St. Louis Public union votes to turn down contract, 3% raise
The St. Louis Public Schools teachers union voted Monday night to turn down the districts’ final contract offer, which included a raise of at least 3 percent each year.
The union, American Federation of Teachers Local 420, said the meeting “ended abruptly when the majority of the participants stormed out… claiming that no more time was needed to render a decision on the obvious,” according to a statement on the union web site.
Union members were distrustful of the state-imposed special administrative board, the statement said, and claimed there were too many “take aways” in the proposal.
Board President Rick Sullivan said in a statement that district leaders were “very disappointed.”
“At a time when the district is facing fiscal pressures, steps were taken to ensure that our teachers, paraprofessionals, secretaries and security staff - those on the front line of education in St. Louis - were provided a proposal that increased pay a minimum of 3% each year for two years, maintained insurance benefits and provided a high quality retirement package.”
The St. Louis Public board faces a $50 million deficit on its $350 million budget this year, and voted this winter to close 17 district schools.
This vote has nothing to do with the money. The SAB wants to hold all the cards and teachers have no recourse if they are hurt on the job or have things stolen. Things have a habit of missing in our school buildings all the time. The teachers have no support of the district in the matter of decipline. The teachers can be fired at the whim of the Principal ust because of what they wear. Yes we are off for two months but we also don’t get paid for those days. Let Rick Sullivan get out of his Ivory Castle that he lives in and live in some of our homes. Most of the teachers have to have 2 jobs to make ends meet. But its give up everything for a 3% raise. What a crock of bull from the SOB’s from the SAB.
some of the math teachers need to explain a few things to the rest of the union. a 3% raise is golden in this economy. I can also be fired at the whim of my bosses…it is called having a job. You are off for two months…true you don’t get paid, but you also have a job waiting at the end of those months and you can get your second job during that time as well. The public is hardly going pass anymore tax raises to pay for your demands any longer. If I were you, I would go back to SCHOOL and learn another profession if teaching is not your thing.
3% raise isn’t bad seeing as many are getting salary cuts or losing their jobs. The problem is teachers don’t make that much money to begin with. At least good teachers don’t. I think the union has a chance to make history for St. Louis kids and change the path of lack of collaboration and blame.
the past is the past. Teachers with tenure cannot be fired for anything. princiapls should be able to make decisoons that make sens for their children and their schools. Too bad they can’t fire teachers who don’t know how to spell discipline! (see comment below from Tommy Teacher)
The SAB is making more progress than the most recent elected school boards ever did and we finally have a good Superintendent who people like AND is doing good work. Rick Sullivan works for free to do his share. Join in. If you strike, you can be replaced very easily. there are tons of college kids without jobs that would more than qualify to be teachers.
the way unions run thing is obsolete and has taken the teaching profession down in stature. What professional works like this????
Tenure in Missouri does not protect bad teachers from being fired. In the St. Louis Public Schools a vote of two members of the current three person board can terminate the employment of any tenured teacher so long as there is some evidence to support termination. The excuse used by school districts that they can’t get rid of bad teachers due to the union or tenure is patently false and is merely an excuse for poor pricipals and administration.
The issue for the teachers on Monday night in St. Louis was the elimination of provisions of their agreement that gave them protection from assaults by students and input into student discipline decisions as well as other non-economic working conditions. It’s not about the salary offered. It’s about the lack of books and materials; the lack of any uniform student discipline program; the classes of thirty that some teachers have; the requirement that they attende as many evening meetings as the principal may require without pay. In the end it’s about the removal of language from the agreement that has been there for as much as 30 years most of which was as simple as making sure a teacher has a desk in the class where the teacher works.
Your district is given tons of money, and you don’t have books or materials? What is the money being wasted on? A 3% raise would have been an awesome raise considering most families are dealing with pay cuts and layoffs.
This school district needs to get its act together. Teachers get off your butts and teach. Administrators, get off your butts and put some discipline back into your district and cut out the outrageous waste. Unions, get out of the way.
The teachers are teaching the best they can under horrible circumstances in some cases. The teachers and their union do not decide how the money gets spent-the administration does. The Union is has led the effort on reform in the SLPS not stood in the way. The membership voted to reject what is considered by almost all teachers to be a good raise because the District wanted to delete from the agreement language that allowed a teacher to refuse to teach a child who assaulted the teacher until the student and the parent attended a meeting with the principal to agree on the terms of the child’s return to the classroom. In what other job would your employer require you to work with someone who punched you in the face and cursed you?
The vote to reject the board offer clearly had nothing to do with the raises offered. Most felt that these were fair. This vote was based on emotional items such as, no protection from assault by a student, bereavement leave being cut to the bone (imagine 3 days for your child and then back to work), liability for loss of school property such as a laptop(which, by the way was forced upon the teachers involved), no recompense if hurt on the job even if you are following directives of the principal, and other items along these lines. The district discipline policy was struck completely out, so that the only guide for discipline and/or consequences is the student rights and responsibilities handbook. There were numerous other items struck which teachers believe are essential to running a successful school. If you would like to view the document in its (vaery messy)entirety, Local 420 will very probably be very happy to show it to you. Their phone number is 314-533-9487. If you want the whole story, go to the source, don’t speculate.
Correction to phone number for Local 420: 314-781-2077. Other number is for one of the schools. Sorry for error.
Susan it is me Tommy Teacher and I am glad you made a comment on my spelling. Sorry it was a typo. Now lets talk about your spelling. What is a princiapls, decisoons, sens and of course your sentences that are not coherent. Please its easy to put down teachers when they ask not for money but to keep the things that protect them in the work place. Come and spend a day in the schools and you maybe will understand unless you are one of those parents who never show up at parent/teacher meetings to discuss your angle. We are not asking for MONEY. Don’t you get that.
SLPS teachers turn down a 3% pay increase EACH YEAR in this economy? How long will it take before the AFT 420 crashes the SLPS similar to what is happening with Chrysler and GM?