Members don't appreciate scare tatics

What Does the Union Do for Me

So lets rewind shall we?

November 2010 was the last union meeting. By February a metric-shit-storm erupts at that state capitol over the governors proposed plan.

The superintendent make his rounds to each building to field questions and concerns about the changes being enacted into law in Madison. (Feb 17-25) In many cases there was no support staff union officer presence.

At the time, the superintendent said De Pere was mostly likely exempt from the 12% health requirement as we do not participate in the state plan. (or something to this effect)

Friday March 4th, we heard rumors that the superintendent was checking with his lawyers about possibly extending our contract as well as the teachers.

Tuesday, March 8th union members were presented with a tentative agreement. It’s my belief that since there were no revisions showing the 12% clause that many members were making misinformed decisions on their vote.

The support staff health insurance / fringe benefits in Appendix B of their contract use the language “the District will contribute.... on the same basis and amount that is contributes for the full-time professional staff.”

Members may have made misinformed votes. As there was no meeting prior or real explanation on this impromptu vote March 8th. It was reported (March 11th) that our voting results were: 115 yes, 6 no, and 13 abstaining. And that the school board ratified the agreement at a special meeting (March 10th).

Then May rolls around, and staff cuts and layoffs are announced. Keep in mind most members were probably under the false assumption that if they agreed to the contract extension provisions that their jobs would be safe.

The issue I have, as well as probably others is the lack of communication. While I don't agree with Walker, I can say the same about how this was handled.

While some may feel it was or is immaterial as the contract vote would have passed either way (as historically they always do, and realizing this was a take it or leave it offer), again this issue is members have the right to be informed. And the first and foremost function of the union should be to inform them and answer their questions.

Then finally a general membership meeting on June 4th.

It's explained that after our contract expires, (and assuming that the governors bill sticks) that in order to maintain a certified bargaining unit the membership will have to vote each year to keep the bargaining unit. This requires 51% of the total membership will have to vote in favor under the bill.

The "what does my union do for me" handout is in front of everyone. Someone asks the UniServ rep "how many grievances have been processed from start to resolution in recent years?"

What might not be obvious to the union officers is that the handout is a hypothetical list of services. It will probably very difficult yo maintain the union as is. As the more members take cuts, the people look for the value of their dollar.

The local doesn't have a good track record. There were 32 members present for the June meeting out of 100 some.

It's human nature to recall the bad over the good. I'd be willing to bet that a majority of members who have approached a union officer on an issue haven't received an answer that made them feel glad they were paying dues. Most have reported phone calls not returned, and other standoffish attitudes.

Yet the president is on cloud-nine apparently:
"The reason why so many people don't attend meetings is because they are fine with the way things are and don't want to give up their time."

It couldn't possibly be that they have been beat into submission and have given up on the union.

The summary here is there is 2 years to "show us" what the union does. And get in touch with the membership, and erase that unapproachable attitude that many officers have.

Again, people have a natural tenancy to remember the bad over the good about things in general in life. This is why it is of the utmost importance to always try and make a good impression and put your best face forward.

What I remember about this union is that you have to call, call again, send certified letters, and email WEAC in Madison just to have local meetings and treasury disclosure.

They seem dead against any type of social gathering or networking. As a union roster has been requested a few times.... so tell us to "stay strong" or put your money where you mouth is.

Rebuilding trust is paramount... and remember that the dues paying members are the reason there is a union.

DeForest school administrators get hefty raises while district cuts elsewhere

From The Capitol Times

How often do you find teachers, parents and tea party partisans on the same page regarding school spending?

That's the unusual scenario playing out in DeForest, thanks to a quiet deal resulting in salary increases of up to $26,000 a year for school administrators.

Meanwhile, the DeForest area school board recently voted to eliminate elementary teaching positions, increase class sizes and phase out German and French language offerings to address about $1.7 million in local school aid cuts anticipated from Gov. Scott Walker's proposed budget.

The hefty salary increases for about 20 administrators while the school district is trimming teaching staff and school programs has parents steaming.

"In a climate where most people are just grateful for a job, why are these kind of raises -- up to 20 percent and more -- necessary, especially all at once?" asks Terri Treinen, who has two young children in the DeForest school district and is a graduate herself of DeForest schools. Her husband is a teacher in the district.

Treinen says she had heard "rumblings and rumors" that significant raises for administrators went into effect early this year. But, she adds, "from looking through board meeting minutes online we couldn't find any record of public discussion and it's only been recently that we got the numbers. When it comes to transparency and school issues, this district is about as easy to see through as a window painted black."

DeForest Superintendent Jon Bales, who himself received a 5.1 percent raise and now receives $146,243 a year, notes the salary increases were approved by the school board almost a year ago on June 14, 2010. There is no indication in the minutes of the meeting that there was any public discussion of the proposed raises.

Like parents, teachers and other unionized employees in the district are also upset about these administrative salary increases. Over the last six months, district employees conceded over $700,000 in benefit dollars, and agreed to a pay freeze to help the district weather the financial storm.

"These kinds of pay raises at this time are most unusual. Frankly, it's shocking," says David White, the WEAC union representative who works with the DeForest teachers group. "As far as I can tell, they (the school board) granted very significant pay increases to administrative staff during roughly the same period they were arguing that there was very, very little money for negotiations."

Furthermore, the large salary increases for administrators might not have become public knowledge if union leaders had not asked to see current compensation figures for non-represented staff, says White, noting it is fairly routine for union representatives to ask for salary information for school administrators.

"If there's belt-tightening going on, we just want to check to see how the non-represented staff is faring," White says.

In April, following the ratification of an extended contract with district employees, local union leaders Rick Hill and Gayle McFarlane requested an update on administration compensation from the district's human resources department.

Initially, the administration deflected the request, saying the information was on a document the union had gotten the previous year, according to Hill, DeForest teachers union president, and White.

When Hill received the requested document with the current information he was "dumbfounded" by the new salary rates for administrators.

"Given the concessions we made, and the pressure we were under to hold the line financially, this felt like a slap in the face," Hill says.

The document, marked confidential, reveals that about 20 local school administrators got pay increases beginning in January 2011 that average over $10,000 from previous salary rates.

Bales says these salaries reflect two factors: a hike of around 2.5 percent per year from 2008/2009 salary levels, similar to what district union staff saw over the same time period, and a larger jump to bring compensation for DeForest administrators in line with comparable posts around Dane County.

Bales says DeForest administrators were making significantly less than their peers in the other 17 Dane County school districts.

In a few cases, the difference was just a couple of thousand dollars but in more than a dozen cases the difference was more than $8,000, and in several cases was more than $20,000.

According to Bales, school board policy in DeForest calls for paying staff at the average wage of the surrounding area or better. While this effort to pay an "average" wage for the county has been accomplished for union staff, it was deferred several times for administrators in recent years, he says.

"The board has wanted to treat all employees fairly. If you understand the guiding principle that we want to pay our staff at or above the Dane County market average, from a governance standpoint, these increases make sense," Bales says.

Though Bales says that is not uncommon for such financial issues to be approved by the board without public discussion, others are uncomfortable with what they see as a lack of transparency.

"For many of us, this isn't specifically a union issue, it's a public issue," Hill says. "If there's the feeling we're all going to pull together to make shared sacrifices to weather the storm, that's one thing. But if that's apparently not the case, and no one has had a chance to discuss this openly, that's a very different situation."

The lift

For the longest time, there has been a fairly serious water penetration problem with the second floor windows in the old high school.

The problem has existed since the remodeling of 2001.  It's bad enough that just about any significant rain, will prompt the need for towels and drip catch buckets.

However, according to the director of building and grounds we don't have a water penetration problem.  We all know, this guy knows better since he makes more money than those who have to deal with the problem regularly.  Secondly the annual safety training, reiterates the seriousness of potential mold  problems.

A $7 dollar tube of silicon was used to fix one of the windows by an employee that was getting sick of this stupidity.

Couple that with another reason to get a lift, and we finally have an attempt to fix the problem.

The other reason was window stickers.  These identify the room number from the outside of the building, probably prompted by all the school shootings.  So this is not a bad idea.  What is stupid is ordering window stickers that have to be applied from the outside, and from a vendor who installed all the first floor ones, but (like the head of building and grounds) is afraid of heights.

So regular employees were told to install the second floor ones.  So there were two reasons to get a lift, and that finally convinces them.

So they pick a day over spring break and tell us there will be a lift from Fred Rents.  It's a no show, the director blames the vendor, the vendor says the director never confirmed the order.

It was suggested to check across the street, with the De Pere municipal garage.  They have a boom truck, that probably only gets used to put up the Christmas decorations.  But apparently the director has a "buddy" (Dan Bins) at Fred Rents in Neenah.

Next non-school break comes, the lift arrives.  Day two, the jig-boom part dies.  After much arm twisting, a second lift arrives (this too has issues, like slipping gears), and it gets done.

This is an old building built in the 1940's, and the vines that used to be on the West side of the building did a number on the tuck-pointing.

The calking made the problem about 75% better, and buys time for a more permanent fix, such as further tuck-pointing.  It did cure the annual bats in the building though.

All De Pere Admins got a raise

It light of all the cut backs and wages freezes, co-workers and the public has been wondering how the De Pere administrators wages have been impacted.

After a bit more digging. It seems not every admin in Green Bay and got the same percent increase. Which is interesting... some principals got 1.07%, others 1.96%.. a couple didn't get a raise at all from 2010 to 2011 for whatever reason.  I guess they give raises to their non-union admins based on merit.

Howard Suamico is the same, one principal got a 3.03% raise, another admin there got a 2.62% raise.

Ashwaubenon Superintendent 1.96%, Green Bay Superintendent 1.07%, Denmark Superintendent 2.84%, Howard Suamico 2.70%.

I have to say that actually makes sense as admin are not union members, and I don't see why every admin in De Pere got 3.1% for 2011.

In all fairness the School Board Minutes indicate admins raise was approved by the board June 12, 2010. (Before the Walker Act 10 announcement)

"A Motion was made by Paque and seconded by Growt to approve compensation for administrative and non-represented personnel for the 2010-2011 school year as presented and attached to these minutes. Motion carried on a voice vote; all ayes."

And for 2012 they received a 1.5% raise. This was approved by the school board June 20, 2011.

"A Motion was made by Paque and seconded by Growt to approve a salary increase of 1.5% for members of the administrative and non-represented staff, as presented. Motion carried; all ayes."

This is the problematic one. In March all other staff agreed to a two year wage freeze, and had to accept the stipulations of Act 10, involving increased deductions for health insurance and retirement.
For the 2012-13 school year DPI data shows no raise for administrators. Pressure from the unrest created by taking one last year undoubtedly has something to do with this. The real question and test of honesty will be if they take one next year. So far administration has only froze their wage for one year, while everyone else took two. From the Nov, 18 2013 Mins:

A motion was made by Meneau and seconded by Matzke to approve a 2.36% salary increase for administrators, supervisors and exempt staff for the 2013-2014 school year.

So everyone except the highest paid people (admin) had a two year wage freeze, while they skated away with one measly year.

That is kind of a slap in the face by administration and the board to just months later approve a modest raise for themselves to help offset the new deductions, and not extend that offer to everyone else. Some fine leadership!

To look at the raw WI DPI data, go here: http://lbstat.dpi.wi.gov/lbstat_newasr

Compare Admin by despa

 

Keep in mind, De Pere WI is the only city to have two school districts. Why that is not being brought up in this climate of taxpayer scrutiny is beyond me.

{Update}
The August 1, 2013 Green Bay Press Gazette, has an article titled, "School administrator raises outpace teachers."

Teacher salaries rose slightly across Wisconsin’s public schools last year, but they paled in comparison to pay bumps for several top administrators, a Gannett Wisconsin Media review of state Department of Public Instruction data shows.

Budget crisis is management's fault

Irregardless of how I feel about the shoddy job our local union does at representing it's members, here is a guy who points out where the blame ought to be placed.

Neutral on unions, not on fairness

GREEN BAY — I have never belonged to a union and was in management for much of my work life. I am neutral on the issue of unions. I am not neutral on the issue of fairness.

Labor and management negotiate a contract. Each side gives. Wages are set at some number, and benefits are factored into an agreed-upon total compensation package. Typically neither side is 100 percent happy with the result. But it is a deal — negotiated, supposedly, in good faith. If either side decides it doesn't like the package, it can renegotiate when the contract is up. Those who teach our children, care for our sick, guard our prisoners and perform vital services for our citizens are not responsible for this budget crisis. Management is.

Gov. Scott Walker and other politicians (past and present) mismanaged us into this fiscal mess. For his administration and legislative leadership to blame labor is not only inaccurate, it is unfair. It is unethical. Immoral. And, it is un-American.

Bob Schulze

Gym Floor

I just learned that at the high school they no-longer use the Tennant 7100 on the gym floor.

Apparently management determined the brush is to harsh on the floor.

And while I laugh out loud about this, I am also upset that it took this long to figure that out. And that an employee had to endure a great deal of crap over this a few years ago.

Tennant_Scrubber

WEAC PAC Dues

blue pac memo
"These are the funds your UniServ uses to financially support those Wisconsin Candidates"

"The only way to change these regressive types of legislation is to continue to elect..."

Sorry guys, but special interest groups (like WEAC) essentially buying puppets is part of what is killing this country in my opinion.

Campaign funding has gotten to out of control. The robbing from Peter to pay Paul just to fulfill campaign promises. You basically have to be a crook to be able win an election.

For a group of educators I'm not impressed. Talk about supporting the concept of publicly funded campaigning and then you can have my $5.

Till then, the best thing I've been able to come up with it just to Never re-elect anyone. Pay no attention to party lines, or promises.

WEAC tops lobbyist spending - Feb. 26, 2010

The Wisconsin Education Association Council spent nearly twice as much as any other organization to lobby lawmakers in 2009, according to the Government Accountability Board.

The state's largest teachers union reported spending more than $1.5 million and 7,239 hours lobbying, almost twice as much as the Wisconsin Insurance Alliance, which spent the second-highest amount on lobbying in the state.

One aspect of the union's lobbying effort was largely successful, with the state Legislature repealing the 16-year-old qualified economic offer law that restricted teachers' pay and benefits.

Other organizations that spent top dollar to lobby Madison included the Forest County Potawatomi Community; Altria Client Services Inc.; Wisconsin Hospital Association; Wisconsin Petroleum Marketers & Convenience Store Association; and Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, all of which spent more than $500,000.

- Amy Hetzner - Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel