By Mike de Give
An arm of the high school teachers' union rejected a mediator's settlement offer last week, saying a key ingredient was missing: trust.
The Representative Council of the Fremont Education Association decided that the latest proposal to end the year-long contract talks did not have enough merit to pass on to the union membership for a vote.
"[The administration] may trust us, but we don't trust them one bit," said FEA President George Gredassoff. "And they may not trust us, either."
The offer called for a 7.05 percent wage increase and an additional raise if district revenue exceeds $33 million.
The details of the offer were not made public, but teachers said it also included provisions to share district reserves if those funds topped $4.5 million.
"But there was no way we could prevent them from spending down to a level lower than that," Gredassoff said.
The settlement proposal was drafted
by a state-appointed, independent member of a fact-finding panel, which was created to help resolve the dispute.
Bebe Sellers, the district's lead negotiator, said through an associate that it would be inappropriate for her to comment on the proposal.
Gredassoff acknowledged that the proposal indicated that the independent fact finder may have found more merit in the administration's position.
The panel also includes representatives from the union and administration.
Since the settlement was rejected, the fact-finding panel will issue a report of its findings, said Gregory Dannis, the administration's representative.
"I assume the report will be nearly identical to the proposed settlement we put forth," Dannis said.
However, Dannis and his counterpart from the union may either concur or dissent with the report. It's likely the union representative will dissent, Dannis said.
Once the report is released, the disputing parties may negotiate the matter based on the findings of the report. The findings become public after 10 days.
A major sticking point in the settlement proposal were the provisions for health insurance, Gredassoff said. The money that would normally be spent to pay for insurance would instead be tacked on to each teachers' paycheck. Teachers could opt to buy the district's insurance package or simply keep the money.
Union members say the plan would divide teachers into camps. Some teachers have insurance from another source, and would therefore be paid more than teachers who don't have such an option. Moreover, if the money isn't used to buy insurance it would give veteran teachers a bigger salary to base their retirement pay on.
"The proposal drops a wedge between the new teachers in the district and the veteran teachers," Gredassoff argued. "This association in its entire history has always taken the position that everyone is covered by health benefits and the district pays for those. It's an egalitarian philosophy--everyone gets health coverage."
The union leadership did like certain parts of the proposal, such as agreements on class size and hours of work. But that language had already been settled before the fact-finding panel was created, Gredassoff said.
"The potential was there, but there was also potential for tremendous loss," Gredassoff said.
If the union and administrators can't reach an agreement based on the fact-finding panel's report, the district can impose a "last best offer" through June Gredassoff said.
"If they impose something we find repugnant, and we're willing to do so, then we are legally sanctioned to take any other action up to and including a strike," he said. "But nobody wants a strike. There are a few red hots, but nobody really wants a strike."
[ Back to Contents Page | Sunnyvale Sun Home Page | Archives ]
This article appeared in the Sunnyvale Sun, May 7, 1997.
©1997 Metro Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved.