Members Ask: How Can the QEO be Legal?
Following is a letter sent to OnWEAC In Print by Oshkosh teacher Robert
Vander Heiden, and a response from Mike McNett, WEAC’s director of
collective bargaining and research.
Dear WEAC:
I am new to the profession. I graduated from the University of Wisconsin
- Whitewater in August, and secured a position in the Oshkosh Area School
District. Being new to the profession, I have many questions that have
been weighing on my mind for the past few months. I have been hearing
all of this talk about contract negotiations and the QEO.
Exactly, how is the QEO legal? For one, I feel it discriminates against
teachers. From what I understand from others in the school district is
that we are actually taking a pay cut every year. Why do we even negotiate
if the school board does not have to offer us anything promising? We can't
strike anyway! What is the purpose of settling a contract? So I guess
my question is “What makes the QEO legal?” It just seems unconstitutional
to me.
The next question I have is “Does WEAC have plans to try to strike
down this law?” Is WEAC making strides in protecting the salaries
of teachers?
Thank you for your time.
Robert Vander Heiden
Business Education Teacher
Oshkosh School District
Dear Robert:
Those are good questions.
Unfortunately, although the QEO is unfair, it is legal. It was part of
a bill passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the governor in
1993, and is contained in Wisconsin Statute 111.70, and is further described
by ERC 33 as part of the administrative regulations of the Wisconsin Employment
Relations Commission.
Discrimination is illegal if directed against a protected class of citizens,
such as racial minorities, women, elderly, and the disabled. Teachers
are not a protected class, and it is therefore not illegal to discriminate
against them. Even though a majority of teachers are female, there is
not an adequate basis to make a legal claim that the QEO constitutes gender
bias. WEAC attorneys filed a suit against the Wisconsin Employment Relations
Commission a few years ago, stating that the commission had exceeded its
authority and gone beyond the scope of the new law in some elements of
the administrative rules (ERC 33), such as cast-forward costing. Even
though the case was well presented and heard by a rather progressive judge,
we lost the case.
What we need to correct this injustice is a Legislature and a governor
who will pass and sign a fair bargaining plan into law.
This is why the upcoming election is so important, and why it is necessary
for our locals to resist the QEO at the bargaining table and demand true
cost-of-living raises. Even though our negotiators have little or no power
to enforce their reasonable demands, they are making boards, parents,
communities and elected officials aware that the current bargaining law
and school funding system do not work and will ultimately damage teachers
and school quality.
We currently have nearly 300 teacher locals with unsettled contracts,
and 217 have pledged not to settle below the statewide bargaining goal
of 3.4% per cell. The media have started giving a lot of attention to
the issue of teacher compensation, and virtually every candidate for governor
is now saying that the QEO should be replaced (of course, they have not
all been clear that they would replace it with something reasonable).
In other words, our bargaining strategy, along with our Great Schools
public relations message, is gaining ground.
The situation, as you have observed, is not pretty. We have no silver
bullet or guaranteed outcome. We do believe, however, that by taking a
firm stance at the bargaining table, organizing members to work together,
getting our message out to communities and public leaders, and by working
hard to elect pro-education candidates this fall, we will eventually see
an end to the QEO.
If you’d like to be a part of this effort, please contact your local
association president or your UniServ office for more details about opportunities
in your area.
Mike McNett
Director
Posted April 12, 2002