Re “When Did ‘Union’ Become a Four-Letter Word in Culver City?”
First of two parts
David Mielke’s opinion piece on Monday reminds us that it is the union’s job to advocate for its members. That’s a good thing, and he, as President of the Teachers Union, should continue. However, it is our job as parents to advocate for our children. And that’s a good thing, too. Hopefully, the School Board, too, will keep its focus on what is best for our children throughout this process.
I would like to acknowledge that Mr. Mielke writes an interesting piece and raises important questions. I am responding to Mr. Mielke's questions from the parents' perspective of what is best for our children.
Although Mr. Mielke focuses largely on the language adjuncts at El Marino Language School, those are not the only volunteers at risk in this district. As has become abundantly clear, any volunteer performing work a union believes should be done by their members is at risk. This includes many different kinds of volunteers, at many different schools performing many different tasks.
Earlier this year, the ACE union, the Assn. of Classified Employees, complained about the donated services that Lin Howe School parents provided for their children (which resulted in a dramatic cut to the level of services provided to those children). Now, ACE complains about the El Marino adjuncts. Every school has volunteers. Many have donated services. No one knows which services will be targeted next. That is why parents across this District, representing every school in this District, want the School Board to adopt a policy that protects all donated services to the maximum extent allowed by law.
With that in mind, here are Mr. Mielke’s questions and my answers:
1. Does a regular paycheck change someone's status from a “volunteer” to an “employee”?
The real issue here is not what label you put on those working for our children, but whether we want to enhance their education by providing supplemental services the District cannot afford. You can use “volunteer” to mean someone who is not paid or you can use it to mean someone whose services are free to the District. Either definition is legitimate. If you use the more limited meaning, you will need a new term for when Sony, parents or other local businesses send their employees to the schools to help at no charge to the District. In the end, arguing semantics is silly. It distracts us from focusing on the children. Whatever you want to call them, we know they do not cost the District anything and they are also NOT District employees. If it bothers you to call them “volunteers,” try using some other phrase, like “donated services.” Labels aren’t important. They're the same people providing the same service to our children at no cost to the District. The real question is, why would anyone want to change that?
2. When parent groups fundraise and place people in our classrooms, should they retain control over those employees or should the District be the employer of record?
Instead of getting wrapped up in hyperbole, again, the central question we parents ask is: What is best for our children? I believe both morally and legally, parents have every right to expect to control how their donations are used. Again this misses the point. Is there any doubt that parents give more when they know they retain control of how their hard-earned dollars will be used? Is there really any doubt that a parent (or anyone, for that matter) gives more when they know that their hard-earned dollars go directly to helping children instead of being diverted to overhead such as administration, supervision and program implementation, all of which is a significant cost if done by the District? Simply put, parent control in this situation means parents provide the overhead at no cost and therefore more resources go directly to the children. The question is not who gets bragging rights for writing a paycheck. The question is how can we make sure our hard-earned charitable contributions provide the most benefit for the children in the classroom to supplement what the District can afford? Parent control means more resources in the classroom. I think that answers the question.
3. Who is legally responsible for the actions of these employees: Tthe parent groups or CCUSD?
The parent groups supervise, hire, fire, pay insurance and issue payroll. We do the work, take the responsibility and incur the risk. In all my research and discussions on this subject, I can’t find even one instance of the District being held legally liable. My question: Who thinks it’s a good idea for the District to increase its risk of liability by inserting itself into a program that has cost $0 in liability to the District in over 25 years?
(To be continued)
Ms. Levin may be contacted at slevin@cllaw.us
