Enroll in DPS
Monday, August 28, 2006
The Detroit Federation of Teachers, frustrated by the District’s commitment to obtaining necessary concessions and the lack of public support for their threatened illegal work stoppage, walked away from the bargaining table late Friday and refused to meet this weekend.
Instead the DFT has focused its efforts on a new public relations strategy that is riddled with mistruths. Despite the parties’ longstanding commitment at the table to keep negotiations private, the DFT is now resorting to these PR tactics in an effort to obtain, through public pressure, what it has been unable to receive at the bargaining table.
Here are the facts:
1. A press release issued August 23, 2006 suggested that the District has hidden $114 Million. This allegation is untrue. The District is extremely disappointed that the DFT is now resorting to a tactic of spreading lies that betray the public trust. In fact, the public should be aware that part of that $114 Million includes $64 Million the District will be receiving from the State this year as Section 31a funds. The use of these funds is restricted to providing assistance to at-risk and disadvantaged children. It cannot be used for raises for teachers. Interestingly, the DFT has never brought the issue of $114 Million in hidden funds up at the bargaining table, which calls into question the accuracy of their accusation.
2. A press release issued August 25, 2006 stated that the District had no intentions of reaching an agreement, as evidenced by the District’s request for September dates for negotiations. Nothing could be further from the truth. Through 49 negotiation sessions, the District has done everything possible to reach an agreement. The District is desperate to resolve this matter so that it can properly address its financial concerns, even if it means continuing to bargain through the start of the school year, as is the case with the rest of the District’s other unions. The problem has not been the Districts intentions but the DFT’s refusal to acknowledge the District’s perilous economic situation and its complete unwillingness to even discuss concessions. This “ostrich approach” to addressing the District’s financial challenges is counterproductive and unrealistic. The DFT’s last offer on wages included a guaranteed 15% pay raise over 3 years and formulas for additional revenue increases which could potentially result in a 3 year wage increase of over 25%. Such a raise would cost the District approximately $175 Million, money the District does not have. Increasing the District’s financial challenges is not a prudent and fiscally responsible response to solving a serious financial problem.
3. The mischaracterization of bargaining on Thursday August 24, 2006 on its website, suggested that the District was unprepared and that the mediator had ended negotiations because of the District’s lack of preparedness. In fact, the parties met, as agreed by both parties, at 2:30 p.m. There was a misunderstanding between the parties. Both sides believed there was going to be a full night of bargaining and an exchange of packages at some point during the session. But both parties had different interpretations of what was meant by package. The DFT merely wanted to exchange the latest set of proposals, which each of their nine member bargaining team already had in their possession. The District thought the parties would come in with a new package to attempt to resolve the negotiations. After much discussion, the parties agreed to recess so that the District could finish preparing both packages, including the package the DFT had in its possession but was seeking again, and its own package which it hoped would be the impetus to a mutual settlement. While the parties originally agreed to meet again at 9 p.m. to exchange proposals, because of the time needed to make another full copy of the District’s proposals and finalize its proposal package, the District was not able to complete everything by 9:00. After two short delays, which were agreed to by both sides, the mediator decided that there was no reason the exchange could not take place on Friday. Because of the DFT’s refusal to commit to meeting on Friday, the mediator ordered the parties to the Michigan Employment Relations Commission.
4. Filing of an unfair labor practice on Friday August 25, 2006. The DFT filed a completely frivolous unfair labor practice charge for two reasons. First, the DFT was attempting to garner public support by making false allegations of bad faith bargaining against the District. The District is confident that it will establish that it has been engaging in good faith throughout the 49 bargaining sessions that have been held so far. Obviously, the DFT confuses refusing to accept the DFT’s demands with bad faith bargaining. The second reason the DFT filed the unfair labor practice charge was to support their threatened illegal strike. The DFT is under the mistaken belief that a strike in response to an unfair labor practice is somehow not illegal. However, the law is extremely clear that a strike is illegal regardless of whether there has been an allegation of an unfair labor practice charge on the part of a public school employer. Therefore, this charge will not prevent the District from obtaining relief in the event the District is forced to go to court to address a DFT strike.
About the Detroit Public Schools
The Detroit Public Schools, founded in 1842, is one of the nation’s largest public school systems. Detroit Public Schools is a school district of choice and is open to children who live outside the city. The District offers a variety of highly competitive academic and career and technical programs.
