San Francisco’s first teacher strike in 47 years moved from the bargaining table to the streets Monday morning as members of the United Educators of San Francisco union picketed schools across the city.
Despite weekend calls by Mayor Daniel Lurie and Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi and pleas from Superintendent Maria Su to continue negotiations, the teachers’ union walked out Monday morning. Teachers were joined by school administrators and custodians whose unions voted to engage in sympathy strikes. They had parents, students, and community members join their picket lines, with passing vehicles honking in support.
Enthusiasm for the teachers’ cause centers on popular support for what they need and want, while the school district emphasizes the limits of what it can afford. At least on Day One of the strike, the human concerns have gained public favor over the financial constraints.
The biggest obstacle to settling the strike is skepticism over the school district’s poverty posture.
At Ruth Asawa School of the Arts and The Academy, approximately 80 educators and staff members were joined by community members, students, and passing drivers honking in support. One parent of a school worker explained her reasons for participating: “We as a society have a responsibility to help our educators who will prepare our youth. Following the pandemic, teachers have had to deal with student mental health challenges and need a living wage so they don’t have to worry about their own basics.”
Jason Mironov, a 20-year veteran U.S. history teacher, said the strike is about prioritizing students’ needs, especially those of immigrant families. Fittingly, strengthening the school district’s “sanctuary school” protections was one of the first areas of agreement between the school district and the teacher union following Thursday’s and Saturday’s bargaining sessions. Typically, labor negotiations focus on wages, benefits, and working conditions. Both the school district and the neutral fact finder, appointed for labor disputes such as this one, had argued that immigration protections, as important as they are, belonged outside of a labor/management agreement. The language agreed to has not been shared publicly and may be subject to further revision. Beyond providing a welcoming atmosphere for all students and training teachers on how to respond to potential immigration enforcement at schools, it is unclear what additional sanctuary or protection a local school district can legally provide in the face of federal immigration authority.
The central remaining issues in the strike revolve around traditional subjects that cost money that the school district may or may not have. The neutral fact finder estimated the parties were at least $118 million apart last week, but there has been some movement since then. The school board has yet to factor into this year’s or next year’s budgets the cost of any agreement with the teachers’ union.
School district negotiators have offered a 2 percent salary increase for this year and the next two years, while the teachers union seeks 4.5 percent for this year and next for teachers and higher percentages for the classified employees it represents. The neutral fact finder recommended that the district replace its offer of three 2 percent annual increases with two 3 percent annual increases — seemingly the same amount but over a shorter period. However, for the school district, “three plus three” equals eight in these negotiations because the district earlier promised school administrators a salary increase if the teachers get more than 2 percent.
Another pivotal issue in the negotiations pressed by the teachers is the cost of health care benefits for their families. Rising health care costs are a critical issue across the city and throughout the country. That does not make it easier for the school district to offer a more generous benefits package but it is a major driver of support for teachers among the public.
The biggest obstacle to settling the strike is skepticism over the school district’s poverty posture. School district leadership recently disclosed it sits on $429 million in unspent revenue that it has accumulated over time. Teacher union supporters, many parents and even some school board members wonder why that money cannot be used to be more generous at the bargaining table. The school district’s explanations thus far are financially prudent — much of the money has restrictions upon its use and has already been spoken for; any entity must have reserves for emergencies and cash flow; the school district is susceptible to unprecedented federal government threats to take it away; and there is no guarantee the money, once used, will be available in future years. Nonetheless, teachers want a second or third look at the reserve accounts and believe that now is the “rainy day” for which the reserve funds were created.
Meanwhile, the school district has estimated that every strike day will cost $7 to $10 million in lost state revenue or fines imposed by the state. To mitigate the losses, the school district is offering students independent study assignments that will qualify them for state revenue for remote education. Teachers’ union supporters are discouraging the students from signing up in the belief that the revenue will help the school district and thus prolong their strike.
When negotiations reconvene at the bargaining table Monday afternoon, parents and community members may not have a seat but their preferences are being expressed across the city and are being heard by the teachers’ union, school district, and elected officials.