Late last week, District 15 and the District 15 Transportation Union (DTU) sent out back-to-back statements, respectively, relating to the status of contract negotiations to possibly keep busing for D15 students in-house. Simultaneously, D15 also is considering outsourcing the service.
Information on this subject, subsequently received in the last several days by Palatine Patch, causes the situation to remain somewhat, unclear.
What is verifiable is that on Monday, February 25, initial negotiations were held between D15 and the DTU. A proposal was given to DTU by D15, which was to be followed up on at a meeting on Wednesday, February 27.
On February 27, the DTU came back and asked about a number of provisions in the previous contact that had been eliminated or stricken by D15. When that question was asked, according to members and negotiators for the DTU, the continual response from D15 was that a counter-offer was needed, with no explanation provided as to what was wrong with the previous contract and/or how it could be fixed.
“We asked ourselves, how we could provide a counter-offer on something we didn’t have a solid understanding of-and when we asked what was wrong with the previous contract, we were continually asked to provide a counter-offer and offered no further details,” said Carin Ulrich, DTU president.
Meanwhile, Tim Millar, District 15 school board president, said the negotiating team was expecting a counter-offer, as is presumed in normal contract negotiations, to be presented with a first offer from the DTU, but no response was given.
“They said they had no counter offer and weren’t going to present a counter,” Millar said.
That circumstance was explained differently by Amy Kunz, Illinois Education Association-UniServ director who handles negotiations for the DTU.
“This whole experience was entirely shocking, regarding the sheer scope of what had been eliminated from our previous agreement, 90 percent of it was gone,” said Kunz. “On Wednesday, we went back, asking the district if they could tell us the story, where the frustrations were, events that had happened.”
“The district didn’t come forward with any explanation. Their response was, we need your counter-offer,” she said.
Another circumstance at the Wednesday meeting related to two pre-scheduled meeting dates to continue negotiations, one on Monday, March 4 and the second on Friday, March 8.
“[The] DTU had declined to meet and honor [meeting] dates in March, they cancelled future negotiations and said they won’t meet until mid-April,” Millar said. “We are at a loss as to why.”
Ulrich said the DTU explained to the D15 negotiating team they needed more time to craft new language for a counter-offer, and to go back to their union membership. She added that everyone at the meeting got out their calendars out and agreed on four dates in April, including April 16, 18, 23 and 30 to continue the negotiations.
Bids that are simultaneously being sought by , have not yet been provided to the DTU, according to Ulrich.
“We told District 15 we needed time to review the new bids and they were unable to let us know when the information would be available, but said they would get it to us,” Ulrich said. “That was understood.”
A final sticking point is the timeline viewed by both parties on when Reduction in Force (RIF) notices must be sent out to employees who provide transportation services if an agreement is not met.
“We have to send out notices by law to employees on whether or not they will have a job next year. We are hoping to avoid uncertaintly, and to have a contract negotiated by March,” Millar said.
Kunz said the dates on when employees are required to be notified are not as steadfast as the school district believes they need to be.
“The school district will be issuing RIF notices on April 1. The law says that if you are going to be outsourcing a group of employees, you have to give them 90 days,” Kunz said.
“They don’t have to use July 1 as that date, that date is a moving date. To say they’re going to RIF, it tells us that the school district is planning to outsource,” she said.
What the two sides do agree upon is that safety is a top priority for District 15 school children who utilize the bus services.
“This is about keeping our community safe, the safety of our children. Communication is the best answer,” Ulrich said.
“The obstacle is how to improve safety, that is where we are confused, we should have some common interest, but we are not able to have that discussion, they (DTU) are telling us they are not prepared to talk about the language in the contract to increase safety,” Millar said.
As stated, there are four dates scheduled in April between the two parties to meet again. In the meantime, the DTU plans to meet internally this month to try and formulate the counter-offer District 15 is asking for, according to Kunz.
Palatine Patch wants to know your thoughts. What do you think about this issue? Please weigh in, in our comments section below.
how in the world can they expect and demand that an agreement will be reached by March 31? It's like giving a student a book report assignment, and expecting them to finish it overnight.
And Cincinnati had the similar problem with First Student..Here is that article http://www.local12.com/news/local/story/Local-12-Investigation-Into-First-Student-Bus/7ks9PD8vPkiwgKTZPUEckw.cspx
I am a very grateful parent to the bus drivers my kids have had over the past 13 years. Most have been wonderful, thoughtful, and very responsible. This means a lot to parents especially of those with younger kids or kids with disabilities. No private company will be able to ensure the safety of the students nearly as well. D15 drivers are fellow parents, volunteers, and community members. Why would we give their jobs, at no benefit to any taxpayer, to others outside our community? This is beginning to smell of a vendetta and the D15 negotiating team does not seem to be negotiating in good faith. It's a joke to say this is about money or safety, because if it was our drivers would clearly have the upper hand in the negotiations. Nearby districts show that privatization of school busing had a negative impact; on community, and taxpayers. Just ask Schaumburg.
Time for everyone to do their job.
I went to todays meeting only two board members were there and Mr. Millar seemed lost he needed advice on how to run the meeting there were not enough member to have quaroom. Amy Kunz was reading a letter after roll call and Mr. Thompson was on the phoneand interrupted her letter he had to call the District attorney to make sure the meeting was legal pryor to him calling board members were passing notes to each other very unprofesional this is your district board a bunch of morans that dont know a thing about Roberts Rules and how to run a meeting.
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20130215/submitted/302158608/ You can also see other candidate perspective as well. The numbers changes and re bids happened in Feb. I will be lying all if i stand up and say, I have solution for current situation. Given opportunity I will make sure, I work with other board members & all parties involved and try to be part of solution not problem. For current situation I would suggest/recommend DTU given time they are requesting for counter offer if we are not getting into any legal issues time wise. You can read my comments on Early/Late school situation on Patch as well. I did sign the online petition initiated by Lisa Szczupa for early friday release , my and my wife and parents/friends i talk to feel early Friday release appropriate for given that opportunity but ultimately we have accept whatever committee decides based on resurvey results and analysis. Board members are volunteering for their time to serve community, I humbly request we respect them as individuals and focus our disagreements on issues.
Totally agree with you. Am serving and served non profit boards. If elected members have been unsuccessful for various reasons time to move on and let others take shot at it. For community the process in place every 2 yrs to elect.