Unions in Four states Forge No Raid Pacts

Article Tools
  • PrintPrinter-Friendly
  • EmailEmail Article
  • ReprintReprints
  • CommentsComments

Labor unions in at least four states have forged agreements that will limit their turf battles in the quickening drive to organize educational-support personnel.

In California, Florida, Washington, and Wisconsin, affiliates of the National Education Association and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees have either agreed, or tentatively agreed, to forgo competing for the bargaining rights of school workers already organized by the other.

The two unions are an "inch away'' from a similar agreement in Rhode Island, according to John Hein, the NEA's assistant executive director for affiliated services.

Comparable arrangements have been worked out between the state affiliates of the NEA and the Service Employees International Union in California, and are close to completion in Washington State.

And talks on the same front, Mr. Hein said, are progressing between the NEA and AFSCME affiliates in Illinois, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, and between the NEA and SEIU affiliates in Illinois.

Both AFSCME and the SEIU are affiliates of the AFL-CIO

Though the overwhelming majority of certified K-12 teachers are represented by a union, workers in the education-support field, which encompasses a wide variety of jobs in schools and higher-education institutions, remain largely unorganized.

Unions now actively engaged in efforts to organize these workers include, in addition to the three groups moving toward so-called "no raid'' agreements, the American Federation of Teachers and the International Union of Operating Engineers, both affiliates of the AFL-CIO

Unions that are part of the AFL-CIO are prohibited under the labor federation's rules from seeking to win bargaining rights held by other federation members. But the NEA, the nation's largest independent union, is not restricted by such limitations.

Agreements Limit Competition

The NEA began actively organizing school-support workers in the early 1980's, and in a number of locations has sought to capture the bargaining rights held by these other unions.

This jurisdictional warfare--commonly known as raiding--is costly, Mr. Hein noted, and had begun to impair the working relationship the N.E.A. has enjoyed with AFSCME and the SEIU on other fronts.

"Competition of this type doesn't do any good,'' he conceded. "You are fighting over units that someone represents while you could be broadening your membership base on other fronts and providing additional services to your members.''

Donald S. Wasserman, director of collective-bargaining services at AFSCME, agreed.

"The purpose of these discussions,'' he said, "is to bring a sense of stability that will enable the organizations to use their resources to represent their members, rather than to fend off one another.''

In crafting their agreements, the unions used as a model the "no-raid'' provision already in place within the AFL-CIO.

Under that model, unions agree not to raid one another's members, but are free to battle it out over workers who are not yet organized.

Agreements between the NEA and AFSCME affiliates in Florida, Wisconsin, and Washington State have taken that understanding one step further.

In those states, the two unions have worked out arrangements that will limit competition for unorganized, as well as organized, school-support workers.

Although the terms of these agreements differ in each state, and from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, the basic idea is the same: If one union already represents a unit of workers within a school district or institution, then the other union will not seek to organize other support staff in that district or institution.

In general, Mr. Wasserman said, "we agreed that we would not organize in specific school districts where they have units, and they agreed not to organize in districts where we have some units.''

Such agreements among AFL-CIO unions, he said, are "not common, but not unheard of.''

In Florida, Wisconsin, and Washington jurisdictions where neither union has an established hold or claim, the organizations "will go ahead and compete,'' Mr. Hein said.

National Agreement Sought

The talks to limit these turf battles at the state level are part of a broader effort by the unions to reach a national agreement on the issue.

Though AFSCME was prepared to negotiate this broader understanding first, NEA officicals believed it crucial to secure agreements in roughly 15 states where discussion on the issue had already taken place before attempting a national pact.

"We decided to split these states into two groups and see if we could find ways to work out our competitions in one group and, if we could, then move on to the second group,'' Mr. Hein said. "We are assuming that if we can get things worked out in these 15 states, then we will be able to get a national agreement approved by the NEA board of directors.''

Mr. Hein said he hoped to conclude agreements in Illinois, Maryland, and Pennsylvania in the months ahead, and to begin working with the second group of states this fall.

Both the NEA and AFSCME would like to have agreements in all 15 states by the end of the year.

In addition to AFSCME, the second round of discussions will also involve SEIU and the International Union of Operating Engineers, but only in two or three states, Mr. Hein said.

None of the discussions involve the rival teachers' union, the American Federation of Teachers.

"We will still be duking it out with the AFT,'' Mr. Hein said. "That won't be ending.''

Officials at the AFT said that AFSCME had kept them "well informed'' on its discussions with the NEA "There are no surprises here,'' said Kate Krell, a spokesman for the teachers' federation.

"We don't see this as making our [organizing] efforts any more difficult,'' she added. "Our organizers are shrugging their shoulders over this and saying, 'So what.'''

Vol. 07, Issue 39 Extra Edition

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.
Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.

Back to Top Back to Top

Most Popular Stories





Sponsor Insights

Vocabulary Development for Striving Readers

Free Ebook: How to Implement a Coding Program in Schools

Successful Intervention Builds Student Success

Effective Ways to Support Students with Dyslexia

Stop cobbling together your EdTech

Integrate Science and ELA with Informational Text

Can self-efficacy impact growth for ELLs?

Disruptive Tech Integration for Meaningful Learning

Building Community for Social Good

5 Resources on the Power of Interoperability from Unified Edtech

New campaign for UN World Teachers Day

5 Game-Changers in Today’s Digital Learning Platforms

Hiding in Plain Sight - 7 Common Signs of Dyslexia in the Classroom

The research: Reading Benchmark Assessments

Shifting Mindsets: A Guide for Training Paraeducators to Think Differently About Challenging Behavior

All Students Are Language Learners: The Imagine Learning Language Advantage™

Shifting Mindsets: A Guide for Training Paraeducators to Think Differently About Challenging Behavior

How to Support All Students with Equitable Pathways

2019 K-12 Digital Content Report

3-D Learning & Assessment for K–5 Science

Climate Change, LGBTQ Issues, Politics & Race: Instructional Materials for Teaching Complex Topics

Closing the Science Achievement Gap

Evidence-based Coaching: Key Driver(s) of Scalable Improvement District-Wide

Advancing Literacy with Large Print

Research Sheds New Light on the Reading Brain

Tips for Supporting English Learners Through Personalized Approaches

Response to Intervention Centered on Student Learning

The Nonnegotiable Attributes of Effective Feedback

SEE MORE Insights >