IEA President Ken Swanson sent out an email to all IEA Board of Directors this afternoon. A number of BOD members forwarded it to me.
On the issue of the right to strike, Swanson says:
The deadline to be finished with the process led by Senator Kimberly Lightford and the Senate Educational Reform Committee is now Tuesday afternoon. There are still some unresolved issues, many that will come to resolution before Tuesday – one big issue that may not be resolved – the right to strike.
The parties have fundamental differences about the right to strike. The union team, IEA, IFT, and CTU have committed to each other that if one group’s right to strike is threatened, we will all come together in unison to fight it. We have been working hand in glove together for three months, and we are not about to change that strategy now. We will need your help, and our members’ help as well, if the final bill contains the elimination of the right to strike for anyone. We will know more Monday or Tuesday and will keep you updated with daily emails.
It appears that that the coalition of the CTU, the IFT and the IEA has stiffened the spine of the IEA in the negotiating process. Before the official party line has been that if you say no to something, you can’t sit at the table. Now the leadership has discovered that saying no to the attempts to take away our right to strike doesn’t preclude participating in negotiations. In fact, in seems to have ensured our presence.
But what have we given away?
The Swanson letter is vague yet disturbing.
At this moment, what it appears we will come away with are agreements that we believe will improve teaching and learning in our state, and, therefore, will strengthen the long-term ability of our members to negotiate good contracts.
We also expect to have agreements on changes in procedures that will give non-tenured teachers more job security than they have ever had.
That sounds like spin. Give non-tenured teachers more job security? Uh. How does that impact LIFO (last in, first out) and seniority protection during RIFs?
We know there are a lot of concerns about the proposed changes in the law that relate to tenure acquisition, RIF and recall, and tenure dismissal.
You bet there are Ken!
I strongly suggest that you give your Region Chair a call or send an email if you are concerned about tenure, RIFs and seniority rights.
Things will happen quickly the next few days. Keep your nose open and your eyes wide.
Fred Klonsky 
What concerns me Fred is that in negotiations, you give something you get something. Wouldn’t you think that we wouldn’t agree to one part of an agreement without getting what we want in another part? We always negotiated packages which weren’t approved or officially agreed to unless the entire package was approved. Nothing was official until all parts had been agreed on. I kept reading Ken’s letter and didn’t see anything that indicated that there was a relationship between what we had agreed to and what we hadn’t agreed to. I hope I just misread that.
I hope so too, Ed. When candidates appeared before our Region at the RA, I would ask, “What is the line in the sand for you? What would you just say no to?” And candidate after candidate would say, “The right to strike.” And I would ask, “But how can you isolate the right to strike from what you are bargaining FOR?” The right to strike, like collective bargaining itself, is about something. You strike for something. You bargain for something. If we are prepared to give away the store, but stand firm on the right to strike, it has no meaning.