Union President David Mielke said that the terms outlined in an email he received last Saturday from Patty Jaffe, the District’s chief negotiator, were acceptable but that wording was different by the time he signed documents on Monday. Ms. Jaffe told thefrontpageonline.com that was definitely not the case. “The School District would love to settle,” she said yesterday. “The teachers deserve raises, and they deserve the healthcare benefits in the agreement.”
With regard to Mr. Mielke’s assertion about the perceived revision of language, Ms. Jaffe said that, to the contrary, the mediator reviewed the entire contract, one line at a time last Friday. The mediator wanted to ensure that not a single term was clouded by a lack of clarity, Ms. Jaffe said.
Where’s the Beef? Right Here
The beef by the Teachers Union revolves around a fairly obscure notion, retiree healthcare benefits for the spouses of who are hired after July 1. Originally, the School District had not offered any, to the teacher or the teacher’s spouse. Reportedly, the mediator last week convinced the District to offer the following arrangement: the teacher will receive post-career healthcare benefits, capped at $3,207, after fifteen consecutive years of service in Culver City. The spouse of the teacher can qualify for healthcare benefits if the teacher puts in twenty years of service in Culver City. Since the benefits are capped at $3,207 per year, if the teacher’s spouse is added to the plan, the cap remains unchanged. It is not $3,207 per person. That, apparently, is where the misunderstanding by the union lies. It is Mr. Mielke’s contention that the School District is only covering the teacher in this instant while the District says that both partners in a marriage “can” be covered, only the single-person coverage will have to be divided two ways.
Here is the exact language from the so-called settlement that presently is being debated:
“• Unit members will qualify after serving for fifteen consecutive years in the District.
“• Unit members may apply the current contribution for single employee coverage, which may include one dependent coverage, after serving for twenty consecutive years in Culver City.”
Whether the language and its intent are sufficiently clear is presently a matter of disagreement. A teacher with twenty years of experience studied the two sentences and concluded “they are not clear.”
At the same time that Mr. Mielke was saying “the District is trying to force something down our throat,” a District manager suggested the union pulled back this week after signing “because it was seeking a face-saving gesture.”
Ratificaton by the Teachers Union, which had been scheduled for yesterday, was canceled after the union changed its mind. However, Ms. Jaffe said that she would like to see the union offer teachers a chance to vote anyway.
Postscript
Last heard from yesterday afternoon, Mr. Mielke said he was attempting to schedule a private meeting with District Supt. Dr. Laura McGaughey. He told thefrontpageonline.com he believed that if just the two of them sat down, they could remove the presumed single barrier to settlement.
H
ere is the entire section of the proposed agreement that is under fire:
ere is the entire section of the proposed agreement that is under fire:
Article 31: Health and Welfare Benefits
* Maintenance of existing health benefits.
* Retired employees who begin employment on or after July 1, 2006, will receive retiree benefits as follows:
* Age: 55-65
* Current contribution for single employee.
* Unit members will qualify after serving for fifteen consecutive years in the District.
* Unit members may apply the current contribution for single employee coverage, which may include one dependent coverage, after serving for twenty consecutive years in Culver City.
* After Age 65
* Maintain existing retiree reimbursement .
