House Bill 1198 is another great example of how Republicans support local control only as long as local governments obey Republican ideology.
Thousands of South Dakota teachers choose to belong to their local teachers union. Their union reps, all fellow teachers, provide various services, like negotiating their contracts and representing them in administrative hearings.
Suppose a school superintendent schedules a grievance hearing for a teacher right after school. Suppose that teacher’s union rep teaches in another building across town. The union rep needs to leave her last class of the day early in time to get across town, brief the teacher she’s representing, get final documents together, etc., so she asks her administration if they can provide a substitute teacher to cover the last thirty minutes of her last class.
Right now, the union rep’s school district can follow its own policy on paying for subs to cover absences for labor union activity. A district that supports labor rights can deem representing a fellow teacher in an administrative hearing a reasonable professional activity and cover the cost. An anti-union district say, “No way! You’re not teaching, so pay for your own sub, or get your union to pay.” It’s up to the district.
In comes Speaker G. Mark Mickelson (R-13/Sioux Falls) with House Bill 1198 to make the above choice for every district. Mickelson hates unions, and he wants to force everyone else to hate unions, too. His HB 1198 would force all school districts to comply with his preference that no public school employee get any paid release time for any union-related activity. HB 1198 would also ban schools from allowing teachers to attend professional development activities “initiated, planned, or organized” by any labor organization. The statewide teachers union, SDEA, provides a variety of training programs; Mickelson’s HB 1198 would forbid schools from hosting these useful programs on scheduled in-service days unless the union agreed to pay all the teachers for that in-service day.
Our local and state teachers unions provide useful services for our teachers and our schools. Local school districts that appreciate those services should have the option to support those services.
But once again in their partisan zeal, Speaker Mickelson and his fellow Republicans show that when they say “local control,” they mean, “control the locals.”
What is Mickelson? The de facto guv? More like dick tater. Dick tates cafos on unwilling counties and dick tates rules for unions in education.
Wingnut sharia law.
Teacher unions have held back education and the pay for teachers in South Dakota for decades.
Maybe we can broaden this: legislators are banned from attending any ALEC conference or “educational seminars” sponsored by lobbyists. Seems only reasonable.
This is an excellent bill. Why are labor union interests protected and given special treatment? When I testify in Pierre for various bills, I pay for the loss of a personal day and try to move bills around to days I will be missing many students. I do not get any type of compensation for my trip to Pierre nor should I. Maybe school districts should be forced to provide me some sort of financial incentive for pushing pro-life legislation or political or PAC activity? Maybe I could get a political stipend from the school district for printing and other miscellaneous expenses? If schools are supporting unions, they need to do the same for other organized political activity. And, Cory, I do not know what kind of remarkable benefits the unions in Aberdeen provide to teachers, but in most districts in this state, the local union does nothing for teachers short of being the staff that will be the stamp of approval on whatever the school board decides is adequate. The SDEA would probably be more widely accepted in this state by teachers if they would stop hijacking local negotiations for their own ends and stop sending large portions of dues out of state to blow on pet projects like Blanche Lincoln’s reelection fund.
Unions negotiate with school districts through collective bargaining- something you do not see with single party rule.
Unions do not raise taxes on property owners to pay teacher’s wages. Pols do that, or in South Dakota’s case for forty years-they don’t raise teacher’s pay. Which is why the teachers need unions more than ever. Flock wingnuts!
Spencer, the “special treatment” you allege is apparently decided at the local level. Districts are free to blow off or support the unions as they see fit. If a school board deems that such activities contribute to the welfare of its district, why would the Legislature want to take that local control away?
If a group of teachers assemble to form a union and petition the school administration for better working conditions or wages, isn’t this activity protected by our First Amendment guarantee that the federal or state government:
Teachers who “assemble” to seek better wages or working conditions aren’t a mere labor union negotiating with a private employer, rather, their employer is a branch of “the Government.” If as Spencer argues, this is truly an excellent idea, shouldn’t the state seek to amend the Federal Constitution rather than enact a law that on its face seems inconsistent with the above quoted First Amendment language?
As a school board member, I heard grievances that hadn’t been resolved at a lower level. At least when they got up to the school board, the grievance was usually about an interpretation of a contract provision. Since contracts are negotiated, you really do need to have the union involved to present their side of the issue. Sometimes the contract is unclear, or doesn’t apply exactly to a specific situation, and your decision will make policy. It’s just natural to have all sides involved. This is about who pays for that union representative, and issues like subs for those involved. That is usually covered in the contract, and is negotiated. My feeling as a board member was that I valued the input of teachers and their union. My experience was that teachers and union reps are too reticent to pipe up. We need their input, and, especially where a contract provisions is at play, we ought to respect that input enough to make it easily available. You aren’t always going to agree, but I wanted to hear the reasons for their position.
And there is this: this is a negotiated provision that costs relatively little. If you don’t have that the ability to give on that provision, then the school board will likely be asked for some other provision that may be more costly or more difficult to administer. It seems rather stupid for the legislature to take away the school board’s ability to negotiate on this rather small bargaining point, when it could cost more in the long run.
“ban schools from allowing teachers to attend professional development activities “initiated, planned, or organized” by any labor organization”–wow, this has got to be illegal on some level
Spencer- you are not talking about teaching profession bills, right. Abortion restrictions and such?
Has the speaker ever practiced law since his Harvard graduation in…well he doesn’t disclose when? big secret? Do Republicans have a secret handshake that says HATE UNIONS, UNIONS ARE EVIL, EMPLOYEES SHOULDN”T BARGAIN FOR HIGHER WAGES AND BENNIES ECT
Sounds like Koch Brothers idealology
When i first came to South Dakota, a lawyer for the BOR commented that there is a strong, bipartisan hatred of working people in South Dakota. He said the state’s idea of an economic development program would be the repeal of the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment. Mickelson is copying Wisconsin in silencing any voice that educational workers have in the conduct of their profession. If HB 1198 were to pass, it would be a strong sanction against teaching in the state and a compelling reason not to choose teaching as a vocation.
The bill is just another attack on democracy and the Bill of Rights.
Thank you, Donald, for reaffirming that even school boards can see the merits of giving their professional teachers a voice in negotiations… and that Mickelson’s bill will actually harm school districts.
What a horrible Bill. Michelson doesn’t care about teachers or he wouldn’t try to stifle the already watered down Union that represents them. The golden boy and his one party club has done everything in their power to keep them dead last in pay for 40 years and now they want to bury the one last important advocate that a teacher has.
First they came for the Socialists (Liberals or SD Democrat), and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist (Liberal or just a moderate democrat in SD).
Then they came for the Trade Unionists (Teachers Union), and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist (Teacher).
Then they came for the Jews (Muslims in South Dakota , and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew (Muslim.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Beware South Dakota. One party rule is not good in South Dakota. :(
David, “The bill is just another attack on democracy and the Bill of Rights.”
I would amend that to say that it is an attack focused on the dissenting voices. When opposition has arisen, be it through initiated measure or organization, the reaction seems to be ban the entity or process that allows that dissent.
Teachers in South Dakota do not have a union. There is no collective bargaining law which gives them an equal footing in negotiations. A school board can impose a salary structure and other issues as they see fit. Iowa and Wisconsin among others had model collective bargaining laws until gutted by Walker and Branstad.