To Strike or Not to Strike: that is the question

     Educators in Pasco are faced with a very difficult choice today. It is a decision that will have far reaching implications not just for teachers and students, but for our community as a whole long into the future.
     Currently the teachers' union is in the process of bargaining for a new contract.  There are only a few days left for that contract to be settled, and unfortunately not a lot of progress has been made. Tonight, teachers will vote on what to do if a contract is not reached in time.  Will they strike and refuse to go back to work until an agreement can be reached? Or will they go back to work in good faith hoping that the district will eventually agree to a reasonable contract? The answer is anyone's guess. However we would like to take a look at some of the factors that may influence tonight's vote.


What affect will this have on students?
     Many parents and teachers are concerned with the possible effects on students. However, the good news is students will still receive 180 days of instruction (and free lunch where necessary) no matter when school actually begins.  The question is what will the quality of that instruction be?  Is it better to get started right away without without a contract, or to wait for things to be resolved first?  And what is more important: starting the school year on time? or fighting for better curriculum, smaller class sizes, and reduced testing?
If teachers decide not to strike and the status quo continues what will be the effect on students? In 1978 teachers were working in classrooms with over 40 students. They went on strike and class sizes were reduced. It could be argued that all of our students are currently reaping the benefits of that strike. 


What will happen if teachers do/don't strike?
     Let's say teachers do vote to strike: Best case scenario is the district realizes teachers mean what they say, and they work hard to accommodate teacher demands in the next two weeks so that a healthy contract is agreed to before September first and everyone is back in the class room on time.  Unfortunately sources inside the Booth building have said no one there is really concerned about teachers striking. They are confident that a strike is illegal, and that if teachers choose to strike the district will just get a court injunction to force teachers back to work. Once teachers are in the classroom they will have little bargaining power and district administrators will be able to carry on as they always have. So the worst case scenario is that whether the teachers return to the classroom, the district will continue to hold all the power and refuse to meet curriculum and supply needs of students.
     Now let's say teachers decide not to strike, but instead they choose to return to work in good faith without a contract.  Negotiations will still go on much as they have all summer (which is basically not at all). Teachers will be in the classroom worrying about all the same issues they went into bargaining with. Once again the district appears to hold all the power.
     Unfortunately the teachers alone can not hope to undo the colossal damage being done at the district level. They will need support from the whole community no matter which way the strike vote goes. Like it or not, this affects all of us. Property values and a myriad of other social factors are largely influenced by the quality of schools in a community. Pasco schools are struggling and unless the root problems can be addressed, they will continue to struggle.

Is it legal?
     This is perhaps the burning question of the day, and unfortunately there is no short answer. The law is somewhat vague and can be interpreted a few different ways. This has led to a lot of confusion. The RCW statute lists multiple public employee groups in the no strike language, and for each group it specifies the punishment for striking with fines, jail time, etc. Teachers are listed in this "no strike" list as well, but without a specified penalty. It doesn't even say that there has to be a penalty. It makes sense that we would not want groups like police officers going on strike because it could lead to serious harm in the community. But teachers aren't this type of employee. If teachers go on strike there will not be mass chaos or harm to the general population. There are teacher strikes every single year in Washington and there are not fines levied for striking (there have been fines for defying a judges order to return to work). "If a law has no means of enforcement, it is impractical, but moreover, if punishments were intentionally left out of the law, it functions more like a resolution than an actual state statute and therefore has no legal standing. One of the first questions on the PERC mediation forms asks if there is a potential for a strike. If striking were truly illegal, the State itself would not see it as an option. For all of these reasons, I believe that the legality of a strike is a nonissue." said a member of the PAE bargaining team.

     According to one lawyer,  OSPI paints a different picture claiming that teacher contracts are in fact subject to RCW 41.56.123 like other public employees which means the no strike clause from the current contract would continue: "After the termination date of a collective bargaining agreement, all of the terms and conditions specified in the collective bargaining agreement shall remain in effect until the effective date of a subsequent agreement, not to exceed one year from the termination date stated in the agreement. Thereafter, the employer may unilaterally implement according to law." Even without this section of the union contract though strikes by public employees (including teachers) remain illegal under RCW 41.56.120.  Since a penalty is not specified in law the consequences are at the discretion of the School Board and Judge if an injunction is sought. In most cases fines are issued for each day an injunction is violated by illegally striking teachers though in one instance back in the 70's union leaders were jailed. Along with state law that says strikes by public employees are illegal, the prior court injunctions have also mentioned that teachers illegally striking are in violation of these individual employment contracts.

       A representative from the WAE counters this claim stating, "State law is silent (there isn't a law which prohibits or allows) on teacher strikes. Outside of the Evergreen strikes, no teacher has EVER been fined, jailed or terminated related to striking. Districts often attempt to seek injunctions stating that strikes are causing irreparable harm and their ability to conduct business. When this happens, it is not uncommon for courts to give timelines to reach resolution; but again, the courts have never fined ( even in Marysville...only threatened by the courts) or jailed people for not following the court's directives. As for the current contract language prohibiting strike/lock out: this is inaccurate information as the contract expires in its entirety, minus pay and benefits. So, once the contract expires that language, too expires, unless both parties agree to continue the contract after expiration."

Clear as mud? Yup.

The elephant in the room:
Why are we even in this position? Why are teachers even talking about a strike? Why is curriculum the biggest issue on the table?
Here we are arguing about whether or not it is legal for teachers to strike when we should be on the phone calling the district this very minute and demanding they provide curriculum and supplies to our classrooms.  Bottom line: no matter what the teachers decide tonight, as parents and community members we need to continue to fight to make our voices heard.  We expect better than we have been getting from our district administrators, and we will not stop until our children get what they've been promised.