This just in:
Saint Paul Educators Set February 13 Strike Date
Union Says District Unwilling to Meet Student Needs in Negotiations
SAINT PAUL, MINN. – The Saint Paul Federation of Teachers (SPFT) announced tonight that educators will strike beginning February 13, 2018 if no settlement is reached in ongoing contract talks with the Saint Paul Public Schools (SPPS).
“Our union’s executive board voted to set the February 13 strike date,” said Erica Schatzlein, SPFT Vice President and a teacher at Nokomis Montessori. “This is not an action we take lightly. As educators, we want to be in the classroom with our students. If leaders in Saint Paul Public Schools are unwilling to prioritize our students’ needs , teachers are going to stand up for our students.”
Schatzlein pointed to the district position on providing adequate services to students who are English Learners (EL) as an example of the SPPS’ unwillingness to address students’ needs. The union has called for more educators to work with EL students to bring the district into compliance with the Minnesota Department of Education.
Other unresolved issues at the bargaining table include union proposals to lower class sizes, add staff to support students enrolled in special education programs, and expand restorative practices.
Today’s strike date announcement follows last week’s overwhelming vote by SPFT members to authorize a strike if a settlement has not been reached. Over 85% of SPFT members participating voted to strike. Members of all three of SPFT’s bargaining units will strike if an agreement is not reached.
Bargaining will continue through the the end of the week between SPFT and SPPS with a state appointed mediator. SPFT has also let the district know we are willing to continue meeting over the weekend.
“We know this school district can find money when they want to,” said SPFT President Nick Faber, referencing the school district’s recent decision to buy the Crosswinds Middle School in Woodbury for $15 million. “We need them to find money to fund programs for our English Learners and special education students so we can provide the education our students deserve.”
Earlier this week, with the possibility of interruptions in the public school schedule looming, SPFT members began planning Safe Sites to serve students in the event schools are not available. The goal is to make sure that students have safe, warm, and appropriate alternatives if schools are closed.
Plans include identifying locations, arranging food for children at each site, arranging transportation, and assigning SPFT volunteers. In addition, subcommittees are putting together an array of activities for students, and looking at how any medical issues will be addressed.
###
Diane Ravitch's blog 
The teachers should vote to leave the district they work in and form their own teacher-led charters (with no “corporate” in front of the world “charter”).
LikeLike
Right on!
LikeLike
Love it!
LikeLike
By authorizing a strike in advance, the union is giving the mayor notice on issues that need to be addressed. The membership will wait to see if the mayor will work with them to resolve the problems. The city has a new mayor, and the union is asking him to step up.
LikeLike
I bid them Godspeed!
LikeLike
I wish them the best of luck. Been there done that; it’s not fun but sometimes a strike becomes necessary. So far there are 28 “right to work” (FOR LESS, LESSER, LEAST) states. The GOP is hell-bent on turning the USA into a right to work country and it could happen with the Janus case. Quote: “Janus works for the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services. In a statement, he explained why he brought his case: “To keep my job at the state, I have to pay monthly fees to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, a public employee union that claims to ‘represent’ me,” Janus says. “I’m filing this case on behalf of all government employees who want to serve their community or their state without having to pay a union first.” End quote
Hey Janus, you little despicable right wing stooge, if you hate unions so damn much then go and work in any of the plethora of non union shops. But no, you want a free ride, all the protections of the union without paying the dues.
LikeLike
I am all for unions. My wife used to belong to the Machinist’s union, when we lived in Kentucky. BUT- No one should be compelled to join a union, in order to obtain employment. People have the right (and the duty) to earn a living, without the consent or interference of any third party.
The first amendment guarantees freedom of assembly. It also guarantees the right not to participate in an assembly.
The Janus case is going to determine whether people shall be compelled to participate in (and pay for) political activities. I hope the plaintiff prevails.
LikeLike
Charles,
Here is where we can agree about unions. Suppose that union membership in voluntary. Doesn’t it then seem fair that only dues-paying union members get the benefits negotiated by the union? If you don’t pay dues to the union, you should not get pay increases, pensions, smaller classes, and any other benefits that the union fought for. Non-union members would not be entitled to job rights or seniority. Right?
Then more teachers would join the union to enjoy the benefits and protections it provides. But if they don’t pay dues, why should they enjoy the benefits?
LikeLike
Q Suppose that union membership in voluntary. Doesn’t it then seem fair that only dues-paying union members get the benefits negotiated by the union? If you don’t pay dues to the union, you should not get pay increases, pensions, smaller classes, and any other benefits that the union fought for. Non-union members would not be entitled to job rights or seniority. Right?
Then more teachers would join the union to enjoy the benefits and protections it provides. But if they don’t pay dues, why should they enjoy the benefits?
END Q
As long as our nation has freedom of association, and no one is compelled to associate, then fine.
Of course, only dues-paying members of the union should get the benefits negotiated by the union. I have absolutely no problem, with paying unionized employees at a different rate, that non-unionized employees. And the same goes for benefits, one set of benefits for union members, and one set of benefits for non-members.
We agree, if you do not pay dues to the union, you are not entitled to union benefits.
As far as seniority, I do not understand. Seniority has no bearing on union membership. Non-Union members should not be entitled to the job rights of union members. No problem at all.
Possibly more teachers would join unions, if it could be shown that union membership makes economic sense to the individual teacher.
We agree, individuals who do not pay dues, should not enjoy the benefits of union membership.
I will give you an example: Most (not all) of the vacant automobile assembly plants in Detroit were once filled with unionized workers, many from the United Auto Workers. These plants are empty.
The automobile plants in Tennessee, South Carolina, and other states where union membership is not required, are filled with workers who do not (necessarily) pay union dues, nor belong to labor unions.
The unemployed auto workers in Detroit, are enjoying the benefits of union membership. The employed auto workers in Tennessee and South Carolina are enjoying the benefits of non-unionized employment.
LikeLike