By Tom

(Editor's Note: The Quality Education Council has backed off a proposal to examine transferring local collective bargaining to the state level. On Tuesday, QEC members voted to remove the bargaining amendment from the discussion portion of their House Bill 2261 required draft report. Sen. Eric Oemig, who voted to approve the amendment at a previous meeting, introduced the motion to remove the amendment. Sen. McAuliffe (absent from the last meeting) was a strong second to the motion and worked with Oemig to remove the item.)

Just when we thought things couldn't get bleaker, Washington State's Quality Education Council, charged with the unenviable task of fleshing out HB 2261, recently passed an amendment to their preliminary draft document to "Examine transferring local collective bargaining to the state, including all matters pertaining to compensation, benefits and employment terms and conditions."

For crying out loud.

I understand the need to look everywhere and anywhere to save money, but do we really think the school system will run more efficiently without local collective bargaining?

Let's imagine what that might look like.

A few years ago I was working on a district committee composed of administrators and association members. The purpose of the committee was to process district and association initiatives before they became policy. At this particular meeting, we were discussing how to roll out new classroom technology. The conversation went something like this:

District Lady: "When we distribute these computers, we want to make sure the teachers know how to use them effectively."

Union Guy: "That's a smart idea."

District Lady: "So we want to require training before we place the tools into the hands of the teachers."

Union Guy: "Great. But if you want all teachers to use this technology, and if you require them to get the training before they can use it, then you need to pay them to take the training."

DL: "But that could get expensive."

UG: "Very expensive."

DL: "But we were thinking that the teachers would want to take the training."

UG: "Most of them probably will."

DL: "But wouldn't they want the training even if they weren't being paid?"

UG: "If it's important enough for our members to spend their time doing it, then it's important enough for the district to spend money on. That's how this works. The district spends money to pay for the time that our members spend doing the work. Most of our members enjoy most of their work. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be paid for it."

We were paid for our training. It was valuable, and it enabled us to use the computers more effectively. It was also a great example of a local association and a local school district responding to a local issue.

Now, bearing in mind that the computers were purchased through a local technology levy, Imagine how that issue would have been resolved if all collective bargaining in this state was handled at the state level.

I can't either.