Minneapolis teacher union contract limits seniority for affirmative action reasons

[OSR stands with Israel]

https://www.startribune.com/new-minneapolis-teacher-contract-language-disrupts-seniority-to-protect-educators-of-color/600179265/

The agreement that ended the three-week teachers strike this spring includes contract language that upends the traditional last-in, first-out hiring policies as a way to retain "members of populations underrepresented among licensed teachers."

The new contract makes Minneapolis one of the only school districts in the country with such seniority-disrupting language, district and union leaders say. They hope it helps foster a teaching staff that better mirrors the demographics of the pupils they work with, more than 60% of them students of color. Currently, about 16% of the district's tenured teachers and 27% of its probationary teachers are people of color.

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

Fine by me, tbh.

[BlueSwan]

"Last in first out" is a TERRIBLE policy anyway, so fine by me.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I hope the people advocating this policy suffer such a fate at their jobs. 

I'm fine with that.  Let people walk their talk.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

"Last in first out" is a TERRIBLE policy anyway, so fine by me.

Not that I necessarily disagree but the proposed alternative is arguably worse.

ARTICLE 15. PROTECTIONS FOR EDUCATORS OF COLOR
15.1 PREAMBLE:
15.1.2
i: Policy Language: The purpose of the language referencing this Article (15.1.2i) is to
remedy the continuing effects of past discrimination by the District. Past discrimination
by the District disproportionately impacted the hiring of underrepresented teachers in
the District, as compared to the relevant labor market and the community, and resulted
in a lack of diversity of teachers. Language which refers to this Article will no longer be
in effect once the teachers in the District reflect the diversity of the labor market and the
community served by the District.
A. 15.2.5 Excessed Teachers:
b. Staff Reductions...
Starting with the Spring 2023 Budget Tie-Out Cycle, if excessing a teacher who is a member of a
population underrepresented among licensed teachers in the site, the District shall excess the next least senior teacher, who is not a member of an underrepresented population, for the reasons provided in
Article 15.1.2.i.
B. 1. 15.9.2 Staff reduction:
d. Involuntary Reassignment:...
Starting with the Spring 2023 Budget Tie-Out Cycle, if excessing a teacher who is a member of a
population underrepresented among licensed teachers in the site, the District shall excess the next least senior teacher, who is not a member of an underrepresented population, for the reasons provided in
Article 15.1.2.i
C. 15.10.7 Reinstatement:
d. Reinstatement Order: Reinstatement must be in the inverse order of placement on lay off.
The District shall prioritize the recall of a teacher who is a member of a population underrepresented
among licensed teachers in the District, per the definition provided in Article 15.1.2.i. To do this, the
District shall deprioritize the more senior teacher, who is not a member of an underrepresented
population, in order to recall a teacher who is a member of a population underrepresented among
licensed teachers, for the reasons provided in Article 15.1.2.i.

source, pages 4-5

It's not really an overhaul of the seniority system and it certainly isn't tied to any quantifiable outcome of performance. It's quite literally "if the next-least experienced person in your list is a URM, skip them, and fire the next-least experienced non-URM you can find." The article says that 27% of teachers with less than 3 years of experience in the district are POC, meaning that 73% are white. All of these people are at risk of firing.

I think it's a demonstrably good and effective goal to increase the number of POC teachers in primary education, and the contract has some concessions that I think could do this effectively (e.g., mentoring programs. But this is quite literally a racist policy and I have a hard time believing it would hold up in court.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

^ This. This is really unpopular on local forums and in discussion...and of course it goes without saying that Minneapolis is not a conservative city. And yeah I have no doubt this won't survive in court if challenged, (seriously, just take a look at the makeup of the 8th Circuit that includes Minnesota...probably the worst thing politically about living here!)

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

^ This. This is really unpopular on local forums and in discussion...and of course it goes without saying that Minneapolis is not a conservative city. And yeah I have no doubt this won't survive in court if challenged, (seriously, just take a look at the makeup of the 8th Circuit that includes Minnesota...probably the worst thing politically about living here!)

Maybe this belies my lack of knowledge on how labor concessions work but I do think there's something noteworthy about a union fighting for a policy that is openly and explicitly threatening to a majority of its workforce. This doesn't seem like a good way to build power within your movement.

I understand the motivations here and think they are good but... this just doesn't seem like a principled stance for a union that exists to represent its employees to take. The union I am a part of engages in anti-racism campaigns but nothing to this degree. Labor has lost power in the last half-century because many of its members felt like they were being sold out. If my union posited a policy that put me at the head of the line for the chopping block for reasons beyond my control in the face of an invevitable budgetary shortfall I would stop giving them my money.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

^ This. This is really unpopular on local forums and in discussion...and of course it goes without saying that Minneapolis is not a conservative city. And yeah I have no doubt this won't survive in court if challenged, (seriously, just take a look at the makeup of the 8th Circuit that includes Minnesota...probably the worst thing politically about living here!)

Maybe this belies my lack of knowledge on how labor concessions work but I do think there's something noteworthy about a union fighting for a policy that is openly and explicitly threatening to a majority of its workforce. This doesn't seem like a good way to build power within your movement.

I understand the motivations here and think they are good but... this just doesn't seem like a principled stance for a union that exists to represent its employees to take. The union I am a part of engages in anti-racism campaigns but nothing to this degree. Labor has lost power in the last half-century because many of its members felt like they were being sold out. If my union posited a policy that put me at the head of the line for the chopping block for reasons beyond my control in the face of an invevitable budgetary shortfall I would stop giving them my money.

From what I gathered from some local discussion, teachers who have been around at least three years are still pretty much protected, so it doesn't really endanger a majority of the workforce.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

Who cares? At least MN schools have teachers!

[wesmoorenerd]

Yeahhh this is not the hill we want to be dying on

[BlueSwan]

"Last in first out" is a TERRIBLE policy anyway, so fine by me.

Not that I necessarily disagree but the proposed alternative is arguably worse.

ARTICLE 15. PROTECTIONS FOR EDUCATORS OF COLOR
15.1 PREAMBLE:
15.1.2
i: Policy Language: The purpose of the language referencing this Article (15.1.2i) is to
remedy the continuing effects of past discrimination by the District. Past discrimination
by the District disproportionately impacted the hiring of underrepresented teachers in
the District, as compared to the relevant labor market and the community, and resulted
in a lack of diversity of teachers. Language which refers to this Article will no longer be
in effect once the teachers in the District reflect the diversity of the labor market and the
community served by the District.
A. 15.2.5 Excessed Teachers:
b. Staff Reductions...
Starting with the Spring 2023 Budget Tie-Out Cycle, if excessing a teacher who is a member of a
population underrepresented among licensed teachers in the site, the District shall excess the next least senior teacher, who is not a member of an underrepresented population, for the reasons provided in
Article 15.1.2.i.
B. 1. 15.9.2 Staff reduction:
d. Involuntary Reassignment:...
Starting with the Spring 2023 Budget Tie-Out Cycle, if excessing a teacher who is a member of a
population underrepresented among licensed teachers in the site, the District shall excess the next least senior teacher, who is not a member of an underrepresented population, for the reasons provided in
Article 15.1.2.i
C. 15.10.7 Reinstatement:
d. Reinstatement Order: Reinstatement must be in the inverse order of placement on lay off.
The District shall prioritize the recall of a teacher who is a member of a population underrepresented
among licensed teachers in the District, per the definition provided in Article 15.1.2.i. To do this, the
District shall deprioritize the more senior teacher, who is not a member of an underrepresented
population, in order to recall a teacher who is a member of a population underrepresented among
licensed teachers, for the reasons provided in Article 15.1.2.i.

source, pages 4-5

It's not really an overhaul of the seniority system and it certainly isn't tied to any quantifiable outcome of performance. It's quite literally "if the next-least experienced person in your list is a URM, skip them, and fire the next-least experienced non-URM you can find." The article says that 27% of teachers with less than 3 years of experience in the district are POC, meaning that 73% are white. All of these people are at risk of firing.

I think it's a demonstrably good and effective goal to increase the number of POC teachers in primary education, and the contract has some concessions that I think could do this effectively (e.g., mentoring programs. But this is quite literally a racist policy and I have a hard time believing it would hold up in court.

Fair enough. I agree, that sounds horrid as well. Basically, there should not be an automatic system for who is out first and if there is that system certainly shoudn't be racist. If a school needs to get rid of an employee they should get rid of the least useful employee, obviously.

[Skill and Chance]

Sounds like something extremely illegal for a state government agency to agree to.  If you can't see that, just imagine a teachers union in rural Alabama negotiating the opposite. 

[Fuzzy Bear]

"Last in first out" is a TERRIBLE policy anyway, so fine by me.

Not that I necessarily disagree but the proposed alternative is arguably worse.

ARTICLE 15. PROTECTIONS FOR EDUCATORS OF COLOR
15.1 PREAMBLE:
15.1.2
i: Policy Language: The purpose of the language referencing this Article (15.1.2i) is to
remedy the continuing effects of past discrimination by the District. Past discrimination
by the District disproportionately impacted the hiring of underrepresented teachers in
the District, as compared to the relevant labor market and the community, and resulted
in a lack of diversity of teachers. Language which refers to this Article will no longer be
in effect once the teachers in the District reflect the diversity of the labor market and the
community served by the District.
A. 15.2.5 Excessed Teachers:
b. Staff Reductions...
Starting with the Spring 2023 Budget Tie-Out Cycle, if excessing a teacher who is a member of a
population underrepresented among licensed teachers in the site, the District shall excess the next least senior teacher, who is not a member of an underrepresented population, for the reasons provided in
Article 15.1.2.i.
B. 1. 15.9.2 Staff reduction:
d. Involuntary Reassignment:...
Starting with the Spring 2023 Budget Tie-Out Cycle, if excessing a teacher who is a member of a
population underrepresented among licensed teachers in the site, the District shall excess the next least senior teacher, who is not a member of an underrepresented population, for the reasons provided in
Article 15.1.2.i
C. 15.10.7 Reinstatement:
d. Reinstatement Order: Reinstatement must be in the inverse order of placement on lay off.
The District shall prioritize the recall of a teacher who is a member of a population underrepresented
among licensed teachers in the District, per the definition provided in Article 15.1.2.i. To do this, the
District shall deprioritize the more senior teacher, who is not a member of an underrepresented
population, in order to recall a teacher who is a member of a population underrepresented among
licensed teachers, for the reasons provided in Article 15.1.2.i.

source, pages 4-5

It's not really an overhaul of the seniority system and it certainly isn't tied to any quantifiable outcome of performance.  It's quite literally "if the next-least experienced person in your list is a URM, skip them, and fire the next-least experienced non-URM you can find." The article says that 27% of teachers with less than 3 years of experience in the district are POC, meaning that 73% are white. All of these people are at risk of firing.

I think it's a demonstrably good and effective goal to increase the number of POC teachers in primary education, and the contract has some concessions that I think could do this effectively (e.g., mentoring programs. But this is quite literally a racist policy and I have a hard time believing it would hold up in court.

Teacher Unions rigorously oppose the highlighted portion of your post.  They do so even though the public favors such proposals.  And the public (conservative AND liberal) favors this for the obvious reason; they want the BEST possible teachers teaching THEIR kids.

Teacher Unions do have a point.  Who would develop outcome-based standards?  Would they be adjusted to take into account that some teachers have classes of kids with a disproportionate number of kids with all sorts of learning and behavioral problems?  How much "favoritism" would there be in the process?  These are legitimate labor issues, to be sure.  But this proposal is really incredible for people who are all bent out of shape about "favoritism" when it comes to such proposals, because this involves naked favoritism based on race and ethnicity.

What should a white, unionized teacher with, say, 20 years on the job (but not ready to retire) think of their Union at this point.  What should a white, unionized teacher with, say 5 years on the job who has just purchased their first home think of their union at this point?  After all, that teacher would have the capability to plan, based on who was ahead of them and below them in the event of a Reduction In Force.  If the Teacher's Union is part of this, haven't they sold out THAT teacher to favor another?  That's not an unfair question, as Labor Unions exist to advance the interests of their workers, to some degtree even to the detriment of "society" (e. g. higher wages for auto workers equal more expensive cars.)  That's a fair enough question to ask.  How can such a union say that it serves and advances the interest of its white teacher members equally when it advances a proposal such as this?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I would be very surprised if this was legal.

[Xing]

Terrible policy. Laying off based on seniority is awful, and the relative lack of minorities in education is a problem, but this is not the solution. It’s what I call “compensating for a problem” (and in a blatantly discriminatory way) instead of getting to the root of it.

[jojoju1998]

The reason why we have Teacher Unions to begin with I think is because Teaching in this country was considered to be a job for young unmarried Women; who would then drop out to get married. It was never treated as a real respected profession, where the teachers would regulate themselves, and they would have full autonomy.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Terrible policy. Laying off based on seniority is awful, and the relative lack of minorities in education is a problem, but this is not the solution. It’s what I call “compensating for a problem” (and in a blatantly discriminatory way) instead of getting to the root of it.

You're a teacher, so I'll ask you:  Would the majority of teachers be OK with some form of teacher layoffs that involve a merit-based system?  Not just in principle, but when the details were spelled out?  Serious question, as my own personal experience in this is (A) EXTREMELY limited and (B) over 40 years old.

[The Free North]

Fundamentally racist, and likely illegal.

[Aurelius]

This somehow manages to be even worse than the existing system. One of the worst things about teacher unions is how they make it almost impossible to fire incompetent teachers with tenure. But I'd take that over this explicitly anti-white, racist system.

[Isaak]

How is this legal? Looks like pure racism to me.

[Indy Texas]

"Last in first out" is a TERRIBLE policy anyway, so fine by me.

It makes sense when you consider how much harder it is for older workers to find comparable jobs if they get laid off.

If a 55 year old loses their job, they are basically unemployable in a "real" full-time job. Everyone will think they're too old and too expensive. So they get to spend the next decade stringing together a living working retail and temp jobs, trying not to dip into their retirement savings too much and delaying as much medical care as possible until they're eligible for Medicare.

If you're a 25 year old, you can just go get another job.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

race is fake why do we keep doing this

[dead0man]

reading the text, this just seems like a way to get more white women out of teaching.  But aren't most public school teachers white women?  Oh yeah, that's the point.  I get it now!

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

reading the text, this just seems like a way to get more white women out of teaching.  But aren't most public school teachers white women?  Oh yeah, that's the point.  I get it now!

I doubt there's going to be many layoffs at all. This isn't somewhere like Chicago. Also the big problem everywhere is actually having too few teachers right now.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I would be very surprised if this was legal.

Were. Christ's sake, a little over a week in Birmingham and look what happened to my language.