Bargaining of, for, and by teachers

It is very clear to me now that the plan is to give teachers a Teacher Rep but not to bargain with teachers. I should have known it was too good to be true when the governor called for an “exclusive bargaining group of teachers” to conduct an election for the Teacher Rep position. The problem has never been getting a Teacher Rep but the efforts to prevent teachers from exercising their right to bargain with the Public School System. The opportunity to get bargaining power is what teachers really need to be concerned about, especially when PSS, the Board of Education and the governor are only talking to an administrator to solve a teacher requirement.

Just to show you what I mean: If teachers are recognized and decide they want to bargain for permanent contracts or a change in the PRAXIS requirements, which side of the table will the ACT administrator sit—with teachers or administrators? It should be clear that she will have a conflict regardless of which side she’s on because she is literally straddling the fence as both an administrator and teacher. The previous COE ignored this fact but I hope our new Commissioner will define the limits of an administrator’s involvement with teachers’ constitutional rights. I don’t have anything against Ms. Miller or ACT. But I refuse to stand by and see the governor sell out teachers to a person who doesn’t have the consent of all teachers to be their representative and one who can’t ethically represent teachers at the bargaining table or in any negotiations with the administration.

As for Mr. Francisco R. Agulto’s interpretation about the law on collective bargaining, it is clear that he doesn’t know what he is talking about. Every teacher working under the American flag in the mainland and Guam are protected by federal law and they have the power and are exercising their power to bargain with their school system—except for teachers in the CNMI. There is no such thing as a federal law that only applies to the private sector when it comes to collective bargaining and you would have to be ignorant of the principles governing the law and the bargaining process to interpret the law in this way. If the governor tries to give teacher’s bargaining rights away without due process, Mr. Agulto and the governor will find out that federal law does protect CNMI teachers in the Public School System and I will personally file the federal complaint.

If the governor and/or the board truly want to resolve this matter, they will issue a statement to all teachers on what they feel is required of teachers to have a recognized exclusive bargaining representative and leave it up to all teachers—not just ACT. It is already law as to what is necessary for any group to bargain and teachers are not required by any federal or CNMI law to create a non-profit cooperation (or) have a union to bargain. The basis of the law is simple—50 percent + 1 teacher with equal representation. We call it the application of democracy and republicanism, which are the only two principles required by the U. S. government for the creation of the Commonwealth, which speaks volumes to the power of these two principles.

The governor stuck his foot in his mouth by admitting teachers need to have an exclusive bargaining representative of teachers. Now that he has rung the bell, he can’t un-ring it nor can he avoid federal law, which is something our government is famous for trying to do. The governor’s refusal to appoint me was really a demonstration that he doesn’t want the the body of teachers to have a head so the body will remain powerless. The Governor may have achieved this small victory to cut off the head of teachers but as a certified HQT I have the power to ask for federal enforcement of my rights to bargain—meaning the governor won a small battle but he will lose the war.