|
Dear REA and Community,
Jeffrey Fuller (REA President) and Brian Jay (REA Bargaining Chair), along with OSEA leadership, met with the district on July 16 to continue our negotiation for the Furlough MOU. The District responded to our previous proposal with a counter reversing our proposed four (4) days of furlough back to their original proposal of ten (10) furlough days. Despite having $700,000 more coming in via the State School Fund than planned for in the 2025-2026 adopted budget, and needing to spend approximately $1.5 million less on PERS, the district maintains they still need 10 furlough days to make ends meet. The district did agree with our proposed last four (4) student days of school and upped it by one (1) more. If ratified, this would eliminate the last five (5) student contact days of the 2025-2026 school year. They did, however, leave the final two workdays of June 15 and 16 in place. If we were to agree, this would come out to June 8,9,10,11,12 – with the final workdays being June 15 and 16. Unfortunately, the district – once again – proposed cutting the five (5) teacher planning days. Their excuse continues to be that they do not want to pursue getting a waiver from the state (which the district has done during previous furloughs) and do not want to impact student contact days. We again argued that the prep days were put into place to help alleviate teacher burnout, minimize the amount of sick days taken and the subsequent amount of subs in the building – which costs the district more and is not good for students - and allows educators to prep, plan and collaborate in order to make student contact days truly count for students. In this upcoming year more than any, we will need that prep time to make student contact hours meaningful, not just tick boxes. It continues to be our belief that seat time for the sake of seat time is not as valuable as well prepared lessons by students' teachers as opposed to subs. As for the trigger language, the district accepted two (2) of the three (3) proposed triggers (Independent Outside Audit and State School Fund triggers) but pushed for funding thresholds well above – practically double - what is needed to bring back a furlough day. Their concern was partly due to funds needed for charter schools, but the amount was still well above what would be needed. We also proposed language about “other” funding that could be used for compensation. The district struck that out of fear that grant money would come with requirements as to how it’s spent. Finally, the district struck language that would protect members from being laid off, non-renewed or terminated for any reason related to budget, funding or program cuts during the life of the MOU. The fact that the district is unwilling to guarantee that their proposed method to alleviate budget shortfalls will actually work, while maintaining that there is no question that 10 furlough days are needed, is problematic at best. Our counter, was to concede to the five (5) furlough days in June (striking the planning days), strike their high trigger language thresholds, while adjusting our proposed numbers to give slightly more wiggle room for charters, restore the additional funding trigger language, and change language about non-layoffs to language requiring the district to come to the table and bargain any necessary reduction measures first. Again, protecting our members’ jobs, pay and time is of the utmost importance! We have scheduled two (2) more bargaining dates – at the end of July and early August, when we will see how the district responds. Finally, we felt the district was hinting at moving forward with their last, best offer when the 90 days of mandatory bargaining are completed on August 10. OSEA and REA have informed the district of our “commitment to bargain in good faith, even beyond the ninety-day statutory period.” Our goal is to have a MOU prepared for both OSEA and REA members to vote on when we return to work. REA and OSEA met with the District again this week to discuss their proposed furlough days. As promised, the district brought an initial proposal but was otherwise light on specifics regarding some of the other concerns we have voiced. Below are highlights from the meeting:
We met with the District and OSEA leadership to continue working on the Furlough MOU on Wednesday morning. While we were able to discuss a bit more about the current state of the budget and clarify REA and OSEA concerns, we did not get much further. We are still awaiting information on what cuts the District would be making if no furlough is successfully negotiated so that we know exactly what we are bargaining against. Additionally, we are waiting for information about the cost to District admin vs certified staff and the savings provided by cuts. Our goal is to continue pushing for equity in cuts as we try to figure out furlough. Despite the district’s FAQ shared in Frank’s email yesterday–some of which we believe is inaccurate or exaggerated–we still have a lot of questions and concerns.
The District will be bringing an initial proposal to an in person meeting the morning of Tuesday, June 17. This guarantees we will not hold a vote on a furlough MOU until we return in late August. We are also waiting for real numbers from the state, which will not be available for several more weeks, as well as an updated estimate on the health insurance pool and if it will hold up next year or if there will be out of pocket costs for some members. We feel this information is necessary to bargaining furlough in good faith. Attention: Time Sensitive Action Items
Changes Going into Effect Retroactively
Changes Going into Effect during 2025-2026
SPED Stipend Change beginning Dec. 1
Other Changes beginning this Year
Highlights by Article Article 3 - Miscellaneous
Hello REA members,
On October 29th, your bargaining team met with the district to negotiate the final remaining articles, each having a big impact on salary, benefits, and class and caseload sizes. These articles are critical to our members and part of why we’ve seen increased attendance at our public bargaining sessions. Although Tuesday’s session was closed to the public, and therefore lacking the spirit our members bring to the table, we still had a successful session with big wins on the remaining articles. With a renewed understanding of our district’s current finances (not including the independent audit due later this year) we were able to negotiate counters designed to move our salaries closer to the middle of Metro 14 districts, help make sure our members will have their insurance covered, and strike new language around class size and caseload that improves our current contract. The session ran close to 9 hours and involved a number of counters from both sides, but in the end the district came back with a counter which was – with few exceptions – an agreement to our language. This was a huge win and, honestly, a big surprise. Based on our discussions, the district proposed a two year contract rather than three, in acknowledgement of the likelihood that State funding will soon be changing but isn’t clear yet. If we accept a two year, it will be because it helps ensure that we don’t settle for less because the third year is such an unknown. Below are the articles we received counters on and details on the remaining points in discussion. (Keep in mind that the notes below are not all the changes, just the ones we were still working on this week). Article 7 – Employee Work Year
-We fixed some inaccurate numbers and language in this article around rolling over unused personal leave, but nothing new in substance was done with this article. Article 22 – Compensation + Salary Index -REA’s current salary proposal, at the beginning of the day, was 7% in year one, 9% in year two and 8% in year three. Throughout the afternoon there was discussion about the budget and the impact changing the salary index would have on the district (more about that in the next bullet point). It was understood that not just COLA, but also salary index changes and added holidays would have an impact on the actual salary increase. After multiple counters, REA revised our proposal to 7%, 7%, 7% over three years with 4 paid holidays and two changes to the salary index – deleting the 0 step and reducing the credit needed for column movement (so that members advance to the final column more quickly). The district accepted our proposal of 7% in year one and 7% in year two, along with the paid holidays. However, they proposed that the holidays wouldn’t go into effect until 2025-2026. If we accept the proposal, this would mean that members would get 7% this year – with retro checks for the beginning of the year – and because of the paid holidays, next year’s actual salary increase would be a little over 9%. -The salary index changes are complex and would have varying impact on members, resulting in an average – but inconsistent – salary increase of 3.7%. Because the impact of this varies among members and is so complex, we agreed with the district to form a committee to study the subject and try to figure out how best to implement a change with the most equity for our members.
-REA and the district were both concerned that rises in insurance rates might leave the insurance pool depleted. Our previous counter was a proposal to either raise the insurance roll-up to 4% rather than 3% or to increase the pool from $350,000 to $400,000 – either of which we felt would solve the problem. After a prolonged discussion, which also touched on how we can better use the insurance committee to look at potential fixes, it became clear that raising the roll-up to 4% would net more for our members (though the district was leaning toward increasing the pool). In the end, the district agreed to our language for a 4% roll-up, while also holding our members harmless this year if the pool does run out.
The district shared calculations of the burden our overage pay proposals, as well as hard caps, would have on the district’s finances as well as the very finite space in many of our schools. Although there was agreement on the problem and how dire it is, there was also agreement that the state’s funding model needs to change. As the state works on their funding model for the new biennium, this conversation will be important to stay engaged in, but for now, our concern was to begin the process of improving the language in 27 and paving the way for change. To that end, we made two critical changes. -As we argued at the last bargaining session, our goal is to lower sizes and caseloads, not just charge overage pay. After much discussion, we agreed to create a pool of money with which the district and REA would use to collaboratively approach class and caseload sizes each this. The fund could be used to add EA’s, FTE, add roving teachers etc. The district proposed a fund of $200,000. We countered with $400,000 which the district ultimately agreed to, with the understanding that this fund would kick in during the 2025-2026 school year. -Though it was clear that hard caps would be difficult to fund until the state increases funding, we wanted to use the “soft” caseload size recommendations from our previous contract as a guide for when we would use the $400,000 account for class/caseload sizes. Therefore, we lowered some sizes (particularly kinder) and added size/ratios for many ELD and SPED programs. Though we feel there may be a few more to add, we believe that this is a big win and an important step in agreeing on realistic numbers for our class sizes and caseloads. As you can see, though there are still some conversations for the team to have, we are very close and have ensured many improvements to our current contract. Please check out the links to each of the articles above to see the current proposal for each remaining article. Our next bargaining session will be on November 12th, in the RHS library at 4:30. Be on the lookout for more info on that session as we get closer. -Your bargaining team On the evening of Tuesday the 15th, REA members once again showed up in full force, carrying signs and reminding the District that we are united and demand a fair contract! Thank you for your support and lending your voice to the growing chorus!
|
Articles Opened by REA |
Articles Opened by RSD |
Article 3 – Miscellaneous
|
Value |
Article 4 – Association Rights and Privileges
|
Article 4 – Association Rights and Privileges
|
|
Article 5 – Employee Rights
|
Article 7 – Employee Work Year
|
|
Article 8 – Emergency Closure
|
|
Article 9 – Teaching Hours
|
Article 9 – Teaching Hours
|
Article 10 – Professional Development
|
Article 10 – Professional Development Review process for site training and remove redundancies in current language |
Article 14 – Paid Leaves of Absence
|
|
Article 17 – Substitute and Student Teachers
|
|
Article 18 – Student Discipline
|
|
Article 19 – Tuition, Project, Workshop Reimbursement
|
Article 19 – Tuition, Project and/or Workshop Reimbursement
|
Article 21 – Dues and Payroll Deductions
|
|
Article 22 – Employee Compensation
|
Article 22 – Employee Compensation
|
Article 23 – Fringe Benefits
|
Article 23 – Fringe Benefits
|
Article 25 – Reduction in Force
|
Article 25 – Reduction in Force
|
Article 26 – Student Services
|
Article 26-A – Student Services: Special Education
Article 26-B – Student Services: English Language Development
Article 26-C – Student Services: Social-Emotional and Wellness Support Service
|
Article 27 – Class Size and Caseload Workload
|
Value |
Article 30 – Duration of Agreement
|
Article 30 – Duration of Agreement Update years |
Appendix A – Salary Schedule
Appendix B – Salary Index
Appendix C – Special Consideration Compensation Form
Appendix E – Tuition Reimbursement & Column Movement
|
In September, REA filed a demand to bargain letter to start the process of bargaining an MOU that would re-open the COVID sick leave bank. REA wrote and offered an initial draft MOU for the District on September 19th. The District’s official offer, however, did not come until October 28. That proposal offered access to the bank only after all other leaver was exhausted by a member. Despite a number of changes and attempts to bargain in good faith by REA, the District continues to counter by denying access to a COVID sick leave bank prior to exhausting all other leave and striking nearly all other language. This includes striking any language for the MOU to be retroactive.
REA continues to believe that the District’s offer is a slap in the face. Park Rose School District offered 5 days of COVID sick leave fully paid by the District up front. The Park Rose Faculty Association does not even have to help cover the cost of those days as REA did last year (we split the cost from our Sick-Leave Bank) and has offered to continue doing so this year. Prior to REA’s latest counter, there was no part of the MOU language that was new from what the District agreed to last year.
REA has requested time to speak with the School Board about this MOU in their Executive Session this Wednesday, December 14th. It remains to be seen if that request will be honored. If so, we hope that sharing our goals and perspectives with the entire Board directly, along with District leadership, will help smooth out this process and assist in resolving our differences quickly. If this request is not honored, we will be addressing our concerns publicly in REA’s report to the Board and will reach out to Board directors piecemeal through our meet-ups.
We also have multiple other MOUs that need to be bargained due to changes in law that impact language in our contract, and to prepare for Summer School, etc. To date, the District has refused to bargain more than one MOU at a time, delaying this work. If the District continues in this manner, a new course of action may become necessary.
REA continues to believe that the District’s offer is a slap in the face. Park Rose School District offered 5 days of COVID sick leave fully paid by the District up front. The Park Rose Faculty Association does not even have to help cover the cost of those days as REA did last year (we split the cost from our Sick-Leave Bank) and has offered to continue doing so this year. Prior to REA’s latest counter, there was no part of the MOU language that was new from what the District agreed to last year.
REA has requested time to speak with the School Board about this MOU in their Executive Session this Wednesday, December 14th. It remains to be seen if that request will be honored. If so, we hope that sharing our goals and perspectives with the entire Board directly, along with District leadership, will help smooth out this process and assist in resolving our differences quickly. If this request is not honored, we will be addressing our concerns publicly in REA’s report to the Board and will reach out to Board directors piecemeal through our meet-ups.
We also have multiple other MOUs that need to be bargained due to changes in law that impact language in our contract, and to prepare for Summer School, etc. To date, the District has refused to bargain more than one MOU at a time, delaying this work. If the District continues in this manner, a new course of action may become necessary.
REA and the District have signed the Substitute MOU, which will now go to the Board for approval. This will hopefully take place at the October 26 Board Meeting. Among the highlights of the MOU:
REA intends to hold a Zoom meeting with members in order to thoroughly discuss and answer questions about the MOU in the next two weeks.
REA is currently in negotiations and hope to conclude the In-Person MOU soon.
-REA Bargaining Team
- The District will honor TOSA schedules and will not assign them to sub on days that conflict with their duties, such as district-level meetings and trainings.
- The District will work proactively with members to ensure meetings and trainings that cannot be rescheduled are protected.
- TOSAs will only be asked to sub at their respective assigned levels. For example, a K-5 academics curriculum TOSA would only be asked to sub in K-5 classrooms.
- District Level TOSAs assigned to sub in Middle Schools will be informed of a substitute assignment no later than 8:00 pm the night before.
- District Level TOSAs assigned to sub at other levels must be informed at least one hour before the report time for the assigned job.
- Building based subs will be utilized first.
- No member will be assigned to sub more than two days in a week, but may volunteer to do so.
- Members assigned to sub more than four hours will receive additional substitute pay for a full day.
- No member can be asked to sub during their prep time.
- Members teaching additional classes (or partial classes) or taking on additional caseloads (SLPs, SpEd teachers, etc.) as the result of unfilled FTE will be compensated for the additional students in their classes and/or caseload. This pay will be equivalent to the FTE they are covering and will be pro-rated for partial caseload or partial classes.
- Members will not be held accountable for job performance shortfalls during weeks in which they were assigned sub duties.
- Adequate substitute materials will be provided for any substituting member; members will leave detailed notes for the absent teacher.
- Long term sub assignments will not be filled by TOSAs on an ongoing basis.
- Building specific positions will not be required to sub outside their respective buildings.
REA intends to hold a Zoom meeting with members in order to thoroughly discuss and answer questions about the MOU in the next two weeks.
REA is currently in negotiations and hope to conclude the In-Person MOU soon.
-REA Bargaining Team
To begin the school year, we reached out to the district and expressed our desire to work on new In-Person and new Substitute MOUs. The district refused to work with us, so REA filed a Demand to Bargain. The district has now responded, and we are at work on the early draft stages of a Substitute MOU. We should be able to share our initial proposal following our next meeting with the district.
We hope to begin working on an In-Person MOU in the coming weeks as well, once the Sub MOU begins to move forward. We hope to retain access to the COVID sick leave bank and PPE among other things. More word on this soon.
Finally, the district has agreed to engage in discussions on the subject of personal appliances in teacher classrooms. The direction these discussions might go and whether or not they would result in an MOU is not yet known. We hope to be able to share more soon.
As always, the bargaining team is working hard to protect the interests of REA members and to help make the transition into the new school year as smooth as possible.
We hope to begin working on an In-Person MOU in the coming weeks as well, once the Sub MOU begins to move forward. We hope to retain access to the COVID sick leave bank and PPE among other things. More word on this soon.
Finally, the district has agreed to engage in discussions on the subject of personal appliances in teacher classrooms. The direction these discussions might go and whether or not they would result in an MOU is not yet known. We hope to be able to share more soon.
As always, the bargaining team is working hard to protect the interests of REA members and to help make the transition into the new school year as smooth as possible.
RSD and REA have reached a tentative agreement on retention, recruitment, and referral bonuses. The agreement is tentative until the RSD Board has met and the MOU documents are signed by both sides. Here are the bare facts with further details to come once the MOU is ratified:
-Retention Bonus will be for a total of $4,500. The first $2,500 installment on July 13 will be in the form of a paper check mailed to members. Please be advised the bonus will be taxed at approximately 31%, which will give each member a check for approximately $1,725. There will be two subsequent payments during the next school year at $1,000 each, or approximately $690 take home.
-There will be a recruitment bonus paid to new hires of $4,000 also taxed at the same rate.
-There will be a referral bonus of $500.
REA will publish the full text of the MOU once it is signed. Your leadership team would like to thank all members for their input, support, and patience during this lengthy process.
Bruce Marsh, REA Bargaining Chair
Negotiations around retention and sign-on bonuses are continuing. Negotiations began in late February and the district continues to stall in terms of improving its offer. We are hopeful that this logjam may break in the next week or so. We will keep you informed. Your leadership team appreciates your patience and support.
Bruce Marsh, REA Bargain Chair
We wanted to update you on the two MOUs we have been working on with the RSD, the Summer School MOU and the Retention MOU.
First, the good news. We have successfully completed bargaining the Summer School MOU. We are working on wrapping up the final details (signing, checking grammar, etc.). We will share that MOU once it is signed by uploading it on the www.reynoldseducationassociation.org website under “Member Resources.”
The Retention MOU, however, continues to be stuck and the District is refusing to bargain, simply returning to the same starting point with each counter. We have tried several different proposals, each met with the exact same counter from the District with no substantive changes. The District accused REA of bad faith bargaining when we returned with little to no COLA movement in the 2021-2024 contract negotiations, and now they are bargaining the Retention MOU in the same manner.
This time, though, there is one key difference between what REA was doing and what RSD is attempting. REA took this action because the District had the ability to pay for our COLA raises and they were claiming otherwise. Today, the District is taking this stance, not because they don’t have the funds, but because they don’t want to spend it on staffing.
REA met with the District last week to review their costing of the Retention MOU. The District’s costing included all of OSEA’s and RAA’s bonuses as well. The District is budgeting to spend approximately $1.3 million in money provided by the state for this particular purpose. They are also looking to spend around $5 million in leftover ESSR funding. To meet REA’s current proposal, that would mean spending somewhere between $700,000 to $1.5 million from the $34 million general fund carryover. That carryover is unspent dollars from this past fiscal year.
After that meeting, REA gave our counter. As of today, a week later, we have yet to hear the District’s response. We are looking at meeting to work on some contract maintenance issues soon (but that meeting is not yet set), and hopeful they will give us their counter then. Until then, we are stuck waiting.
REA leadership is continuing to stand strong on the idea that the District must continue to invest more in staff if RSD hopes to recruit and retain educators next year. You, the membership, gave us clear guidance to “hold out” in the survey and we are currently working under that guidance. While we understand that not everyone agrees, we plan to honor the overwhelming majority.
As outlined in the REA Narrative, we believe that RSD must invest in staff in order to invest in students. That RSD must be willing to spend on the classroom and schools above all else. The District seems to disagree, and their refusal to bargain on here is yet another example of this fundamental disagreement.
While we cannot say for certain when retention bonuses will be made, our goal continues to be sooner than later.
REA Leadership does wish to give members a heads up that bonuses are taxed differently than regular pay. When bonuses do arrive, members should expect a 30-31% total tax deduction (that includes both Oregon and federal taxes).
As school is letting out and many members will not be checking their email as regularly, we will be making future updates here. We hope to have something more positive in the coming days.
First, the good news. We have successfully completed bargaining the Summer School MOU. We are working on wrapping up the final details (signing, checking grammar, etc.). We will share that MOU once it is signed by uploading it on the www.reynoldseducationassociation.org website under “Member Resources.”
The Retention MOU, however, continues to be stuck and the District is refusing to bargain, simply returning to the same starting point with each counter. We have tried several different proposals, each met with the exact same counter from the District with no substantive changes. The District accused REA of bad faith bargaining when we returned with little to no COLA movement in the 2021-2024 contract negotiations, and now they are bargaining the Retention MOU in the same manner.
This time, though, there is one key difference between what REA was doing and what RSD is attempting. REA took this action because the District had the ability to pay for our COLA raises and they were claiming otherwise. Today, the District is taking this stance, not because they don’t have the funds, but because they don’t want to spend it on staffing.
REA met with the District last week to review their costing of the Retention MOU. The District’s costing included all of OSEA’s and RAA’s bonuses as well. The District is budgeting to spend approximately $1.3 million in money provided by the state for this particular purpose. They are also looking to spend around $5 million in leftover ESSR funding. To meet REA’s current proposal, that would mean spending somewhere between $700,000 to $1.5 million from the $34 million general fund carryover. That carryover is unspent dollars from this past fiscal year.
After that meeting, REA gave our counter. As of today, a week later, we have yet to hear the District’s response. We are looking at meeting to work on some contract maintenance issues soon (but that meeting is not yet set), and hopeful they will give us their counter then. Until then, we are stuck waiting.
REA leadership is continuing to stand strong on the idea that the District must continue to invest more in staff if RSD hopes to recruit and retain educators next year. You, the membership, gave us clear guidance to “hold out” in the survey and we are currently working under that guidance. While we understand that not everyone agrees, we plan to honor the overwhelming majority.
As outlined in the REA Narrative, we believe that RSD must invest in staff in order to invest in students. That RSD must be willing to spend on the classroom and schools above all else. The District seems to disagree, and their refusal to bargain on here is yet another example of this fundamental disagreement.
While we cannot say for certain when retention bonuses will be made, our goal continues to be sooner than later.
REA Leadership does wish to give members a heads up that bonuses are taxed differently than regular pay. When bonuses do arrive, members should expect a 30-31% total tax deduction (that includes both Oregon and federal taxes).
As school is letting out and many members will not be checking their email as regularly, we will be making future updates here. We hope to have something more positive in the coming days.
REA
Visit here for the latest bargaining updates from your union.
Archives
November 2024
October 2024
September 2024
June 2024
May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
December 2022
October 2022
September 2022
June 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
October 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
March 2020
February 2020
November 2019
RSS Feed