Union Contract: Teachers Can Be Caught in School Drunk Five Times and On Drugs Three Times Before Being Fired
Students are reported to the police on first offense
Forget zero tolerance. Bay City Public School teachers for years could be caught repeatedly under the influence of illegal drugs or alcohol without being fired.
Teachers in possession or under the influence of illegal drugs could be caught three times before they lost their job, and they got five strikes if they were drunk on school grounds before being fired. A school district official said the language in the union contract that protects teachers for those instances "was incorporated into the teacher Master Agreement in 1997."
Those protections also were included in the Bay City Education Association teacher’s contract that was agreed to in January in section 16.1300 "Controlled Substances" on page 92. That contract expired June 30 and negotiations on a new contract are ongoing.
Students weren’t given as many chances. The code of conduct for middle school and high school students states that if they are found to be under the influence or in possession of illegal drugs, they get a 5-day suspension or a 3-day suspension with counseling on the first offense.
A teacher caught selling drugs in class would get a 3-day suspension without pay with mandatory counseling, but wouldn’t be fired unless the teacher did it a second time.
"They must have had been high to approve that contract because no sober person would agree to that kind of policy," said Leon Drolet, chairman of the Michigan Taxpayers Alliance. "The role models are held to a lower standard than the students. That just sends a horrible message. If anything is indicative of how far school boards are willing to bend to kiss the rings of union leaders, this is it.
"That is an absolute disgrace," he said.
The provision of the teachers' contract that allowed up to five strikes for being under the influence of alcohol and three strikes for being under the influence of illegal drugs before being fired was ruled as unenforceable by Public Act 103 in July 2011. However, the union contract states that if Public Act 103 is struck down, the policy goes back into effect for teachers.
The union contract states that the provisions remain in "full force and affect" for bargaining unit members not subject to the Teachers Tenure Act, which would include job titles such as librarians, guidance counselors, school psychologists, social workers and school nurses.
Bay City Superintendent Doug Newcombe said only a handful of employees are still covered by the contract language.
"From my point of view, that practice has already ended," Newcombe said. "We are not going to apply that language."
Newcombe said the district has not had a situation involving illegal drugs or alcohol arise with a teacher but that district officials would handle each incident on a case-by-case basis.
However, Newcombe would not say that the union protection for teachers who were under the influence of illegal drugs or alcohol would be excluded from the union contract that is being negotiated now.
"I'm not going to speak to ongoing contract negotiations at all," he said. "What we would like to do is be uniform with how we handle things and I’ll leave it at that."
The student code of conduct states that the district shall contact local law enforcement authorities if a student is found to be under the influence or in possession of illegal drugs. The teacher’s contract doesn’t have such a stipulation.
Under terms of the contract, teachers found under the influence of alcohol would get a written reprimand on the first offense. On second offense, teachers would get a 3-day suspension without pay and with mandatory counseling. On the third offense, teachers would get a 5-day suspension without pay and with mandatory counseling. On the fourth offense, the penalty was a 10-day suspension without pay and with mandatory counseling. The fifth offense meant termination. A teacher could be fired if she or he didn’t participate in the counseling.
For illegal drugs, the first offense was a written reprimand and mandatory counseling. The second offense was a three-day suspension without pay. The third offense was termination.
Michigan Capitol Confidential is the news source produced by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Michigan Capitol Confidential reports with a free-market news perspective.
UAW Video Shows Political Influence
Proposal 2 on Michigan’s Nov. 6 general election ballot, once called by its union-funders the “Protect Our Jobs Amendment,” would enshrine collective bargaining privileges for government employees into the state constitution, effectively giving provisions of government labor contracts primacy over laws passed by the people’s duly elected representatives in Lansing and signed by the governor.
This radical proposal and a campaign ad promoting it (called “Rescue”) calls to mind a video shot by the Saginaw-based UAW Local 699 and shown at a December 1999 “worker-to-worker” event urging members to vote for union-backed candidates.
In this video the speaker describes the clout unions have with their preferred candidates, and the benefits accruing to members if those candidates are elected:
Ms. Heathscott was a Saginaw County circuit court judge who left the bench in 2008 to become a “referee” in the Saginaw Friend of the Court office.
Needless to say, such a statement raises serious question regarding the goals and outcomes of union political activity of the sort the UAW has for decades relentlessly pursued. Maybe the comments made on the tape amounted to simple bravado on the part of the speaker, but maybe they did not. Maybe the UAW expects special treatment under the law for its members.
In 2008, another UAW-supported initiative raised more questions. This sweeping measure, called “Reform Michigan Government Now,” was designed to remake the state constitution. This time, the game was given away by a PowerPoint presentation discovered by the Mackinac Center on a UAW website, the subtitle of which was, “Changing the rules of politics in Michigan to help Democrats.”
Courts ultimately ruled that the measure violated state rules and could not appear on the ballot. However, this year’s Proposal 2 will be on the ballot, and if anything it’s even more radical. Among other things it would repeal a law that prohibits unions from taking money from a government employee’s paycheck to pay for political contributions unless the union first obtains the worker’s written permission (“paycheck protection”).
While Proposal 2 primarily affects law overseeing government unions, it would also prohibit the legislature from ever passing a right-to-work law that bans private-sector employers from making union membership or fee payments a condition of employment.
On the public-sector side, according to one estimate, some 170 state laws regulating government employees and unions would be invalidated in part or in whole.
The UAW video posted above just hints at the degree of power labor unions have and try to operate amongst the political class for institutional gain. Should Proposal 2 pass, union bosses like the one featured above would only fortify their positions and at great cost to taxpayers across the Great Lake State.
Proposal 2 would surely accomplish the desire of government union bosses to protect their jobs.
But given the extremely negative message it sends to prospective employers, it could terminate Michigan’s nascent economic recovery, generating a very different outcome for the rest of our jobs
Michigan Capitol Confidential is the news source produced by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Michigan Capitol Confidential reports with a free-market news perspective.
Enjoying CapCon?
Make sure you aren’t missing anything! Sign up for our daily or weekly emails and get the quarterly print edition mailed to your home. All free!
Get CapCon emails! Get CapCon print!
No thanks, I prefer to visit the CapCon website!
More From CapCon