The San Francisco public school community is in the middle of a tense period. To one side, we are looking at a slew of terrible proposed policies in the upcoming special election. Propositions 74 and 76 are particularly crucial for public education. Prop. 74 would ludicrously extend teachers’ probationary period from 2 to 5 years. Prop. 76 would disastrously gut guaranteed baseline funding for schools and give the sitting Governor unprecedented unitary ability to cut the budget.
To the other side, we are facing a long-standing labor dispute between SEIU Local 790, representing such employees as cafeteria servers, secretaries and custodians, and the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD). The two parties have been in negotiations for quite awhile now, yet we are closer to confronting a strike than anyone would like. The situation continues to be tense, but there have been a few positive turns of late.
First, the Mayor has expressed a willingness to participate in some form in negotiations, to which both sides have agreed. Second, City Controller Ed Harrington, a well-respected neutral party, is going to review the budget. These are welcomed interventions that hopefully will serve to change the dynamic of the negotiations, perhaps bring in new resources, and at the very least provide alternate perspectives that could lead to new solutions.
The participation of people such as the Mayor and Controller are especially important right now as progress between the two disputing parties is difficult to gauge. While negotiations are ongoing many details remain private, but there are several overall issues driving the situation-wages, health care coverage, and, potentially, classification.
Wages and health care issues have been receiving all of the attention. Everyone agrees that workers represented by 790 (as well as other school staff such as teachers and principals) have not had a cost of living increase in several years. The union is asking for stepped increases over about a year (2% in June 2006, 1.25% in December 2006, 1.25% in April 2007). For benefits coverage they are asking for “75% of the Kaiser rate for the employee plus 2” (This was taken from the SEIU website http://www.seiu790.org/docUploads/latestproposals10.12.pdf.).
In contrast to the union’s proposal, the district has presented two options that trade off wages and health care coverage. “Option A” provides dependent healthcare coverage for the length of the contract and a 2% raise in June 2007. “Option B” provides 2% wage increase in June of 2006 and 2007, maintains employee healthcare coverage levels but provides a “significant proportion” of dependent care costs. (See the full text of the options on the district’s website http://portal.sfusd.edu .)
At the heart of the wage and benefits difference is the district’s contention that there are not sufficient funds to both expand health care benefits coverage for dependents and provide salary increases. The union disagrees with this analysis and because of the lack of financial transparency it’s hard, if not impossible, for the public to make an informed judgment either way. The district has provided useful information on its website regarding how 790 employees compare to similarly classified workers in other districts. While this is informative, it is just part of the picture, because without a more detailed understanding of the financial backdrop of the district, those comparisons exist in a relative vacuum. at public education is sorely under-financed is clear, but the question is really what choices are being made with the existing monies.
Another piece in all of this which appears in the 790 literature but not in the information from the district is the issue of classification, specifically the number of part-time and temporary positions. Workers in such positions traditionally do not receive benefits. Splitting full-time positions into part-time positions has been actively used throughout the long and unfortunate history of decimating the public sphere. A cursory look through the 790 website and the district’s website did not uncover the number or percentage of 790 employees who are on part-time or temporary status. This is again another area where more data would be helpful.
Parents and public school supporters have a constrained set of options in this situation. We can and should stay informed and urge all parties-the union, the district administration and most importantly, the Board of Education-to do everything in their power to avert a strike. We all realize that a strike would be detrimental to everyone concerned, especially, of course, our children. Emailing and calling the Board of Education members is one important step to take (email addresses are on the district website: http://portal.sfusd.edu/template/default.cfm?page=board.overview_more ), if only to let them know how concerned we all are about this situation.
But after this labor dispute is resolved, and one way or another it will eventually get there, we will still be facing tremendous financial pressures. We have become enmeshed in internal arguments, battling over the small change, while our elected officials in Sacramento and Washington are paying little attention to the issue of public education.
The public school constituency is large, but we are not yet loud enough or bold enough. Emailing, writing and calling our elected officials at the state and federal level is still important, and should become a regular part of our individual and school-group routines. But it’s far past the time of being so polite. We need to be creative and forceful in how we hold our public officials accountable, especially the Governor. He needs to face public school supporters at all of his public appearances, exposing his hypocrisy towards our kids for everyone to see.
Lisa Schiff is the parent of two children who attend McKinley Elementary School in the San Francisco Unified School District and is the president of the board of directors of Parents for Public Schools of San Francisco (http://www.ppssf.org).
