McHenry County Blog

A press release from Huntley School District 158 and its teachers’ union:

A Joint Press Release from the Board of Education of Consolidated School District 158 and the Huntley Education Association

Teachers will be on the job at Heineman Middle and other District 158 Schools even though they do not have a new contract.

ALGONQUIN, IL – The District 158 administration and the Huntley Education Association (HEA) negotiation team have met regularly throughout the summer for the purpose of working toward a contract agreement with the HEA.

The parties, including representatives of the Board of Education, last met on Thursday, August 9, 2012.

At the end of this meeting, both sides have agreed that our next best step is to work through a mediator.

Although D158 teachers will be starting the year without a new contract, all parties remain committed to seeing this through without affecting the school year or students.

Teachers picketing in front of the Huntley High School.

In September 2008, the Huntley school district and the Huntley teachers union (the “HEA” for Huntley Education Association) ended a strike and reached an agreement.

It was for three years.

All remaining issues that were left for joint committees of the district and union…salary and retirement benefits, for instance.

They have yet to be agreed upon.

Seeing how we are a few months away from two years later, it’s easy to assume the Huntley teachers want more, not less.

But, wanting more is quite an approach to dealing with the current economic climate and reality.

I don’t have any written proof but my suspicions are the Huntley teachers union filed for arbitration in an attempt to get more from a “final agreement.”

The district uses the term “Final Agreement” in its web site link to the contract.

Keely Cat didn't stay in the bag very long.

The cat (not Keeley) may be out of the bag, word of mouth wise, if it turns out the union leaders notified its members that they filed for arbitration.

This is why I have filed Freedom of Information requests for any documents filed or correspondence and emails sent by the union.

Supt. John Burkey has the choice of being transparent and providing the information or he can try to cite an exemption from disclosure.

It’s the District 158′s leader’s choice whether or not he wants residents to know what the teachers union is asking for, and what the district’s response is to the union.

He may not want taxpayers to know the teachers union filed for arbitration (if they officially did.)

The current twenty-six page agreement can be found on the district’s web site using this link.

On page 24 you can find this:

Agreement #1

The BOE and HEA will form a joint committee to review compensation for certified staff members. Review areas include:

Somehow in a we-want-more interpretation of what words mean Huntley teachers apparently are expecting something more to be agreed to when only committees were agreed to.

Huntley spent over a $100,000 in lawyer fees for an attorney to sit in on the many hours of negotiations including the many hours when there was literally nothing to do but wait for a response from the union who was then at the time in a separate room.

That’s a lot of money to make sure, for example, an agreement is carefully drafted that doesn’t put the district at future financial risk because of a union legal maneuver.

If Huntley entered into an agreement that somehow allows the union’s attorney to get more benefits paid to the teachers without the board agreeing to it, in my opinion, Huntley got some bad advice.

It would be so bad, if I were on the board, I would try to terminate the lawyer’s services, if that person was the district’s primary source of legal advice.

While other districts are discussing with their teachers union on modifying their current agreement in the downward direction, many people may have this reaction if it turns out the Huntley teachers are officially pressing for more benefits under the current agreement:

What planet are the Huntley teachers living on?

As you may expect, no Huntley teacher may want to be officially quoted or indirectly referenced about what is really going on. My email address is on this page.  I more welcome information and am happy to pass it along without identifying the source.

One might guess that the union hasn’t agreed to any joint committee meetings to discuss the current salary schedule.

For months the union took the position that there won’t be any such joint meetings on alternatives to the current salary schedule until after an agreement was reached on retirement compensation.

Apparently the state’s pension benefits and plan isn’t good enough for Huntley teachers, who probably want more benefits and lower costs written into their agreement.

Next Monday is the last day, June 30th, of the current Huntley School District 158 teachers contract.

It is also the next scheduled meeting date with the federal mediators and the teachers union.

Will a deal get done?

Not by Monday. That’s for sure.

There is no incentive for the union’s professional negotiators to come to an agreement before the contract expires.

Not when the union has the threat of a strike to extract big concessions from the school board in the days right before the new teachers are scheduled to report for their first day on the job (days before the first day for the students).

The school board has made it clear the union has yet to put a reasonable proposal on the table.

With the union starting at 35% for next year’s increase in salary and benefits and the board starting with over 5%, the union is in the driver’s seat to decide when real negotiations will begin.

The board’s initial offer is higher than the rate of inflation. By starting out so high, board members have left themselves no way to increase to make a concession and be seen as responsive to their taxpayers.

As long as the union keeps its offer outside of the range of reality, the union can keep wasting the board members’ time.

The union plays the game with rehearsed acting on the part of its negotiating team members. They should try out for community theater.

They deliberately frustrate the district’s negotiating team by refusing to recognize economic reality. There is an enormous difference between meeting the technical legal requirements of what’s called “good faith” bargaining and real sincere bargaining.

Do the professional negotiators for the union have to be reasonable with the mediators?

In a word, “No.”

All the union has to do is talk a good game. And keep insisting that the school board needs to be making concessions. And, of course, keep insisting that its new proposal is reasonable.

Remember how Bill Clinton said it depends on how you define the word “is?”

Now think of professional union negotiators who know how to define what the word “reasonable” is.

The game for the teachers union in Huntley District 158 is stringing the mediators along until a before-go-back-to-school date for the teachers.

Of course, the federal mediators have been around the block and know how the IEA negotiators operate.

The easiest way for the mediators to induce a settlement is to insist the school board to start making concessions. This, of course, plays into the union’s hand.

What a pretty position for the union to be in.

Unless you realize the union’s taking a hard line position for months could have had the opposite of the intended effect–convincing board members the union leadership is being ridiculously unreasonable.

Something that is more likely to be resented and not result in giving the union the benefit of the doubt.

It’s human nature to not take very seriously someone who is being ridiculously unreasonable.

Continuing to insist on a 35% increase in take-home pay and benefits would strike no one as “reasonable.”

I can see where the school board could look at the union’s lack of sincerity, step back and say,

“There’s only so much money and, if the union wants to play the strike card, then there is nothing we can do about it.”

Tomorrow: Restrictions and Limitations of Regressive Bargaining.

= = = = =
Same old picture from two years’ ago of newly appointed Superintendent John Burkey telling teacher union leaders that the contract that the school board refused to make public and which they had no idea of the cost would not be approved that night as expected.

Next Monday is the last day, June 30th, of the current Huntley School District 158 teachers contract.

It is also the next scheduled meeting date with the federal mediators and the teachers union.

Will a deal get done?

Not by Monday. That’s for sure.

There is no incentive for the union’s professional negotiators to come to an agreement before the contract expires.

Not when the union has the threat of a strike to extract big concessions from the school board in the days right before the new teachers are scheduled to report for their first day on the job (days before the first day for the students).

The school board has made it clear the union has yet to put a reasonable proposal on the table.

With the union starting at 35% for next year’s increase in salary and benefits and the board starting with over 5%, the union is in the driver’s seat to decide when real negotiations will begin.

The board’s initial offer is higher than the rate of inflation. By starting out so high, board members have left themselves no way to increase to make a concession and be seen as responsive to their taxpayers.

As long as the union keeps its offer outside of the range of reality, the union can keep wasting the board members’ time.

The union plays the game with rehearsed acting on the part of its negotiating team members. They should try out for community theater.

They deliberately frustrate the district’s negotiating team by refusing to recognize economic reality. There is an enormous difference between meeting the technical legal requirements of what’s called “good faith” bargaining and real sincere bargaining.

Do the professional negotiators for the union have to be reasonable with the mediators?

In a word, “No.”

All the union has to do is talk a good game. And keep insisting that the school board needs to be making concessions. And, of course, keep insisting that its new proposal is reasonable.

Remember how Bill Clinton said it depends on how you define the word “is?”

Now think of professional union negotiators who know how to define what the word “reasonable” is.

The game for the teachers union in Huntley District 158 is stringing the mediators along until a before-go-back-to-school date for the teachers.

Of course, the federal mediators have been around the block and know how the IEA negotiators operate.

The easiest way for the mediators to induce a settlement is to insist the school board to start making concessions. This, of course, plays into the union’s hand.

What a pretty position for the union to be in.

Unless you realize the union’s taking a hard line position for months could have had the opposite of the intended effect–convincing board members the union leadership is being ridiculously unreasonable.

Something that is more likely to be resented and not result in giving the union the benefit of the doubt.

It’s human nature to not take very seriously someone who is being ridiculously unreasonable.

Continuing to insist on a 35% increase in take-home pay and benefits would strike no one as “reasonable.”

I can see where the school board could look at the union’s lack of sincerity, step back and say,

“There’s only so much money and, if the union wants to play the strike card, then there is nothing we can do about it.”

Tomorrow: Restrictions and Limitations of Regressive Bargaining.

= = = = =
Same old picture from two years’ ago of newly appointed Superintendent John Burkey telling teacher union leaders that the contract that the school board refused to make public and which they had no idea of the cost would not be approved that night as expected.

Local papers have for years had reporters assigned to cover school districts.

So how is it newspapers never write about the stiff union dues teachers have to pay?

These dues are not optional when school districts agree to require every teacher to pay them. A school board can agree to a union shop in which even those who do not want to belong to the union must join or pay most of the dues for “representation.”

In Huntley District 158, for example, I’ll bet the teachers have to pay almost $600 a year in dues.

Why so high?

Teacher unions have a huge infrastructure to support.

The Illinois Education Association gets $382 each year and the National Education Association’s share is $153.

That adds up to $535.

The Huntley (HEA) union local dues are probably at least $40, maybe more.

So, you see, it’s not tough to get to the neighborhood of $600 a year.

I wonder if the union’s officers are exempt or have a cut rate.

In Huntley’s case, with over 560 teachers and at $600 each, that would bring in well over $300,000 per year.

What does a teachers’ union do with that kind of money?

And, if one is on the low end of the pay scale making, say $40,000 a year, that would be over 2% of the paycheck going to union dues.

And the $600 or so has to be paid with after-tax dollars. About $900 in salary would be needed to pay for this, considering all of the taxes taken out.

What is outrageous about the union dues is how a teachers who makes $40,000 get whacked for the same $575 (or more) as do the teachers making $80,000 or $100,000 per year.

Where is the fairness in that?

I wonder if anyone ever brings up how the lowest paid teachers get whacked such a high percentage of their salaries, while those who can afford to pay more pay the same dollar amount, but a much lower percentage of their pay.

And it would be hard not to be able to figure out that competent labor law attorneys, negotiators and analysts could be hired for a small fraction of the over $300,000 per year being extracted in union dues.

I wonder why the teachers in the more rural parts of Illinois don’t revolt at being charged by the IEA and NEA the same amount as those living in the more highly paid Chicago metropolitan area.

As the income tax hike promoting IEA lobbyists push for more equity between the rich and poor school districts, does anyone but I see a disconnect in the lowest paid teachers paying the same dues as the highest paid teachers?

= = = = =
The cars are mainly those of teachers, who turned out in force for the first night of negotiations with the Huntley School Board.

Local papers have for years had reporters assigned to cover school districts.

So how is it newspapers never write about the stiff union dues teachers have to pay?

These dues are not optional when school districts agree to require every teacher to pay them. A school board can agree to a union shop in which even those who do not want to belong to the union must join or pay most of the dues for “representation.”

In Huntley District 158, for example, I’ll bet the teachers have to pay almost $600 a year in dues.

Why so high?

Teacher unions have a huge infrastructure to support.

The Illinois Education Association gets $382 each year and the National Education Association’s share is $153.

That adds up to $535.

The Huntley (HEA) union local dues are probably at least $40, maybe more.

So, you see, it’s not tough to get to the neighborhood of $600 a year.

I wonder if the union’s officers are exempt or have a cut rate.

In Huntley’s case, with over 560 teachers and at $600 each, that would bring in well over $300,000 per year.

What does a teachers’ union do with that kind of money?

And, if one is on the low end of the pay scale making, say $40,000 a year, that would be over 2% of the paycheck going to union dues.

And the $600 or so has to be paid with after-tax dollars. About $900 in salary would be needed to pay for this, considering all of the taxes taken out.

What is outrageous about the union dues is how a teachers who makes $40,000 get whacked for the same $575 (or more) as do the teachers making $80,000 or $100,000 per year.

Where is the fairness in that?

I wonder if anyone ever brings up how the lowest paid teachers get whacked such a high percentage of their salaries, while those who can afford to pay more pay the same dollar amount, but a much lower percentage of their pay.

And it would be hard not to be able to figure out that competent labor law attorneys, negotiators and analysts could be hired for a small fraction of the over $300,000 per year being extracted in union dues.

I wonder why the teachers in the more rural parts of Illinois don’t revolt at being charged by the IEA and NEA the same amount as those living in the more highly paid Chicago metropolitan area.

As the income tax hike promoting IEA lobbyists push for more equity between the rich and poor school districts, does anyone but I see a disconnect in the lowest paid teachers paying the same dues as the highest paid teachers?

= = = = =
The cars are mainly those of teachers, who turned out in force for the first night of negotiations with the Huntley School Board.

In a press release covering negotiating sessions ending more than two weeks ago, the Huntley District 158 School Board dropped blockbuster bombs on the Huntley Education Association.

The board put the cost of the proposed HEA union demands at 35%!

I think that’s worth an exclamation point, don’t you?

In my first article, I was a piker. I only got as high as 22%.

The Northwest Herald printed what the teachers wanted it to publicize–7%–which the Daily Herald estimated just over 10%.

The school board also included this statement, which is obviously intended to inflame editorial writers at the NW Herald and the Daily Herald:

“The HEA brought up recent editorials in local newspapers. The HEA team told the Board that the Northwest Herald and Daily Herald editors would not be in the classroom teaching the children come August in the event of a strike.”

The NW Herald took the teachers’ union to the woodshed, while the Daily Herald criticized the school board for offering too much (4.25% the first year, plus 0.25% more than the increase in the cost of living for the next three years).

The school board also “objected to the HEA proposal to reduce student time for HEA representatives…for 50 paid days off each year for union and political activity.”

In addition, the board criticized the proposal’s request to limit grade school student contact time to 4.5 hours per day.

The entire press release appears below:

Consolidated School District 158
Board of Education
Negotiation sessions
April 28th – May 12th

The Huntley Education Association (HEA) and The CSD 158 Board of Education (Board) continued to meet weekly to develop a new collective bargaining agreement.

The Board is issuing this statement in compliance with Bargaining Procedure #14 which states, “…The semimonthly press release shall contain a synopsis of the negotiation meetings and the main discussion points.”

The Board and the HEA agreed to separate contract issues into “economic” and “non-economic” categories. The Board and HEA exchanged counter proposals on the “non-economic” items, but to date no items have been tentatively agreed upon.

As of the close of the May 12th negotiating session the HEA had not made any changes to their original “economic” proposal, which the Board determined would increase compensation and benefit costs to the District in excess of 35%. The Board requested during each session that the HEA provide a revised economic proposal that is “reasonable”, so negotiations for compensation and benefits can begin. The HEA stated they believed their proposal was reasonable. The Board reiterated to the HEA that the Board is committed to an agreement that does not require deficit spending.

The Board objected to the HEA proposal to reduce student contact time for HEA representatives. As proposed, the reduction in student contact time for the HEA representatives would include 50 paid days off each year for union and political activity. The Board cited concerns over taxpayers funding this activity, and students
spending so much time without their primary teacher. The Board also objected to the HEA proposed language limiting student contact time at the Elementary level to 270 minutes (4.5 hours) per day.

The HEA brought up recent editorials in local newspapers. The HEA team told the Board that the Northwest Herald and Daily Herald editors would not be in the classroom teaching the children come August in the event of a strike.

The Board and the HEA each pointed out what they believed to be violations of Bargaining Procedures by the other side. On May 6th the HEA requested, and the Board agreed, to seek the assistance of a federal mediator.

The Board reminded the HEA of Bargaining Procedure #14 which states, “Unless the parties request mediation, the parties will refrain from talking about negotiation details to the public or press…” The Board and the HEA agreed to continue meeting while awaiting mediation.

The next press release will be issued after the June 2nd session (no negotiations were scheduled for Monday, May 26th due to Memorial Day).

The picture at the top shows newly-hired Superintendent John Burkey explaining to Huntley Education Association leaders why their contract would not be approved that night.

In a press release covering negotiating sessions ending more than two weeks ago, the Huntley District 158 School Board dropped blockbuster bombs on the Huntley Education Association.

The board put the cost of the proposed HEA union demands at 35%!

I think that’s worth an exclamation point, don’t you?

In my first article, I was a piker. I only got as high as 22%.

The Northwest Herald printed what the teachers wanted it to publicize–7%–which the Daily Herald estimated just over 10%.

The school board also included this statement, which is obviously intended to inflame editorial writers at the NW Herald and the Daily Herald:

“The HEA brought up recent editorials in local newspapers. The HEA team told the Board that the Northwest Herald and Daily Herald editors would not be in the classroom teaching the children come August in the event of a strike.”

The NW Herald took the teachers’ union to the woodshed, while the Daily Herald criticized the school board for offering too much (4.25% the first year, plus 0.25% more than the increase in the cost of living for the next three years).

The school board also “objected to the HEA proposal to reduce student time for HEA representatives…for 50 paid days off each year for union and political activity.”

In addition, the board criticized the proposal’s request to limit grade school student contact time to 4.5 hours per day.

The entire press release appears below:

Consolidated School District 158
Board of Education
Negotiation sessions
April 28th – May 12th

The Huntley Education Association (HEA) and The CSD 158 Board of Education (Board) continued to meet weekly to develop a new collective bargaining agreement.

The Board is issuing this statement in compliance with Bargaining Procedure #14 which states, “…The semimonthly press release shall contain a synopsis of the negotiation meetings and the main discussion points.”

The Board and the HEA agreed to separate contract issues into “economic” and “non-economic” categories. The Board and HEA exchanged counter proposals on the “non-economic” items, but to date no items have been tentatively agreed upon.

As of the close of the May 12th negotiating session the HEA had not made any changes to their original “economic” proposal, which the Board determined would increase compensation and benefit costs to the District in excess of 35%. The Board requested during each session that the HEA provide a revised economic proposal that is “reasonable”, so negotiations for compensation and benefits can begin. The HEA stated they believed their proposal was reasonable. The Board reiterated to the HEA that the Board is committed to an agreement that does not require deficit spending.

The Board objected to the HEA proposal to reduce student contact time for HEA representatives. As proposed, the reduction in student contact time for the HEA representatives would include 50 paid days off each year for union and political activity. The Board cited concerns over taxpayers funding this activity, and students
spending so much time without their primary teacher. The Board also objected to the HEA proposed language limiting student contact time at the Elementary level to 270 minutes (4.5 hours) per day.

The HEA brought up recent editorials in local newspapers. The HEA team told the Board that the Northwest Herald and Daily Herald editors would not be in the classroom teaching the children come August in the event of a strike.

The Board and the HEA each pointed out what they believed to be violations of Bargaining Procedures by the other side. On May 6th the HEA requested, and the Board agreed, to seek the assistance of a federal mediator.

The Board reminded the HEA of Bargaining Procedure #14 which states, “Unless the parties request mediation, the parties will refrain from talking about negotiation details to the public or press…” The Board and the HEA agreed to continue meeting while awaiting mediation.

The next press release will be issued after the June 2nd session (no negotiations were scheduled for Monday, May 26th due to Memorial Day).

The picture at the top shows newly-hired Superintendent John Burkey explaining to Huntley Education Association leaders why their contract would not be approved that night.

In the Daily Herald’s “Saturday Soapbox: Fox Valley,” the Huntley Education Association gets what seems to me to be a mild rebuke for not cooperating with the school board in issuing a contract negotiations’ progress report to the public.

The mini-editorial, entitled,

chides the teachers for not agreeing to “reasonable suggestions for the update.”

The editorial does note that by issuing the press release the school board broke the rules, so I guess an editorial could have been written from the exact opposite point of view, chiding the school board for not being patient enough.

The editorial writers themselves perhaps deserve the biggest rebuke.

They still cling to the falsehood that the teachers are asking for only a 10.6% salary hike.

Although they rightly call that request “ludicrous,” the Daily Herald has thus far neglected to notice that agreeing with the union request for the taxpayers to pay the 10.24% of salary now going to the Teachers Retirement Fund would more than double the take home pay of Huntley teachers.

I pointed that out almost a month ago.

The total take home pay requested is clearly well over 20%, when state and federal income tax implications are taken into account.

You see, the 10.24% taken from teachers’ pay checks now is on money after taxes are withheld.

If the school board agreed to pay the 10.24% or any part thereof, the payment would not be taxable because it would be considered a tax exempt employee benefit.

Maybe I should not be so rough on the Daily Herald.

The Northwest Herald hasn’t picked up on this union request either.

In the Daily Herald’s “Saturday Soapbox: Fox Valley,” the Huntley Education Association gets what seems to me to be a mild rebuke for not cooperating with the school board in issuing a contract negotiations’ progress report to the public.

The mini-editorial, entitled,

chides the teachers for not agreeing to “reasonable suggestions for the update.”

The editorial does note that by issuing the press release the school board broke the rules, so I guess an editorial could have been written from the exact opposite point of view, chiding the school board for not being patient enough.

The editorial writers themselves perhaps deserve the biggest rebuke.

They still cling to the falsehood that the teachers are asking for only a 10.6% salary hike.

Although they rightly call that request “ludicrous,” the Daily Herald has thus far neglected to notice that agreeing with the union request for the taxpayers to pay the 10.24% of salary now going to the Teachers Retirement Fund would more than double the take home pay of Huntley teachers.

I pointed that out almost a month ago.

The total take home pay requested is clearly well over 20%, when state and federal income tax implications are taken into account.

You see, the 10.24% taken from teachers’ pay checks now is on money after taxes are withheld.

If the school board agreed to pay the 10.24% or any part thereof, the payment would not be taxable because it would be considered a tax exempt employee benefit.

Maybe I should not be so rough on the Daily Herald.

The Northwest Herald hasn’t picked up on this union request either.