Editor’s note: This commentary is by Robert Letovsky, of Jericho, who is a professor of business administration and accounting at St. Michael’s College and the past chairman of the Executive and Negotiations committees of the former Chittenden East Supervisory Union (now the Mount Mansfield Modified Union School District). This piece was first published in the Burlington Free Press on Dec. 4.
[T]he recently concluded contract between the Burlington School District and its teachers’ union has resolved what most people would agree was a tough negotiation. The bargaining, which produced this new contract, followed the board’s imposition of a one-year employment policy and threats of a strike by the union. Though the actual terms of the new contract don’t differ significantly from the imposed employment policy, the union would like us to believe its opposition was purportedly about the imposition itself rather than money.
As soon as the board invoked this perfectly legal action, we heard calls of “injustice” by the union. Invoking the concept of justice in a complex situation like this, with multiple stakeholders (i.e. parents, children, teachers, board members and taxpayers) seeking different things, is tricky. The contract – and by extension the imposed policy – could indeed be seen as “unjust” to stakeholders in the community other than the teachers union. So let’s look at some of the key pieces of the contract and imposed policy through a “justice” lens as the teachers union wishes.
• Health insurance premiums: The new contact, like the imposed policy, set teachers’ share of health insurance premiums at 17 percent, starting in January 2017. This is still well below the 20 percent paid by other Vermont state employees and most Vermonters, including many Burlington taxpayers. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics 2016 data, state/local employees nationally paid 29 percent of total premiums, and K-12 teachers nationally paid even more: 33 percent. Data from the Kaiser Family Foundation shows that nationally, the typical private sector employee now pays 30 percent of the premiums for a family plan.
• Salaries: The new contract increases teacher salaries by 2.75 percent increase, an average of over $1,900 per full-time teacher. This increase is almost triple the recent inflation rate. Again, back to our justice lens. Compare these increases with the declines of 2.5 percent in median household income and a decline of 3.62 percent in real median family income in Vermont over the past three years.
Taxpayer concern is especially threatening in a state where almost three-quarters of all households no longer have school-aged children, which ranks as the second oldest in the nation, and where there has been virtually no population growth this decade.
• Other leaves: The employment policy and new contract maintained a long list of rich leave benefits for teachers, including personal, bereavement and family leave, plus 20 sick days cumulative to 190 days (for a 187-day work year), and a sick leave “bank.”
• Support for public education: Negotiations between school districts and teacher unions affect many stakeholders. Among them are seniors, homeowners on fixed or limited incomes, and those who don’t have children in the schools. Many of these people struggle with an affordability crisis widely acknowledged across Vermont’s political spectrum. Chittenden County now ranks 62nd highest of 2,773 counties in the United States for the percentage of family income taken up by property taxes. Data from the NEA shows that Vermont’s teachers ranked eighth highest in the nation in percentage salary increases from 2003 to 2014, and first in the nation for average wage increases from 2012 to 2014. Meanwhile, Vermont has one of the lowest student-teacher ratios in the nation (10.55 to 1 versus 15.9 to 1 national average). Burlington schools (with few exceptions) are either very close to, or only slightly higher than, that statewide figure.
Based on this data it’s reasonable to expect that some Burlington property owners might conclude that the increases the teachers’ union received are indeed unjust. Many express fears of losing their homes or leaving Vermont in the face of relentless property tax hikes. Anyone who has served on school board and been involved in negotiations with the teachers’ union, as I have, is very aware of this broad-based sentiment. Taxpayer concern is especially threatening in a state where almost three-quarters of all households no longer have school-aged children, which ranks as the second oldest in the nation, and where there has been virtually no population growth this decade.
What’s at stake here is continued support for public education in Burlington and across Vermont. That support will only continue if all stakeholders feel that the outcome of contract negotiations is just. Teacher unions statewide should be mindful of this fact as they prepare to negotiate next year’s contracts. The compensation terms of the new Burlington contract and the preceding policy may indeed be unjust, but certainly not to teachers.
