In 2017, the Legislature outlawed collective bargaining by our vo-tech teachers and staff. In 2020, the Legislature banned collective bargaining by our public university faculty and staff. They now want to complete their crusade against labor in education by banning collective bargaining in our K-12 public schools.
House Bill 1216, proposed by Representative Bethany Soye (R-9/Sioux Falls), bears to subject line, “An Act to remove collective bargaining for school district employees.” Soye’s HB 1216 would add “persons employed by a school district,” including elementary and secondary school administrators, to the list of public employees excluded from South Dakota’s already meager right form and join labor unions. Since there will be no teacher’s union with whom to negotiate contracts, HB 1216 strikes the statute allowing school boards to unilaterally impose their final-offer contract if negotiations reach an impasse. It also strikes the statute that prevents teachers unions from negotiating contracts that give them additional protections against the school districts’ ability to fire teachers at will
But then, in a sign of sloppy bill-crafting driven more by text-searching and ideology than a focus on contract negotiations, Representative Soye throws some other subjects into her bill. Noticing a 2015 law that allows schools to offer hiring bonuses and other incentives to recruit teachers beyond terms of negotiated contracts, Soye not only strikes the reference to collective bargaining but extend the incentive opportunity to all school employees.
Soye also seems to want to take away experienced teachers’ right to at least get a written explanation for why their school boards choose not to renew their contracts. Right now, teachers who have made it to their fourth year of teaching in a district have a right to receive a written notice if the and to call for a hearing to challenge . HB 1216 tries to take away that requirement, writing into SDCL 13-43-6.3 that “Nothing in this section requires the board to provide the teacher with a reason for the nonrenewal or with any further process.” Thus, HB 1216 revives the Republican effort back in 2012 and 2013 to strip experienced teachers of the useful right of continuing contract. South Dakotans rejected this idea at the polls in 2012 by a 2–1 vote; they should reject it again now.
But notice that continuing contract differs significantly from collective bargaining. So do hiring incentives. All three are important labor practices for recruiting, retaining, and protecting good teachers. But all three are independent labor practices. Continuing contract exists with or without collective bargaining. Incentives for teachers—and now, under HB 1216, for school paraprofessionals, secretaries, IT pros, and lunch ladies—don’t require a union sign-off. Soye has slapped together a bill that address more topics than its single subject line encompasses and thus violates the Article 3 Section 21 single-subject rule for all legislation.
Representative Soye’s HB 1216 is bad on the technical ground of the single-subject rule. It is disastrous on the ground of labor rights and market forces. At a time when South Dakota’s teacher salaries have sunk back toward the bottom of the national barrel, when a two-year pandemic is piling stress onto classroom teachers, when the Governor is waging war on teachers whom she trashes as lying leftist radicals, and when market forces are allowing labor to flex more muscle in seeking better working conditions, Rep. Soye proposes taking away some of the few labor protections that South Dakota teachers enjoy. It’s almost as if Soye wants more teachers to leave public schools, even as she and her House Education colleagues this morning take up another bill (SB 71) to spend state money to send more kids to private schools.
House Bill 1216 is part of the South Dakota Republican Party’s war on teachers and workers. Teachers and workers need to show up in force to stop this bad bill.
When I was a school board member, I appreciated the input of the teachers’ union. They always had suggestions, and even though we often couldn’t often find the money to do everything they wanted, we tried to incorporate as much of their input on other contract provisions as possible. Negotiations are never easy, but it’s better to sit down and hash things out as best you can than to simply dictate contract language.
I found the hardest part of the job was when we had teacher hearings. We had to decide whether what a teacher was accused of warranted firing or some other sanction. Sometimes they were grievances about the meaning of contract language. We had several such hearings, and they are not fun. Each teacher had a union representative to help them with their case. I prefer that to just having the teacher face the music without representation.
Even in a year when funding seems to be capable of taking a pretty positive uptick, SD campaigners cannot help themselves attacking teachers. Implying that our teachers – especially those with social studies content – are a socialist, woke mob looking to undermine the “decency” of America; saying that professional teachers should have no place or standing to advocate for their teaching conditions — the very conditions our students will be expected to learn in; saying that teachers do not deserve the respect and protection of being fired for cause after three years of service (and professional observation) in a district, makes me wonder what is the message our GOP leaders are trying to send to our teachers and our schools. Why should any rational young person choose to go into education in SD?
First the legislature removed collective bargaining rights for our technical schools; how have those schools been made better in the past few years by this removal? Next our universities lost the collective bargaining rights; how have our universities benefited from that removal? This is not now and never has been about improvement of a system; it has been about demagoguery of anti-union/anti-labor grandstanding.
How can these bans possibly be left to stand. Vo-tech schools, universities and k-12 education boards are government. Teachers, professors and other employees are citizens. 1st amendment guarantees citizens a right to petition government for redress of grievances. Wages and salaries are a form of redress of grievance (compensation for energy expended on behalf of the government). Nothing in the first restrict petitioning to single individuals vs. organized groups.
Yes, this bill includes several subjects. It needs to be broken up. If it is passed this way it could be taken to court.
I have the same question Richard asks: “How can these bans possibly be left to stand?” Isn’t there a 1st Amendment right “. . . of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances?” So if teachers have a grievance that their pay is too low or their working conditions need improvement, why wouldn’t this Amendment, which has been held to fully limit State power, protect their right to assemble in a teachers union and seek redress for their articulated grievances?
It’s easy, the Republicans want to re-establish slavery. It’s one way to go about it. The rulers have spoken. They are like grudz who still nutures a hatred for his teachers from oh so long ago. Who would want to teach now, or be on a school board except the crazies who want to teach their demented screed rather than facts.
Mark, Although not “slavery,” it does seem to be an absolute hierarchy between management and “the help.” However, because it is not slavery, it relies a workforce to volunteer admission to the terms and climate that festers in SD education.
Is SD a good place to teach? Until our elected leaders can figure out a way to answer that question, “yes,” education in SD looks doomed.
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) is the federal statute that grants most private sector employees the right to join a union and engage in collective bargaining.
Employees of state or local governments only have collective bargaining rights if their state legislature has granted them such rights in statute or the governor has done so by executive order.
*Labor is so valuable in Colorado that employers are starting to offer paid fertility treatments for employees and spouses who want to become parents but for medical reasons have been unable to achieve this goal via the natural course.
** You put up with poor treatment by employers in South Dakota because … ?
Porter is right. What the state giveth, the state can take away. That was the fight we had with Scott Walker in 2011. As a result of Scott Walker we lost a lot of experienced teachers, who left for other states who respect them. It will be the last straw for a lot of teachers in South Dakota, and even Noem’s one time bribe in salary will only postpone teachers running for the exits by one year.
My old union, the TAA, lost their rights to bargain, though they are still around. UW policy is that the 2009 contract is in force, though the TAA can’t bargain for a new contract.
Donald, there is a reason why the blue states mostly fund the red states and yet the red states scream individuality and freedom while still collecting the allowance. They are like teenagers in that respect. Look at the dress of the January 6ers, it proves it. At least antifa dresses in black like any sensible New Yorker.
This HB1216 is pure evil and un-American as are the “right-to-work” laws and the rightwing court created doctrine of non-compete clauses.
It’s a pathetic state of affairs that a South Dakota professor hasn’t figured out a way to revoke or over-turn this evil. I want to think they are not all “in” on the go-along-to-get-along” creeping authoritarianism.
Another nail in the coffin for South Dakota’s education system!
Porter, that part of the NLRA is a law that is supposed to be subservient to the constitution. I still think the 1st trump’s it.
Historian Charles Beard’s “economic interpretation” of the Constitution: His argument is that law and the Court will always be in service of capitalism.
Beyond that, the conservative majority has made it clear that state government attempts to level the fields between workers and unions in free and fair elections—whether in the public, private or agricultural sectors—will also go the way of the pro-union state laws.
STRUCK DOWN …
The Roberts Court is certainly making it hard for democratic values to survive, let alone flourish, at the workplace, or at the ballot box.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2021/06/30/the-supreme-court-lashes-out-at-unions-again-why-union-elections-are-not-like-other-elections/
I taught in South Dakota in the late 60’s and the situation was exactly as described in HB 1216. I replaced one of seven high school teachers who had resigned or been non renewed. All the replacements were first year teachers. We came from Northern, Black Hills State, SDSU, Iowa State and MacCallister in Minnesota. The salary was $6,000. There were no fringe benefits, as I remember. We didn’t have Health Insurance though we were a part of the South Dakota Retirement System. Participation may have been optional. There were no days off specified, if you need a day for an emergency you talked it over with the Principal.
For some extra curricular activities an additional payment was added to your contract. I received $50 to supervise the Declamation Program which involved about 40 students for three months. As I recall, I received an additional 50 dollars to direct one act plays (50 students in six plays…it was a popular activity) and the Spring Musical (between 50 and 100 students including the band which a student teacher in Music directed.)
Then there were other duties as assigned, (unpaid) the last sentence in the contract…which were anything that came up. I judged Debate tournaments on Saturday (all day), did crowd control at ball games on Tuesday and Friday nights, 9also took tickets or referred the JV game depending on need), rode the Pep Bus to certain out of town games, coached the Junior High Football team, coached the grade team if needed, chaperoned school dances and the Prom, All teachers had a similar list.
All teachers, (or most) supervised a study hall, were in the hallways between classes, and made time available to meet with or tutor students. We met with Parents at their request and had conferences twice a year. I wore a suit or sport coat at first, I had one of each), and a tie (at first I had two. A green clip on and a black four in hand.) I kept a change of clothes in the coach’s locker room. I took the job because I wanted the experience, and I got it. I came back for a second year, and was paid $100 to Coach the football linemen.
I went to graduate school during the summer. I was dead broke all the time but the banker, who was on the school board loaned me a $200, pay interest only loan, which I paid back in June when I received three months salary in one lump sum. I learned a great deal in those two years including the value of acting in a professional and courteous manner while working on a team. I also learned that classroom teaching was not a profession I could continue with if I was ever going to join, as the Republicans call it, “America’s Ownership Society.”
I had conversations with teachers who taught in the late ‘60s (I started in SD in 1971) who told me the school board unilaterally determined individual teachers pay based on what the board thought the teacher’s spouse earned. These teachers were thankful to have a salary schedule brought about through collective bargaining. South Dakota’s collective bargaining law already favors management.
This bill is just another example of authoritarianism that Republicans are bringing on.
Vote blue no matter who.
And I was a registered Republican in SD for 41 years.
SuperSweet, I started teaching in SD in 1992 and my salary was based on gender, not experience. Men received more money because women were considered secondary income, even if they were not married. Our district did not start a pay scale until 2001 when we hired an ex-college administrator who was appalled at the inequalities, we just accepted or didn’t know.
We rarely had problems with the School Board for negotiations however because it was a small district and half the board were married to school employees. They treated us good when they could and we all cut back when we had to. Our funding came from the state. Three years during the Janklow dynasty nobody got a raise so we didn’t have to RIF employees. We bought our own supplies or made do.
I know the pay has gotten better since I retired but the lack of respect from Noem and her anti public-school troopers is palpable. Rounds had yearly teacher roundups in Pierre where teachers were elevated and inspired. Daugaard, an SDSU alumni, did well with his state formula for teacher pay. But Noem has to go, as well as this bill that does nothing positive.
You’d think that a state that professes “freedom” would support workers’ freedom of association, their choice to work together to improve their working conditions.
Cory, c’mon; This state’s GOP motto is “FREDOM FOR ME-BUT NOT FOR THEE” !!riannr
Authoritarianism, autocracy, grifting, socialist (to political benefactors) projects and constand grabbing money from the liberal states is the way for them. Slave labor seems to be their goal by this above bill.
Our local Representative stated at the crackerbarrel that each teacher “should be treated like in the private sector and we’ll pay them what they’re worth”.
When has that ever happened? I nearly lost my breakfast.
Teacher’s actual worth and magats idea of their worth are polar opposite figures. One thing is an irrefutable fact, if magats were paid according to their performance, they would owe taxpayers money.
Bringing private sector practices to public school? Some questions I have. Who determines the value of an educator to the community? A strong voice may want a winning football team, the helicopter mom’s daughter may not like the award winning math teacher, CTE (shop) classes are for ‘those’ kids so we can pay that educator less (if they were really good, they would be in industry!), we don’t really need FACS (home economics) classes, but science would rule! My child is going to SDSM&T!
I could go on forever. Making teaching a competitive sport (re: hot dog eating) would funnel resources to the biggest / most popular voice. They will drive those that can leave away from the profession and the state. Industry will suffer and wages will continue to drop. “Where are the workers? Nobody wants to work anymore!”
Sad state of affairs, welcome to one party rule.
Full Disclosure: six year school board member, retired CTE (shop) teacher.
My mom and step-dad moved from Ohio in the late 60’s, with three-year-old yours truly, for my step-dad’s new job teaching English at Northern Stare in Aberdeen. After subbing for a year, mom got a job teaching English and history at Conde High School. Coming from urban Ohio, she was not at all accustomed to the authoritarian conformity of rural South Dakota in 1968.
Not only did the teaching conditions suck at that time (as posters here have already described) but, when her principal and school board members saw my step-dad’s full beard, they made plans to hold a meeting to “decide what to do about her employment” unless “something was done” about his beard. She simply made clear that she wouldn’t tolerate that and told them that she’d “see what the ACLU had to say” about it. They backed down, but it really impacted her feelings about the district and the area.
Cory, SD leaders might use the term “freedom” but what they are really saying is they want the “right” people calling the shots.
I don’t think they would like competing with the private sector.
I was reading my hometown newspaper and I make nearly $20,000 more than almost anyone working in city or county government, matching only the State’s Attorney. A similar pattern is there for teachers.
I work in government too. Our city is aggressive on matching pay to the private sector to prevent turnover but it is still difficult in many departments.
Last year, our school had a significant teacher turnover and administration expects that to increase this year – a pattern seen around the country and likely in SD too.
Based on my friend and acquaintance group in South Dakota, things are looking bad. Out of 6 teachers who have graduated in the past 10 years, only one is still in teaching and he is actively planning his exodus.
I’m glad this bill got killed, it gives SD a fighting chance to keep some workforce.
Whew—Rep. Soye got such an earful about her anti-teacher, anti-labor bill that she pulled it before it hit committee. Soye is trying to pretend that her bill was just about helping the schools hire more staff, but don’t be fooled: there are plenty of ways to raise pay and offer hiring incentives that don’t involve getting rid of collective bargaining and continuing contract. As a matter of fact, it’s unions that help boost wages….
grudznick may have to inform young Ms. Soye, who is very pretty, about the Seven Indisputable Levels of Teacher (SILT) and see if she can weave the SILT into her next attempt.
The Seven Indisputable Levels of Teacher (SILT) are a most ridiculous assertion by someone trying to get revenge on teachers who wouldn’t put up with grudznichts juvenile insolence.
Give it up, pony boy.
You should call me goat man, Mr. Lansing, since I got another of yours.
I’m living “rent free” in grudznichts head and believe you me …
It’s lonely and empty in here.
Hey, Kristi can offer a job to every teacher who didn’t get vaccinated and refuses masks..South Dakota will get the best teachers and Noem gets another rally cry.
Teachers, head to New York. Target Stores are offering starting pay at 24 bucks an our in most competitive districts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt0syYT7D8c