More By Author
October 25, 2011
September 03, 2009
Much has been made of the new New Haven collective bargaining agreement--by President Obama, Secretary Duncan, AFT President Randi Weingarten, and even reformers in Connecticut, like Alex Johnston of ConnCAN, who sees it as promising. But here's the problem (and where I respectfully disagree??with my colleague Eric Ulas): The majority of the details have not been worked out, and as with most things, that's always where you'll find the devil. For example, the contract promises better teacher evaluations--but we haven't seen what they'll look like yet. Furthermore, the contract boasts an odd veto power that would let the union or the district prevent a school whose teachers voted to be released from the general contract's work rules to do so. The appeal process for overriding said veto is woefully inadequate. (I explain more in Rate that Reform from the??October 29 podcast, "Our Secret 400 Maryland Ave Listeners.") Today, the??Washington Post editorial board agrees, pointing out that not only has praise for the New Haven contract been way over-blown, but such praise is to the detriment of D.C. Chancellor Michelle Rhee's own attempts at a new (and better than New Haven's) CBA. Whether praise for New Haven's contract will derail DC bargaining attempts remains to be seen.
Tom Carroll also??weighed in over at HuffPo, comparing the New Haven contract (and finding it??inferior)????to that of his own New York City; Carroll and Johnston went back and forth in??Flypaper's comment section two weeks ago, too.