B-R Board of Ed. President Reports Talks with Teachers’ Union have Stalled

Mr. Evan Lerner, then Board Vice-President, at a work session of the Board in Raritan, at the JFK School on 3/8/11. (Bergeron Images)

At the Bridgewater-Raritan Board of Education meeting last light, Board President Evan Lerner issued the statement below concerning negotiations between it and the teachers’ union, the Bridgewater-Raritan Education Association.  

According to those present at the meeting, after Mr. Lerner read the statement, there was no further discussion by the Board, and no members of the public rose to comment upon it, including representatives of the BREA who were present last evening.

On Saturday, June 25^th,  this blog was first to report that discussions between the two parties had broken down.

The full text of Mr. Lerner’s comments appears below without further comment:

 BRIDGEWATER-RARITAN REGIONAL BOARD OF EDCUATION STATEMENT

Dated:  June 28, 2011

“As some of you may know, the leadership of the Bridgewater-Raritan Teachers Association (BREA) has terminated the ongoing negotiations between it and the Board and has unilaterally declared that the sides are at “impasse.”  This means that instead of negotiating face-to-face the BREA leadership has opted to stop the negotiations process and commence mediation, a time consuming process.  We are disappointed that leadership has abandoned the negotiating table but we have no control over the matter; the rules permit a party to unilaterally pull out of talks. As a result of their action, it is doubtful that the sides will reach any agreement in the foreseeable future.  It also makes it more likely that a settlement when reached will start with the 2012-13 school year, with the terms of the current 2011-12 school year remaining as budgeted by the Board.

We have adhered to the concept that resolution is more easily achieved if the parties do not through the media and the Board still believes that negotiations are usually best left to the bargaining table.    In light of the union’s decision to drop out of that process, though, we think the community is entitled to understand the positions taken by the parties on the items under discussion. 

The negotiations with the BREA have to date focused on three primary items:  raises; health benefits contributions; and work day.  It was our intention to address other smaller items after reaching agreement on these.

RAISES

The Board’s most recent proposal called for a 0% raise in the first year of the contract, a 1% raise in the second year of the contract, and a 1% raise in the third year of the contract (2% in the aggregate over the term of the agreement).

The BREA’s most recent proposal to the Board called for a 0% raise in the first year of the contract, a 3.81% raise in the second year of the contract, and a 3.81% raise in the third year of the contract (7.62% over the term of the agreement).

In the back-and-forth exchange of proposals, it appeared that the Board and the BREA were perhaps moving toward middle ground on this item.  Progress toward further movement halted, however, when the BREA refused to discuss the other two major items before it discussed below.

HEALTH BENEFITS CONTRIBUTION

Currently, state law requires teachers to contribute 1.5% of their salaries to their health insurance costs.  Pursuant to landmark public employee benefits and pension legislation signed by the Governor today, it is expected that teachers will soon be required to contribute the greater of (a) 1.5% of their salary, and (b) 3 to 35% of their health benefits cost on a sliding scale. 

The Board’s most recent proposal provided for the teachers to contribute the greater of  (i) 1.5% of their salary, and 8% of their health benefits cost in the first year of the contract., (ii) the greater of 1.5% of salary, and 13% of their health benefits cost in the second year of the contract, and (iii) the greater of 1.5% of salary, and 18% of their health benefits cost during the third year of the contract.  The Board’s proposal also called for a switch to the State-sponsored health care insurance, which provides similar benefits at a lower cost to the District. 

The BREA has rejected having its members make any contribution to health care costs above the 1.5% of salary already required by law.  The BREA’s proposal included its agreement to switch from the Board’s current health care provider to the State-sponsored health care insurance.

As a result of the BREA leadership declaring an impasse, it seems likely that future contributions by teachers toward their health care will be as determined by the Governor and the legislature rather than as negotiated by the Board and the BREA.

WORK DAY

Currently, most high school and middle school teachers spend only five of the nine periods of their day in direct instruction while the great majority of teachers at the lower levels spend the equivalent of six high school or middle school periods in direct instruction.  The Board’s proposals have requested that high school and middle school teachers transition to a day that includes six periods of direct instruction.

A move to a six-period teaching day by high school and middle school teachers would correct this inequity.   In addition to making teaching assignments in the district more comparable, a move to a six-period teaching day at the high school and middle school would save the District at least $3,000,000 per year if all high school and middle school teachers had six periods of direct instruction.  It would also give the administration more flexibility in scheduling.  The Board’s plan calls for paying additional moneys to high school and middle school teachers as they work more and provides for a gradual transition so that no layoffs would result from the plan.

The BREA leadership has rejected this critical part of the Board’s proposal.

From the outset of negotiations, the Board has been clear that for an agreement to be acceptable it must include an increased contribution by the teachers toward their health insurance costs as well as a transition to a sixth period of direct instruction for middle and high school teachers.  Unfortunately, BREA leadership has decided to walk away from the table rather than negotiate on these important issues.

We note that at this point only the BREA has declared an impasse.  The Board remains hopeful that it can resume negotiations with the BRPA and BRSA soon with a view toward reaching a mutually acceptable agreement in the not too distant future.”