Collective Bargaining in Chicago

Collective Bargaining Underlying Causes Of The Dispute On September 10, 2012, the 26,500 members of the Chicago Teachers Union went on strike, and this strike was not specifically related to the teachers' demand for higher wages, but rather it was based mainly on teacher evaluations. Teachers objected to the district basing the pay of teachers on standardized tests that reflect student achievement (Bureau of Labor Statistics). Placing "…too much emphasis on standardized test scores…diminishes children's education and punishes teachers unfairly," said Stephanie Gadlin, a spokesperson for the Chicago Teachers' Union (Liebelson, 2012).

There were other issues too that sent teachers into the streets for 8 days until September 18. One additional important issue was related to the school district's plan to take more out of teachers' paychecks to cover health insurance costs; the teachers wanted to maintain "existing benefits and sick days without increasing the contribution rate" (Liebelson, 2012). Another issue that caused the strike was that the teachers objected to the district removing the previously agreed-upon (through collective bargaining) plan that gives teachers automatic pay raises based on years of service (bls.gov).

A total of 350,000 students in Chicago got a week's vacation from school while the strike was on; and in the meantime the teachers picketed in the streets demanding these additional changes: a) more teaching training; b) a timetable for when the district would install air conditioning in student classrooms; and c) a "fair recall procedure for laid off teachers and fair compensation for a longer school year" (Liebelson, p. 3).

The Chicago School District made an offer during collective bargaining that officials with the district called a "fair and reasonable deal"; that deal included a 16% increase in teachers' salaries (which would have cost the district $320 million over the next four years), security for laid off teachers, and paid maternity leave; but the teachers rejected that initial proposal (Liebelson, p. 3).

What economic or ethical pressures did both sides use? The economic impact / pressure by the teachers union was dramatic; when you go on strike and as a result, 350,000 students are not in school, that is economic pressure because keeping the schools maintained when nothing is going on inside them gets expensive in a hurry. Moreover, the school district was already facing a "$1 billion budget deficit" for the year 2013, and that fact put pressure on both sides to come to a collective bargaining agreement (Davey, et al., 2012).

Asking the city's school bureaucracy to increase salaries at a time when the average teacher was earning $76,000 As to the rhetoric (in which both sides attempted to use ethical issues) Mayor Rahm Emanuel "…bluntly accused teachers of valuing their pocketbooks over the futures of thousands of schoolchildren"; but union leaders "blasted the mayor as a bully trying to intimidate them into a bad deal" (Pearson, 2012).

On Sunday, September 14, a tentative deal was indeed reached but the teachers union decided to forge again with the strike because the deal wasn't what they were hoping for. At that, Mayor Emanuel "…went before reporters to vow court action to force teachers back to work." In response to that, the teachers union accused the mayor of "…trying to limit their rights to read the newly settled contract"; a judge refused to hear Emanuel's request for a court order (Pearson, p. 3).

One of the things that Emanuel and the school district was trying to do was to force an injunction to end the strike; that is, in Illinois there is a law that "bars teachers from striking over noneconomic issues" (Davey, p. 3). In fact there was a court hearing scheduled for Wednesday, the 18th of September, and when a vote of the teachers was reached on the 17th, the union agreed to go back to work, which in effect cancelled the court hearing.

Where there any illegal or unethical behaviors? No illegal or unethical activities on the part of either side were reported in the press. Perhaps that was because it was a teacher's strike, and teachers -- even when they use their clout as a union -- have a great amount of respect in the media and in communities.

The results of collective bargaining -- the resolution of major issues How did the teachers do overall in their strike-promoted collective bargaining with the school district? Before the strike the district was using standardized test scores to determine 45% of teacher evaluations. In the settlement the teachers whittled that 45% down to "no more than 30% of teacher evaluations" (bls.gov). The new deal calls for an average raise of 17.6% over four years (the union was seeking a 30% raise) (Pearson, p. 2).

The new deal (a three-year contact that has a fourth year as an option) means that teachers won't have to pay an increased amount on health insurance and other health issues, Pearson explains, and teachers will not have to give up their previously negotiated seniority pay increases (mentioned earlier in this paper) and teachers that are laid-off have "better job opportunities than district officials had proposed," and teachers got better control over their "own jobs and protections from intimidation by supervisors" (Pearson, p. 2).

Mayor Emanuel said (after the strike was over) that "…this is in the best interest of our students, who need the very best teachers…it is in the interest of our teachers, who always strike to achieve the best results they can for their students…" (Pearson, p. 2). The New York Times quoted Emanuel saying that "This settlement is an honest compromise. It means returning our schools to their primary purpose: the education of our children.

It means a new day and a new direction for Chicago Public Schools," Emanuel said (Davey, p. 2). Were their third parties as part of this collective bargaining issue? The only "third parties" mentioned in the available literature were the parents of the students whose teachers had gone on strike. They were not exactly third parties, but they were always in the background as the collective bargaining proceeded.

"I'm hopeful that parents and teachers and administrators can now focus on the kids' learning," said Maura Robbins, who has two school-age children (Davey, p. 2). Indeed the teachers union understood that pressure was mounting to find a solution. The hundreds of delegates representing the 26,000 teachers had "vastly different views and concerns," and so the union had to "balance the risk of losing public support" as the strike wore on.

One of the teachers, Barbara Relerford, who served as a union delegate, said the contract was the best that could have been expected. "I think the power of the union has been amplified all over this nation. And we miss our kids. We're ready to.