School Information System

The MMSD materials regarding the operating budget do say that "state law requires" an increase of 3.8% or more. Other materials from MMSD say that the QEO sets the "floor" for employee negotiations.

Although I am now an assistant dean at the UW, I worked for many years as the executive director of a statewide labor union for healthcare workers here in Wisconsin. From my labor law background and experience with the QEO, I know that it is not correct for MMSD to say that the Qualified Economic Offer provisions "require" an increase of 3.8% or better. The QEO law allows for lesser and greater increases. Offering teachers 3.8% in the right combination of wages and benefits means that the district can stop negotiating and implement its offer and not risk an adverse decision when a neutral arbitrator gets the case.

The debate between WEAC and WASB (already posted) is a good summary of the opposing theories of how the law works. I think that the WASB greatly overstates the risks of arbitration and the complexities. Nationally, arbitrators determine the outcome of contract negotiations for very large and complex employers and their unions. Some examples: the US Postal Service, the airlines, the National Football League, UPS. Until a district goes to arbitration to argue that its "last, best offer" is all that it can afford, we will not know whether WASB's fears have a basis. You will notice, however, that WEAC is not characterizing the QEO as a good law that guarantees teachers 3.8% or better.

Some facts to keep in mind:
1. MMSD has been granting increases to teachers of 4.2% on a regular basis. There has not been one contract settled at 3.8% or less.

2. Built into the budget that has a gap of $7.4 million is about a $10 million increase in the cost of all wages and benefits for employees for 2005-06.

3. The union contracts are two-year contracts. If a successful referendum allows MMSD to pay the additional wages and benefits next year, there will still be a gap in 2006-07 of the same size or larger. The 4.2% increases in the recent past have been 4.2% the first year and about the same increase at the start of the second year.

4. MMSD and MTI currently have a written agreement to arbitrate the outcome of the current negotiations (for 2005-07) contract if we cannot reach a voluntary agreement. If arbitration is too risky, why would we agree to arbitrate in the face of QEO law that eliminates the arbitration requirement?

5. The cost of wages and benefits for Madison teachers is currently more than $193 million per year. Because the current base is so large, the difference between an offer of 3.8% and 4.2% is close to $1 million.

6. We have increased the likelihood that an arbitrator would grant teachers at least 4.2% if we do end up in arbitration, because we have set a pattern by granting our other employees between 4.2% and 5.9%. Next year, for example, administrators will receive increases of 4.9% (adding $1.2M to the budget for 2005-06). Arbitrators must consider the equity among employees within the district as well as our ability to pay the increases sought.

7. The bottom of the range of pay for teachers is lower than the state average at the bottom. However, we do not hire teachers at that rate. Most, if not all, go onto the pay scale at a much higher point due to education beyond the bachelor's degree, special certifications or prior teaching experience. In comparison to the state, our teachers do much better as they acquire seniority and advance their educations beyond the bachelor's degree.

I firmly believe that we should teachers as well as we can. I also believe that there are times when their increases should not exceed the increases of the parents and voters in the district and that this is such a time. Please remember that County Executive Kathleen Falk negotiated some "no increase" contracts with County workers during severe financial times as a way of being able to promise to keep their jobs. We seem to be going in the opposite direction, a direction that risks many job losses in exchange for 4.2% or better increases for the surviving teachers. I question this direction and believe that MMSD should offer better reasons for 4.2% increases than "state labor law requires 3.8%". Even if that were a correct statement of the law, it does not explain why we do not hold the increases closer to 3.8%.

I thank you Ruth for bettering my understanding. I still find it hard to support the idea but I appreciate the details and education on the confusing QEO.

Please remember that I am not advocating a freeze. I am only trying to explain the QEO and also point out that the QEO does not explain our pattern of increases. Comparisons to districts across the state are not helpful either. Many of those districts are experiencing growth in student enrollment and therefore growth in state aids in ways that we are not. I understand how they can offer more than 4%. I do not understand how MMSD can.