For all intents and purposes, Chicago Public Schools appears to be out of money—having recently borrowed $725 million just to keep the doors open. The district’s financial struggles set the backdrop for what has proven to be a contentious negotiation for a new contract with the teachers union. This negotiation has caught our attention because the primary sticking point seems to be less about traditional areas of disagreement and more about plain old bad faith. Trust between the district and the teachers union appears to be at an all-time low (see here and here) after the union unanimously rejected an offer from the district that it had touted as “serious.”
Failure to reach a deal has resulted in mid-year budget cuts and teachers being forced to take three days off with no pay. In February, the district gave notice that it might end its pick-up of most of teachers’ required contributions to their pension system; the union responded by saying it would go on strike April 1 if the district followed through. Just last week, the district announced it would not stop the pension pick-up—at least until the final phase of negotiations is complete. In response, the union has promised a “Day of Action” on April 1, perhaps easing the previous threat of a strike.
Chicago teachers already fare pretty well when it comes to salaries and benefits as compared to other large districts. Still, the district offered an 8.75 percent phased-in salary increase over the next three years, but in return wanted to end the practice of picking up seven percent of the contribution teachers are supposed to make to their retirement system.
The union’s response to the offer, however, does not appear to point to teacher compensation issues as a sticking point. We can’t find any specific demand or counteroffer that lays out what the union wants instead. Perhaps those demands are being made behind closed doors, but it seems more likely that the union just flat out doesn’t trust the district to keep any of its promises, financial or otherwise.
The union seems to get that the district is not playing chicken about its financial state. Consider that the Chicago Teachers Union came to the table with some demands that are not commonly seen in the typical collective bargaining negotiation. Alongside ordinary bargaining issues like class size and preparation time, the union’s stated priorities included unusual demands like placing a freeze on charter school expansion and the district engaging in legal action against banks that it says contributed to the district’s poor financial state.
As atypical as they are, the district actually responded to these demands in its last public offer. Along with dropping the pension pickup, giving raises and changing evaluations, the district has also offered to draft and find a sponsor for a tax bill, work on legislation to alter the Illinois Charter School Commission and identify and support a progressive state tax. A district offering to get involved in the political process as part of teacher contract negotiations? That’s a new one for us.
There’s little doubt that the teachers union has plenty of reason to be dubious of the district’s financial promises, but it isn’t easy to see how a negotiation where the most recent proposal was rejected more out of lack of trust than substantive differences can be resolved. What can the district offer that meets the union’s criterion of stabilizing district finances? How on earth do you negotiate trust?
Someone is going to have to find an answer to these questions or no one is going to walk away a winner, especially not the kids in Chicago’s schools.
For some great data comparing Chicago to other districts in Illinois and large districts across the country on the typical issues that usually drive teacher contract negotiations, see our most recent Teacher Trendline.
