The question comes froma  recent tweet, and shows the tenor of the times as we in California grapple with the disaster that is our state budget…

In my very first contract teaching position in the year 2000, we had a computer lab, and my classroom had Oracle Internet workstations, that seemed so limited at the time, but that I could do so much with now. The lab teacher there, James Danforth, has been blogging for a bit at Entropical Paradise. A recent post was on the union local’s contrary stand on the defeated state budget measures (they were against the measures which had huge support from the state teachers’ union, CTA).

I liked that school a lot and would have happily made it my career roost as James has done. A recent post alluded to the enormous turn over experienced in staffing at the school, and ironically among the union representatives (of which I was one):

It is a very telling statistic that every one of our school’s prior union representatives are no longer teaching in this district. Some of them left teaching entirely. Others just went to districts that offered more money or benefits or just more direction.

Hmm, I have no idea why the others left, but for me it was about things that were largely out of the control of the school district or union. I just couldn’t afford to buy a home in Oakland that wasn’t a money pit requiring lots of work to get to habitable and rental housing was getting ridiculous too. We had put in an offer on the building that we were renting a flat in (a small 1,100 sq ft 1920s bungalow that had been subdivided in two). It went for close to $300k when it sold that summer. I left for a district where I took a pay cut, but my housing costs were substantially lower. Ironically, being at the epicenter of the housing boom in Northern California, we now own modest 3 bedroom half-plex of 1,400 square feet (with our mortgage company) that peaked in value at close to $300k. It does have double-paned windows so the winter “breeze” isn’t creeping through. It really wasn’t about the union, but let’s talk about that because there maybe something to glean from my lessons there. Here’s more from James to start the ball rolling:

I went to some union meetings when I first started. I was impressed by how much rhetoric could be mounted on one topic, before another could be addressed. Teachers love the sound of their own voices, and sitting through a meeting with a bunch of politically directed teachers created a night of filibustering. No one could agree on the central issue of the day. Was it salary? Benefits? Class size? Social justice? No justice, no peace. No focus, no point.

Teachers don’t get paid enough. That’s why we have a union. We are in the middle of a recession. That’s why we don’t have money for education. Bailing out banks and auto manufacturers comes first. And maybe someday there will be peace in the world and the priority of our country will shift to education. And maybe someday I will stop feeling so horribly ambivalent about going to these rallies. Maybe someday it will make sense.

There are some particular issues in the Oakland teachers’ union that make it “unique” in the state. Most of the “big city” teachers’ unions are “united” and are both AFT and NEA affiliates. OEA is wholly an NEA affiliate. Frankly, we could spend all day arguing about what that difference makes, and it largely comes out to the type of angels dancing on the head of a pin arguments that James Danforth alludes to first paragraph. There were some great leaders who were aligned with CTA and CFT, and there were some lousy ones. The result was an ongoing schism in the local that had its locus in a particular group of AFT/CFT loyalists who had mounted a series of “de-certification” elections trying to remove CTA as the bargaining agent. This is like pissing in the community well in union land. I was fortunate to have missed all of those votes in my tenure as election chair. This meant that there was a lot of wrangling within the union ranks and not at all hidden animosities. This may have ended after I left, but the effects of all this have likely lived on. I’m guessing that it’s this CFT focused group and a more radical outlook even among CTA types in Oakland that has likely led the local to come out against the budget measures.

Now, I’m up in Sacramento, which as befits the state capitol, has a more professional bureaucrat mentality (I’d classify Oakland as more like a severely under-resourced community organizer). I really can’t separate my impressions of the union, from my impressions of the district as a whole. Here are the advantages and disadvantages, and Oakland vs. Sacramento:

1. The meetings are more cordial; conflicts are not obvious to outsiders, but they exist
2. There are no “slates” in union elections; they don’t call them slates, but they do exist
3. In Oakland, you spit in “Caesar’s” (the state’s) eye when he asks you for “taxes”; In Sacramento, you “render unto Caesar” his due
4. In Oakland, you call b*llsh*t on pointless policies, but offer little in the way of a workable alternative; In Sacramento, you follow policies from the state and feds and enact committees to facilitate their implementation
5. I went from a district that was notorious with the state for dysfunctionality, to one that is known for being great at filling out report requests from the state, but sometimes you have to wonder what all that paper is for

This is why my current union local has been vocal about supporting the recent slate of budget reform initiatives. We’re in the Capital, we know how difficult that current budget was to cobble together, we dread the layoffs that will follow from it not being enacted. Oakland sees the big picture of cuts, and can’t stomach that, so they call foul on the budget initiatives. Really, there are no good answers at this point. With a two-thirds requirement to pass a budget, and a huge drop in revenues, nothing will be resolved without a whole lotta pain. Nothing will change until that requirement is changed. Now we have to see if the public is willing to try this “common-sense” reform.

Meanwhile, my half-plex (perhaps correctly) has lost half of its peak value, but I’m still able to afford the payments on my “under-water” but fixed mortgage, I have enough seniority to weather this round of lay-offs, and my husband has a grant stream from the feds for the next two years, so in general life is good. But, if I had gotten here a few years later, and purchased a home a year or two later, it would all be different. What’s your seniority date, cause that seems to be what it’s all coming down to these days…