Rejecting union cost diocese dearly

The following editorial appeared in the Wilkes-Barre Citizens' Voice, October 13, 2008:

Rejecting union cost diocese dearly

The decision by the bishop of the Diocese of Scranton to reject the teachers’ union may turn out to be an expensive proposition for the church.

Nearly $2 million in sick pay and severance pay is due the teachers who were laid off when the diocese rejected the union.

An arbitration decision handed down last month called for the diocese to immediately begin paying out $725,000 to 40 former teachers from the former Bishop Hoban High School.

This is one example, among many, of why the diocese should have continued to recognize the union.

Bishop cost diocese money when he opposed union

The following letter to the editor of the Wilkes-Barre Citizens' Voice appeared October 10, 2008:

Bishop Cost Diocese Money When He Opposed Union

Editor:

Once again Bishop Martino and the Diocese of Scranton have proven that the Catholic lay teachers definitely need a union.

In the 1970s, before the union, teachers had no pension, salaries were in the $7,000 per year range and medical coverage required the teacher to pay many bills up front and file for repayment which took months. Older teachers could not afford to retire and many actually worked well into their seventies until they were just too sick to go on.

In the first few years negotiations got the teachers increased salaries, better medical coverage and a pension plan. At first this plan was not the best and it was clear that retirement for older teachers was still going to be hard to manage. In those years each school was run by its own board and in an effort to help the older teachers other plans were worked out at the various schools with the help of the individual school boards. Some called for severance pay, other plans like the one at Bishop Hoban called for payment for unused sick days to help retired teachers by keeping them on the group medical plan until they could get on Medicare.

If a teacher called in sick they were paid as usual, but also a sub had to be paid for that day. If teachers did not call in sick for a minor illness the school would save the sub’s pay and the teacher would get some of the money saved for the unused sick day applied to medical coverage upon retirement. This medical coverage would also encourage older teachers to take early retirement. Since older teachers have higher salaries; getting the older teachers to retire and replacing them with young teachers with lower salaries would again save the schools money. Many of the school boards saw the logic of how money would be saved in the long run and agreed to variations on this idea.

When the bishop decided to close all the schools and lay off the teachers, the union tried to tell him that the sick day clause would kick in and all the money owed teachers would become due at once rather than being spread out over years as intended. Also it meant the older teachers with the higher salaries would be hired for the new system and the lower paid young teachers would be laid off.

The bishop would not talk with the union and although the bishop’s representatives were informed this would cause the diocese to lose money rather than save money the bishop’s plan went ahead.

Soon the union found out why the diocese didn’t worry about this. The diocese simply told the union that the diocese just wouldn’t honor the old contracts and the teachers would not get the sick day money. The union of course filed a grievance for each school where the contract was being violated and soon the lawyers on both sides were the only ones getting money.

Some of the schools realized it would be cheaper to pay the teachers instead of paying the legal costs but many did not and the process has dragged on for more than a year. In every case that has been settled the teachers have been awarded the money due.

Recently the largest school, Bishop Hoban, where the most money was involved received the arbiter’s decision. Once again the teachers were judged to be in the right. If fact the arbiter essentially said the case was open and shut, the contract clearly said the money was owed and the diocese was ordered to pay. Several other schools are still unsettled and the diocese continues to pay thousands of dollars in legal fees to fight against paying the teachers.

If Bishop Martino talked to the teachers and recognized the union none of this would have happened. A new union contract would have been worked out and the diocese would have saved thousands of dollars in legal fees. Older teachers would be retiring over the next few years and the plans of the old school boards would be saving tens of thousands of dollars instead. Before all the cases are settled perhaps as much as a million dollars in payments and legal fees will be paid by the diocese. But, there is only one bishop of Scranton and he makes the decisions. By the way, the annual diocesan appeal will be starting soon and your money is needed to pay future legal fees.

Eugene Gowisnok
Swoyersville

The High Cost of Union Busting

In November of 2006, the Diocese of Scranton announced its plans to restructure its schools. That decision simultaneously brought closure to the old schools and the bargaining relationship that several of those schools had with their in-house unions, all of which were under the umbrella of the Scranton Diocese Association of Catholic Teachers (SDACT). The closures also triggered contractual provisions in some schools requiring that the employers pay teachers money owed them for accumulated sick leave and severance pay when their employment with those schools was terminated. Knowing this to be the case, the SDACT asked the employers how they intended to make good on their contractual promises, or how a workable compromise could be arranged through collective bargaining. When no responses to the union’s requests were received, grievances were filed for breach of contract.

Those grievances progressed through their contract’s grievance procedure, eventually reaching the final step of the process – binding arbitration. At three schools (formerly Bishop O’Hara, Seton Catholic and St. Nicholas-St. Mary’s) the employers agreed to pay their teachers this earned benefit promised by their contracts before any hearings took place.

Since May of 2008, separate arbitration hearings have taken place between the parties at the former Bishop Hoban, Bishop Hafey, Bishop Neumann, Bishop O’Reilly Junior High and Bishop O’Reilly Senior High. Dates for hearings are yet to be fixed for St. Vincent’s, Wyoming Area Catholic, St. Aloysius, St. Jude’s and St. Paul’s.

On September 3, 2008, the first arbitration award was handed down, that affecting Bishop Hoban. SDACT and the teachers were the winners in the dispute. The arbitrator’s award called for the employer to immediately begin paying out $725,000 to Hoban’s 40 teachers. Moreover, there is every expectation that when the dust finally settles and all of the arbitrators have ruled, the Diocese may owe nearly two million dollars ($2,000,000) to the teachers in the 12 affected schools.

This immediate payout (and the enormous associated legal costs) will no doubt have an unfavorable impact on the Diocese and its schools. It is just one more foreseeable and avoidable consequence of a reckless policy of union-busting initiated by Bishop Martino and his advisors. When word of such financial malfeasance reaches parishioners, no doubt, as it has done so often before, the Diocese will soon attempt to spin this outcome to make it a demonstration of the union’s “greed” or the dangerous effect a union would have on the schools. This type of spin would, of course, be far from the truth.

The fact is that what was designed as a small benefit per individual employee, if properly applied under a union contract in the new school system, would have had a nearly negligible financial impact as individual teachers left the employment of the Diocese through retirement or attrition. (It must be noted, that such provisions were cooperatively designed to benefit both parties, and took their shape in negotiation as much from employer input as from the union.)

To illustrate the point, all one needs to do is to see how these provisions worked under the old union contracts in place before 2007. That is, each year, on average, a small number of teachers would retire. Those teachers were entitled to cash in the sick days that they had banked or receive severance pay – a benefit designed to augment their insufficient 401K retirement plans, and to help defray the cost of medical insurance in retirement. Viewed as an individual budget item at each school, the amount was very small and easily absorbed, as new teachers hired to replace retiring veterans came onboard at much lower salaries. In most cases, the employer would have come out ahead in this transaction. However, by its actions, the Diocese upset this agreed-upon balance by now making an expense that would have been allocated in dribs and drabs over a number of years immediately due and owing.

This situation did not have to be. This immediate and extremely large payment is a direct cost of union-busting. Bishop Martino and his advisors should be held accountable by the parishioners of the Scranton Diocese for such financial recklessness. Had the Diocese been willing to honor the Church’s own teachings by recognizing the union chosen by its own employees, the parties could have met to negotiate a new contract that would have defrayed these costs and allowed for a result in the best interests of the employer, teachers and, most importantly, the students and parents served by the schools.

The Diocese will no doubt claim that it was willing to carry over teachers’ sick days in question to the newly established schools. Never, however, were Diocesan officials willing to abide by the original contractual conditions governing payment for the sick days teachers had already earned over the course of decades of service. Nor, of course, were they willing to place language preserving the right to these earned benefits in a legally-enforceable union contract.

So, when the Diocese inevitably smears SDACT and all unions as greedy and self-serving, one only has to ask these questions: Was it SDACT or the Diocese that sought to provide a modest retirement benefit that corresponded directly to a teacher’s years of dedicated service; one which as contractually provided, would have been fiscally responsible? Was it SDACT or the Diocese, that, in a reprehensible attempt to subvert Church social justice teachings, placed an unnecessary financial burden on the community of faithful Catholics? The answers, sadly, are very clear.

The idea that what is done in the Church is ministry, and what is done in the secular world is work is just false

In the most recent edition of the Catholic Light, there appeared an article critical of the effort to pass HB 2626. Here is an excerpt from that article:

"Calling them the 'bishop’s collaborators' and 'co-ministers', Nicholas Cafardi underscored how teachers in Catholic schools are not simply employees but “office holders of the Church.” Cafardi, testified House Bill 2626, will “impede if not destroy this co-ministry” of the Catholic Church. The Pennsylvania House Labor Relations Committee hosted a hearing Sept. 18 in Wilkes-Barre on the bill. '(The legislation) would require the diocesan bishop to use the mechanisms of the state to deal with what is not, at base, a secular but rather a religious and spiritual relationship,' he stated. 'Should the proposed legislation be adopted, the church-state conflicts that it would propagate are enormous.' House Bill 2626 would amend the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act to specifically include lay teachers and other employees of religious employers such as Catholic schools."

Yet, Rev. Sinclair Oubre, a noted Canon Lawyer and Director of the Catholic Labor Network, provided testimony at the August 18th hearing on the bill which claimed that the above position taken by the Scranton Diocese was disingenuous. Here's what Father Oubre had to say:

Ministry vs. Work: A False Distinction

"In an effort to maintain control, or to maintain a union-free environment in Catholic institutions, theories are put forth that try to make the false distinction that what is done in a church institution is ministry, and that which is done in the secular world is work. That distinction has no basis in Catholic social teaching, or in the many actual instances where workers in Catholic schools, hospitals and even Vatican departments are represented by unions, and participate in collective bargaining.

When both the law and the teaching of the Church are examined, ministry and work are never divided. The idea that what is done in the Church is ministry, and what is done in the secular world is work is just false.

Since ministry is the means by which many in the Catholic Church make their living, church documents and canon law both recognize that care must be taken to see that proper remuneration and social security is extended to those who carry out ministry, and especially those in the laity.

Canon 1287 2° directs administrators of goods to:

“Pay a just and decent wage to employees so that they are able to provide fittingly for their own needs and those of their dependents.”

In the United States bishops’ pastoral letter Economic Justice for All, the responsibility of providing an adequate living is laid out.

“351. We‑bishops commit ourselves to the principle that those who serve the Church‑laity, clergy, and religious‑should receive a sufficient livelihood and the social benefits provided by responsible employers in our nation.”

This commitment to meet a minimum level of dignity for church employees manifests itself by the Church allowing itself to be included into a number of federal and state laws. These would include the federal minimum wage, FICA, American With Disability Act, federal wage and hour laws and many state and local building codes.

The theory that some Catholic teachings should be enshrined in civil law, while others should not, seems to lack any logic. Since those who minister in the Church, work for the Church, and those who work in the Church do ministry, any civil law that enshrines the Catholic Church’s teaching, and is not contrary to that teaching, is an assistance to the Church in carrying out its ministry.

Including the right to organize and collective bargaining in the Pennsylvania civil law is no different than covering church employees through minimum wage and wage and hour laws. In both cases, the civil law is codifying what the Church already teaches, promotes, and should be binding on itself."

Counter-signs of an effective bishop

The following excerpt is from an article in the journal of the National Institute for the Renewal of the Priesthood, September, 2008:

http://www.jknirp.com/cathmin.htm

Archbishop George Niederauer of San Francisco keynoted the conference on Wednesday, which brings together rectors, pastors, and other leaders from cathedrals around the country. He based his reflections on his episcopal motto, drawn from the words of Jesus in Mark 10: “To serve and to give.”

Niederauer joked that he had managed to go 13 years as a bishop without ever basing a talk on his motto -- he was proud, he said, “of that kind of humility.” Yet he always knew the day would come when a group asked him to speak on their area of expertise, and he would fall back on the motto in the absence of any other way to get into the subject. “You are that group, and this is that talk,” he deadpanned.

Niederauer argued that cathedrals should be models of “servant leadership,” rooted in service and humility rather than self-aggrandizement and power. He said the qualities of a good cathedral are the same as those of a good bishop, which he listed as “courage, fidelity, strength, zeal, pastoral outreach, accessibility, defending the rights and welfare of all the faithful, humility, patience in the face of adversity, and concern for the entire community of God’s children.”

The “counter-signs” of an effective bishop or cathedral, on the other hand, according to Niederauer, include becoming “isolated, arrogant, inaccessible, all take and no give, feared and dreaded rather than loved and respected.”

Some Thoughts on the HB 2626 Hearing

During the recent House hearing on HB 2626 at Wilkes University, the truth shone forth. This, despite the arcane and convoluted arguments to the contrary on the part of a canon lawyer, a law school dean, counsel for the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference and assorted Scranton Diocese officials who sought to explain how many bishops could dance on the head of a pin.

The legislators conducting the hearing repeatedly asked those gentlemen clear and logical questions concerning Bishop Martino’s unwillingness to abide by Church teachings, as well as the disparity between Martino and his fellow Pennsylvania bishops with regard to Catholic school unionization. The Church’s minions responded to each and every query with the smug certainty that their legalistic, formulaic and very elastic interpretation of Church law would prove convincing beyond refutation.

When unionized teachers from other Pennsylvania dioceses testified in simple, straightforward fashion about their appreciation of and loyalty toward their unions, the legislators understood the difference between what the Church preaches and how it can stand Church teaching on its head whenever and wherever an individual bishop deems it opportune. The Church, the minions held, is indeed universal in its teachings, but, they maintained in the next breath, it is not monolithic when it comes to the manner in which individual bishops can choose to implement said teachings.

Thus, one hundred years’ of encyclicals, pastorals and bishops’ scholarly letters can be tossed aside by an inaccessible bishop with the power of a 14th century baron. Who has the power to tell the bishop that he is wrong? No one, it seems, except the SDACT and the House, Senate and Governor of the State of Pennsylvania. Thankfully, Medieval mindsets do not play well in 21st century America when the basic rights and freedoms of individuals are at issue.

Representative Thomas Blackwell (West Philadelphia) separated the chaff from the grain very nicely when he likened the plight of Catholic school teachers to African-Americans during the Civil Rights Era. When officialdom hides behind a power structure and attempts to deny equality to a category of citizens for self-serving and unjust reasons, legislative action is needed to redress an ugly, un-American and un-Christian stance.

When it became apparent to all those in attendance at the hearing that the legislators weren’t buying what the Church was selling, speakers in support of the Bishop’s position went negative. The legislators were told, for example, that if allowed to unionize and negotiate contracts, teachers would seek a clause which would allow them to refuse to accompany students to Mass during the school day. The implication here suggests that teachers would indeed engage in such a tactic.

One cannot hear such despicable accusations without thinking of totalitarian governments' tactic of the “big lie” – a lie so preposterous and contrary to fact but repeated so often that it begins to gain traction among those without recourse to the facts, or those predisposed to believe it in the first place. The response of the crowd, many of whom were Catholic teachers and parents, was a predictable and loud indignation.

When you think about it though, the day belonged to the teachers. Such ad hominem attacks not only reflected the desperation of Church officials, but they also served to solidify the opinion of the legislators who see this as a simple issue of fairness and justice for their constituents. With our continued support of the SDACT and our elected state legislators, we will prevail. Justice is within our grasp. Let us not falter now.

Down a coal mine in search of high ground?

The following editorial appeared in the Wilkes-Barre Times Leader, September 23, 2008:

Down a coal mine in search of high ground?

The public hearing on House Bill 2626 held last Thursday had a lot more spark than the one in Harrisburg Aug 18 ( hmmm ... two hearings on the 18th of two months ...does the Labor Relations Committee have a thing for the number?). But that was surely because supporters of the bill, which would potentially make it easier for teachers in Catholic schools to unionize, had a clear home field advantage. The latest hearing was held at Wilkes University, and right around 3 o'clock the room started filling with those who favored the bill - teachers, their families and parents.

Some favorite lines that I didn't' get into the newspaper story:

"All Catholic teachers in Pennsylvania are one bishop away from what happened in the Diocese of Scranton." Rita Schwartz, head of both the Philadelphia and national associations that represent Catholic teacher unions. She was, of course, referring to Bishop Joseph Martino's decision to reject unionization after schools were restructured, which in turn led to the lengthy campaign to reverse that decision, which led to Rep. Eddie Day Pashinski's decision to introduce House Bill 2626.

"The record is, essentially, Lions 8, Christians 0." Schwartz giving her slant on how teacher grievances actually shake out in Catholic schools, because they are filed with boards and groups heavily composed of Church officials or lay people appointed by Church officials. The bill would put such grievances in the purview of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board.

"We're not coal barons." Robert O'Hara, executive director of the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference, the public relations arm of bishops statewide. O'Hara was alluding to frequent (accurate) claims by union supporters that the Catholic Church has long been an advocate of worker rights, including unionization. The Church has countered that the right is not absolute, and that treatment of employees today has no comparison to treatment of many employees, including coal miners, decades ago that prompted unionization then.

"Are you the Christians or the Lions?" Pashinski (I think, I can't find a credit in my notes) joking with O'Hara. I was amused, but it It didn't seem to go over too well.

"It appears to me you are cherry picking what state laws you will adhere to." Rep. Frank Andrews Shimkus, to O'Hara and two other representatives of the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference who testified. Shimkus noted that Catholic schools accept regulations requiring public school districts to provide bus transportation to private school students, and other aid given to private schools like school nursing, subsidized lunches, and special education services. O'Hara and his companions countered that those services were to students, not schools.

"Is there a Vatican union? ... "There is a Vatican union." Pashinski making one of his stronger points during a somewhat testy debate with O'Hara and his fellow testifiers, who countered that the Church is not monolithic and circumstances vary. They also argued that "Italy is heavily unionize." My opinion? They lost on this point, due to lack of preparation.

'My pastor would probably say, 'stay out of this.' But I work for the people of Pennsylvania." Rep. Thomas Blackwell, delivering one of many lines that won applause. He said multiple times that he felt the government should, in general, stay out of religious issues, but added that this case seemed to call for state action.

"The leader of our diocese has to come out of that ivory tower and say 'How are we going to deal with this?' " Rep. Ken Smith, Dunmore, delivering another applause-evoking line that reflected what has been by far the biggest complaint by many in this issue, that Bishop Joseph Martino has seemed aloof and remote in the whole debate.

"My wife and my family can't sit back and wonder if I'll have certain rights, certain guarantees, or even a career." Teacher and union activist William Smedley, after stressing he initially rejected the idea of unionizing Catholic teachers as inconceivable.

"I understand the new retirement policy is you retire at 80 and they make you a priest." Smedley again, who said he expects to "be buried" at Holy Redeemer High School, where he insists he loves working.

"When there is a mine disaster you get mine safety legislation. We have had a disaster here." Attorney Martin Milz, son of local union president Michael Milz, testifying of the success of similar legislation in other states.

"I'm a newly appointed superintendent, so please have mercy on me." Mary Rochford, Archdiocese of Philadelphia Superintendent of Catholic Schools, who gave (as far as I'm concerned) effective counter-arguments against issues raised by Schwartz.

"If someone doesn't come to us, we can't know what we don't know." Rochford, responding to claims that some teachers in the archdiocese are fearful of speaking out for unionization or regarding other employment issues.

"I will be brief so you can go out and say you heard from one attorney who spoke less than two minutes." Attorney James Katz, who went on to offer some strong testimony in support of the Constitutionality of HB2626, and success of similar laws elsewhere. Katz, alas, did not fulfill his promise, speaking for something closer to 10 minutes.

My bottom line take?

If -- as I argued in an Aug. 20 blog -- the diocese had finally gained some claim to a higher moral ground during the first hearing (thanks to non-diocesan speakers who made effective arguments the diocese itself has failed to put forth) that high ground may well have been lost last week, as the union put together a more thorough and, from my seat, effective presentation of teachers, union supporters and attorneys who repeatedly countered most arguments by the opposition with strong points that were never adequately rebutted.

Having the home court advantage may have helped, but having done their homework helped more.

Stay tuned, the fight isn't over yet.

Tuesday September 23, 2008 12:52 PM
Posted by Mark Guydish mguydish@timesleader.com