Letter: District must keep residents in mind during contract
talks
Published: Tuesday, July 22, 2008
10:09 AM EDT
To the Editor:
In reading recent articles in the Worthington News,
residents would have seen the following seemingly unrelated
subjects: union contracts, operating levies and school cuts.
With union contract negotiations beginning, a 2009 operating
levy being discussed and the last operating levy having been
turned down by voters, Educate Worthington thought it would
be useful to "connect the dots" between these three
important topics.
To begin with, the union contracts drive the salary and
benefit costs that consume 87 percent of all district
spending. These contracts are typically 1-3 years long, and
the longer they are, the more financial certainty for union
members, but the less financial certainty for residents and
the less educational certainty for students. For example,
residents were required to pay nearly all of this year's
$2.5 million increase in staff health insurance costs. Why?
Because the union contracts negotiated three years ago by
our previous district leadership said we would.
As for salaries, the current three-year contract provided
3.5 percent base raises, which certainly doesn't sound
unaffordable or unsustainable. However, when you add the
average automatic step increase of 1.9 percent, Worthington
residents provided 5.4 percent average annual raises. It was
5.9 percent in the previous three-year contract.
The union contract drives the vast majority of district
costs and these rising costs drive the need for more levies.
The frequency and size of the required levies is directly
related to the salaries and benefits that district
leadership agrees to in the contract.
The school cuts are the reductions in classes, programs and
student services that can have a negative impact on our
students, their parents and our school district.
In some districts (not ours, thankfully), the threat of
programs, athletics and busing being cut, is often used to
pass a levy.
More importantly, cuts are often actually required as the
only alternative available when the levies to support the
rising salary and benefit costs do not pass.
But what about reducing the rising salary and benefit costs
instead of cutting services to students? Sorry, too late.
Contract cuts are almost never an option, as we are
typically in the middle of a multi-year agreement.
Therefore, cuts to the expensive salary and benefit costs
that are causing the problem cannot even be considered. Need
proof? The school board asked for renegotiation of the last
three-year contract in 2003, and the union predictably
answered "No."
The current union negotiations matter a lot. The residents
and students of Worthington deserve to be at least as well
represented as our 750 teachers.
Thus, district leadership must provide that representation
to deliver a contract that does not protect the union
members better than it protects our residents and our
students -- one that is affordable for now and sustainable
for the future, and one that the community will be able to
support next May.