LAUSD denounced my column I’m a Los Angeles teacher, and I am going to vote to strike (Los Angeles Times, 8/23/18) on its website, stating “The opinion-editorial published in the Los Angeles Times today and authored by Glenn Sacks contains numerous factual errors and false statements.” LAUSD then provides a list of said errors. They don’t come up with much.
Many of LAUSD’s criticisms of my column revolve around their repeated assertions that they do not have the money to pay for the improvements to our schools that UTLA wants. My Times column never asserted that LAUSD is free from significant financial issues. LAUSD and UTLA disagree over the magnitude of these issues and the extent to which these issues constrain LAUSD.
In a recent editorial, the Los Angeles Times’ Editorial Board correctly stated:
“L.A. Unified’s finances have always been a murky business that few people have claimed to understand fully… It’s difficult for any outsider, including this editorial board, to say yes, the district can afford to do this, or no, it can’t.”
The Times also notes that LAUSD Superintendent Austin Beutner says “he intends to change” this. I hope that this will be the case.
Below I address each of LAUSD’s complaints, in the order LAUSD presented them. LAUSD’s full statement can be read here.
L.A. Unified has already reached agreements with SEIU Local 99, AALA and CSEA which together, represent more than 60 percent of the District’s workforce. With raises totaling about six percent, these agreements demonstrate the District’s commitment…”But the current offer on the table for UTLA is 2% ongoing with a 2% one-time bonus. Moreover, other LAUSD employees have not been given a 6% raise. According to UTLA:
“It’s a 3% ongoing salary increase, with a 3% one-time ‘wage supplement’ that only continues if the district says it has enough money next year.”I would add that it seems unlikely that LAUSD will agree they have enough money for a “wage supplement” next year.
“The increased cost for last year’s healthcare deal isn’t even paid by the district. Instead, the union, which had negotiated savings with the healthcare providers in past years, tossed some of those savings into the pot to cover the additional costs.”LAUSD counters:
“Health care costs for active and retired employees are paid for entirely by L.A. Unified. L.A. District labor partners do not contribute union funds to pay for the health care benefits of the District’s workforce.”Yes and No. LAUSD is correct that my description of the mechanics of who pays is inaccurate—my mistake. Working together through the Health Benefits Committee, union and LAUSD representatives have been able to reduce the cost of next year’s Medicare plan by about $50 million. In other words, the unions didn’t help LAUSD pay the healthcare’s costs, they helped reduce the costs that LAUSD had to pay. It would have been nice if the district had acknowledged this in its statement.
“If Beutner the ‘kid advocate’ wants to know where he can find what’s best for children, that’s simple — it’s in United Teachers of Los Angeles’ contract demands.”They counter:
“We all have a shared interest in putting kids and families first. For this reason, the Board of Education does not support a strike.”
Austin Beutner's Task Force was created as a platform for him to campaign for superintendent. His Task Force contracted with ERS to do a faulty analysis, and then strategically planned, working with Beutner himself (who was superintendent by then) to bring it to the School Board.UTLA's full criticism of the report can be found here. The report was created to push an agenda of salary and benefit cuts, under the guise of being "independent." It also has a lot of methodological flaws.
UTLA’s contract demands are modest, reasonable, and child-centered. If LAUSD and the Board of Education do want to avoid a strike, they should make us a reasonable contract offer which addresses these issues.