Dear Colleagues,
As your president, I have a responsibility to keep you aware of issues and concerns that could have an impact on your working conditions, wages, and benefits. Last week, in the October 20 EBulletin, I informed you about a number of pressing and ongoing concerns:
The district’s failure to provide paid sick leave to a number of members who have serious illnesses and to set precedent on how this will be done in the future;
the district’s failure to provide us with information in a timely manner;
the district’s actions that have had a chilling effect, whether intentional or not, on members’ use of their “urgent personal days”;
the district’s withdrawal of a job offer to an applicant after the applicant told HR he had spoken with us about his lane placement;
the district’s implementation of instructional rounds using a framework designed by a consulting firm affiliated with the University of Washington;
the district’s “torrid pace” of change.
In a long email to staff on Tuesday, October 22, Dr. Nolin expressed her “dismay” at my tone in this EBulletin, specifically, her dismay that something—she is not sure what--had “flipped a switch” on the tone of our communications.
In a general sense, it is true, as Dr. Nolin says in her email, that because we are just beginning to work together, there will be areas where we will need to learn to navigate conflict. And yes, there is a legacy of labor/management mistrust in Newton that makes navigating conflict more difficult. Yet, like Dr. Nolin, I too remain committed to building a more positive, collaborative relationship. But there certainly should have been no surprises for Dr. Nolin in the substance of that email.
So let me examine more closely the tone, which, to be clear, I set quite deliberately. Indeed, I stated soon into the email that over the past few weeks the tone of the emails I had been sending out had been growing more “combative.” And whether or not this was true of those prior emails, it certainly was true of last week’s, in which I took a decidedly “combative” turn. I hope there is room in Dr. Nolin’s and my respective understandings of “collaboration” to allow for union communications to take a combative tone. Chris and I believe the concerns we have right now warrant a combative tone ... as will others in the future. Representing educators in a time of great challenge, where they have not felt strong support from either central administrative or political leaders—well, let’s just say it has been hard.
So what exactly is the basis of a strong collaborative relationship? That is a huge question, and I don’t have the ability or time to delve deeply into all it entails here and now. But, first and foremost, I believe for there to be true collaboration, there must be a willingness from both parties to accept the checks and balances on each others’ power. Then, when both parties refrain from imposing their agenda on the other, a space for collaboration emerges.
What Chris and I have experienced is that, at this juncture, Dr. Nolin and some members of her leadership team have imposed their agenda on NTA members, violating these members’ contractual and legal rights and protections. Chris and I are doing all we can do using the legal process to check the district’s power to do this: We have filed grievances, we have filed charges of unfair labor practices, we have issued legally compelling information requests—all this to check the districts’ violation of NTA member rights.
But another key check on the district’s unilateral exercise of power is our membership’s solidarity. We made a decision to not only inform you of our concerns, but to do so in a tone that is combative. What are we communicating? That we are FIGHTING to preserve member rights and voice.
In this week’s EBulletin, Chris and I go into more depth about one particular way in which we are currently fighting for our member rights: our sick leave protections. (Chris also looks at Initial Step and Lane Placement.) Clearly and succinctly, Chris explains below NTA members’ contractual rights to paid sick leave and their right to access sick days from the sick leave bank. I conclude my introductory remarks here by using paid sick leave as an example to illustrate how effective collaboration can work.
Contractually, members of the NTA have the right to unlimited paid sick leave for their own serious illness so long as they are employees of the Newton Public Schools. Such generous sick leave language in a contract is a rarity. But that is the language that the NTA has won over fifty years of bargaining. Just as remarkable: the language is the same across units. This language gives the NTA great power to support its members: Chris and I are very confident that the grievances we have filed to support our members will be upheld in arbitration.
But note the caveat: “so long as they are employees of the Newton Public Schools.” Labor law gives any school district, including the Newton Public Schools, the right to release an employee when they are currently unable to perform the essential duties of their job and there is no reasonable expectation that they will be able to do so again.
We have supported members who have been through a nightmare of medical issues: they have had life-threatening illnesses, received treatment, spent significant time on paid leave, returned to work, experienced relapses, been out again on paid leave, returned, and sometimes, tragically, relapsed again. These members had a right to the paid sick leave they took when they temporarily could not work, and our contract sets no limits on the number of days a member may use for this. The generous sick leave language we have negotiated gives us our power to ensure that anyone who might need them has those days.
But the district has a responsibility here too, and a countervailing power that allows them to carry out their responsibility. They must protect the school’s finances, and ensure that every student is taught by educators who can do their jobs effectively. This means, practically, that if an employee will never return from paid sick leave, or their illness makes it impossible for them to do their jobs, then the district has not only the authority, but the responsibility, to release them.
We have worked with members who have been in the position where they could not return to work, and it is in these acute and heart wrenching situations that our collaboration with the district is most essential. In these most severe cases, the NTA and HR have worked together with the member to negotiate something like a “severance” package that allows them to resign rather than face dismissal, to retain wages and benefits for a limited time, and keep their dignity.
This year, HR unilaterally cut off a number of members’ paid sick leave benefits. Never, before this year, has a member been told they could not take paid medical leave in spite of having adequate medical documentation. Moreover, at the same time, the district claimed that our sick leave language allowed them to do this, contriving interpretations of the language to limit the benefit—effectively trying to usurp the very power we have to support and defend members.
And yes, I am aware that this is combative language. But from my perspective, the district has short-circuited the possibility of a collaborative process in the service of winning a battle to limit our sick leave benefit. Whether indeed that is their intention, I do not know…but that is what I see happening, on the ground.
Trust is not sustainable in a situation where management repudiates its obligation to follow the contract. When this happens, rather than engaging in truly collaborative conversations about how best to support members in crisis and meet the district’s obligations to its students, we get into legalistic battles over how long the contract provides sick days, whether there is a limit on the number of sick leave bank days the district can grant, etc.
This is litigation, like the litigation over kindergarten aides, I believe the district is destined to lose. But the legal process takes time, while the members impacted by the district’s litigiousness do not have time: they are without pay and benefits while they are suffering from very serious illness. Their harm is one cost of the failure to collaborate. But the longer term cost is the loss of trust.
I ask Dr. Nolin to recognize that it is my responsibility, as union president, to communicate that labor relations have grown litigious and combative, and that our attempts at collaboration have fallen short. It is my responsibility to communicate to the membership of the NTA that I have heard their frustration at the pace and tenor of change. This is not to say that we cannot work these issues out collaboratively. But if we are to do so, if NTA members’ rights, and voice, are threatened, it is most assuredly my responsibility to be combative sometimes, and sometimes even fierce. As I see it, when the essential checks and balances that allow for genuine collaboration are threatened, collaboration itself is threatened.
I also ask Dr. Nolin to please be aware: there is a profound difference when I turn to the union, of which I am both member and democratically elected president, and communicate, in tone and in substance, that we--the members of the NTA--have been harmed, and that we are fighting to protect our members, our union, our voice; and you turn to them, as district superintendent, on company email, to share your dismay at my tone and your perspective. I plainly and genuinely urge you to take caution as we work to heal, to build trust and to develop a truly collaborative relationship.
There are things we each must decide should be said publicly, and things which should be said privately. Dr. Nolin, please take what I have just written--at least in part--as my two cents on how I think about this question.
Bring Back Kindergarten Aides!
We Lined the Halls!
"Solidarity" is over one hundred members from all levels and all schools showing up at the School Committee meeting on Monday night to Line the Halls and support their kindergarten colleagues.
Thank you to all who joined us, and to all of those who spoke out.
Restore the aides! Enough is enough!
Know Your Contract (New)
Chris Walsh, Chair
Professional Rights and Responsibilities Committee
Mike and I are charged in our roles to protect the contractual rights of employees under our Collective Bargaining Agreements. In fact, we have a legal duty to protect those rights. The law also gives us the right to obtain information from the employer--information that we need to represent our members.
There are two issues of contract compliance that we are addressing with the district presently, and which were brought up in Mike’s eBulletin last week, that I would like to give you additional information about — salary placement and use of sick leave and the sick leave bank.
Sick Leave and the Sick Leave Bank (New)
Our contracts for Units A, B, C, and E have identical language regarding sick leave and the sick leave bank. This fact is not an accident. The NTA has worked hard over decades of negotiations to attain and keep these rights so that all employees are treated equitably.
The contracts says that, “Sick leave with pay is intended to cover the employee’s own incapacitation due to sickness or injury.” There is no language in the contract that limits the number of days of sick leave that can be utilized. There is, however, language that requires medical documentation to support the need for sick leave. When an employee is out for six or more consecutive days, they can be asked for a note. If a sick leave continues for more than 45 days, they can be asked for an updated note.
Employees also enjoy the benefit of a sick leave bank. Who can access the sick bank? The language is clear:
There shall be a sick leave bank for use by eligible employees covered by this Agreement who have exhausted their own sick leave. Eligible employees are members who qualify under one of the following circumstances: member with a serious illness.”
This bank exists because every employee donates one day each year to this bank — that adds up to more than 2,000 days available each year in the sick leave bank. The donated days are for use in the current year and do not roll over, so any days left unused at the end of the year simply disappear. In Mike’s and my combined experience with the sick leave bank, there has never been a year when we have even come close to exhausting the days in the sick bank.
The bank is administered by a “Sick Bank Committee” consisting of four members, two appointed by the superintendent and two from the NTA. Current members are Joany Santa, Liam Hurley, Mike Zilles, and Chris Walsh. In assessing an application for time from the sick leave bank, the committee considers just two factors, per the contract:
Adequate medical evidence of serious illness; and
Prior utilization of all eligible sick leave.
Historically, if these two criteria are satisfied, the sick bank access is granted. Over the years, grants of time from the sick leave bank have varied from grants of just a few days to grants of a full school year or more. The longer grants are rare, and usually involve a member suffering from a debilitating or chronic illness. And this is the reason the bank exists — through the generosity of colleagues, those of us in the most need are taken care of.
Below is a summary of most recent years of sick leave bank usage for which we have data.
Sick Leave Bank Usage FY 2019 through FY 2022
What about FMLA? Doesn’t that limit sick leave time?
Often a member may hear from the HR office that their leave for personal illness (sick leave) is an “FMLA leave” or that they are not eligible for an “FMLA leave” or that they have exhausted their “FMLA leave”. While any of these statements may be technically correct, they have no bearing on your contractual right for individual sick leave.
The Federal Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) is a law that sets out the minimum rights to leave an employer must provide. It also obligates the employer to give certain notifications to an employee of their rights under FMLA. This is the purported reason why HR references FMLA in their communications around sick leave. We would prefer if they also informed members that their contractual rights under our collective bargaining agreement provide access to sick leave that exceeds FMLA, but they don’t. We think this is misleading on their part.
As a result of actions on the part of the district at the beginning of this year that have denied members with serious medical conditions access to the sick leave bank, as well as their failure to provide us with clear and complete information regarding sick leave bank applications from last year and into this year, we have grown concerned that there may be some applications that have not been address properly. We have grievances pending regarding the two members we know about who have been denied access, but don’t know if there are more. If you have filed a request for time from the sick leave bank at any time since July 1, 2023, and have been told you do not have access or that your request has been denied, please email Chris Walsh at treasurer@newteach.org.
Salary Placement, Units A and B (New)
As most of you understand, in Units A and B there are both steps and lanes in the salary schedule. Steps relate to years of experience and lanes relate to the level of education. The highest lane is the Doctorate/Masters Plus 60. The Masters Plus 60 category was added in 2012 to allow “members who earn 60 graduate credits beyond their Master’s degree . . . to earn the same as members who hold a Doctorate.” Before and after that language was added, employees holding doctorate degrees were placed in the doctorate lane.
In June 2024, in connection with advising a potential employee as to contractual rights in initial salary placement, the NTA learned that the district may have abandoned placing some people with doctorates in the doctorate lane when they were hired. The potential employee was told, “as early as 2020, employees with doctorate degrees not in the educational field (such as a juris doctorate) have not been placed on the doctorate salary scale.” This was news to the NTA, and indicates a contract violation.
While the details regarding the particular applicant are the subject of an unfair labor practice charge brought by the NTA against the district, we remain concerned that for some members the contract may not have been followed when they were hired. We have requested information from the district to try to discover any such violations, but to date have not received responses that are complete or meaningful. So, we ask for your help. If you had a doctorate degree when you were hired by Newton Public School, we would like you to complete this form to provide us with information regarding your initial salary placement.
Mayor Fuller's Long-Range Financial Plan
Mayor Ruthanne Fuller presented her annual five year plan to the Newton City Council on Monday, October 7. (You can watch it here.) I will be saying more about Mayor Fuller's Long Range Financial Plan in a future EBulletin, but the hypocrisy of some of Fuller's opening remarks, which she shared in her weekly email, need to be called out.
1. Mayor Fuller opens by contrasting the tumultuousness of the national and international scene with the fiscal security that we enjoy here in Newton under her leadership. Is it simply lost on her that, under her "fiscal guidance," she put the Newton Public Schools through two years of damaging budget cuts, which she followed by a scorched earth bargaining strategy that forced the NTA into a fifteen day strike? The quietly patrician pride, indeed, triumphalism, of her speech makes clear she just doesn't care.
2. She says that the city invests "one-time funding into our one time needs' and by doing so avoids the "temptation of putting these monies into ongoing operations which too often leads to layoffs and service cuts when the one-time funding sources dry up." Yet these so-called one time funds--free cash--is really just the surplus that results from under-budgeting revenues year in year out. It was the failure to allocate this revenue to the schools rather than let it accumulate as surplus each year that lead to layoffs and service cuts--at a time when Newton's students were most vulnerable.
Mayor Fuller, you have not protected us from hypothetical cuts; your so-called fiscal prudence caused real cuts that hurt real people.
Mayor Fuller, this is not prudent budgeting, prudent fiscal restraint; it is is gross negligence. The means were available to fund our schools. You simply failed to do so.
3. She says that "we intentionally match the growth in our personnel costs with the growth in the City of Newton revenues. Our employees are the reason we have great schools and great City services. Not surprisingly, personnel costs are also by far our largest expenditure category. We never want to lay off employees by signing a contract we cannot afford."
Here Mayor Fuller reveals the "fuller" picture of what is at stake for her:
She believes that she and the Newton School Committee signed "a contract they could not afford" with the Newton Teachers Association in 2019. To "prove" this, she underfunds the schools in FY22 (the 2021-2022 school year) and FY23 (the 2022-2023 school year), which forces cuts and layoffs thus "proving" that the Newton School Committee could not afford the contract that they signed in 2019.
This is not some abstraction, some hypothetical: in FY22, the city ran a $28.8 million surplus; in FY23, it ran a $27.9 million surplus and last year, FY24, it ran a $23.6 million surplus. The deficits in the school budget were not nearly that much.
And why "prove" that the NPS could not afford its 2019 contract? To justify a scorched earth bargaining strategy in 2024, one that forced the Newton Teachers Association into a strike. Yet realistically, the gap in cost between the NTA contract proposals and the Newton School Committee contract proposals was far less than the surplus the city runs every year.
NONE of the cuts in FY22 or FY23 were justified financially. Last year, there was no need for a strike.
No, Mayor Fuller, you have the cart before the horse. The cuts did not happen for financial reasons. The strike did not happen because the NTA made unreasonable financial demands. The cuts, and the strike, happened, because you, Mayor Fuller, are motivated by a deep anti-union, anti-public education sentiment that you couch in the neo-liberal language of fiscal restraint. Your free cash surpluses don't lie.
And you are doing your best to set the table for more of the same in the next round of negotiations.
**********
In solidarity,
Mike Zilles, President
Newton Teachers Association
Comments