Board Approves Other Contracts, Enrages UTLA

In a move that enraged the teachers union, the Los Angeles school board Monday approved contract settlements with nearly all of its non-teaching employees, who have been guaranteed that teachers will not get a better deal than they have.

Service union leaders representing thousands of the district’s lowest-paid workers--janitors, secretaries and cafeteria workers--agreed to deep pay cuts for their members this year. But the contracts include controversial “mutual protection”’ agreements, which mean that any more favorable compensation terms that the district gives to teachers must also be extended to others. The provision covers this year and the 1993-94 school year.

Also, if teachers go on strike and the district loses money as a result, members of the teachers union must absorb those losses, most likely through additional salary cuts, the agreements say. District officials have estimated that a teachers strike could cost more than $1 million a day because of the likelihood that funding based on student attendance would drop.

United Teachers-Los Angeles spokeswoman Catherine Carey said the board’s approval of the settlements “enrages” teachers, who on Monday began three days of voting on whether to strike Feb. 22 or accept the district’s latest offer. The district has not guaranteed that teachers’ pay will not be cut next year, a key union demand.

The board approved the settlements with six other unions on a 6-1 vote, with Julie Korenstein objecting. Members Warren Furutani and Mark Slavkin, although voting to approve the contracts, voiced objections to the “mutual protection” provision.

The board majority praised the 32,000 employees--bus drivers, teacher assistants, school police, clerical workers and principals--for accepting deep pay cuts that were imposed on all district employees. Salary reductions ranging from 6.5% to 11.5% were ordered to help bridge an unprecedented $400-million budget shortfall.

“There has been a perception that only teachers are taking a pay cut,” said school board President Leticia Quezada. “Not only have other unions taken the same cut, but they have worked with us to help the district avoid insolvency.”

The comment appeared to be a jab at United Teachers-Los Angeles, which waged a high-stakes court case attempting to overturn the pay cuts. Although the union lost in court, leaders are now seeking to rescind the cuts through a state labor relations board.

“It is very important to give our employees equitable treatment this year as well as next year,” Quezada said.

Slavkin and Furutani, however, said the board has tied its hands by making such a guarantee for two years. “This somewhat restricts our budget flexibility,” Slavkin said. “It doesn’t make sense to put our budget on autopilot. I want to have discretion to make decisions when I get there.”

Korenstein said that was the reason she voted against the contracts.

In a letter Friday, Los Angeles County Supt. of Schools Stuart E. Gothold said the agreements had “potentially dangerous fiscal implications” and urged the board to “carefully consider the effects of these agreements as you continue your negotiations with UTLA.” Under state law, Gothold is required to review any action that could affect the financial stability of the district.

Connie Moreno, a field representative with the California School Employees Assn., which represents 5,000 clerical workers and business service staff, said the union specifically negotiated the provisions to prevent the board from “using my people to subsidize a better deal with teachers.”

Carey said that the agreements “damage the scope and breadth of what UTLA could bargain for. It shows that the board wants to have their hands tied while bargaining with UTLA.”

Teacher union leaders are quick to point out that after teachers struck for nine days in 1989, winning a 28% pay increase over three years, the board extended the raises to other union employees as well.