CommentsFIRST PERSON-The Social Studies teacher in me says it would be a big mistake to try and figure out ...
why UTLA President Alex Caputo Pearl and the rest of the reality-challenged leadership of UTLA choose now to threaten a strike on behalf of its members and fee payers in the present deadlocked negotiations against Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) without me offering at least a little historical context.
Clearly, I don't think it is because UTLA is a good teachers' union looking out for the well-being of its members and fee payers. It has allowed literally thousands of more expensive high-seniority teachers to be removed from their teaching careers by LAUSD, based on completely fabricated charges. Why hasn't UTLA leadership done anything up until now under Article V of the Grievance procedures in the LAUSD-UTLA Collective Bargaining agreement to legally challenge LAUSD’s disingenuous firing of high seniority teachers for the sole motive of saving money?
Under this agreement UTLA could have -- and still can -- bring one unified legal action against LAUSD on behalf of all these teachers, but Caputo-Pearl and his cronies have chosen not to. Why? Because there have been no consequences for the UTLA leadership for doing nothing. Remember, this UTLA "leadership" had originally been put in power by then LAUSD Superintendent John Deasy, who gave Caputo-Pearl and his fellow jokers release time during school hours when they originally ran for UTLA officer positions. Conclusion: These jokers have been in the pocket of the LAUSD administration for quite a while now, which is why they have done nothing to vigorously advocate on behalf of their teacher-members and fee payers.
So, what's different now? Simple answer: Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, which "hit public-sector unions like a bombshell," because now, membership in public sector unions like UTLA is no longer mandatory. And UTLA, as exclusive bargaining agent for teachers, can no longer charge members or non-members fees for representation as they have in the past, unless these teacher-members voluntarilychoose to pay the fees. The conservative Supreme Court in Janussaid this would violate a worker's (teacher's) 1st Amendment free speech rights. A bit of a reach, but now the law nonetheless. And things will only get worse with a record number of new conservative appointments to the federal bench at all levels.
So, one might justifiably say that UTLA threatening to strike is the UTLA leadership’s way of saying we are FINALLY doing something quantifiable for you. Otherwise, thanks to the Janusruling, they will continue to hemorrhage membership and be less able to count on the monies collected from members and fee payers.
But there is another Trumpian possibility UTLA leadership might not have thought of: What if the strike doesn't work and LAUSD winds up using it to break the union, so that it can start hiring "teachers" fresh out of college who are loaded with debt and desperate to work $35,000 a year? They've already been using this gambit in filling the teaching positions of the senior, top of the salary scale teachers they have been getting rid of for years.
There is even one more significantly more paranoid scenario: What if Caputo-Pearl and Company have already been singled out by LAUSD administration and been offered their own generous silver parachutes, making them immune to UTLA's demise as a union? Naw, that couldn't happen. Or could it?
Maybe we should ask ex-UTLA president and now charter school head A.J. Duffy if this is possible.
(Leonard Isenberg is a Los Angeles, observer and a contributor to CityWatch. He was a second- generation teacher at LAUSD and blogs at perdaily.com. Leonard can be reached at [email protected].) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.
