The Unionization Process

The following is one KIC teacher's recount of the process of unionizing our three centers in New York:

I’ve been a teacher at Kaplan for a few years and there have always been discussions about unionization. In the fall of last year a few fellow teachers and I got together for drinks and discussed the main reasons why it would be good to join a union. We contacted the union for the Washington Post first since it is the parent company of Kaplan. They are in DC, so they put us in touch with the folks at The Newspaper Guild in NYC. It took about 2 months to schedule our first meeting at the union.

There are three schools in NYC so before the first meeting we tried to get in touch with teachers from the other schools. This was a bit of a challenge because we couldn’t just send a blanket email and ask who was pro-union. Luckily, we got in touch with someone, who got in touch with someone else, and were able to get at least one or two from each school at the first meeting.

The purpose of the first meeting was to explain who we were, to find out about the process of unionization, and to learn more about the role of the union. Although many of us had been in or connected with a union in the past, none had gone through the initial process of unionizing before. At that first meeting, we were encouraged to seek out other unions to see what they had to offer. We did some research and even had meetings with other unions, but in the end voted 7-1 to go with the Guild. 

Our aim was not to install the union through our small group, but to get to the point of having a school-wide vote on whether or not we should have a union. The vote is monitored by the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board). In order to signify to the NLRB that our group was interested in having a vote, we had to get 60% of our coworkers to sign union cards. The card is a printed index card with basic info: name, date, address, title, signature, etc. Actually, we only needed 30% or 35% to take this step legally, but it is safer to go forward with a vote when there is at least 60% of the people demonstrating interest.

The importance of secrecy may seem obvious, but I didn’t realize how key it was before the first meeting. It was essential that management didn’t know what we were doing. Initial discussions had to be held outside of the workplace. Even if managers seemed to be pro-union, it was best that they don’t know because it could have put them in an awkward place of having to lie at some point.

Secrecy can be construed as sneakiness; in fact, it is just being necessarily strategic. Unfortunately, because we had to be quiet about our discussions, the atmosphere at work became intensely uncomfortable. While we were collecting signatures, we didn’t know whether those involved in organizing would be fired for leading the drive. We didn’t want to talk to people who we knew or thought were anti-union because they of course might have informed management about what was happening. Basically, we had to gauge each person individually before asking them to sign a card.

It helped that I had worked there for a while already because I knew most of the teachers at my school. We made it easier by dividing the task among a few teachers, so we each had to talk to not more than 5-6 others. We couldn’t give the cards out and have them returned later, but rather had to sit with the signer and be sure the card didn’t end up left on a table somewhere. Sometimes I just invited someone out to coffee to make it easier to talk freely. While telling people about the process, we were clear that the goal was to have a vote. Even though we weren’t able to talk to everyone initially, nothing would have been decided without everyone having a chance to put in his or her opinion. I also tried to focus on the issues. People generally have similar problems with the workplace, and it was important to not lose sight of the fact that we were doing this in hope of making our lives a little better.

The secrecy did freak some people out. It’s easy to feel like there is something nefarious going on when people are not being open about what they are doing. We just had to hope that eventually others would understand why it had to be that way. Like I said, one of the main reasons for secrecy was because we were worried that people would be fired. It is illegal to fire someone for being involved with unionization, but what would stop them from firing people for other reasons? We also knew that once management learned what was going on they would begin an anti-union campaign.

Management did find out but not until we had gotten signatures from nearly 50% of the teachers. It was important that we had worked fast and spoken to as many people as possible in a short amount of time. Because Kaplan is probably on the lookout for union activity in other schools, it may be even more difficult now to get past this beginning stage.

Kaplan began the retaliation by holding mandatory meetings during breaks and even pulling people aside individually to give them “helpful” information about why unions were bad. Many people saw that the fliers were poorly written propaganda pieces meant to intimidate, but I’m sure others were swayed, at least to want to stay out of the whole thing altogether. We knew that regardless of their real opinions, our direct supervisors had to tow the company line in order to preserve their own positions. I think some teachers were afraid of losing the respect of and camaraderie with their supervisors if they went against what they were saying.

At some point one of the teachers at one of the schools came across some papers that our supervisors were given by upper management about how to recognize signs of unionization and how to talk to teachers about the process. There were notes taken about everything that everyone said during the meetings. Our managers were instructed to look out for groups of teachers who were having private conversations, among other things.I’m pretty sure they were roaming the hallways a lot more than usual during that time. I have to say, it was one of the most stressful few weeks I have ever experienced. In theory, I wasn’t that afraid of losing my job, which was really the worst that could have happened, but the psychological pressure that Kaplan put on us was so great that I dreaded coming to work every day. This dread, however, only made me more resolute in my belief that we needed a union.

In the end, we did reach very near our goal of having 60% of teachers sign cards to signify to the NLRB our wish to have a vote. With that, the cards were submitted, Kaplan was officially notified (at that point still not knowing that we were already so far along), and a vote was scheduled for a month down the line in June.

After that, the meetings continued to go on and on and people got more and more heated in their discussions. I don’t know what Kaplan thought they were doing, but much of their anti-union campaign just seemed to push people like me further along the road to unionization. There is a fairly good record of some of the fliers they were putting out on the teacher’s blog. Have a look for a laugh! Some teachers, on the other hand, became vehemently anti-union. This was most difficult to deal with because we wished that we could just have calm discussions to share our opinions but emotions were too high to do so. Without rational discussions, it was hard to give important information or to clear up misinformation. Once people decided they were anti-union, it was tough to convince them to go to meetings that weren’t being led and controlled by Kaplan.

In the beginning of June, the NLRB set up voting booths in each of the schools and each teacher was able to vote anonymously. I believe that nearly all eligible teachers voted. The count was 2-1 in favor of the union. We are now in the process of electing officers who will be helping the Guild put together a survey to see what issues are most important to all teachers. What we aim to bargain for in our first contract will also be decided by all of the teachers democratically. Once this information has been gathered, a bargaining committee consisting of several teachers from each school will sit down with Kaplan and Guild lawyers and representatives and physically negotiate a contract.

While I personally enjoy my work at Kaplan, I feel the company has cut so many corners that it severely compromises the quality of education it can provide and the quality of life that teachers lead while working there. The union never promised that we will get anything. They offer help in negotiating a contract that provides us with improved working conditions. It is my hope that Kaplan can begin to view the teachers not as adversaries who need to be outwitted of dollars and cents, but as responsible workers providing valuable input on the creation of a sustainable and healthy system.