POLICY HIGHLIGHTER

Volume 14, Number 1
January 13, 2004

HB 2343: Binding arbitration for teachers

What will the proposed legislation do?

House Bill 2343 is "an act relating to binding interest arbitration for certificated school employees." The bill repeals current rules governing an impasse in negotiations between a teachers' union and a school district, and replaces them with a binding arbitration process. The bill also prohibits teacher strikes, but does not specify penalties for violations, referring them instead to the courts.

Key provisions of HB 2343

1. Teacher strikes prohibited (Section 6): The bill unequivocally declares that "the right of educational employees to engage in any strike, work slowdown, or work stoppage is prohibited."

Problem: The provision declares that violators will be found in contempt of court. This does not change the status quo. Washington's courts have already ruled more than twenty times that teacher strikes are illegal. Courts currently have the power to take action against striking teachers, although no set penalties exist. To improve on the current situation, clear penalties for strikes should be defined by the legislature. Discretion should not be arbitrarily left to the courts. Without meaningful penalties, there is little incentive to avoid illegal strikes.

2. Financial authority granted to arbitration panel (Section 2): The bill declares that decisions made by an appointed arbitration panel "shall be final and binding upon both parties" in the dispute.

Problem: Voters elect school boards to represent the best interests of students and provide stewardship over a district's finances. HB 2343 would take control out of the hands of the locally elected school board and give it to an unelected arbitration panel. While school board members are accountable to voters, an unelected arbitration panel is not.

3. Arbitration panel authorized to consider specific factors (Section 3): The bill lists several factors that an arbitration panel "shall take into consideration."

Problem: Some of the authorizations given to the panel are rendered meaningless by apparent contradictions in current state law. The bill requires arbitrators to abide by the legal obligations of the school district in dispute. This means the panel is limited by restrictions placed on a district's ability to increase compensation for teachers (RCW 28A.150.410 and 28A.400.200). State law prohibits districts from granting across-the-board base salary increases, since the state salary schedule is determined by the legislature. A district can award one-year supplemental contracts, which are paid for with local funds, but these are limited to extra duty (additional work hours and responsibility), time and incentives. Supplemental contracts cannot be used to award cost-of-living or base salary increases.

Despite these limitations, HB 2343 requires the arbitration panel to compare the wages, hours and employment conditions of the district in dispute with other districts of similar size and situation around the state. This ignores the fact that some districts have higher salary schedules that were grandfathered in when the state salary schedule was adopted. Comparing districts in this manner also fails to take into consideration the different district levy capacities. It also ignores specific efforts districts are making to improve educational performance.

While a school district is required to bargain collectively over the terms of supplemental contracts, it is not required to agree to union demands, award a contract, or renew contracts after one year. It is assumed that a district will consider how limited local funds can best be distributed to achieve the goal of providing all students with an opportunity to earn an excellent education. The same cannot be assumed of an arbitration panel that is not required to consider a district's mission and long-term educational plans.

While the bill absolves the state from any "liability for funding the arbitration panel's award" in excess of funds already provided, a district will be bound by the award. This means the district would likely have to make up the difference with cuts in student programs or the salaries of employees who are not members of the disputing union.

Conclusion: It is unlikely that an arbitration panel, operating within current state laws, could award a contract that did not require a school district to make cuts in existing programs in order to comply. School districts are dependent on the legislature to provide across-the-board base salary increases for teachers, and they are limited by state laws in their ability to provide supplemental contracts. An arbitration panel is limited by the same laws, which means, in essence, the binding arbitration bill would simply transfer control over local district budgets out of the hands of an elected school board and into the hands of an unelected panel. The process itself would also mean increased costs for school districts and less accountability for taxpayers.

In addition, although the bill declares that teacher strikes are illegal, the lack of meaningful enforcement/penalties does little to change the status quo.

Prepared by Bob Williams (President)

Contact: Jason Mercier | Budget Researsh Analyst | 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