Celebrating Collective Bargaining in Connecticut
We should celebrate Connecticut's collective bargaining process, which provides for a neutral determination of the issues should the parties not agree, and in exchange we have not had a teacher strike in the past 40 years.
December 23, 2019 at 04:19 PM
3 minute read
At a time in our state when hand wringing over everything that's wrong and contemplating the flaws in our navel is all the rage, we should give pause and give thanks for one aspect of how we operate as a state. That is, how we peacefully negotiate teacher collective bargaining agreements.
Chicago recently ended its 11-day strike of some 25,000 educators affecting 300,000 public school students. It is hard to overstate the enormous burden the strike placed on children, their parents and, in no small measure, their grandparents in an overwhelmingly minority and economically disadvantaged school district.
Chicago is not alone in these struggles. Large and sustained teacher strikes in conservative states such as West Virginia, Oklahoma and Arizona and the liberal bastions of Los Angeles and Denver are very recent. Speaking in Chicago, Randi Weingarten, president of the largest teacher's union, said, "This is now a strategy."
An interesting component of the Chicago strike was that it presented a clear example of where the demands of the union went beyond the basic contractual elements of wages, health insurance, etc., and went far into the realm of social issues. Fundamental questions of equity between rich and poor, strategies to provide safety to immigrants and affordable housing were all considered fair game in the collective bargaining arena. Look for this trend to continue.
Historically, Connecticut suffered its own tipping point concerning the process during the Bridgeport teacher strike in September 1978, in which teachers were imprisoned for days after disobeying a judicial order to go back to work and end an illegal strike. It was ugly, and it prompted a 1979 law that, with some tweaking, is still in force today. The statute requires that, upon the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement, the parties are mandated to arrive at a negotiated agreement in a short period of time. Should they not, compulsory binding interest arbitration is imposed with its own mandated timeframes. The parties must present to a panel of arbitrators the issues and supporting evidence and an award is issued in relatively short order.
Connecticut's collective bargaining process provides for a neutral determination of the issues should the parties not agree, and in exchange we have not had a teacher strike in the past 40 years.
Now, there is a cost for making the trains run on time. The short timeframe does not allow for a great deal of discussion or investigation into the many complex issues in the world of education. One can imagine the scheduling nightmare of getting large negotiating teams on both labor and management and the small education labor bar together. And, rightfully, the numerous boards of education throughout the state can point to instances in which these neutral panels have sided with unions.
On balance, however, as we close 2019, we should celebrate the process we have had in place for 40 years. It keeps teachers in classrooms, students at desks and moms, dads and grandparents less disrupted, with predictable schedules in which to work and live their lives.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllADVANCE Act Offers Conn. Opportunity to Enhance Carbon-Free Energy and Improve Reliability With Advanced Nuclear Technologies
Trending Stories
- 1When Police Destroy Property, Is It a 'Taking'? Maybe So, Say Sotomayor, Gorsuch
- 2New York Top Court Says Clickwrap Assent Binds Plaintiff's Personal-Injury Claim to Arbitration in Uber Case
- 3'You Can’t Do a First Draft of Common Sense': Microsoft GC Jon Palmer Talks AI, Litigation, and Leadership
- 4About the Awards: Southeastern Legal Awards Q&A with Regional Managing Editor Michael Marciano
- 5Private Credit Boom: Miami’s Role as a Financial and Litigation Hub
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250