The AFT-420 and Teacher Raises

A good union provides benefits to members, a bad one pretends to

A union for Saint Louis teachers

The AFT-420 has been in the news a lot, and I have a lot to say about how it has been represented. Yesterday they held a press conference expressing optimism about the year to come, asserted that the reported 35-million-dollar deficit was not real, and guaranteed that all staff would get the raises they promised. Every statement made in the presser deserves scrutiny. In the interest of brevity (I know), I am going to focus on one of the union’s most lauded accomplishments: the raises they claim to have secured for SLPS [Saint Louis Public Schools] teachers.

Members of this forum [I wrote this for a Facebook group] have almost certainly heard the news about SLPS raises announced this spring. When the budget deficit was announced, it was these raises that were referenced as the cause (although that claim is highly suspect). If you have not read about them, you can do so here.

I have a lot of problems with how this story is framed and many of the details (including the 17% figure, which should annoy every math teacher worth their salt). I can explain all my gripes in the comments, but there is an overriding problem with this story: There is no evidence that the AFT negotiated any raises whatsoever. Explaining will take a minute, but reading this will help you understand the real nature of the AFT and its relationship with the district and teachers. Strap in.

What raises?

Are the raises real? Yes and no. The 17% number is pure invention and is what happens when you add three years of proposed raises together but do not know how to add percentages. Nevertheless, by the end of three years, the actual raise would be greater than 17%, and that is real money in teachers' pockets. The ethics of framing three years of raises as a single raise aside, there are major issues with reporting on this as a raise at all. This requires some explanation of how teachers are generally paid, and how SLPS does things differently.

If you look up any US public school district and the term "salary scale" (sometimes "salary schedule") you will find a chart of yearly salaries that has experience for the y axis and education level for the x. It is fairly intuitive to use, and teachers typically know to look for these when they are looking for jobs. Teacher salary is not negotiable, but predictable based on education and experience. Almost all public schools use these (except in Florida) and many private and charter schools do as well. I have never heard complaints about this system, which seems fair and almost universal.

The Saint Louis Way

SLPS has a salary schedule as well, though currently the website returns a blank page where it used to be. I took some screenshots of an old schedule as well as some of the language describing it and posted it here. Taken together, they show a unique way of using the salary schedule that puts claims about raises in perspective.

In one blurb, the district explains how teachers "do not advance from step to step each year." This is a major difference from a typical salary schedule. For SLPS’s, the x-axis still lists steps, which are generally synonymous with years of experience, but teachers do not move up as they gain experience. New teachers are placed on either the A, B, or C step, but only for experience at the time of hire. That means that a new hire with 4 years of experience gets to be on the B step, but a teacher who begins their career at A will never move to B, and no teacher moves beyond C. Most salaries listed are unattainable

.

This would seem like an awful system but for the assurance given that SLPS has an alternative to steps. In lieu of steps, the district guarantees "… percentage increases that are approved by the district in collaboration with the teachers [sic] union." These increases are the raises being lauded in the press. In March, they announced plans for three years of them, (7%, 5%, and 5% adding up to 17% for the headline number) without mentioning that an increase of some amount was guaranteed. The typical step is only 1-3%, so this is still better than nothing. However, this strange system allows for headline numbers that are inflated not just adding three years together, but by passing off normal and guaranteed increases as something new and negotiated.

What the union brings to the table

Now, even by the website's admission, the exact percentage of the raises is approved "in collaboration with the teachers [sic] union." I am confident that Ray Cummings will claim that had he not negotiated hard, the district would have offered a mere 1%. That is what he claimed about 10% raises at KIPP that went through only after teachers there voted to decertify the AFT (KIPP uses steps normally, meaning the 10% was a real raise, not an alternative to steps. Most experienced SLPS teachers would get a raise by moving to KIPP).

At KIPP, the AFT shrugged off the 10% offer and pushed for a strike because they wanted increased union power in the school and an end to at-will employment. Teachers there seem to have preferred the raises and no union (they dodged a bullet), but at least the AFT could say it pushed hard. The negotiations were public and acrimonious, and you can read all about it in the Post and elsewhere. Negotiations between the AFT and SLPS, by contrast, happened in total secrecy if they happened at all.

Who was on the negotiating team? The union refused to say (they were asked).

What was SLPS's initial offer? Not stated.

What was the union's demand? No idea.

If the union was working so hard to get teachers a good deal, why would they not talk about how they negotiated? Why not mention the bonuses we lost? The "equity pilot placement program" which offered 3 million dollars to promote hiring in the 2022 contract but that disappeared without a trace the next year? Why not release the vote tally for the secretive meeting to approve the new contract? I have guesses, but I would really love to hear the union explain.

What about previous years?

Hopefully, this has given you something to think about. I have lots more to say but I know this is a long post already. However, I also included a screenshot of the announcement from the union in May of 2022 because I find it funny and informative.

Notice that a 3% raise was already guaranteed for 2024-2025, so the new 7% is just an increase on that. If they were attempting to be honest, they should have said they negotiated a 4% raise this year. If they renegotiate a contract next year, expect the union to claim credit for negotiating the full percentage raise, not just the difference.

Also, the 8% raise for 2022-23 was originally 3% but increased to 8% after negotiations were "re-opened." The board decided to re-open negotiations unilaterally, and they seemed to include nothing more than an offer to add 5% to what the union had already accepted. Though those negotiations were similarly opaque, it seems likely that the district realized that a 3% raise was not very much and they could budget for more (and they desperately needed to attract teachers somehow). That did not stop the union from claiming credit for the higher rate, even after leaving so much money on the table that they had to be called back to pick it up.

Getting personal (or not)

If you have seen me arguing with union folks on here or elsewhere, you might have guessed that I have beef with the AFT. You are right, but that beef is professional, and has to do with how I was treated as a teacher and a due-paying member. That is not what I want to talk about today, and I would love to see this be a starting point for a less personal and politicized discussion of what the AFT's role in SLPS is. I am pro-union, but I expect unions to represent workers.

My own feeling is that the union is better thought of as a branch of the district administration, and that it is doing a disservice to the union movement by passing itself off as a union at all. I joined the union on principle as soon as I was hired, and left only after years of dishonesty, incompetence, and threats. I would love to be a member of a teachers' union that had real leadership, was independent, open, and represented teachers’ interests.

I thank anyone who read this whole thing, and I would love to discuss any details below. I am an English teacher and I love argumentative writing, but I usually do it just as an exercise. I fully acknowledge that I may have gotten some of this wrong, and that there are many things I do not know. I would welcome some respectful pushback. Ray Cummings can fuck right off, though.

A final parting shot at AFT president Ray Cummings

Since teachers do not move up or get placed beyond the third step of the schedule, a lot of the salary numbers on there are only for people who are grandfathered in. Employees hired within the last decade have no chance to move into those high salaries, making them theoretical. However, written into the union by-laws is this clause about the president's pay. It guarantees he will make more than any teacher working for SLPS and a nice healthcare package as well. Who pays that salary? What does he do to deserve it? How many teachers voted for him to be president?