By Karen Cole

Re “Paspalis Was Wrong to Correct Mielke”

I guess I’m a bit confused.  I always thought that schools should focus on teaching children.  The better we teach our children, the better our futures. 

I also thought that the city should focus on serving its citizens.  I was under these apparently mistaken beliefs until I read Debbie Hamme’s letter on Wednesday.
 
I didn’t attend the Democratic Club meeting last week.  However, I am delighted to hear from Ms. Hamme that the management for the city and the management for the schools share the same style, and apparently the same concern.  I am also delighted to hear that management’s style doesn’t favor the unions to the detriment of the citizens or students.
 
I was not surprised to read that Ms. Hamme, a union leader, was “particularly impressed with the eloquence of Desmond Burns, the President of the Culver City Employees Assn.” 

What do we expect, Ms. Hamme to say? That the union leader was a babbling fool, and that the city and School Board representatives were right?  That would be against some union rule, I’m sure.

Ms. Hamme admits that “both the School District and City Council are paying out the “majority” of their funds in salaries and benefits.”  Ms. Hamme doesn’t go far enough with that admission.  She should be admitting that more than 75 percent of the funds from the city and the schools go to salaries, and about 90 percent of those funds go to union salaries.  Why is it that our union leadership doesn’t give the public all the facts?

Ms. Hamme is right when she writes, “I would remind both the City Council and the School District that they are in the business of providing services to the community.”

However, she misses the point when she puts her members in front of the citizens or the students. 

Ms. Hamme should remember that the city and schools are in the business of providing services not to union members, but to the citizens and students. 

Ms. Hamme writes that “I am amazed that both entities feel they can continue to provide the same level of services the community has come to expect with fewer and fewer employees with which to do it.”
 
Does she not get it?  No one expects the continued level of service.  The state has seen to it that the services will drop.  How far?  That is the $64,000 question.
 
Services already have dropped, and they haven’t hit bottom.  When the state cuts funding and more than 75 percent of the funding goes to salaries, the only place to cut would be salaries.  It’s simple math.  Math that the students may not be getting enough of due to the state’s lack of funding and due to the unions’ failure to work with the city and the district to reach a compromise. 

I find it amazing that Ms. Hamme was disheartened to see that School Board member Kathy Paspalis felt it her job to correct the union President when the President provided less than accurate information.
 
This is a union President who for 20 years has provided inaccurate information.  This is a union President who makes his reputation on exaggeration and hyperbole.  He misinforms his members and the public, all in an attempt to play the “poor union” card.  Of course, we all know that this isn’t a poor union, but that doesn’t concern the union President.  When I first heard someone refer to David Mielke as “David Make Up,” I didn’t understand.  Now I do.
 
As a member of the public, I would like to be informed when the union President is giving incorrect information.  For that, I applaud Ms. Paspalis for standing up to the union President and clearing things up.
 
In a credibility contest between an elected School Board member who has the best interests of the students in mind, and a union President who has the best interests of the union members in mind, there is no competition.
 
Ms. Hamme complains that school employees have not had a raise in years.  Welcome to California 2011.  None of us are getting raises.  Most are taking cuts or losing our jobs.  City and school employees should be thrilled to have a place to work, and a salary.
 
Ms. Hamme’s letter mentions Ms. Paspalis speaking about “step and column” increases.  This is the first time I have heard that term, and I thank Ms. Paspalis for bringing that to our attention.
 
Is it true that as Ms. Hamme writes that employees of her union have automatic 3 percent raises for the first five years of their employment?  Automatic raises today?  That’s amazing.
 
A first year employee in 2008 will have a 15 percent raise by 2013?
 
That sure sounds like a raise.  How is it that we’ve never heard Ms. Hamme or Mr. Mielke tell us about a guaranteed 15 percent raise over five years when the rest of the state is taking pay cuts, yearly furlough days and losing their jobs?
 
How can the union say that employees haven’t gotten a raise, when some employees are getting as much as a 15 percent raise over five years?
 
As for having to pay a portion of the benefits, Ms. Hamme you have it wrong yet again.  Forty-one percent of the California working public pays 100 percent for their health benefits.  Another 22 percent of the California working public pays for at least half of the cost of their benefits.  That’s 63 percent who pay half or more for their benefits.
 
Ms. Hamme is complaining about paying $174 a month for full health and welfare benefits for herself and her husband?
 
What planet are you really from Ms. Hamme?  Have you looked at the world outside the school district?  Be thankful that you have full benefits for just $174 a month.  More than 63 percent of working Californian’s would be.
 
Ms. Hamme quotes Mr. Burns as saying that something has to give.
 
Ms. Hamme, as salaries make up the majority of the budget, we all know what has to give.  It is time for the union leaders to lead, and do what is best for the students, not themselves.
 
Thank you for printing Ms. Hamme’s letter. It has certainly cleared up a lot for me.
 
Ms. Cole may be contacted at karen.cole25@yahoo.com