Grafton ESP Pursue Living Wage

By Terry Lawler

The NEA’s “Living Wage” initiative is simple: full-time workers should be compensated at a rate that keeps them above the poverty line. Furthermore, for public sector employees, tax revenues should not be used to create or perpetuate poverty. Yet, many education support professionals (ESP) in our schools receive such poor wages that they are eligible for public assistance, and the Grafton ESP were no exception.

When Kim Provencher, associate director for North Shore United Educators, and the Grafton ESP began negotiating their current contract, they were determined to dramatically raise their wages.

Pam Nuñez

Lisa Kison

Kim Provencher

“We were one of the lowest-paid paraprofessional groups in the area. We have a good benefits package, but we have been falling far behind in wages,” said Pam Nuñez, a 16-year veteran paraprofessional at Grafton Elementary School and chief negotiator for the organization.

The Grafton ESP decided to delay their negotiations with the district until the teachers had settled their contract. “Historically, this district has always settled with the ESP last, so we always felt that we were getting the ‘leftovers,’ money-wise,” Provencher said.

So last spring, with the first year of the current contract almost expired, the ESP approached the board without a specific wage increase proposal.

“We told the board that we wanted a living wage,” Provencher said. “The board was taken aback at first, because they were so used to a concrete number in front of them that they could say ‘no’ to right away. They couldn’t say no to a living wage because they didn’t know what it was.”

However, the board stuck with its usual bargaining stance. Its first offer would have resulted in a wage decrease for the paraprofessionals. The board’s 3.8% total package was eaten up by increases in insurance costs.

“We met with the local membership, gave them an update on where the bargaining stood, and told them that we wanted to go ahead with the living wage campaign,” Provencher said.

“We added that we needed everybody’s support. If we asked them to distribute leaflets or talk with community members, everyone had to participate or it would not be a successful campaign,” she said.

Unanimously, they declared that they were sick and tired of poor wages and would do whatever needed to be done.”

Shortly thereafter, talks broke down and the ESP requested mediation sessions.

After meeting with Mark Simons from WEAC to discuss organizing strategies, the ESP put together a full-page ad for the local paper.

“We felt the ad would hit hard with the community before the upcoming mediations,” Provencher said.

Lisa Kison, president of the Grafton ESP, recalled, “I don’t think that the board believed we were so serious, that we would put so much research into this.” Using several economic benchmarks, including the federal poverty line; food stamp, WIC and Badger Care eligibility; and the living wage for Ozaukee County as determined by the Economic Policy Institute, that research revealed some shocking information.

In the newspaper ad, Grafton residents learned that although Ozaukee County ranks first in per-capita income in Wisconsin, 31 of the then 33 paraprofessionals in the district did not meet the living wage standard. Listing the many challenging tasks the paraprofessionals take on every day for students from kindergarten through 12th grade, the article noted that “parents in the community might be humbled to learn about the poverty level wages paid to this group of district employees who work so diligently to serve their children.”

The ESP subsequently mailed a letter to all WEAC members living in the community. The letter explained the ESPs’ position, enclosed a copy of the newspaper ad, and asked for support. One retired educator in the community wrote a letter to the local paper stating, “I would much rather see the district pay their employees a living wage than spend the money on legal fees.”

The paraprofessionals planned to continue the letter campaign, but something unexpected happened in the mediations. Over the course of a nearly eight-hour mediation session, the ESP held firm that they were not going to budge from their proposals.

“The numbers they were throwing at us were bigger than they ever had been before,” Provencher said. “The board offered 5%, but 5% of $9.00 is not a lot of money.”

Kison joked, “I think the board figured out we were serious when we ordered pizza.”

The ESP informed the board that only two of their members earned a living wage and that many of the paraprofessionals had to work second jobs. “We also reminded them that like everyone else, we all have to go to the gas station and we all have to heat our homes,” Kison said.

The ESP had calculated that $12.33 per hour would give them a living wage, but Provencher admitted, “We knew we wouldn’t go from $9.00 an hour to $12.33, so we told the board that we knew this was a long-term campaign, that it would not be solved within this bargain. We assured them that we were willing to look at it as a long-term campaign if they would get on board with us.”

After several offers and counter offers, the board and ESP settled with a 75-cent-per-hour increase in the first year of the contract, followed by an 85-cent increase in the second and a $1 increase in the third.

“This moves us closer,” Provencher said, “but all of our members are not yet at a living wage, and the living wage continues to go up. But I think by doing this, we have paved the way for future bargains and the board will in the future take us more seriously.”

“The other factor that helps us is that by going to a three-year contract we were able to spread things out and now we won’t be negotiating the same year as the teachers,” Nuñez said.

“This is the first time we really decided to ‘battle’ with the board,” Kison said. “In the past, the board would throw us a bone and we’d take it. This time we kept saying that it’s not going to work.”

“The bottom line,” Nuñez said, “is we held our ground. It costs a lot of money to live. The board couldn’t justify its position because we were just asking for what everyone else in the district has.”

Defining 'living wage'

The term “living wage” describes efforts by workers to increase their compensation to a level above the poverty line.

Generally, a living wage means sufficient wages to pay for basic necessities in a given community, so the actual amount will vary depending on the cost of living.

A living wage campaign is a grassroots effort by employees to win wages that are sufficient to pay for rent, food, utilities, taxes, health care, transportation, and child care.

The guiding principle of a living wage campaign is that people who work a full-time job should not have to live below the poverty line. These campaigns hold particular promise for many education support professionals (ESP).

Living wage campaigns involve tactics and strategies that can benefit members by providing higher earnings, by increasing membership through both new organizing and internal organizing, by creating a membership more responsive to action, and by mobilizing the membership in support of legislative agendas that benefit ESP members.

The NEA’s Living Wage Campaign encompasses three elements:

• Determine the amount of a living wage in a specific region.
• Organize members behind the concept.
• Organize the community.

For more information on the Living Wage Campaign, visit www.nea.org/pay/living-wage.html.

Posted October 20, 2006