Argus-Courier Editorial: Teachers need to be reasonable

The months-long labor dispute between local school teachers and the Petaluma City School could probably be resolved in short order if the teachers union would drop its unreasonable insistence that hundreds of its members be allowed to observe the sensitive and nuanced negotiations between its bargaining representatives and those of the district.

Mandating that an unlimited number of teachers be present to listen in on such negotiations is highly unusual, and would likely impair the ability of the two parties to effectively reach consensus on delicate issues such as salary increases.

But the need to conclude negotiations is important, as it will benefit teachers who want and deserve a pay increase. Despite having agreed last year to eliminate furlough days, which effectively restored much of teachers’ pay that was cut during the Great Recession, local educators have received no cost of living adjustment since 2007. The Petaluma Federation of Teachers is currently asking for a 4 percent salary increase, while the district is offering a 2.5 percent increase, plus a $500 one-time payment.

The two sides are not that far apart and, if they were able to negotiate, could probably reach agreement on a pay increase. Yet because of the union’s irrational insistence on unlimited teacher observers, negotiations ended in early July. According to Petaluma Schools Superintendent Steve Bolman, a large number of observers hampers negotiations, adding that during the July meeting, 65 PFT members showed up to observe a bargaining session.

“You can’t just walk into negotiations and understand the history,” he recently told the Argus-Courier, adding that “candid discussion would be changed by the presence of observers.”

It’s unprecedented, in Petaluma, for an unlimited number of teacher observers to be present during contract negotiations, and there appear to be two popular theories on why this policy is being pushed by the union.

One theory is that by packing the room with dozens of their colleagues, the teachers union will be better positioned to pressure the district into complying with its demands.

The other theory is that many teachers distrust their negotiators to adequately represent them. By example, last year the teachers union negotiators reached agreement with the district on a new contract, only to see that agreement nullified by voting members of the teachers union.

Regardless of the rationale behind the union’s strategy, there are unlikely to be meaningful negotiations unless and until the union agrees to more reasonable terms with respect to the number of teachers allowed to observe negotiations.

Yet there is currently no indication that will happen. The high level of vitriol directed at volunteer school board members during a recent public meeting was a strong indication that emotions, rather than reason, are guiding teachers’ words and actions.

Judging by the recent election, in which three of the school board’s five members were handily re-elected after fighting off a challenge by two candidates supported by the teachers’ union, the public seems to agree with the school district’s position.

The board has rightfully pledged that Petaluma’s teachers should be well compensated within the school district’s limited fiscal constraints, and the district’s representatives are prepared to negotiate to that end.

We hope that teachers will soon decide to do the same thing, and let their representatives do the job without the oversight of an excessive number of observers.