At last night’s executive session the school board was told that a costing out of the fact-finder’s five year proposal (three years of which would be retroactive) would realize a total savings of $83,000 over the next two years compared to continuing to operate under the expired union contract. $83,000 savings is a minuscule amount of money on a total payroll of over $170 million. In other words accepting the fact-finder’s proposal would be a wash.
Typically in negotiations a fact-finder’s proposal operates as a ceiling for what a union can expect to get. That’s because no school board is willing to offer more money than a neutral third party found to be appropriate, and unions understand this reality. There is therefore clearly logic to say that the Pennsbury school board should reject the fact-finder’s proposal because it saves the district practically no money and instead use the proposal to act as ceiling to negotiate a lower cost contract.
The reality of the fact-finder’s proposal is that it saves nothing while promoting the following:
Early retirement cash payout of $5,000
Health insurance contributions go to a paltry 12% and only in the final year
Some salaries are increased which (after the contract expires) would create an additional pension burden.
In Mr. Coburn’s own words he states the school board would have to raise taxes to the maximum to pay for his proposal:
“No doubt, to pay for the recommended increases and other anticipated increased expenses, and to avoid cutting programs and/or staff, the District will have to seriously consider raising taxes to the Index in 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. In addition, it will have to seriously consider seeking a pension exception to the Act 1 Index in 2014-2015 in order to maximize the tax increases allowed during those years without going to a referendum.” There is clear logic to say that Mr. Coburn’s recommendations should be seen for what they are i.e. a good outcome for a fact-finding process, but an insufficient solution for taxpayers and students. It is going to be very hard to tell taxpayers that their taxes must be raised to the maximum to ensure that teachers only have to pay 12% of their health insurance.
Bottom line:
There is no difference between ‘status quo’ and taking this contract from a financial perspective. The only difference is that a contract would guarantee no strike possibility for two years. Meaning that the bottom line is this: If the school board agrees to save no money at all, and further agrees to raise property taxes to the maximum in the coming years, then the teachers promise not to strike.
