Inglewood Teachers to Push for Pay Hike in Contract Talks

Inspired by recent pay increases after teacher strikes in Los Angeles and Beverly Hills, Inglewood teachers plan to push for higher salaries in upcoming contract negotiations with the school district.

The Inglewood Unified School District formally entered the negotiating process Wednesday when it unveiled its counterproposal for the contract that would be retroactive to July 1, 1989. The teachers made their proposal last summer.

Both sides expect talks to start within two weeks.

Union representatives say they will strike if their money demands are not met. District officials call that position typical pre-negotiation posturing.

The district’s counterproposal presented Wednesday suggested numerous changes in the existing contract, some of which are strongly opposed by the union. The district’s proposal did not touch on the volatile salary issue. That, district officials said, will be presented to the public at the Feb. 14 school board meeting.

Board President Larry Aubry said the counterproposal is a preliminary document that simply begins the negotiating process and is “not set in concrete.” He said the district must work to overcome an adversarial relationship. Many teachers are filled with “fear and distrust,” he said.

Union Vice President Cheryl Bell said the counterproposal makes her believe that the district wants a strike. “I’ve never seen anyone take a whole contract and tear it to pieces,” she said. “I’m taking this as a declaration of war.”

The union is asking for a 10% salary increase in each of the next three years.

The beginning salary for Inglewood’s teachers was $22,614 in 1988, and they haven’t had a pay raise since then. That ranked Inglewood teacher salaries 25th out of the 43 unified districts in Los Angeles County for those with bachelor’s degrees, according to county education statistics. Those with master’s degrees rank 30th. The district has about 720 teachers and almost 16,000 students.

More than 100 teachers, many wearing pins that declared “Apples Don’t Pay Bills,” packed Wednesday’s school board meeting to protest the district’s proposal and argue for a salary increase. The few who approached the podium used fiery rhetoric.

The teachers gave Bell a standing ovation when she told board members that the counterproposal was “repressive, degrading and humiliating.” As an example, she cited a reduction in the length of paid jury time, from the 20 days in the current contract to 10 days. She also criticized a proposal that would give principals authority to assign teachers to certain after-school functions that now are voluntary.

William Jenkins, a community activist, was booed by the teachers when he said that, before the union asks for a pay raise, it should cut down on the number of teachers on extended stress leave. He said the stress leaves have created so many vacancies in the schools that the district may spend nearly $1 million more than it has budgeted for substitute teachers this school year.

Critics of the Inglewood Teachers Assn. argue that the union has become too powerful and uncompromising in a district that needs to devote more money to building repairs and other capital improvements.

District officials blamed a 1987 salary increase for teachers and other employees for a series of cost-cutting layoffs among the administrative staff, as well as other budget reductions that year. Amid stormy political and labor conflicts that included short-term teacher walkouts, teachers received a three-year contract that called for a 10% salary increase for the 1986-1987 school year, 4% for 1987-88 and left 1988-89 up for negotiation. The salary increase for that year still has not been settled. Last year, the union turned down an offer of a 2.5% increase, and requested a 14% hike.

Board member Zyra McCloud, a teacher advocate, was the only one to vote against the district’s contract offer Wednesday.

“I can’t under any circumstances vote yet on this item,” she said. “. . . If we are going to put a contract out there, we should put out a decent one.”

A teacher, David Whittaker, told board members not to forget the importance of the teaching profession: “In order to be superintendent, a lawyer, no matter what your profession is, it took us to get you there.”

Board Vice President Joseph Rouzan objected to the inflammatory language used by some residents to urge the district to support a raise for teachers.

“It is a sad commentary when people come before us and compare us to a communist camp . . . and the Berlin Wall,” he said.

The district’s negotiators are Jaffe Dickerson and Lester Jones. The union will be represented by Carolyn DeBrower of the California Teachers Assn.