PEA Bargaining Team: Mark Maselli, Chair – Hillview JH, John Giaconia – Black Diamond High, Jeff Greco – Rancho Medanos JHS, Tammy Carr – Highlands, Andrea McKinney – Martin Luther King Jr JHS, Rajnesh Naicker – PHS, & Rosemary Louissaint – CTA Staff    

F l a s h p o i n t s

Negot

NEGOTIATIONS A PUBLICATION OF THE PITTSBURG EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

159 E. 4th Street, Pittsburg, CA 94565 (925) 432-0199, info@peateachers.org April 28, 2014

Negotiation teams close to agreement on leaves and safety articles; District’s compensation proposal leaves much to be desired

The second session of bargaining started off quite well. The district more or less agreed to the association proposal on leaves, allowing seven (7) days for both adoption and paternity. We also came very close to an agreement that would improve the safety article. We have been able to have very good dialogue on these subjects and it is gratifying to be able to come together and agree on important issues.

Staff Meetings / Extended Days

Unfortunately, it was very distressing to have the district reject us out of hand in response to our proposal regarding extended days and staff meetings. Adjusted days were initially created to give teachers time to get together and collaborate around teaching methodology, lesson planning, problem solving, and to simply learn from one another. Over the years, site administrators slowly but surely usurped this time and began using it for whatever they wanted to. Teachers have stated repeatedly that this time would be better spent working on things that are relevant and important to their teaching practice. There is simply not enough teacher-driven collaboration time and we are tired of not having a say in what occurs during adjusted days.

We also proposed a limit to the amount of time that administrators could hold teachers – UNPAID – beyond the contracted day for staff meetings. In our previous cycle of bargaining we were able to get this forced unpaid time limited to once every other week. The association is now seeking to limit these extended meetings to once every three weeks. We are also asking that administrators send an agenda out two days prior to the meeting and to please PUT AN END TIME ON THE ADENDA! We believe it is professional and shows respect to our members and allows those with families to make arrangements for their children ahead of time. Currently some teachers have no idea how long they may be sitting in a meeting or their children left in daycare. Do administrators have to go to meetings without an agenda or end time? We highly doubt it. We are asking to be treated like professionals and respected as adults.

Did the district come back with a counter-offer? No. Did they start a dialogue around the issue? No! The district team came back and said they would like to keep things just the way they are. Status quo! We believe this shows an utter lack of respect for our time and our ability to work together as educators. Teachers should ask their principals, “Don’t you trust us to collaborate on the things that we feel are important?” “Do you think it would be respectful to inform us beforehand the length and end-time of staff meetings?” Since the district was unwilling to even discuss this, we have to believe the site principals want to keep their power to do whatever they want. If you are able to speak to your principal, please email me and let me know what you find out (mmaselli2001@yahoo.com). Since they will not talk to us at the table, we hope you can help us get to the bottom of this. Is it a district mandate? Is it principals’ prerogative?

www.peateachers.org  

PEA Bargaining Team: Mark Maselli, Chair – Hillview JH, John Giaconia – Black Diamond High, Jeff Greco – Rancho Medanos JHS, Tammy Carr – Highlands, Andrea McKinney – Martin Luther King Jr JHS, Rajnesh Naicker – PHS, & Rosemary Louissaint – CTA Staff    

Salary & Benefits

The District’s financial offer was way too LOW! Why? View the chart below and see that the District is receiving an astonishing amount of money from the state. Their offer does not reflect a fair settlement or pay that respects the hard work that you do on a daily basis! The district team said that this is all they can offer because the other money is earmarked for other programs they have planned. Oh really?! From which plan are these programs coming from? Is it the Local Control Accountability Plan that has not yet been written? How can one have money earmarked for a plan that has not been adopted? We wonder if attracting and retaining highly qualified teachers is part of the plan. Make no mistake; this district is getting a massive amount of money over the next 5 years. We will not agree to anything that does not include a respectable increase in both wages and benefits. We have essentially gone backwards in compensation over the last 5 years of tough times; now that the economic situation has improved, we must make-up some of those losses. A budget is about priorities; we expect to be a priority. Teachers are at the heart of the educational program of the district. Compensating teachers fairly will ensure a competitive teaching force for our students.

According to the FCMAT Calculator:

District’s Current Offer:

Salary increase: 3% for 2014-15, 2% for 2015-16, and 2% for 2016-17

Benefits increase: $150 per month for families, $100 per month for employee +1, and $50 per month for employee only.

Total cost of package over three years: approx. $3,000,000

Total new funding for the district over 4 years (including this year where teachers got nothing): $28,000,000

Approx. percent of new money going toward attracting and retaining highly-qualified teachers: 10.7%

It begs the question: Where is the other 90% of new money going?

Will compensating teachers fairly be a priority for PUSD? Stay tuned for updates after the next session.

Respectfully submitted, Mark Maselli Bargaining Chair

PITTSBURG  UNIFIED  SCHOOL  DISTRICT                 2013/14       2014/15       2015/16     2016/17  

GAP  Funding       11.78%       28.05%       33.95%     21.67%  

Current  Year  LCFF  Funding   $70,971,850         $80,220,854         $89,020,573       $93,256,812    

Increase  over  prior  year   $5,402,072         $9,249,005         $8,799,719       $4,236,239    

Percentage  Increase   8.24%       13.03%       10.97%     4.76%  

LCFF  8  Year  Target   $103,064,486       $103,945,128       $106,140,499       $108,569,439