Ron Penner-Ash is right in his insistence that there are forces in Oregon which are highly antagonistic to the teachers'union, the Oregon Education Association (Teachers need to refocus energy on quality ,The Oregonian, 7/23/99). This antagonism has been expressed in the past several legislatures in the form of laws and proposals by conservative politicians to strip teachers of their rights to "fair dismissal" protections - which have traditionally required employers, in both the public and private sectors, to show cause when firing workers. These provisions have been included in union contracts for at least 50 years, and the stringency of the firing process varies from contract to contract. Recently adopted Oregon laws restrict the collective bargaining rights of public school teachers by disallowing labor contract provisions which maintain what the media has labelled teachers' "tenure." For details see Oregon teachers lose seniority, job security.
Oregon's 1997 Legislature passed The Accountability for Schools for the 21st Century Law, ORS 342.805 to 342.937,, which significantly reduces the job security of teachers by "streamlining" the firing process, reducing the requirents to show cause and putting much of the responsibility for proving a case upon the employee. Additionally, the law significantly undermines the seniority system, forbidding school districts from laying off and rehiring according to the traditional "first hired, last fired" formula. The success of the opponents of the OEA belies the right wing propaganda that claims the union enjoys considerable political power in Oregon.
Ron Penner-Ash attempts to make the case that the job security of good teachers does not depend upon labor contract protections and that the collective bargaining emphasis on job security is an obstacle to superior teachers being offered higher wages. Perhaps this is the situation in the Tigard-Tualatin School District, where enthusiastic suburban parents elect school board members dedicated to retaining experienced teachers whose pay scale approaches double the entry level teachers' salary. Such is not the case in many rural districts, where some school boards and voters favor a kind of "term limits" for teachers, labeling older teachers "burn outs" in an effort to reduce budgets and eliminate established staff, whose presence may also increase cohesion and bargaining solidarity among their unionized colleagues.
Penner-Ash argues on the basis of a firm belief that commercial marketplace values will allow superior teachers to thrive, and will result in a higher quality education being offered to students. However, we are in the process of learning that not all successful private sector methods are desirable or suitable for the public interest. The tobacco and gambling industries are but two examples. Private sector marketplace values in Oregon include powerful anti-union attitudes on the part of business interest and media bias. These attitudes are not confined to opposing teachers and other unionized public employees - however public employees are paid from public funds, their employers are the taxpayers. On this basis, many Oregon voters have been persuaded to view the public sector collective bargaining process from the point of view of private sector employers - thus the resentment, which Penner-Ash cites, towards OEA lobbying and bargaining.
Penner-Ash assumes that private market-place values are appropriate or inevitable in financing public education, and that teachers must either give up whatever residual job security they still enjoy as a result of collective bargaining or give up receiving wages commensurate with their qualifications and professional status. He fails to make the case that giving up even more job security will result in higher wages or reduced resentment of teachers. There is a definite appeal in Penner-Ash's call for the OEA to continue to pursue the national goals of improving teacher skills and focusing union energy on direct benefits to students. Unfortunately, collective bargaining over such conditions of employment as class size has also been restricted by conservative laws aimed at weakening the OEA.
OEA story has national implications