If you can read this, thank a teacher

It is sadly time for me to come down squarely on one particular side of a contentious issue in my community. I do this not only due to a direct connection some of you may know of, to the public school teaching community, but also because I believe as the type of person I am, that it is the only right thing to do.

Medford, Oregon public school teachers are currently on strike. Portland public school teachers have voted that if a contract agreement they can accept cannot be reached by Thursday February 20th, 2014 that they will then need to go on strike as well. This is an awful thing to have to do to their students, but given my perspective, I know firsthand that:

• It's worse for the teachers themselves.
• It's better in the long run for students, teachers and schools, than what the district is trying to impose.

So what is the Portland school district trying to impose? On the face of it, it sounds like they're offering some much-needed concessions in contract deliberations. They are offering to reduce class sizes by hiring more teachers, as well as a raise to all teachers over a 3 school-year period.

What the district is trying to keep from coming to the fore are the facts that:

• They have been out of compliance for the past three school years with federal regulations regarding the high number of students per teacher, so an offer to address that concern is what they are legally required to do. It is not a concession; it is a legal requirement.
• The raise they are offering does not keep pace with real historical rises in the cost of living, to say nothing of such rises in utilities, groceries etc. while the economy is projected to "bounce back."
• While they are currently, to use district terminology, "supposing" to keep their coverage of teacher benefits (health, etc.) at the same levels they have historically been, their most recent offer of November 2013 would gut their coverage of these benefits, completely erasing any raise (not just cost-of-living raises for other necessities) after the first school year it's imposed. They legally don't have to include the more lenient "supposition" in the contract they impose on teachers; they can go back to their most recent written offer when imposing the contract.
• While teachers may currently legally strike against such a contract being imposed, part of the district's most recent offer is language to remove teachers' ability ever to legally strike again once the contract is imposed.
• The district is suing the teachers' union for having voted to strike prior to imposition of the contract, even though the only legal requirement regarding strike that the teachers are beholden to, is to wait ten days from when they vote (which they sadly had to vote "yes" to on February 5th, lest the district push out imposition until the end of the school year, when the students go on summer vacation, and public interest in the matter would wane) before they begin their strike (which could have therefore been as early as February 18th, but in fact will start on February 20th, unless an agreement is reached).
• The contract currently under dispute has been under negotiation since April 2013. However, the contract for the previous two school years then expired in June 2013. Teachers have therefore been working without a contract from then to the present time. Such a contract, as in any working relationship, is meant to protect not only employers, but also workers and beneficiaries of the work (such as students and the community, in this instance). Without such a contract, those protections are not currently in place.
• The district is currently operating with a $19 million budget surplus, projected to go to $30 million in the next school year. Yet their school board voted (not unanimously) on January 27th to proceed with the next school year's budget leaving that surplus intact, thus not using it to address any of the monetary concerns of the teachers, mentioned above… or any other monetary concerns the district might consider, such as replacing leaking, asbestos-riddled rooves on their aging facilities, which teachers and students are subject to being under daily during the school year. Notably, the school board is not subject to such physical conditions for their work.
• The district is trying to reduce public awareness of these facts, by hiring a $15,000-per-month "labor consultant," rather than spending the money on the personnel and resources that are sorely needed in their schools, or indeed, on figuring out how to avoid a strike.
• In fact, the district is actively planning for teachers to strike, almost as if it conferred them some strategic advantage. They are publically recruiting scabs to cover the absence left by teachers during a possible strike, on such reputable websites as Craigslist. The following link is to the job announcement on the district's own website: http://www.pps.k12.or.us/departments/hr/9456.htm

It could indeed benefit the district's position for teachers to strike, at least within the public perception. After all, many parents are not looking forward to finding alternative care for their children for an uncertain amount of time. To those parents and others uninformed as to the full gravity of the situation, the teachers could well look like greedy, lazy complainers who deprive their students of needed services simply to get what they want.

But "want" would be a mischaracterization: teachers are dangerously close to being forced to strike because they need more resources per student in order to teach them professionally. Under the current lack of contract, teachers are already working under an imposed yet illegal even-odd daily schedule for class periods which reduces their preparatory time. ESL (or "English as a Second Language") teachers in particular have lost dedicated periods to support ESL students, as well as the aides they need to help them provide this support. Teachers providing for their families (to say nothing of providing school supplies to those students who's families can't afford them) will be able to provide less for them. This is particularly dire in families where the teacher is the primary breadwinner.

Every teacher wants their students to succeed, or else they wouldn't be in such an otherwise thankless job. Indeed, the vast majority of teachers are inextricably, indelibly honor-bound to do everything in their earthly power to help their students achieve success. However, the current district policy is setting them up only to fail. Teachers have therefore voted to proceed if they must, with using the only leverage they have to make the district use its ample resources to help those students. In these times when "the economy's on the rebound" only for those who already have, the "rainy day fund" that the district is sitting on is an invaluable resource. With regard to public school teachers, schools and students in Portland, Medford, Chicago, and many other districts throughout the country, it's pouring.

---

Update February 20, 2014:

I want to thank everyone who has shown support for Portland's public school teachers in the run up to a possible strike over the lack of a contract agreement. Luckily, there is now a tentative agreement, which teachers will see the contract language of, over the next week. Because of this, the strike has been suspended and teachers are still at work.

Pending the teacher's vote to approve the new contract once they see it, the strike may then be fully cancelled. We're not out of the woods yet, but let's all hope that the language of the tentative agreement is something all of our teachers can work with!

Thanks again, for all your support, and may the currently striking Medford teachers soon have some similar good news!

Fight the powers that be(an)!

Is this a blog entry by someone with too much time on their hands, whipped into a frenzy by the very caffeine they're concerned with the delivery of?  Am I being naive and for too long beholden to a faceless corporation, as almost everyone I can think of here in coffee mecca Portland will tell me I am?

Yes.  Well, except for the "too much time" thing.  Try being a stay-at-home parent.  It makes one rant like this during naptime about things other than toys, and babies, and doggies.  Indeed, another part of my frenzy is trying to rush this out before the kid wakes up.

So, a certain coffee empire ruled by a two-tailed mermaid is currently offering up a promotion we'll call "The Moon Shot."  Essentially, you make X number of qualifying purchases, and you get Y "shots" to get free merchandise out of them.

I like free stuff.  Who doesn't?

Being a large corporation, it's one of the ways they've kept me loyal, even though there are more coffee shops struggling in our coffee snob town than you can swing a grounds-filled filter holder at.

So I signed up.  Whee!  I'm on the gravy train to spend money on jitter-making gravy to… get more jitter-making gravy for free.  It's how they getcha, and I guess by contrast to drug dealers, subsequent hits are free?

Whatever, lots of coffee shops have loyalty punch cards.  I'm not calling anyone out.

Yet.

So the day after I sign up, my wife gets a similar email inviting her to join "The Moon Shot."  Only, the numbers are a bit different.  If she makes (get this) less than half of X worth of qualifying purchases, she still gets Y "shots."

It should be noted, that my wife doesn't make nearly the purchases I do, at this place.

So I try to sign up for hers.  No dice.  Their website excitedly tells me that I'm (still) signed up for mine.  Whatever.  I'm on the gravy train, why leap off it for the gravy rocket?

And this, also, is how they getcha.  You're getting something of promotional value out of having agreed to their terms and joined their little "Moon Shot."  So shut up and enjoy it.  Yet, why do others get more out of the same agreement?  Indeed, isn't a rocket to the moon more useful than a train?

OK, enough with developing new euphemisms.  I don't want to get into equating gravy with green cheese…

Anyway, so I think on it.  She finally convinces me to contact their customer service to ask them what gives.  Their response?  I heavily paraphrase (and shorten… who knew I could do such a thing?):

"Sorry for any confusion about our Moon Shot promotion.  We offered you your rate of reward, because you come in so often.  We offer faster rewards to the customer we see less often, to interest them in coming in.  Thanks for your interest in our products, and do not hesitate to get in contact with us, if you have any future questions."

Oh, I did have some questions.  I paraphrase (in part) below, this time simply to "protect the innocent."  At least, that's how the saying goes…

I […] believe [your company] has made a strategic mistake, by allowing customers who use their accounts less, to earn more in [Moon Shots] than loyal customers. I understand that you're a business, and you need to get people in the door to make money. I would urge those who make your promotional marketing decisions, not to make your loyal customers work at a promotional disadvantage as compared to those you're trying to woo with said promotions. I need to make more than twice as many qualifying purchases as my wife does, to earn the same promotional reward. I understand that's by design, but it doesn't make it right.

A [Moon Shot] promotion that equitably rewards customers across the board would be far more compelling towards keeping your loyal customers, who are the very foundation of your repeat business and your success over the years. 

As it is, I'll need to reconsider in light of this non-equitable treatment of customers by your [Moon Shot] promotions, exactly how loyal a […] customer I am [of your company]. If I get more out of your promotions if I make fewer qualifying purchases, by golly, maybe I should show up less often to make those purchases. Maybe instead, I should show more loyalty to my local, non-incorporated coffee shops who are struggling to stay in business next to such successful but unfair marketers. 

It seems I have a lot to consider, wouldn't you agree?

I'm not sure how (or whether) they'll respond.  I am after all, the crackpot they caffeinated, who in return is trying to teach their marketing team a few things by email and via their customer service lackey.

That said, I'm impressed that they got back to my original concern in less than a day, and on a weekend, no less.  And I should say, among large corporations, I generally like them pretty well: they treat their workers well (I hear, though not directly from the workers on the premises during work hours) with good benefits packages, and they at least try to promote that they're into fair trade practices with regard to how they get their sweet, sweet nectar/gravy/green cheese itself.  And besides that, I don't just want to be the squeaky wheel; I want their marketing team to seriously reconsider how they run their promotions.  Anything less wouldn't be very equitable of me.

But to so cavalierly be told, "Oh yeah: you pay the bills, so you're not eligible to be sweet-talked (as much) anymore.  We gotta get out there and make some new mon-ay!!!" feels a bit like being told to get back in the kitchen and make them one of their yummy artisanal (and yet always exactly the same) breakfast sandwiches, while they visit the cute new neighbor for some, uh, sugar.

Okay, you may now tell me that I should have been going to local coffee shops all along, and that I, single-handedly, am the reason that local coffee culture is failing. Go!