, teachers are
doing pretty well, especially com
pared to the economy, the property
owners and other union-represented
folks. Even in 1983, when they volun
tarily took a 4% rollback, teachers
still got a 4% raise, compared to zero
inflation!
Aha, the rollback! Didn 't you pro
mise to make it up?
Nobody I know made such a pro
mise. In fact, the teachers got a pret
ty good deal that year, all things con
sidered: cost-of-living raises for two
years, a trial-basis early retirement
plan, no layoffs, and community sup
port leading to an adequate new tax
base in 1984.
Some teachers say money isn’t the
real issue. What about other issues,
like working conditions?
Let’s be frank. The EEA has had
a great contract with 4J— the best in
the state. You can bet they wouldn’t
trade it for Bethel’s or Springfield’s
or anybody else’s. The strong contract
is a function of the District’s ability
to attract excellent people, give them
good working conditions and good
pay, and turn them loose to teach kids.
From that standpoint, the contract has
worked: Eugene continues to attract
and keep good teachers.
But there are some real problems
for both sides. We started with an un
manageable issue agenda because it’s
been a long time since we bargained
a full contract. Now we’ve got trou
ble. My conclusion is that we des
perately need to talk with each other
all the time, not save up lots of am
mo for collective bargaining.
How about binding arbitration,
Steve Goldschmidt, the "six million
dollars,” and all that stuff?
These non-issues simply distract us
from the only issue: a fair settlement.
The Board is committed to a settle
ment, not confrontation. We need the
EEA to move into a reasonable cost
range, to set the stage for final resolu
tion. We'll keep talking, as long as it
takes.