Executive Directors of the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents (M.A.S.S.) and Massachusetts Association of School Committees (MASC) published the following guest opinion piece in CommonWealth Beacon about the impact of illegal strikes taking place in three North Shore school districts.
By Mary M. Bourque and Glenn Koocher
(The op-ed is published here.)
Today, 20 public schools on the North Shore remain closed. Ordinarily, on any given weekday in November, these schools would be bustling with the sights and sounds of students from preschool through high school engaged in learning and enrichment. Today, those nearly 10,000 students are out of school – deprived of classroom instruction, science experiments, art projects, rehearsals for upcoming concerts, athletic practices and games, college counseling, and so much more – but not because of severe weather or another global pandemic. Their schools are closed because educators’ unions in Beverly, Gloucester, and Marblehead have simultaneously agreed, in order to accelerate contract negotiations, to walk off the job.
Here in Massachusetts, strikes by public employees are illegal. That law was passed more than 50 years ago, primarily for public safety reasons. Just as residents would be in jeopardy if police officers or firefighters refused to work, many of our students are vulnerable when teachers go on strike, particularly working families with no alternative supervision when children are unexpectedly home from school. Massachusetts is one of 39 states in which strikes by public employees are illegal because we understand the unnecessary disruption and risk they create.
As leaders of the statewide professional associations for Superintendents and School Committees, we are extremely concerned by a pattern that has emerged in school districts across the Commonwealth during contract negotiations. In the past, district officials and union leaders remained at the bargaining table – and remained on the job – to reach agreement on even the most contentious points. Strikes and other forms of work stoppage were a last resort. Today, local union leaders are more likely to initiate job actions – including work-to-rule, votes of no confidence, and walkouts – much earlier in the process. When contract talks become stalled, union leaders are far less inclined to pursue consensus through legally sanctioned channels, including mediation. Instead they opt for the most drastic step – bringing instruction and support to a halt – in order to force districts to concede to their demands.
We’re also seeing the longer-term impact of these highly contentious negotiations, particularly when they lead to employee strikes. Administrators, teachers, parents, students, and others will attest to the lasting scars in divided communities, even long after the strikes end and contracts are ratified. The damage extends beyond the loss of learning time, often with a profoundly negative impact on the culture and relationships in the district. Ultimately, it is our students who suffer when the adults remain at odds with one another.
The refrain from striking union leaders is often that district officials’ unwillingness to agree to the unions’ salary demands signals a lack of respect for teachers, paraprofessionals, and other employees. It is a tactic designed to distract residents from the economic realities underlying these negotiations. In fact, we are confident that Superintendents and School Committees have deep respect for the educators who serve their students and families. They fully understand the importance of providing competitive salaries and benefits and recognize that they must offer compensation packages on par with surrounding districts in order to attract and retain an outstanding workforce. In fact, in all three North Shore districts currently on strike, the School Committees have proposed significant pay increases for teachers and paraprofessionals. At the same time, district leaders cannot agree to labor contracts that will create multi-year deficits in their cities and towns. They have an obligation to taxpayers in their communities to negotiate contracts that compensate employees fairly while recognizing the need to balance budgets using limited resources.
We understand that despite some similarities, the context and circumstances of contract negotiations are unique in every community. Like the Superintendents and School Committees we represent, we respect labor unions’ right to advocate fiercely for fair wages, generous benefits, and good working conditions for their members. Collective bargaining remains a cornerstone of the public workforce here in Massachusetts. However, we also believe that the parties can and should continue to negotiate in good faith, remain at the bargaining table, and demonstrate a mutual willingness to compromise – all while continuing to provide a first-rate public education to the students and families we serve.
Mary M. Bourque, Ed.D. is executive director of the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents. Glenn Koocher is executive director of the Massachusetts Association of School Committees.