PATCO time.

Robert,

I think it's easy to get caught up in the optimism of a statewide contract system, but here's a thought: Can you imagine the pressure that would be brought to bear in union negotiations were they to entangle every teacher, every school, and every town all in one negotiation? Do you wish to witness statewide work-to-rule? I sure don't.

I also don't wish to play right into the hands of a statewide organization with no comparable force on the other side of the negotiating table. The unions would have the resources — from statewide dues — to develop strategies to influence an even smaller group of people. Right now, they have to influence five to seven people per town (we'll call it, ballpark, 200 people in the state), and the scale is low enough that taxpayer groups can form to help counter their power. You want to reduce that 200 or so decision makers to just a handful?

Can anyone point me to the law that suggests that it is illegal for the school committee to do what they've done - i.e. change the terms of employment when there isn't actually a contract in place?

It seems to me that if there isn't a contract, then they are at-will? Maybe there's some obligation to bargain, but they've done that, right?

I understand your point, Justin.
However, if the contract includes professional standards - then 'work to rule' is irrelevant as a tactic.
The negotiation processes at the local level has been plagued by destructive, we vs them tactics - on both sides.
The worse it gets, the more enriched the labor attorneys, arbitrators, and mediators become - billing by the hour.
The worse it gets, the more influence the labor bureaucracy has on it members - peddling the notion that their members are victims and making them believe it.
The worse it gets, while those special interests are being enriched with taxpayer dollars and union dues, the education system continues to spiral downward.

But there's nothing inherent in consolidation that will diminish "we vs them." It will just make it "all of us versus all of them" via a much smaller proxy group (i.e., whoever ends up making decisions on the taxpayers' side of the negotiating table).

Indeed, by "professional standards" you appear to be mandating extremely specific contractual language that will require even more complicated negotiations, even more sustained monitoring, and an environment even less conducive to quality teaching (which I don't hold to be amenable to strict A-thru-Z labor rules).

Furthermore, by what reasoning do you conclude that teachers will be less susceptible to union rhetoric about victimhood when the bogeyman isn't a school committee made up of a handful of locals, but official representatives of the state and its bureaucracy? I'd expect the victimhood claim to gain force in such a setting.

Let's not lose sight of what is possible - at least theoretically - to provide a frame of reference.

This very month the General Assembly could just repeal the laws permitting collective bargaining on the part of teachers. Problem solved.

In its place, a package of competitive and fair compensation could be put in place - including merit pay / incentive bonuses; health care with reasonable "co-shares" and a defined contribution plan.

The fact that the General Assembly won't - certainly not so long as it remains in Democrat control, since the Democrat Party is itself controlled by the unions and poverty industry - illuminates the dangers of a statewide teachers contract "negotiated" by persons selected by the Democrat General Assembly.

The system we have now is dysfunctional and collapsing, but I wouldn't expect any relief by concentrating all power in the hands of the same clowns who've brought us RISDIC and Operation Dollar Bill and midnight bills giving state pensions to teachers union officials who weren't even employed by the state!

“This crew in East Providence makes the management in the auto business look like geniuses. It was their own negligence and malfeasance that caused the [city’s fiscal woes]."

Wrong. It was a past school committee, which was bought and paid for by the teachers union with whom they colluded, which did this to us. The teachers union got treated great when times were good, and now that times are desperate, they don't think they should have to feel the same pain everyone else is. There's a new crew in town and they're not playing by the old rules.

I might remind you that the EP School Committee has precedent for their decision, as in Gov. Carcieri unilateral action with the state employees in the executive branch over the summer. Anyway, East Providence already de facto insolvent. We may get to the point where the city simply runs out of cash and can't make payroll, or will be forced to make substantial layoffs. Creditors are reluctant to lend to us, and vendors are simply not being paid and are now demanding cash instead of IOUs (I'm not sure they they'll go for my "fire 'em all and give the kids vouchers proposal").

Remember, the teachers contract accounts for about half of all city spending and nearly 80% of school spending. It's too big to ignore. Nibbling around the edge just isn't going to cut it anymore. We're getting to the point where a municipal bankruptcy filing is seriously on the table (of course, it would allow the contracts to be reopened, but it's a last resort). There's no reason for a city of 50,000 people to be held hostage to the petty whims of 500 people. We're not playing games anymore. We need to fish or cut bait this time around or it will never get done, even if it makes for some very painful decisions. No one wants to layoff people in this environment.

Work-to-rule, go on strike, be my guest. Two words: Contingency planning. Do you taunt a starving tiger when it's backed into a corner? Teachers, just ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?"

PS Revoking a future 5% raise is not an absolute "cut", it's a reduction in the rate of increase. Did test scores go up 5%? No. Did anything else in East Providence improve by 5%? No.

Robert B. -

Justin is 100% correct.

The idea of solving our problems via consolidation or a "state-wide contract" is rubbish.

It is something people trot out everytime there is a new contract and an unwillingness to go to the mat to force the long over-due reforms required in the nut-bag Union contracts.

The last thing we need is to give up local control to a handful of thiefs in Providence. Can you point to a single state agency that has done things right? Are you not aware of the mess we are in at the State level?

We need to push, encourage and support School Committees like EP that are finally (albeit late) standing up to the Unions and saying "NO".

Simultaneously, we need to put a mountain of pressure on our elected officials in the GA to put forth Collective Bargaining reform, including making RI a Right To Work state.

Every chance we get, we need to publicly ask our Reps and Senators why they think it is fair for them to receive Free Healthcare, or ask why they are not enacting Pension Reform, or why they are not putting forth Collective Bargaining reform, etc.

Every time they are on a talk show, we need to call them and hold their feet to the fire. We need to write letters-to-the-editor calling them out by name and putting them on the spot.

We can no longer be shoulder shruggers with the defeatist menatality of "ah, what can you do".

Howdy George,

I have had the honor to meet and train quite a few individuals in state government that do a great job. I have also been impressed by the work of several of the state departments. I don't think it is fair to equate all state government with the criminal and unethical side of the equation. As far as the we vs them rhetoric goes, I have heard the same thing from labor attorneys that have been involved in every contract I have worked on. I have heard the same we vs them rhetoric from every union official that I dealt with. It is all designed to manipulate, instigate, and infuriate. Real negotiation, like good diplomacy, is a thoughtful process. I can't imagine how you would go about creating a uniformly thoughtful process without removing personality from the equation. And, the makeup of local government committees is based on personality and politics - many of those personalities are way over the top. Infuriating and instigating them is an art form in this State.So, I agree with both you and Justin that you are 100% right about who gets what and how.
However, the issue in my mind is how do we pay for quality, affordable public education. I think the solution is a statewide contract in a state that's about as wide as many counties are in full-figured states.