It’s disappointing to see retired teacher and principal John Savage (R – East Providence) release an op-ed in favor of binding arbitration on House Minority Office letterhead. The piece (provided in full in the extended entry) amounts to union spin issued in the name of the Republican Party. The substantive core of Savage’s argument is as follows:

There is a belief that arbitration decisions overwhelmingly favor teacher unions. Over a span of ten years, (long enough to give us a respectable sampling) 636 teacher contracts were negotiated in the Nutmeg State. Only seventy-five (12%) of these contracts (756 individual items) were submitted to arbitration. Scorecard of decisions rendered: School Boards-379/ Unions-377. Let us probe deeper! Health Insurance issues: School Boards-52%/ Unions 48%, Working Conditions: School Boards 53%/ Unions 47%, Salary issues: School Boards 42%/ Unions 58%.
Well did those arbitrated salary decisions put the strain on municipal budgets? Maybe they did, but certainly not because of the arbitration. The arbitrated salary increases averaged 2.39% while the negotiated salary increases averaged 2.48%.

Savage offers zero, zilch, nada indication of his source or of the 10-year span that he’s describing. He explains that binding arbitration became law in Connecticut in 1979, which ought to leave almost three decades of data. Why present numbers from only one third of those years? It’s curious to note that, in this regard, the elected Republican representative’s spin is more egregious than that of NEA Assistant Executive Director Pat Crowley, who at least divulged the years at which he was looking and used a span showing higher increases than Savage describes (my response here).
The lack of citation also makes it impossible to adjust for context. So School Boards won 52% of healthcare-related disputes, but that might mean they won the right to send out plan descriptions in digital form, instead of paper while the unions won the right to continue paying 4% coshares. Who knows?
One thing we can say is that, alone among the various categories that Savage lists, salary increases inherently compound. Health insurance and working conditions can change from year to year; salaries never, never go down in the world of public sector education.
If Savage is truly after a solution — for the benefit of Rhode Island’s students — that will resolve contract disputes through “fair and evenhanded legislation,” he could advocate for a ban on retroactivity. That would give the unions incentive to reach agreement, rather than to drag out “negotiations” for years on end to ensure that the cost of their labor never recedes.
The most fundamental problem with Savage’s position is that he cuts out the consideration of most concern to those whom he ostensibly represents. That the arbitration produces slightly less remunerative results for unions tells us only that it kicks into gear where the terms of contracts are most hotly disputed. In other words, it’s a safety switch that unions can hit when taxpayers manage to mount a truly substantive response to their steamroller.

Full text of Savage’s op-ed:
Binding arbitration is a solution to a problem. Not one child has lost a single day of school due to a teacher dispute in Connecticut since binding arbitration legislation was passed in 1979. But is this cure worse than the disease? Let us look at the Connecticut experience and you decide for yourself.
There is a belief that arbitration decisions overwhelmingly favor teacher unions. Over a span of ten years, (long enough to give us a respectable sampling) 636 teacher contracts were negotiated in the Nutmeg State. Only seventy-five (12%) of these contracts (756 individual items) were submitted to arbitration. Scorecard of decisions rendered: School Boards-379/ Unions-377. Let us probe deeper! Health Insurance issues: School Boards-52%/ Unions 48%, Working Conditions: School Boards 53%/ Unions 47%, Salary issues: School Boards 42%/ Unions 58%.
Well did those arbitrated salary decisions put the strain on municipal budgets? Maybe they did, but certainly not because of the arbitration. The arbitrated salary increases averaged 2.39% while the negotiated salary increases averaged 2.48%.
But isn’t it true that Connecticut’s teachers are the highest paid in the country because of binding arbitration? When binding arbitration first became law, Connecticut’s teachers were the fourteenth highest paid in the country. Six years and two teacher contract cycles later they remained fourteenth in the country.
That changed when that the Connecticut Legislature passed, “An Act Concerning Education Enhancement” which gave dollar incentive grants to school districts to raise their classroom teacher’s salaries. It was then that teacher salaries rose.
Won’t teacher unions deliberately maneuver cities and towns into an expensive arbitration process? Again, over a ten year span only 12% of contracts went to arbitration. That means the remaining 88% didn’t.
If it is utilized so minimally, why even allow for arbitration? In Rhode Island the Michelson Act, which allows teachers to collectively bargain, provides no mechanism which will ultimately resolve a dispute. There must be a means to bring finality and fairness to the contractual process for the sake of students, teachers and taxpayers.
Presently teachers have no real options. They cannot legally withhold their services without punishment from the courts and they cannot institute work to rule (which they themselves abhor) without experiencing the wrath of the community. Meanwhile those with whom they are negotiating can refuse to even talk for as long as they see fit. If one believes in a collective bargaining process, then one must also believe in a way to bring such a process to a reasonable end. Yes, binding arbitration is a solution.
The legislation which allows for binding arbitration can and should unequivocally ban teacher strikes. And the legislation can by statute also require arbitrators to fully consider the financial capability of a city or town, school and non- school demands upon the city or town, and the public interest of the taxpayer.
Binding arbitration is an opportunity to be grasped. Fair and evenhanded legislation can bring to an end teacher contract disputes in Rhode Island once and for all.