Rope-a-Dope: How the Ohio Education Association Bargains When Money Is Scarce
To hear the Ohio Education Association (OEA) tell it, these are the worst of times for public education in the state. Ohio may be 18th in the nation in per-pupil spending, with an estimated 4.67 percent increase in spending for 2004-05 despite a decrease in enrollment from the previous year, but the union states that "nearly 4,000 full-time educators will lose their jobs as a direct result of the school funding crisis" over the next year.In this "challenging financial climate," OEA offers specific advice to its local presidents, negotiators, and other officials in the form of an annual Bargainer's Handbook. This year's edition has some very interesting and helpful advice for OEA bargainers, and it may also prove edifying both for the general public and Ohio school district officials.
Most of the handbook is simply an explanation of Ohio's collective bargaining law and a very large glossary of terms and acronyms. But the handbook's introduction contains OEA strategizing for this year's negotiating tables.
"Statewide, Ohio school districts saw expenses exceed revenues by nearly one-half billion dollars in fiscal year 2004," the handbook states. "Nearly seven of every ten districts in the state spent more than they took in."
In an environment where many districts are seeking to cut costs through contract talks – though OEA refers to this an "an apparent attempt to manipulate the bargaining process" – the union is recommending a "rope-a-dope" strategy. For those unfamiliar with the term, OEA helpfully explains its origins in the tactics of boxer Muhammad Ali, who would lean on the ropes and shield his face while his opponent wore himself out with fruitless punching. Then Ali would finish him off.
The OEA handbook describes how this technique can be used at the bargaining table:
"During this onslaught many OEA negotiators have managed to effectively lean on the figurative ropes avoiding devastating outcomes and positioning themselves for the next round of bargaining. Some general tactics are noted:
"* Compression of salary schedule in conjunction with modest across-the-board increases. All members can enhance their career earnings, but the immediate cost to the district is less than that of an increase on the base.
"* Portion of salary increase contingent upon passage of a levy or tied to additional funding assuring OEA members a raise if new money becomes available.
"* Where wage freezes have been unavoidable, some locals have opted to roll over the entire contract thus maintaining the status quo with regard to insurance and all other terms and conditions of the bargaining agreement.
"* Retirement incentive plans that provide both a meaningful economic inducement to OEA members to retire while generating significant payroll savings to school districts."
"* Other locals have sought and achieved important non-economic advances such as fairshare and binding grievance arbitration.
"* Clear and restrictive definition of financial reasons with respect to reduction in force.
"* Rejection of regressive non-economic proposals."
OEA also foresees an increase in the number of shorter-term contracts, as locals seek to avoid committing themselves to belt-tightening measures for extended periods.
The deficit spending in Ohio schools is hardly a unique phenomenon. And since most districts bargain with NEA affiliates, we can expect that union bargaining strategy in those places will be similar to that described in OEA's Bargainer's Handbook.
Mike Antonucci is the Director of the Education Intelligence Agency which conducts public education research, analysis and investigations. This article is taken from the EIA's website newsletter for August 1, 2005.
