In our union, subcontracting of school services is the
equivalent of what plant closings are to the United Auto Workers. The decision
to subcontract for cheaper wages and benefits has a devastating impact on the
school community, a devastating impact on employee morale, and a huge economic
impact on the people who are affected by it. It's an ordeal for anyone who's
ever been through it.
That's why yesterday's passage of SB 1347 is such a big deal.
It places reasonable requirements on school districts and contractors to actually
demonstrate that subcontracting will save money. It requires a sensible
timeline for such decisions to take place. It requires public discussion and
input if school districts want to go that route. It says that if ESP's have a
union contract then their employer can't subcontract until it expires. Most
importantly, SB 1347 requires any subcontractor to pay comparable benefits for
the work previously done by school employees.
In essence, the days of replacing school employees who have good benefits with
subcontracted employees who have none has come to an end.
And what do the opponents of this legislation have to say about it? They are
outraged. Read for yourself:
"The
[Illinois School Management]
Alliance,
in strong opposition to the bill, stated that the ability to contract for
certain services (i.e. janitorial, transportation, food service) is a useful
tool for sound fiscal management. Vendors that vie for such contracts stated
that they do offer competitive salaries and benefits in order to attract quality
employees. However, discussions in the committee turned to the
"immoral" decisions of school districts releasing education support
personnel in favor of contracted employees and the high administrator salaries
that is "the real problem" in school districts.
Interestingly,
HB 1347 is the number one priority of the teachers’ unions this year – yet this
bill will
take money away from classrooms, teaching, and teachers.
School boards and administrators, working diligently to find more ways to get
money into the classrooms for the sake of students, channel funds from savings
in non-instructional areas into instructional areas."
There's a lot to unpack
there. The first myth that deserves a takedown is that vendors pay competitive
wages. They don't. That's how they save schools money. It's not through more
efficient management, no matter what they say to eager school boards. Salaries
for food service workers, bus drivers, and custodians typically account for the
lowest-paid groups in any school district. Whacking their salaries will not
guarantee the long-term financial health of any school district (especially
when salary increases for many administrators frequently top what these
employees get).
Furthermore, the notion
that any money directed toward requiring that people have sick days and health
insurance is somehow a blow to children's education is so wrong-headed that I'm
shocked anyone would say it out loud.
In many communities, school
employees are involved in all levels of school operation, through their union,
and with their children's education, and through organizations like their PTA.
Denying insurance coverage to these employees is the same as denying it to
their kids (or forcing the state to pick up the costs of their health care).
So this issue comes down to
a simple choice, really. Shall we have some school employees who can make a
living, and consign others to poverty wages with no benefits? Do we want food
service workers whose children qualify for the reduced-cost lunches they serve,
or sick bus drivers who are deprived of the opportunity to take and use sick
leave? That's certainly not what the IEA stands for.
SB 1347's passage in the
Senate marks a great day for hardworking school employees across
Illinois. They can
breathe a little easier, knowing they don't have to sprint in that race to the
bottom--the contest to see who will work for less and with less security.