Present Progressive March 1st, No. 4 (and management's update)

Kaplan management negotiators yesterday brushed aside a comprehensive Guild counter-proposal that addressed their “operational flexibility” concerns, declining to discuss dollars-and-cents issues until they get agreement on the non-economic terms that they would like to have as the cornerstone of a largely unenforceable contract.

BARGAINING UPDATE

In the fourth bargaining session for a contract between Kaplan International Centers (KIC) and its Guild-represented teachers, Guild negotiators presented a package that incorporated some management proposals and put all other issues on the table. We told management that its non-economic operational proposals need to be discussed in the context of issues important to teachers, like salary, benefits and overtime pay. One set of issues cannot be discussed in a vacuum.  

But the management team, which includes three lawyers and a flown-in human resources executive, would not address any form of compensation for teachers, even though there has been virtually no discussion of it so far and we came into the meeting offering a significant compromise on non-economic issues. Despite management’s rigidity at the table, some progress was made, with three tentative agreements reached – all on non-economic, management-proposed issues.

Under our counter-proposal, company managers would maintain all of their hiring rights, as well as the right to create new positions, evaluate teacher ability and discipline teachers – rights that they have been pressing for under the guise of “operational flexibility” and the misleading term, “academic rights.” But we also insisted on using arbitration as a built-in mechanism to resolve disputes about the contract. 

Management, however, said it opposes the arbitration solution for any dispute, except those involving loss of pay to teachers who have been disciplined. This would give management a wide open field of free reign and final say. For example, if teachers were disciplined unjustly (without loss of pay), or if job descriptions were manipulated to get them out of Guild coverage, nothing could be done. Management would have full control over much of the meaning of our contract. Without arbitration, which empowers an impartial third party to settle disputes and is standard in nearly every labor agreement, a contract is meaningless. We would have no effective recourse if management violates it.

This is particularly important in light of recent history. Kaplan has settled two widespread class-action lawsuits in which it was accused of breaking the law to save money at the expense of teachers’ pay and benefits.

What value is there in a contract that doesn’t allow for recourse when management wrongs teachers? A contract is a commitment between Kaplan and its teachers that spells out the terms of their relationship – pay, benefits and the rights of both sides – and is enforceable. But Kaplan management has been stingy in making commitments to its teachers and refuses to be held accountable for the few that it does make. It’s like saying, “I know we’re getting married, but I still want to see other people.”

In the next meeting, set for March 12, we told management negotiators we expect them to address economic issues. We also hope to understand how Kaplan management plans to protect teachers from managers who falsely or wrongly aggrieve them. Up to this point, Kaplan has shown little or no interest in protecting teachers’ rights.

THE GUILD BARGAINING COMMITTEE

Emily Lessem (Midtown)
Joshua MacDonald (Midtown, alternate)
Benjamin Bush (ESB, alternate)
Jon Blanchette (ESB)
Tasha Uria (East Village)
Shana Dagenhart (ESB)
David Sedgwick (Midtown)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Management's update about the same session:

KIC and the Guild met again on Tuesday to discuss terms for a collective bargaining agreement.  We had a promising start:  unlike our last session, where the Guild came to the table with just  a few oral proposals, the Guild presented a set of new written counterproposals that addressed a number of KIC’s proposals from December 10, 2012.  Among other things, the Guild agreed to large parts of KIC’s proposal to maintain and secure its management rights and academic decision-making, including rights to determine how it sets and schedules classes.

Hoping to build on the momentum, KIC took a caucus and, in less than two hours, returned to the table to accept some of the Guild’s proposed language, to confirm some tentative agreements within several contract sections, and to make responsive proposals on Bargaining Unit, Grievance Procedure, Discipline, Discharges and Reductions in Force, and Overtime.  Our goal was to close the gaps in these areas – in fact, we thought we were very close to agreement on several proposals, including the definition of the Bargaining Unit.

That’s how bargaining works – narrowing differences through discussing and exchanging proposals and confirming tentative agreements.

Regrettably, instead of continuing to work hard to narrow our differences , the Guild wasted the remainder of the day with pointless rhetoric, purporting to take offense that KIC had not just accepted the Guild’s exact wording on various topics and had not made a counterproposal on wages and benefits.  The Guild would not even confirm a tentative agreement on the Bargaining Unit, a section that the Guild, at our last session, had insisted on resolving as a condition of moving forward in our contract negotiations.   Theatrics don’t settle labor contracts.  We have told the Guild repeatedly that we will make wage and benefit proposals later as bargaining progresses, since KIC’s willingness in those economic areas is tied to its ability to operate the business flexibly and nimbly, without unnecessary restrictions or challenges.   And even the Guild’s chief negotiator and lawyer both acknowledged that an employer’s wage and benefit proposals typically come much later in the process after the parties work out some of these non-economic issues.

So a promising start devolved into Guild theatrics that are neither effective nor constructive.  For our part, we will continue to work hard to address important issues at the bargaining table and look for ways to find common ground, consistent with our goal of reaching an agreement that meets the needs of both KIC and its teachers.   We meet again on March 12 and 13.

                                                                        KIC’s Bargaining Committee