First concern about the UESF parcel tax survey – PD vs salary

Its great we are getting a survey on our priorities!  Hopefully the results will be shared with us. I have two concerns about the survey, one shared here, the other in a following post.

Choosing between PD and salary seems like a way to get support for re-purposing some of the PD funds from the existing parcel tax towards 1% of the 4% raise in year two of the tentative agreement, which would be making UESF members to pay for part of their own raise.  The survey results could be used to say,” See you wanted salary more than PD”.

Several more detailed handouts on the TA were passed out at the November UESF assembly meeting last week.  I don’t see them in either an email blast nor on the website.  I’ll scan and post them here, maybe today.


It’s a 10% raise – in terms of its cost to SFUSD

One percent of the raise in the second year comes from re-purposed funds from the QTEA parcel tax, taking from one part of your contract at give to another part.  No net cost to SFUSD, but a financial loss to some UESF members.

Somewhere there is a table explaining the changes to QTEA stipends over the next three years.   An officer tells me that each individual teacher would see a small loss from PD stipends, but bigger increase from the raise.  But the title of this post remains true.


Rejecting the TA – two examples

Here are two recent examples of union members rejecting a tentative agreement and getting a significantly better contract as a result.

Cleveland Teachers union 2016-2017:  Cleveland teachers rejected the first tentative agreement brought to them and approved the second one, thereby fighting off most of Republican backed merit pay plan.   They won a better contract.

Fiat Chrysler 2015:   Auto workers succeeded in rejecting a multiple tier system where new hires get less than older employees.  They did this by rejecting the first TA, and then approving a second better contract.


Does rejecting the TA mean a strike?


There are two parallel processes that have to be completed before UESF could legally strike.  One, according to our By-Laws, there have to be two strike authorization votes by the members before the UESF leadership has the authority to call a strike.   Following CA law, a second series of steps has to be completed as well, which are as follows.  If bargaining breaks down (one side or the other gives up on it), then it goes to impasse and a mediator is brought in, who attempts to get the two sides (no longer speaking directly to one another) to reach an agreement. If mediation doesn’t work then a fact finding panel looks at both sides stories and makes a recommendation for settlement.   After that the district may impose its offer, at which point the union my strike.

Rejecting the TA just means that membership tells the bargaining team to go back to the table and try again.  The BT returns to negotiations with a stronger mandate from its members.