From Management,
A Modest Proposal
Kaplan management representatives on Monday presented Guild negotiators with a 24-page contract proposal that was centered on their “operational flexibility,” but offered little or nothing in the way of employee rights, not to mention salary, hours or benefits.
The counter-proposal, which followed the Guild’s Nov. 28 opening proposals, would largely preserve the "at-will" employment relationship Kaplan International Centers management had with teachers before they voted for Guild representation by a 2-to-1 margin on June 6.
Now that we’ve had a few days to review it carefully, it’s clear that the management package, with all of its legally crafted clauses, offers only the illusion of a contract, one that enshrines all of the power company managers have always had without making any serious commitments to teachers about how KIC will behave as an employer. Even our ability to make sure management lives up to what little it is offering to promise would be severely limited.
Here are some examples (we’ve attached management’s full proposal to this message as well):
- The proposals actually seek to broaden management’s scope of authority above and beyond the company's current practices. Even though they have never used surveillance cameras and email monitoring equipment, or implemented random drug testing, they now want you to agree to give them that right.
- Under the guise of “flexibility,” they want the right to reassign teachers to any duty (even custodial work), location or starting time that management deems fit.
- The package allows management to use subcontracted teachers for up to six months, followed by a 12-month probationary period, resulting in an 18-month period during which an employee would have no employment security rights. In fact, they could even use subcontracted temps to replace teachers in the classrooms.
Equally important is what the management package doesn’t contain: a just-cause provision, a cornerstone of any labor agreement that would protect teachers against being disciplined or fired without “just and sufficient cause.” Although the term may seem vague, it has deep meaning in labor relations. Without it, the Guild would be severely limited in its ability to defend teachers unjustly terminated. An arbitrator hearing the case would have no standard by which to judge the matter, and would therefore most likely defer to management. Instead of offering a policy of steadily escalating reprimands, known as “progressive discipline,” that is widely accepted even among nonunion employers, management wants the right to terminate teachers after two verbal warnings. What's more, those verbal warnings could not be challenged and, as we said, the arbitrator would have no standard for judging the case.
The ability to grieve and arbitrate disciplinary matters is a staple of any union contract, without which employees have very little protection. This is how we ensure that management lives up to its commitments and that a contract actually means something. But KIC management wants to exempt several areas, including verbal warnings, from the scrutiny of an independent arbitrator. This would prevent the Guild from protecting teachers in a profession where performance – the ability to stand and deliver – is of utmost importance.
The ability or inability to have an arbitrator review reprimands short of termination has a profound impact in a professional workplace, even if you never get a reprimand. For one thing it makes a manager think twice about issuing a warning. It also means disputes over the legitimacy of reprimands can be resolved while teachers are still employed. At Thomson Reuters, where the Guild represents journalists, we recently learned that management there went on an unprecedented disciplinary binge earlier this year that included two dozen reprimands and eight terminations. Last month, in a case involving a verbal warning, an arbitrator ruled that management's basis for the discipline was fatally flawed. As a result, Thomson Reuters has offered to reinstate the dismissed journalists and the Guild tells us that discussions are currently underway to make that happen.
KIC management understands the importance of these provisions, and we made it clear that we will not accept language that limits our ability to grieve and arbitrate on behalf of our members.
The KIC package, which deliberately excluded economic issues, is actually quite typical of opening proposals designed by management lawyers – the KIC team has three – and outside consultants. Like digital pop-up agreements on the web from media giants like Apple or Google, it gives the company virtually all of the rights and us none of the rights. But do they expect us to click “I Accept?” There has to be a balance that shows respect for the rights of teachers. We have a lot of work to do.
Due to the holidays, the next bargaining session is scheduled for Jan. 23 at the Guild’s offices.
The Guild Bargaining Committee
Emily Lessem, Unit Chair
Shana Dagenhart, First Vice Chair
L. Toby Kahn, Second Vice Chair
David Sedgwick, Treasurer
Jon Blanchette, Assistant Treasurer
