Contract inflation
Folks who toil in the private sector often have trouble understanding the work rules that prevail in government. But they know one thing. If their employer no longer had a place for them they wouldn’t be working for that company much longer.
But tenured Boston teachers in that situation — unable to secure a permanent teaching position — are guaranteed employment. In fact they are paid their old salary (average just over $90,000), even if they are working as an aide or classroom assistant (usual salary of about $40,000).
Naturally the Boston Teachers Union is quite content with that costly arrangement. The school department wants to change it.
And it’s one of the sticking points in contract negotiations between Boston Public Schools and the BTU, which have led the union to call for a march on school headquarters next week.
That protest will come on the heels of a recent union-organized “walk-in” on International Women’s Day, and BTU President Richard Stutman attributing the impasse to the fact that the union is composed mostly of women. Hey, you use what you can! Indeed, we’re used to a certain amount of overheated rhetoric in contract negotiations — from unions and management.
But it would be hard for anyone to summon outrage over the BPS proposals for dealing with “excess” teachers.
Paying teachers not to teach is an unaffordable luxury, but it happens now that schools are given more autonomy in hiring decisions. Each year some tenured teachers — perhaps because they lack in-demand licenses, or they’re considered underperforming — aren’t selected for a position.
Among the various “exit strategies” proposed by BPS to address the issue is eventually transferring those teachers into a paraprofessional role, but at that lower salary. Sounds reasonable.
So you can imagine how well it’s going over with the BTU.
The two sides need to find common ground. But showy protests over conditions that are only considered outrageous in the rarefied world of government contracts won’t get the deal done.