Michigan—The Detroit Federation of Teachers struck on Aug. 28 and beat back efforts to cut salaries 15 percent over three years. The union, which represents about 9,500 teachers and social workers, voted on Sept. 13 to return to schools pending a ratification vote on a three-year tentative agreement that restores threatened wage cuts and offers salary increases in the second and third years. Results of the ratification vote were expected by early October.

The 13-day work action that showcased the resolve of DFT members, who defied a court’s return-to-work order.  It was the determination of members that helped turn back management’s demands for devastating salary cuts, DFT president and AFT vice president Janna Garrison said.

Under the tentative agreement, educators will receive base salary increases of 1 percent effective July 2007 and 2.5 percent effective July 2008. The salary for 2006-07 will be the salary in effect for the prior school year with increment steps restored and a stepped up repayment plan for five days that went uncompensated under the prior contract. DFT negotiators were not able to block hikes in health insurance premium copays under the new agreement; the union was, however, able to win new on-the-job legal protections.

“This contract is not everything we want, but it is enough to go back and work and to continue to fight for equity,” Garrison told members. A key step will be November political mobilization—the tentative pact also includes an agreement to confer on additional compensation should Michigan voters approve a K-16 school-funding ballot initiative. Detroit stood behind its teachers during the strike, with students and civic leaders joining the pickets.

Indiana—Striking AFT members in Gary, Ind., held the line—and won. On Sept. 1, members of the AFT affiliate approved a three-year contract and returned to schools the same day, ending a nine-day strike that showed district bullying could not undermine the resolve of more than 1,400 teachers and paraprofessionals represented by the Gary Teachers Union. Ratification by the school board was pending as American Teacher went to press.

The district threatened termination and warned that it would cut off health and life insurance for strikers, says Sandra Irons, president of the local and an AFT vice president. “But the unity was there. Our people just dug in.”

Members of the Gary local went on strike Aug. 21 over three key issues: the school system’s discipline policy; effots to cut students’ and teachers’ lunch periods from one hour to 30 minutes; and the district’s efforts to increase the amount teachers must pay toward healthcare coverage.

Along with 2 percent annual salary increases, retroactive to Jan. 1, 2005, the new deal improves healthcare coverage for paraprofessionals.
Illinois—Following a strike that lasted six days, members of the Wolf Branch (Ill.) Teachers Association ratified their contract on Aug. 30. This was the first strike for the unit, which has only been part of the Illinois Federation of Teachers for seven years.

The Wolf Branch local represents 53 teachers in the K-8 district. “We learned a lot” from the work action, says the local’s interim president Jeff Birk. “We didn’t just sit back and take what they tried to force on us. Our members stood strong and really became active. We had good parent support.”

Call it 100 percent wrong
AFT and NEA join forces against the so-called 65 percent solution

Coming soon to your state—if it’s not there already—is the latest bad idea for improving schools at no cost. Dubbed the “65 percent solution,” it would require all school districts to spend at least 65 percent of their money on classroom instruction.

That sounds reasonable until you read the fine print. “Instruction” includes football and ice hockey, but leaves out librarians, nurses, counselors, cafeterias and buses. So this isn’t necessarily about cutting central office bureaucracy.

Last year, the Austin American-Statesman got hold of an internal memo from First Class Education, the group pushing this idea. The memo spells out what it calls “The Political Benefits of 1st Class Education.” At the top of the list? “Republicans will have a viable answer to ‘in the classroom improvement of education’ without the need for a tax increase.”

The next benefit: “Splitting of the Education Union.”

So far, Georgia has mandated the 65 percent formula and Texas has a watered-down version.

AFT and the National Education Association are working together to defeat 65 percent referendums in Colorado and Oklahoma. They are under consideration in many other states as well, but there are signs the tide may be turning. Many business and community leaders are joining educators in saying this arbitrary budget target has nothing to do with better schools.

Nationally, 61.3 percent of school spending fits the federal definition of “instruction.” There is no indication that districts which spend more than 65 percent do a better job.

For more on the “65 percent solution,” visit www.aft.org/topics/65percent.

A version of this story also appears in the October issue of NEA Today.

That’s why the AFT joined with 27 other public employee groups this summer in urging Congress to reject schemes to apply private sector rules to public pensions. The warning is timely because on Aug. 17, President Bush signed a new law ratcheting up pension requirements for companies­—rules that likely will pressure more private sector employers to jettison high-quality, traditional pensions for their workers.

Any attempt to graft the new rules onto public pension plans would be wildly inappropriate and could spell disaster for public employees and their rights to a decent retirement, the coalition warns.

Pressure already is building.

Many critics of strong pensions have stepped up efforts to bury the distinction between public and private plans now that the Pension Reform Act of 2006 is law. As the new private pension law was nearing completion, ranking members of the Senate Finance Committee asked investigators to conduct a sweeping study of public pensions. “Many of the public sector plans are even more poorly funded than their private sector equivalents,” the lawmakers wrote in a letter to the Government Accountability Office, which also asked GAO to fold in a financial assessment of health plans for public sector retirees as well.

The letter prompted the AFT and other public employee groups to step in quickly to correct the record. Public and private pensions are not equivalents: There “are fundamental differences between governments and business that result in critical distinctions between plans in each sector and the way in which they are accounted for and measured,” the coalition reminded Congress and the GAO in an Aug. 2 letter to lawmakers.

Credit quality is one important distinction.

It’s generally accepted that riskier plans should provide more upfront funding to keep them healthy and solvent. “Public plans are backed by the full faith and credit of state and local governments, [and accrued benefits] typically are protected by state constitutions, statutes or case law,” the coalition pointed out. This provides “far greater protections” for employees and also means that public pensions, almost by definition, offer higher credit quality than plans backed by private companies and federal insurance.

Moreover, public plans are in good financial condition. As a group, 86 percent of public pension liabilities are funded—a level that history and current standards deem healthy. And the levels are rising, the coalition stressed.

In addition, calls to fold a health plan assessment into the upcoming federal study will create problems where none exist. “Retiree health benefits are handled separately and independently and often are not administered or funded as part of a government retirement system,” the coalition reminded lawmakers.

These inconvenient truths are frequently ignored by many pension “reformers.” They would welcome efforts to saddle public pension plans with costly new rules adopted for the private sector—such as a mandate for 100 percent funding of private plans within seven years. Of course, such a move would be contrary to sound practice and devastating to many traditional pension plans.

But isn’t that the point?

Pressure to graft private sector rules onto public plans comes largely from groups seeking to destroy pensions, rather than to save them. They welcome talk of a “pension crisis,” manufactured or otherwise, since it greases their long-term goals of replacing traditional pensions with 401(k)-type plans. These are “defined-contribution” plans where employees are forced to go it alone—assuming all the risk of investing for a decent retirement.

Go to page 3