Posted on October 16th, 2009 by Tim Eavenson | 2 Comments »
Filed under: ., Labor Law, Schools | 
In Illinois, as elsewhere, the state’s school districts have their own Labor Relations Acts and Boards. Illinois teachers’ unions are certified, and their claims of unfair labor practices are heard, by the Illinois Education Labor Relations Board (or IELRB).
It has been that way for many years, and while the body of decisions by the IELRB grows, it’s you’d think that the jurisdiction of the Board is rarely questioned. Schools are in, everyone else is out.
Of course, no issue of labor & employment law is ever really settled. Even whether schools are within the jurisdiction of the Education Labor Relations Board.
When is a School a School?
A union in Kane County filed with the IELRB to acknowledge majority representation of the teachers of a charter school, and the Board certified the union. The school took issue, arguing that the IELRB does not have jurisdiction over charter schools because they’re not “educational employers” as defined by the IELRA. The Board disagreed, and the school appealed.
The school’s argument was that the Charter School Act exempts charter schools from “other [s]tate laws and regulations under the School Code”, and that this exemption included the Education Labor Relation Act. The union countered that the IELRA was not an education law, but rather a law about how an employer that happened to be a school dealt with its employees.
The Fourth District Appellate Court sided with the school. The court separated the phrase excluding charter schools from certain state laws into two interesting parts: “other state laws” and “regulations under the School Code”. The court pointed to non-education laws that are specifically mentioned in the Charter Schools Act, saying that the legislature clearly did not want to limit the exlusions to education-related laws:
…to conclude that charter schools are not exempt from the Education Labor Act would be to assume the legislature overlooked the Education Labor Act when it drafted the list of specific exceptions. We reject this assumption and conclude that the omission of the Education Labor Act from the list of specified exceptions is not somehow a legislative oversight.
Questions of Intent
The court’s opinion notes that both sides, along with numerous other interested parties, wrote briefs analyzing the legislature’s intent in drafting and passing (or opposing) the Charter School Act, as a way of proving that the schools should or shouldn’t be under the Board’s purview. The court did a decent job of sidestepping the political issue inherent in that discussion by holding that the statute was plainly written, and refusing to consider what the intent of specific legislators was in drafting it.
A Moot Point?
The court’s opinion ends with a note that a recent legislative change specifically states that charter schools are “educational employers”. The law isn’t in effect until next year, though, so the court said it couldn’t apply to the case before the court. Nonetheless, it seems that one major difference between charter schools and typical public schools – the lack of unionized teachers - may be in flux in the coming years.
At the very least, it looks like next year we won’t be questioning whether schools are under the jurisdiction of the IELRB.
Posted on June 2nd, 2009 by Tim Eavenson | 2 Comments »
Filed under: ., Labor Law |
In response to the story I posted about the LA Police Protective League asking its private equity fund, Platinum Equity, to oust the editorial staff of the newspaper it acquired, I got the following email from Eric Rose at Englander & Associates, the PR firm working with the LA Police & Fire Union, along with a copy of the original letter sent to Platinum (linked here).
Here is Mr. Rose’s response:
You are right, The Los Angeles Police Protective League raised some eyebrows across the state by calling for replacement of the editorial staff of the San Diego Union -Tribune. Who is a law enforcement labor organization to ask for such an action, and why did they ask for it?
First, like so many police officers, the men and women of the Los Angeles Police and Fire Departments are now part owners of the San Diego Union-Tribune by virtue of the investment of $35 million of their retirement dollars into Platinum Equity, the private equity fund which bought the Union-Tribune. They joined other public employees such as school teachers in Pennsylvania, Louisiana and New Mexico in providing the investment capital for Platinum Equity.
The Union-Tribune Editorial Board is one of the most vociferous anti-public employee pages in the State. A prime example is its near weekly attempt to lay all financial woes in the state at the feet of public employees with little regard for the facts. A case in point is the current issue with respect to pension funding.
Never once does the editorial page mention that a main cause of pension fund shortfalls across the state was the failure by public entities to make annual required contributions to their pension funds. The diverted funds were used for other projects, depriving pension funds of money when the stock market was rising and the money invested with the most impact.
Take the City of San Diego as an example. The Union-Tribune’s own staff reporters (not its opinion writers) found the problems began in 1996, when instead of contributing to the pension fund, money was diverted to pay for the costs of the 1996 Republican National Convention and expanding Qualcomm Stadium. An independent auditor wrote that City officials encouraged reducing the “flow of money to the City’s pension system in order to benefit the City while creating no compensating benefit for the City Pension system.”
Where was the “watchdog” Union-Tribune Editorial Board when these shenanigans were going down? Partying like there was no tomorrow. The Union-Tribune’s $500,000 party on San Diego Bay during the Republican Convention is still remembered as a highlight of the event. Strangely, no editorials were written questioning the wisdom of diverting pension fund money to subsidize the Convention’s cost.
Likewise, nary a word was heard from the Union-Tribune’s Editorial Board when in the late 1990′s the County of San Diego went nearly six years without making a payment, over a full payment to the contribution system. Nor were there concerned editorials when during the same time period the State, as well as numerous cities and counties, went four years without making annual contributions to CALPERS—or when starting in 1990, the State went 18 years without paying any money into the UC pension system.
No, in the eyes of the current Editorial Board, it is only “overpaid” police officers, fire fighters, teachers and other public employees who are responsible. Real solutions will require all of us to work together. America is the greatest nation on earth and has overcome two world wars, financial depressions, and countless other challenges with our greatest assets-our willingness to work together and our ingenuity.
The editorial position of the Union-Tribune fairly represented the views of its owners prior to the purchase by Platinum Equity. It’s repeated bashing of police officers, firefighters, teachers and other public employees doesn’t represent the views of its current owners. And, if you think that editorial pages don’t reflect the views of their owners—-how many editorials have the Times written critical of Sam Zell and the ripple effects from his financial problems after he bought the Times?
Public safety employees will not tolerate the continued attacks of our dutiful law enforcement, firefighters and teachers who have invested their lives and in some cases given their lives in serving our communities. As investors in Platinum Equity, it is our responsibility to uphold the promises we have made to our various members and vigilantly protect them from undue attacks.
It is obvious that their constant criticisms and abhorrence of public employees will continue and, they have no intent to be part of the solution. It is for these reasons that the LAPPL on behalf of the public safety community asked the leaders of Platinum Equity to replace the editorial staff of the Union-Tribune with people who will offer balanced, well reasoned, and solution orientated pieces.
CE obviously doesn’t have a dog in this hunt, but if you want to take sides on any of the myriad issues here (free press, union/equity ownership, etc.), feel free to have it out in the comments.
Posted on May 29th, 2009 by Tim Eavenson | No Comments »
Filed under: ., Employee Benefits, Labor Law |
by allaboutgeorge (flickr)
Last week, I posted a summary of a LERA presentation on the benefits of private equity firms using labor pension funds to invest in struggling businesses.
One of the upshots discussed at the lunch was that the pension funds had greater control over the use of their investments.
Instead of just being a faceless, unimportant investor, the fund’s money would be used to direct an individual business’s trajectory, making it a win-win for the union. The pension money grows, and the investment advances the agenda of the union.
At least one union is stretching the limits of that theory.
Earlier this month, the Beverly-Hills-based private equity group Platinum Equity bought the struggling San Diego Union-Tribune for an undisclosed amount. Usually, what happens after that is that the private firm just reorganizes or breaks up the company, and then sells it for a profit, which satisfies its investors.
In this case, though, the Los Angeles Police and Fire Pension System has upwards of $30 million invested in Platinum, and one of the unions contributing to that pension fund, the Los Angeles Police Protective League, wants a little more for its money than double-digit ROI . From the San Diego News Network:
[T]he union that represents Los Angeles police officers is demanding the ouster of the newspaper’s editorial page staff….
In a letter to Platinum Equity Chief Executive Tom Gores, Los Angeles Police Protective League President Paul M. Weber said the Los Angeles Police and Fire Pension system is now a Union-Tribune part-owner because of its $30 million investment in Platinum.
The union is complaining about editorials in the Union-Tribune that have repeatedly criticized the amount of money going into San Diego’s public employee pension plans. The union says that it’s investment makes it part owner of the paper, and therefore the editorials are out of line, and the staff should be replaced.
How exactly one contributor of one investor of the company that eventually bought the newspaper becomes part owner is sort of lost on me. And, apparently, on Platinum:
In a recent interview with the Union-Tribune, a Platinum executive indicated that the union was wasting its time because Platinum has no editorial agenda.
But the union does make one interesting point. This idea of “control” is a selling point for the private equity funds. The news story has the following quote from the union’s letter to Platinum:
“When you went to pension funds seeking their investment dollars, you promised to invest that money for the benefit of those funds and their members… One way you can fulfil that promise is to dismiss the Editorial Staff of the San Diego Union-Tribune.”
In this case, of course, the argument is meaningless because the union isn’t the investor, the pension fund is. But if a pension fund decided to get militant, who would be the final decisionmaker? The private equity fund, for sure. That’s why we separate funds from their beneficiaries – so fiduciaries can focus on the greater financial good, without getting bogged down in principle and moral directives.
But that makes the private equity funds’ “control” selling point a fallacy from the start, right?
