"No Work, No Pay": The Lesson of the 1994 Denver Teachers' Strike by Benjamin DeGrow Research Associate, Education Policy Center TB-2004-1 April 2004Summary In Octoher 1984, more than 2,000 members of the Denver Classtoom Teachers Association (DCTA) went on a weeklong strike for larger salary increases and greater control of working conditions. A Denver district court judge sanctioned the strike a legal and lett the Denver Public Schools (DPS) board of education and the DCTA to negotiate a settlement on their own, ‘The final point keeping the parties from reach fan agreement was paid amnesty for the striking teachers. The DCTA wanted to give all participat ing teachers five extra work days to make up for the a they lost while protesting outside the classroom, The school board argued there was nol enough ‘money to add any workdays, Ih the end the two sides agreed to add three in-service days. The new contract obligated DPS to pay as much as $2.1 mil tion in additional taxpayer dollars for the in-service days. Eight states have statutes denying compensation to Public employee strikers, even though such strikes are legal in two of those states, Among the eight states with statutes denying public employees strike pay, Massachusetts and Michigan go a step farther: they forbid public employers from providing any ‘employee compensation or work time to make up for wages lost because of participation in a strike Colorado fas no such law. 1994 DCTA Strike: The Dispute Builds Members ofthe Denver Classroom Teachers Association walked out of their claseooms during the second week of October 19%, protesting a con- tract proposal they deemed inadequate, Roughly 2,400 of Denver's 3,800 regular teachers, then aver- aging salaries of $200 a day, went on strike. The district paid 1,200 emergency substitutes $175 a day tokeep school doors open. By the end of the week, a third of the 63,000 students stayed home. ‘The 1994 labor dispute was a result of problems cither created or left unresolved by Governor Roy Romer’s eleventh-hour 1991 contraet intervention following a negotiation breakdown between DPS and the teachers’ union, Romer awarded teachers ‘ generous three-step salary increase, even though funding forthe final year of the inerease was not then available As the 1994 contract was being negotiated, the DTA sought to inerease total teacher salaries by ‘$8.1 million, while the district offered the DCTA, S4.1 million of an available $5.1 million. DCTA President Leonard Fox said union members were also “dissatisfied with plans to include merit pay in their contract.” ‘The DCTA, which represented fewer ees than half the schoo district's employ. et was being 48, aeted alone in setting an Qetober "Rotated, the Strike deadline. Leaders of labor _-DCTA sought groups representing bus drivers, com- __# inerease total munications workers, other support feacher salaries personnel and teachers not affiliated by $8.1 million, with the DCTA complained that the while the district school board was offering the DTA. afeed the DCTA too much ofthe available funds for $41 million of raises. Since the AFL-CIO would am available $5.2 not endorse any strike, these leaders milion pledged to “encourage our members to work and support the educational needs of the students”* Along with more than one- third of DPS teachers, sehool district support per- sonnel did not participate in the strike Many DCTA members were less disgruntled by salaries than by a lack of power to define wark: ie conditions. Romer’s contract had established Collaborative Decision-Making (CDM) Commit at the schoo! evel to promote community involve- ment. The DCTA—which represented approvi- ‘mately 3,000 of the distri’ 3,800 teachers—sought ‘more representation on these committces as well as clearer guidelines on teacher responsibilities for the 40-hour workweek, But the school board stayed firm on preserving the CDM committees as the In fate August 1994, less than a week ater DTA declared its intent to strike, Executive Director of Page 1Colorado Department of Labor and Employment Joe Donlon intervened and took jurisdiction in the dispute. Donlon released a compromise agreement ‘on October 4, slightly increasing the school district's salary raise contribution and urging that CDM eom: mittces he “more sensitive to demands on teacher's Donton’s proposal fell short of the union's time. desires, 1994 DCTA Strike: Compromises and Costs ‘The original October 3 strike deadline having passed. the DCTA reassembled on Sunday, October 9. ‘Two-thirds of the 3.000 voting teachers approved. the decision for a walkout the following morning, despite Donton’s repeated assertions that a strike resulting from a rejection of his compromise would be illegal, Donlon insisted that violators would be subject 10 $100-a-day fines and 60-day jail sentences, sand sad he had the tight to reassert jurisdiction in the matter, Fox said he Two-thirds of was willing to face jail ime 2s a con ‘the 3,000 voting sequence for a teacher strike. leachers approved ‘he decision for a While most Denver public schoo! walkout the fol- teachers walked the picket line, Towing morning, District Court Judge Larry Naves Aespite Donlon’s rejected Donlon's assertions. Judge repeated asser- Naves isgued a decision on October tons that a strike 12—the strike’s third day—declaring resulting rom hat state law only allowed Donlon a rejection of to offer a suggested resolution of Ihis compromise the dispute; the state's labor director would be illegal, hadi no authority to compel the par- lies involved to accept the agreement and stay on the job, The editors of the Rocky Moundain News hailed Naves' decision requiring the district and union to resolve their own Uifferences: “outsiders simply do not have a stake in any entemprise equal to that of managers or workers, and thus have no compelling incentive lo impose a responsible settlement.”* Negotiators quickly went back to the table, working Jong hours to hammer out compromises. By Friday night, DPS and DCTA officals only needed to resolve whether striking teachers should be allowed to make up for lost pay by adding five working days tothe contract. Both sides agreed to add three yok "untary (raining days for striking teachers ta recoup some of theirsaerificed earnings. Ninety-four icachers approved the new agree: ‘ment, which gave teachers $5,1 mil lion in salary inereases and satisticd Bath sides agreed demantrtarerwonigcnse Lee oe eee = suntary training DPS nected toad $26 milion io essere Eee the following year Bec op for the nonrconiaced slay inceses, EOP Ome the entra aso required the isi Hr serif ae { pay up to $2.1 million for the three in-service training days made up to ‘compensate for Iost strike pay. The $821 million igure assumed all 3800 of the distrie’s {cachers participated in the voluntary training pro- gram, but a DPS official said no record was available showing how much the district spent on teachers Who participated.” Although DPS saved roughly fewer and $800,000 during the strike by employi lower-priced substitute teachers, the district lost much more than $800,000 resolving the strike. Farther, the costs of a week of unproductive educa ton could not be tallied ‘The official policy of DPS during the strike inchaded “No restitution for lost wages or benefits,” along ‘with a careful monitoring and prevention of teach- crs abusing sick leave. teachers back into the classroom, the district negoti- ated away the policy—conceding make-up workdays resulting in additional taxpayer costs, [Not everyone in the fray lost. The union stood to gain concessions from the schoo! board as the strike continued, with stories spreading of students, learning little or nothing from substitute teachers. Many students fost five days of learning through poor substitute teaching in the elassroom, Yet in the tend, striking teachers were rewarded, while taspay- ers paid most ofthe bill for educational services not rendered. Page 2Other States Mandate “No Pay” for Teacher Strikes Whether by statute or by court ruling, 38 states do rot recognize the right of public school employees to strike. Only six of the 38 states operate accord- ing to a fair and strict rule: no public employee ean ‘ever be paid any form of compensation for days oon strike. Recognizing the danger of giving pub- lic employee unions the power to negotiate paid amnesty for days their members walk the picket line, the states of Delaware, Massachusetts, New York, Michigan, Towa and Oklahoma have all instituted a fair “no work, no pay” policy." ‘Massachusetts and Michigan add another point {o reinforce this rule. In both states’ statutes, the ‘employer is specifically Forbidden from giving sti ing employees opportunities to make up for lost days. In Michigan, a “public school employer shall ‘not provide a public school employee...any compen- sation or additional work assignment that is intend- ced to reimburse the public school employec. Four of the 10 states with statutes explicitly recog- nizing teachers’ right to strike also have some form ‘of an official “no work, no pay” policy. To of them—Minnesota and Mlinois—specifically forbid compensating any teacher who participates in an unauthorized strike.” Although allowing teacher strikes under certain conditions, Ohio and Pennsylvania extend the “no work, no pay” rule to include strikes that are allowed by law.” “No Work, No Pay”: Making a Fair Rule Meaningful Before the Denver Classroom Teachers Assocfation strike of 1994, the school disteict elearly articulated a “no work, no pay” rufe for employees who walked ‘out on their duties. In the heat of the dispute, how- ‘ever, negotiating board members offered in-service raining days at the end of the school year to striking leachers. Meanwhile, the students of Denver Public Schools-most of whom either stayed hhome from schoo! or received very little education in school-—did not Public employ- sin extra days rs should not ‘pay employees Pablicemployers should not pay J walking the a és picket line. ‘employees for walking the picket line [Nor should public employers be able to offer additional work or compensa fon to make up for days lost during a strike. Had Colorado law included such a policy in 1994, the DCTAs strike negotiators could not have sought pid amnesty, likely saving taxpayer funds for the school district. Adopting such a law may prevent potential fature waste of public dollars, Page 3Endnotes fomal Hetcandes, “The Walkout Flloo! More Teaches dein Ske" Rocky Mountain News, 14 Qelabe: 1994, 22, Hemandes, “Teachats Sik Ener Hamashich Fino Efors Focus on Extending School Year for Recovery of Lost Py" Rocky ‘Mountain New, 15 October 1994, 58 *Katen Abbot, “Denver Teachers Approve Remer‘s Conhact 83% cf Union Members Vote o Acc act wis Schoo! Dish” Rcky Mountain News, 18 Api 1991. 15. al Kxighy, "Fit La’ "Thonk’ Those Who Creolad This Méxs,” Denver, Post, 2 Octobar 1994, F | Kis Newcomer, “Tochats Aulhrize Stke: Denver Union Votes to Alo ts Hoc ln Set Ske Dae if tober [Negotcions Fale,” Racky Mountain News, 27 Auges! 1994, By “Lee fam The Coolton af Denver Pubic Schools Employess 40 DPS Soperitondent Iv Hakan, 27 Seplembet 1994. The gouge represented in the coalition included the Denver Federation of Teachers the Denver Fedorofon of Poroprtesionale, the Amalgamated ons Union, a he Communication Werkars of America, ® ark Sven, "Teachers Tak Strike During iy Rally” Denver Post, 23 September 1994, Hamandes, bor Ofc! ‘May Order Compromise: if Dsnvar Teachers Boi Accp! Pac, ‘hen Strike Sat for Ot. 3 would be legal Racly Masta Nes, 24 September 1984, 4, * Jae! Binghom, “Teachers Offered $1,000 Rak: Sioe's DPS Plan fo Incase Prank Powe* Denver Fos, 5 Octeber 1994, A-1. Hemandes, “leoches Approve Sra by 2-1 Roto! Union Rejects Compronie Conic! Authered by Sil, but Offical Sy Schools Wil Open Despite Waa Bocly Mountain News, 10 October 1994, 48 “ieachers Oflored $1,000 Roe Post 5 Oct. 1994, “Teachers Approve Ske,” RMN, 10 Oc. 1994. Hemonder, ‘Union Chief Shane Comprowisa, Hints at Feochers Shi ‘Site Taatens fo Cal Wolkou legs, Fine o lol An educator Who Lave The Pol,” Rocky Mounizin News, 6 Catober 1996 * Rocky Mountain News, 13 Oct 1994, 55A, * Rom! Hemender, “Teachers Ske Enis Homestretch Fil Hits Focus on Edending School Your for Recovery ol Lost Poy” Rocky Mounts News, 15 Occber 1994, 5A. Tay ‘Saipel and Jone! Singha, “laches Approve Contech OPS ‘Classes Wit Resume on Tuesday" Demwer Poa, 1 Oclobor 199441 Binghom, “DPS Facing Laon Bulge §2.6 Milion Move Needed fr Ries," Dem Past, 18 October 1994, 2-1 E> ‘mal from DPS Chit Financial tice Velma Rose fo cuthor 9 Febraary 2004. Concerning the rcoude. "This wa fl 0 lena ag fr usta have the det” "Mites ofthe Legislative Meting ofthe Board of Eduction ‘of School Distt No, nthe Cy and County of Bemvey ond Ste of Colerad, Doc 1, 1994, 6. Rose, tn ta author“ hove no way of vorying whether we reached the $200,000 Svingstrgol; ower do know thers woe sone savings” ® Demer Public Schools Personnel Services Memorancm fo ‘All Derwor Publi Schl Toochers, 6 Ocleber 1994 Derver ‘Boord of Education Moating Mines, Sop. 22, 1994, 78 Denver ube Schools ntardepartmenil Communion frm Robert G. Vide, Asi. the Chek Operating Oiien/Humon Rescurces io Principals and Deporment Heads, Bllelin #94/95.77, 18 Catcher 1994 “leltay A. Rober, “dscaton Comes t.a Hatin Mas! DPS Sell No Chellnges, Lats of Gomes, Kids Grumpy" Demver Fost, 12 Odobet 1994, 416. There ware anecdotal ports students parting in leoring games wth material they fod olteady mastered or siting atend watching MI 14 Deloware Cede § 4016, 19 Del.C.5 1316, 1816 ‘Massachusets General Lays §150E-15, New York Ci Sewce Cade § 270. Michigan Compiled Lave § 423 2020 lowa Code § 20.12. Glichomu Stale: § 70.509 Massachusetts General Laws § 1S0E-TS, Schl dain ‘Massachusate ora enema! ram tis le they de “nt esceive ‘auhrization fru shortened school yt fm te depart oF education.” IMichigen Compiled Lava § 423.2020, lineis Compiled Stokes § 5315-17. Minnesct Ses § 179019, ° Oo Revited Stas §4117.15. 43 Feonsyhenie Sts § nrot-1908 Copyright ©2004, Independence Institute INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE is a non-profit, ‘non-partisan Coforado think tank. It is governed by astatewide board of trustees and holds a ‘501 (c)(3) tax exemption from the TRS. lis public policy research focuses on economic growth, educa tion reform, local government effectiveness, and Constitutional rights. JON CALDARA is President of the Institute DAVID KOPEL is Research Director of the Instinwe PAMELA BENIGNO is the Director of the Edueation Policy Center. BENIAMIN DEGROW is a Research Associate 10 the Education Policy Center. He is the author of the Issue Papers The Wrong Kind of Self Employment: Keeping District Employees off Colorado School Boards and Take Public Funds off the Negotiating Table: Let Teachers’ Unions Finance Their Own Business ADDITIONAL RESOURCES on this subject can be found at: hup:/Avww.independeneeinsttute.org/ NOTHING WRITTEN here is tobe construed as necessarily representing the views of the Independence Institute or as an attempt to influence any election or legislative action, PERMISSION TO REPRINT this paper in whole ‘or in part is hereby granted provided full eredit is given to the Independence Institut, Page 4