Apportioning negotiated raise disproportionally across salary guide.

[thebioguy]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NJ

Can a teacher's union (a) negotiate a % increase and then (b) proportion the increases across the scale differently from the negotiated amount?
For example, my union negotiated a 1.9% increase over 3 years, but will pay out to some over 5% and to others less than 1%. Can they do this?

 

[justalayman]

It would require a comlpete read of the contract and bylaws to be able to determine that.

Why not ask your union rep to explain what allows them to do what you asked about?

 

[thebioguy]

It would require a comlpete read of the contract and bylaws to be able to determine that.

Why not ask your union rep to explain what allows them to do what you asked about?

There is no mention in the contract. How do I check the bylaws?
The standard response has been "The most money to the most people in the shortest amount of time possible"

Either way, can they negotiate "on my behalf", ask me to vote to ratify, and then alter the terms of agreement after the fact?

 

[Zigner]

There is no mention in the contract. How do I check the bylaws?
The standard response has been "The most money to the most people in the shortest amount of time possible"

Either way, can they negotiate "on my behalf", ask me to vote to ratify, and then alter the terms of agreement after the fact?

I suspect that the more likely scenario is that you didn't fully understand the agreement that you voted to ratify...

 

[thebioguy]

I suspect that the more likely scenario is that you didn't fully understand the agreement that you voted to ratify...

We only get to vote on contract language and salary scale after the negotiated increase is apportioned across members. For what it's worth, I always vote "NO".
My question is, Does the Union fail to represent when it negotiates a % on my behalf and then delivers a different amount?

 

[justalayman]

We only get to vote on contract language and salary scale after the negotiated increase is apportioned across members. For what it's worth, I always vote "NO".
My question is, Does the Union fail to represent when it negotiates a % on my behalf and then delivers a different amount?

They negotiated a raise. It was on behalf of all members. If your system allows the union administration to apportion the raises after the overall contract was signed, then that is what it is.


So you don't feel alone here, I belong to a union that has similar allowances in our contract and bylaws. While sometimes specific amounts are negotiated for specific purposes, usually it is either a simple lump sum per hour per year or at most that lump sum is divided into several smaller amounts being dedicated to things like; health and welfare, wages, unspecified


Once it reaches either of those two points, it is up to the union administration to "fine tune" the amounts and divvy them up as they decide within the total singie group or if already divided somewhat, within those sub groups.





As to the bylaws; as your union rep for a copy.


And what is even scarier; the body ratifies neither the overall contract or the division of the funds after the contract is settled.

 

[thebioguy]

They negotiated a raise. It was on behalf of all members. If your system allows the union administration to apportion the raises after the overall contract was signed, then that is what it is.


So you don't feel alone here, I belong to a union that has similar allowances in our contract and bylaws. While sometimes specific amounts are negotiated for specific purposes, usually it is either a simple lump sum per hour per year or at most that lump sum is divided into several smaller amounts being dedicated to things like; health and welfare, wages, unspecified


Once it reaches either of those two points, it is up to the union administration to "fine tune" the amounts and divvy them up as they decide within the total singie group or if already divided somewhat, within those sub groups.





As to the bylaws; as your union rep for a copy.


And what is even scarier; the body ratifies neither the overall contract or the division of the funds after the contract is settled.

Thanks for the info.

Got the bylaws. No mention of power to apportion amounts. My guess is, if they can get the members to ratify, then anything goes. It looks like it up to me to focus the lens on the inequity of the practice and hope the vote moves from over 90% to something that makes them worry and take interest.

 

[I'mTheFather]

Aren't the salary schedules a part of the contract that you vote to accept?

 

[thebioguy]

Aren't the salary schedules a part of the contract that you vote to accept?

In my district, we are asked to vote on language changes and % salary increases. Only after ratification is the salary guide updated.
We are not given specific dollar amounts until after ratification.

 

[ajkroy]

Just a second. I am a teacher, and we have three different types of raises in our contract. Is it possible you might have the same and have more than one of them combined in your mind?

We sometimes have annual increases, anywhere from 0.5% to 3%. Sometimes this is given to only certain people on certain "steps" of our pay structure (clearly written in our contract which is published online by our union, btw). We also get "step raises" any time someone moves up a category or a column (either by completing another five years of service or more education). Finally, we have "longevity" payments for those who have been in our school for so long that the step raises ended long ago. These average an additional $500 per year.

We also have stipends for a myriad of different jobs within the school.

Any of these could be reasons that your pay is different from your coworkers. Read your contract.

 

[thebioguy]

Just a second. I am a teacher, and we have three different types of raises in our contract. Is it possible you might have the same and have more than one of them combined in your mind?

We sometimes have annual increases, anywhere from 0.5% to 3%. Sometimes this is given to only certain people on certain "steps" of our pay structure (clearly written in our contract which is published online by our union, btw). We also get "step raises" any time someone moves up a category or a column (either by completing another five years of service or more education). Finally, we have "longevity" payments for those who have been in our school for so long that the step raises ended long ago. These average an additional $500 per year.

We also have stipends for a myriad of different jobs within the school.

Any of these could be reasons that your pay is different from your coworkers. Read your contract.

Thanks for the info.
I am familiar with the situations you describe, but I am referring to something different.
In my district, the union and board negotiate and agree to a lump-sum increase in payroll. We are asked to vote on that increase. Then the money is distributed across the scale as the union wants. In the extreme case, some members receive an annual increase of over %5 while other less than 0.5% ($3000 vs $500). This has resulted in net losses for some members for the past 5 years in a row (2 contracts, going on into our 3rd negotiation).

I am just trying to determine if this is legal.

 

[I'mTheFather]

I believe you are asked to vote on an increase of the total teacher salary dollars the district will agree to spend. For example, if your district allotted $10,000,000 for salaries last year, they are offering $10,190,000 this year. You're only voting on whether or not to accept that offer. You are not voting on how it is apportioned.

So, the real question is whether or not the union can decide and determine the salary schedules for its members. I believe it can.

 

[thebioguy]

I believe you are asked to vote on an increase of the total teacher salary dollars the district will agree to spend. For example, if your district allotted $10,000,000 for salaries last year, they are offering $10,190,000 this year. You're only voting on whether or not to accept that offer. You are not voting on how it is apportioned.

So, the real question is whether or not the union can decide and determine the salary schedules for its members. I believe it can.

Thanks.

That brings me around to one of my previous questions.

There is nothing in the bylaws that explicitly grants nor denies this power. Does this mean that the determination lies elsewhere (State level?) or does it mean that the members grant this power to the union with each ratification vote?

 

[thebioguy]

I believe you are asked to vote on an increase of the total teacher salary dollars the district will agree to spend. For example, if your district allotted $10,000,000 for salaries last year, they are offering $10,190,000 this year. You're only voting on whether or not to accept that offer. You are not voting on how it is apportioned.

So, the real question is whether or not the union can decide and determine the salary schedules for its members. I believe it can.

Sorry for the double response.

Specifically to your suggestion that the union can decide (after the negotiation and vote) on the salary schedules of it's members, does the union fail to represent a member when it negotiates one amount, asks for a vote, and delivers another amount?

 

[thebioguy]

Never did get a response, so I'll try again.

Can a Union negotiate specific terms (such as % increase), ask for a vote based on those terms, and then deliver different %'s to different members based on arbitrary criteria?

In other words, does a ratification vote give direct powers to the union to apportion the % increase across the scale in any way they want?
Can the members require that the % increase negotiated is the same as the % increase received?