Collective Bargaining Drafts Comparison and Analysis
- Alex's Pen
- Jan 27, 2024
- 2 min read
Updated: Jan 28, 2024
The following article details collective bargaining resolution drafts introduced at the ACPS January 25th collective bargaining committee meeting. If you want to read about what was specifically talked about please read our "UPDATE: January 25 Meeting Summaries."
INTRODUCTION
On January 25th the ACPS collective bargaining committee convened with legal counsel to go over the first draft of a collective bargaining resolution. The committee did not go line by line through the resolution, instead selecting to go over, what was characterized as, the most important parts of the draft.
While a good portion of the draft was discussed, it, as the counsel said, not an exhaustive read of the documents; and, as we all know, you should not agree to anything you have not read for yourself. However, most of you all are so busy that you might not have the time to read the documents yourself.
Not to worry! We here at APEN read through both resolutions so you don't have to! Below you will find a comparison of the two documents along with our analysis on the differences between them.
Please keep in mind we here at APEN should not be confused as providing legal council. Our analysis is simply our laymen's perspective on what we read for ourselves.
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING (CB) RESOLUTION DRAFT COMPATISON & ANALYSIS
The following table was created by analyzing the ACPS School Board's (SB) and Education Association of Alexandria's (EAA) drafts for a collective bargaining resolution. Both documents are linked below:
Clause | SB Draft (location) | EAA draft (location) | Our Analysis |
Fourth Whereas Clause | That CB can't restrict SB's authority to set the budget or influence the appropriation of funds. (4th Whereas; pg.1) | Not included (pg. 1) | This is interesting language to me because it is impossible for CB to not influence fund appropriation. Sure the SB has the authority to appropriate funds. But why restrict influencing? I'm afraid it could be interpreted in a way to weaken CB. |
Bargaining Units | Bargaining groups are administrative employees (AE), licensed personnel (LP), and education support professionals (ESP). LPs and ESPs get CB AEs don't. (1.A-B, pg. 1-2) | Administrative personnel (AP), LPs, and ESPs get CB (1.A.1-3, pg. 2-3) | I wonder why AE/APs are excluded in the SB's draft? The optimist in me wants to say its because AE/AP's work is categorically different, but the cynic in me sees it as a way to drive a wedge between workers. I would love to hear the reasoning behind this choice. |
Terms & Conditions of Employment | 4 topics can be negotiated over in the first CBA and 2 additional topics will be added for each subsequent CBA. (1.S, pg. 4) | Negotiate in good faith...prohibited by federal or state law. In short, all topics are up for negotiations (1.B, pg. 3) | I do not like the language in the SBs resolution for a couple of reasons. First, our educators deserve more and we need bold action to address our issues. Second, if you limit what you can negotiate over then you limit the number of avenues you have to compromise. I am afraid this limitation will hurt the negotiating process rather than help it. With that said, I respect first CBAs are tough. I could see a compromise being made for the first CBA but limitations on bargaining topics should not exist past that. |
Prohibited Topics | "Thus, the Employer retains exclusive rights, which shall be considered prohibited subjects of Collective Bargaining, including, but not limited to, the right to:" (2.B.1-10, pg. 4-5) | Not included (2.B.1-5; pg. 4-5) | The usage of the word "prohibited" concerns me here. Based on how it is written it is possible that this clause could be used to reject any CB proposals without giving them proper consideration. That does not feel like it would be bargaining in good faith. |
Policy Clause | "Establish, maintain, modify, and eliminate Board rules, regulations, policies, and procedures, including health and safety rules." (2.B.5 pg. 5) | Not included (2.B.1-5; pg. 4-5) | This is a major red flag. After talking with someone at the VEA, I learned language like this has been "weaponized" to shut down negotiations in places like Falls Church. Every aspect of employment in a school system can be related to policy so, again, if the SB can shut down negotiations at their will it removes the requirement to negotiate in good faith. |
Emergency Powers | "Undertake any actions...during operational or emergency...or natural disaster." (2.B.9, pg. 5) | Not included (2.B.1-5, pg. 5) | While it is totally understandable that SB would have increased powers during an emergency it does not give them a free pass to ignore CBA requirements indefinitely. I believe language should be inserted which allows for the EAA and SB to negotiate when emergency powers end. |
CBA Funding | "All financial commitments...exercise of its unfettered discretion to determine the budget and fund such commitments." (2.B.10.a, pg. 5) | Not included (2.B.1-5, pg. 5) | The language included in the SB's draft is perplexing to me. The way it is written makes it sound like we could negotiate a CBA, get it ratified, and then the SB could then still choose to structure their budget in a way that does not fund the CBA. If we are going to go through the trouble of negotiating and we come to an agreement the SB should be committed to funding it. I get not being able to fund it if the city doesn't provide the funding. But if there are sufficient funds then it should be required that the CBA is funded. |
Election Participation Minimum | In order for ACPS employees to vote for an exclusive bargaining agent at least 30% of employees must participate. If less than 30% of employees participate then another election will trigger. (3.A.12, pg. 12) | Not included (3.A.12, pg.12) | I do not like this at all. The Presidential election does not require 30% of the population to participate to be valid. Since there are not participation requirements on those elections I do not see why this election should have them. I am curious as to what the turnout rates were for our current SB members. I know turnout for the special election we just had was about 5%. |
Decertification Risk | "If an Employee Association fails to file its current constitution and bylaws...will be subject to decertification, unless good cause is shown, as determined by the Board." (3.A.14, pg. 8) | Not included (3.A-B, pg. 5-7) | While I respect the need for the union to keep their records up-to-date a SB should never be able to decertify a union. Union decertification is a right exclusively held by the workers. |
Employee Contact Info | Employer will provide Bargaining Unit Employee contact information twice a year. (4.D, pg. 10) | Employer will provide Bargaining Unit Employee contact information at the beginning of each month. (4.D, pg. 9) | There is power in the mailing list and it is reflected in the difference between our two drafts. The less up-to-date employee contact information is the less strong the union is. Sharing contact information twice a year is not sufficient. |
Worksite Access | "The right to hold group meetings...the request is approved...to pay and customary charges...regulation for Group." (4.E.1, pg.10) | Employees can meet during the workday, during meals, breaks, etc. (4.E.1-4, pg. 9-10) | It is difficult for me to see this as anything other than something which limits the union's ability to meet and organize. Sure, day-to-day operations shouldn't be interrupted, but, if I am the exclusive bargaining agent, am I supposed to get approval from the SB before I talk to my co-worker during lunch. Based on the language in the SB's draft I would have to submit a written request AND get approval to do so. That feels unfair. |
Bargaining Ground Rules | Employers and employees will have 1-5 people represent them during collective bargaining negotiations. (5.C.1, pg. 11) | Not included (5.A-B, pg. 10-12) | From what I was able to research it is traditional for things like this to be negotiated upon at the outset of collective bargaining negotiations. Not before. This feels like one side of a negotiation trying to influence the rules before the other side even has a chance to come to the table. Again, this does not feel like a quality of good faith negotiations. |
Coverage | The parties will schedule Collective Bargaining negotiations...coverage must be secured before employee is released from duty." (5.C.3, pg. 11) | Not included (5.A-B, pg. 10-12) | If coverage needs to be secured before an employee is released then employees are subject to the whims of ACPS. Moreover, ACPS has a lack of subs to cover all its day-to-day absences. It wouldn't be difficult to see how a lack of adequate subs would exacerbate the issue brought up in this clause. |
Reopener | If the Alexandria City Council fails to appropriate, or if the Board fails to receive, funds...reopen negotiations...five (5) Business Days after the Alexandria City Council adopts its budget. (5.D, pg. 11) | A collective bargaining agreement is subject to sufficient appropriation...If the City Council fails to appropriate...either party may reopen negotiations. (5.B.8, pg. 12) | While it makes sense that and CBA would need to be revisited if ACPS does not received the funds to implement it I am worried that placing a hard time limit on it (5 days after ACC adopts its budget) is not an achievable goal. |
Nonbinding Neutral Decision | Essentially, if a neutral party renders a written decision after a fact-finding hearing the SB is not bound to follow that decision. They can accept all, part, or reject the decision and the decision is binding. (5.F.8.b-e, pg. 13) | Not included. (5.4.a-f, pg. 11-12) | This feels unfair. With this language the decision by the neutral is little more than advice that ACPS can follow or not depending on the decisions favorability to them. I don't know how exactly to word it but it would be fair on both sides to make a Neutral's decision binding for all parties. |
Evergreen Clause | Not included (5.F.10, pg. 13) | "The terms and conditions of an existing agreement shall remain in full force and effect until superseded by a new collective bargaining agreement." (5.B.9, pg.12) | This is troubling for me. The lack of an evergreen clause in the SBs draft opens employees up to the possibility that their CBA will be voided if negotiations on the next CBA take too long, leaving them without CBA protections. At best, sometimes negotiations take longer than expected and at worst a bad actor can delay the process until a CBA is voided. I am not saying that will happen, just that the possibility is open. Employees should not have to negotiate under the threat that their protections will be taken from them. Period. |
Attorney's Fees | If an Employee Association is found to have violated...recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred...cost of Neutral’s fee. (6.C.6, pg. 14) | EAA & SB will create a panel to conduct hearings. Hearing transcripts will be paid for by SB. (6.C.6, pg. 14) | The language included in the SB's draft does not come with the inverse requirement--that if the SB is in violation they have to pay for the union's costs. This is blatantly unfair and anti-labor. This language needs to be addressed. I think the EAA's suggestion of a panel is an appropriate one but make it easy and just make it so that the party who is ruled against pays the fees for the other side. No need to reinvent the wheel. |
CONCLUSION
While there are a number of things that need to be addressed in these documents it is important to understand that these are just first drafts. They are subject to change; and they most likely will based on worker and community responses and pressures.
Also, I want to make it clear that just because language in a draft allows for something to happen does not mean it is intentional. Our School Board members work hard and I am certain that they would never do anything to violate the principals of good faith bargaining. With that said, the language in the drafts do allow for these...less than savory possibilities to occur. As such, it is important that we work together to address these issues before we come to the table to negotiate. In my opinion, given the staffing crisis ACPS is currently facing right now the objectively correct thing to do is to allow all ACPS employees to collectively bargain over all topics and to allow them to pick their exclusive bargaining agent with a standard election. In doing so we will be able to create the most robust CBA possible, allowing us to attract the best and brightest back to ACPS.
-Alex's Pen
REMINDERS
Remember the public hearing for collective bargaining is on February 29, 2024! I know our educators would love to see the community show their support!
OTHER DOCUMENTS RELATED TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
Comments