Editor’s note: This op-ed is by George C. Cross, a former Winooski school superintendent and Democratic state legislator. He was on the House Education Committee for eight years, serving as chair for two years.
The Bennington teacher strike again brings to the forefront the issues related to public-sector strikes. But first let me get the disclaimer out of the way:
I grew up in a union family. At a very early age, sat at my father’s knee listening to John L. Lewis and other union leaders as they addressed the nation via radio. It was a requirement in our house. I was first trained in the art of negotiating as a young Vermont teacher by the NEA, around 1960. That training was augmented by much more in Massachusetts throughout the 60s. In the early 70s I moved to the other side of the table as a school administrator. Over the next 30 years I had the good fortune of working with top-flight labor attorneys representing school districts in three states, including Vermont. Throughout all this training there was one basic concept repeatedly driven home: “Every negotiation has to end in an agreement.”
The problem with Vermont’s collective bargaining law for educators is that it trades the “right to strike” for “imposition of work rules.” Boards can arbitrarily impose a “contract” and teachers are free to go on strike. Neither of these options gives any real consideration to the children, the families or even the school or community. Like many laws, this one has probably outlived its usefulness. Teachers deserve the right to organize and to negotiate certain conditions of employment. Boards as the other negotiating party deserve the opportunity to represent the community at large. However, when the parties cannot agree, there has to be a way to conclude the process without work stoppages, arbitrary impositions or months and months (even years) of indecision.
Several states, including Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Washington, use “last-best-offer-by-total-package” arbitration. Under this procedure, an arbitrator selects and puts into place either the “last best offer” of the union or of the board. The arbitrator has to select the whole package and cannot pick and choose from the two. It is this “whole package” requirement that makes this process work. Arbitration in this fashion requires both parties to temper their last offer or run the risk of ending up with one they don’t like. The best part is that it ensures finality in a reasonable timeframe.
There are many details that would need to be worked out in order to implement such a law in Vermont. It will not be easy, but Vermonters are good at working together to craft reasonable and fair laws. There is no reason to believe that this could not be accomplished in this arena. All negotiations will begin in a spirit of cooperation and compromise as the threat of an arbitrator’s ruling restrains both parties. Most importantly, this process will best serve the children, the families the school and the community.
