POLICY HIGHLIGHTER

Volume 13, Number 28
October 23, 2003

Binding arbitration likely to delay settlement

On October 20, 2003, retired Chief Justice Bob Utter and former legislator Denny Heck completed the job assigned to them by the governor: “to examine the issues presented by both sides in the Marysville school strike and help urge a resolution.”

Their findings undergirded most of what Marysville school district officials had been saying, which made their recommendations for a remedy puzzling indeed. The special masters, Heck and Utter, agreed that the district has no money for the raises demanded by teachers, yet they said the teachers should get some kind of raise. They also recommended binding arbitration if a settlement couldn’t be reached.

Unlike the private sector, where binding arbitration can be effective in labor disputes, it is a dismal failure in the public sector. Arbitrators do not have to consider the school district’s financial position when they cut a deal. The quality of education received by students for the dollars invested is not a consideration for the arbitrator, yet the school district must be concerned about that standard.

Using binding arbitration to solve labor disputes in our public schools:

• Removes control from locally elected school boards and puts far reaching power in the hands of a person not elected and not accountable to the voters. As previously stated, the arbitrator’s decision is binding, even though it doesn’t consider the impact on the quality of education children are receiving or the districts’ financial situation. This can force a school district to cut educational programs in order to fund an arbitrator’s decision.
  
  
• Can affect other employees (classified), but the arbitrator has neither the authority nor the responsibility to examine their situation. This ‘ripple’ effect of an arbitrator’s decision could cause significant financial problems for a school district.
  
  
• Does not consider the long-term plans of the school district, which in Marysville is to increase student performance.
  
  
• Is a no-risk step for the teachers’ union. We were unable to locate a case where an arbitrator has awarded a public sector union less than what management had already offered. This encourages union rejection of any offer since they will likely win more by taking chances with an arbitrator.
  
  
• Is another cost the district will have to absorb.
  
  
• Discourages honest, good-faith collective bargaining. The teachers’ union has less incentive to compromise knowing it can take the dispute to an arbitrator.
  
  
• Reduces accountability and responsibility. The arbitrator does not have to take responsibility for his decision. This runs contrary to the principles of representative government and sound public administration.

In addition, the panel made it clear that the academic performance of Marysville students is a legitimate matter of concern. But during interviews, Marysville Education Association President Elaine Hanson said, “How much a teacher gets paid has nothing to do with student performance.” In the Seattle Times Hanson stated, “The district needs to look at its priorities and put the teacher number one because the teacher is the most important factor in the classroom.”

Why would the teacher be the most important factor in the classroom if the purpose isn’t student performance? Furthermore, if student performance isn’t connected to teacher pay, what is the measure of value? Why should any more money be awarded?

The panel agreed with the school board positions on the following issues:

• Bargaining should have continued while classrooms were open.
• The district does not have the funds to meet the union demands.
• Marysville teachers are among the highest paid in the state.
• Student performance levels are a legitimate subject of concern.
• Moving to a single salary schedule is a legitimate change.
• Teachers need more professional development, and those funds have been raided in previous years to pay for increased pay.
• The pay rate for the TRI days (Time, Resources and Incentives) is about 237% of the regular daily rate for teachers.

The panel did not agree with any of the claims of the Marysville Education Association, except that a raise of some size was in order. They understood that the higher teacher salaries in Marysville were obtained in the past by diverting money intended for reduced class size, classified staff and professional development activities.

Unfortunately, their recommendations do not fit the rest of facts they uncovered. They wanted a negotiated pay increase for teachers at their base rate, but they identified no source of obtaining these funds.

As the panel noted, this was a classic power struggle, and it continues to this day. On November 3, the union is hoping to replace three school board members, recall the two remaining and fire the superintendent. If they accomplish this, it will not change the facts: the district does not have the money to fund the union’s demands.

Prepared by Bob Williams | President

Contact: Marsha Richards | Communications Director | 360.956.3482

Evergreen Freedom Foundation P.O. Box 552, Olympia, WA 98507 Phone: (360) 956-3482, Fax: (360) 352-1874 Email: effwa@effwa.org