Saturday, February 03, 2007

Here comes the OEA, trying to kill charter schools, right on schedule

We knew it wouldn't be long into the session before the OEA tried to drop a nuclear bomb on the charter school movement.

The bill hasn't been introduced yet, but it's on its way. All it would do is make a few modest changes to Oregon's charter law by requiring:

1. That all (100%) of charter school teachers AND administrators must hold TSPC licenses.
2. That all charter school employees be considered employees of the sponsoring district for the purposes of collective bargaining.
3. That 80% of the students in each charter school must reside within the sponsoring district's boundaries; 20% could reside in other districts.
4. That no more than 10% of the students in any district could attend charter schools.

This is basically a full frontal attack on charters. If it passed, it would kill the movement in Oregon, and the union knows it.

So, we will see just how much the OEA has the governor and the legislature in its pocket. Will they really vote to kill the charter school movement in Oregon?
Stay tuned


Cleon Cox III said...

In the 2/1/07 edition of The Times an Oped piece was penned by Ken Allen of the AFSCME. In it he calls for the repeal of the double majority. When remembering the old addage of "follow the money" it is apparent the unions have one goal in mind and that would be to extricate all they can from the taxpayer no matter what.

Anonymous said...

they have to kill charters, don't they? the only way to maintain 100 percent control of something - regardless of quality - is to completely eliminate your competition. once those pesky charters are out of the picture, the oea's race to the bottom can resume unabated.

Anonymous said...

Will the legislature pass such a bill? In a heart beat - this state continues to roll towards a huge state of destruction - I see it coming and I'm leaving.

Anonymous said...


Membership is CURRENCY. The OEA would not advocate the use of statutes to add more members to "a" union were they not the dominant union. Presently there is statute that mandates government neutrality as to the formation or maintenance of a union. A given bargaining unit is free too to not affiliate with any bargaining agent at all, including with the OEA.

There are laws, descriptive laws, that pertain to determination of a bargaining unit, where one would apply facts against those laws. Things like "community of interest" etc.

If the OEA wants to take one fact (charter versus non-charter) and use it to fully dispense with the other neutral -- but principled -- tests to ascertain the appropriateness of a bargaining then rebut with the same.

Require that differential PERS tier status is a fact too that is a statutory factual presumption of proof of LACK of a COMMUNITY OF INTERST requiring a split in the bargaining unit for each PERS tier status. I have been screaming for this one since January 2004 -- knowing that there was no way in hell that the ERB would go along, notwithstanding that it would be the proper resolution.

see Associated Portland Educators

BTW, I would like PERB to quit reporting the PERS employer demands as relative to ALL employees and report instead based on PERS tier classes, e.g. Tier-One costs against Tier-One employees, Tier-Two costs against Tier-Two employees, etc. (This is not to concede that ANY demands for employer contributions are compellable were any district to simply refuse to pay, until a payment is due, rather than to fill the OIC's PERF with advance play money.)

Get my drift? It would just be a "transparency" measure to supply facts to support my claim that the Tier-Three folks have no business being bundled up with the Tier-One folks, particularly in the context of OEA litigation on PERS where a lawyer is prohibited from simultaneously representing parties that have an actual conflict of interest among the classes.

Heck, I have even heard some grumbling among retirees that they are no longer members of a bargaining unit (with police and fire). It would be incompatible with the notion of the right to strike/lockout, and the immediate hiring of temporary replacements, as a method -- in economist's terms -- of "price discovery."

Beyond just the statutory stuff there is also the first amendment stuff to be concerned with and the recognition of a person's individual right to choose to associate or not associate with some group.


The frontal assault is broader than just upon charter schools.


OregonGuy said...

Thank you, Rob.

As to your question of "how much the OEA has the governor and the legislature in its pocket", I'm assuming that's a rhetorical question. The known answer is something about pockets, then there are pockets, and then there are medical procedures.

I do want to point out that the governor is only interested in helping kids, the elderly, teachers and public employees. (Oops, teachers are public employees...I keep forgetting.)