More On The Marysville Teacher Strike

I went up and joined the picket lines again yesterday for an hour or so. Lots of positive response from the public. It's actually quite amazing how few people show disapproval. Got to talk with one of the school counselors at hubby-Eric's new school for awhile. She's tired of striking and would rather be back to her job, like all the rest. But, as she pointed out, even if the teachers put down their signs and attempted to go back to their jobs, the district has made it very clear they don't want teachers in the classroom until they've broken the union (the district has taken the teachers' keys, hired armed guards to patrol the school grounds, that sort of thing).

Lastest picket line rumor is that principals are not allowed to come out and talk to the teachers anymore. Yeah, that shows a lot of respect for your employees. In addition to trying to drive a wedge between younger teachers and older teachers, they are now trying to drive a wedge between the principals and their staff. (sarcasm) That'll make for a wonderful faculty once school actually starts (sarcasm off).

In the meantime, by visiting the various forums set up about the strike I've managed to get a lot more information about the legality of the strike. There are two points of view. The anti-strikers opinion rests on a 1958 court decision that they apparently forget was overturned by 1975 legislation. The 1975 legislation, the Educational Employment Relations Act, removes teachers in Washington State from the main class of public employees and puts them into their own class. A faulty injunction provided by a judge in Issaquah last year assumes that the 1975 legislation does not fully replace the older laws. However, the replacement is stated as plainly as legalise will allow within the older law, and is supported by the other two examples of public employee classes removed by law from the main class. By actually reading the law, instead of relying on out-dated case law, the argument for allowing teachers to strike is much stronger than the argument that teacher strikes are illegal, in my opinion. If this drags on much longer, this case might be seen by the State Supreme Court, who could decide either way.

In addition, someone on the MSD commons board asked if the teachers' union can't invoke a clause in the 1975 act that calls for a fact-finder to come in and make recommendations. The clause gives the fact-finder lots of power, but if the union is certain that the district is squandering money, this is a perfect way to get to the heart of the matter. At least, that's how it reads to me. Hubby-Eric is going to pass it on to his site leader and see what the union thinks of it.

Also at the MSD Commons board is a list of recent Marysville School District Blunders. Good reading there. Wow.

Two other points in favor of Marysville teachers. The first is that an Arbitrator ruled in the union's favor regarding a "strike day" last winter when all the teachers went down to Olympia to protest against the legislature cutting COLA increases (that's a vast simplification, by the way). The other is that another local district, Monroe, in worse financial shape than Marysville managed to somehow give their teachers a better deal than the Marysville teachers are asking for. Hmmm, how is it that Monroe can do it, but Marysville can't? Can we say "incompetent district administration", folks?

Overall, I'm reading a lot of opinions, and learning a lot about the situation for teachers, and it's not a pretty sight. But then, reading the Revised Code of Washington, which is all our state laws, is interesting. It's almost in English.

I may be stressed out about as far as I can stretch by this, but at least I've got this blog to spout off in. I appreciate your patience until this stupid strike is over.