Bargaining Update 072326 and 072726

Negotiations between the Manatee Education Association (MEA) and the School District of Manatee County remained focused on employee compensation, health insurance costs, and TSIA money during bargaining sessions held July 22, July 23 and July 27. While the two sides reached common ground on some procedural issues, significant differences remain over salary increases for teachers and paraprofessionals.

The three sessions produced extensive debate over how available funding should be distributed, the impact of rising health insurance costs on employees, and concerns about retention of experienced educators and paraprofessionals.

MEA entered bargaining with a proposal that would provide a 3% raise for all teachers, while also maintaining degree supplements and increasing retention payments for veteran educators. The union proposed continuing retention payments of $2,100 for employees with 16 or more years of service and $3,600 for those with 25 or more years.

For paraprofessionals, the union sought a step increase plus 50-cent-per-hour wage increase and revisions to salary schedules that would provide greater differentiation between steps and recognize long-term service through a retention supplement for paras with 10+ years of experience.

Throughout the negotiations, MEA Chief Negotiator Bruce Proud argued that compensation increases should be evaluated based on their effect on employees' take-home pay rather than on total district expenditures that include benefits costs.

Proud repeatedly expressed concern that projected health insurance increases could outweigh salary gains for some employees, especially those with family coverage.

"We know that the 10% insurance increase will exceed the increase in salaries," Proud told district negotiators during the July 23 session.

Chief Negotiator Mark West maintained that compensation proposals must remain within available funding and repeatedly emphasized the fiscal challenges facing the district.

 West noted that district officials spend between 75% and 80% of their operating budget on personnel costs and argued that compensation decisions must be made within those financial realities.

The district's compensation proposal evolved over the three sessions but largely focused on distributing available funding as evenly as possible among employees while remaining within authorized budget limits.

On July 23, district negotiators proposed:

MEA countered the district’s proposal with a 2.5% raise for all teachers including performance (advance) degrees and supplements. Both the union and District proposed continuing retention payments of $2,100 for employees with 16 or more years of service and $3,600 for those with 25 or more years.

For paraprofessionals, the union sought a step increase plus 45-cent-per-hour wage increase and revisions to salary schedules that would provide greater differentiation between steps and recognize long-term service through a retention supplement for paras with 10+ years of experience.

On July 27, West confirmed that management had not yet had an opportunity to return to the School Board for further direction and therefore lacked authorization to increase the offer.

One of the biggest developments during the bargaining sessions involved Teacher Salary Increase Allocation (TSIA) funding.

Earlier disagreements centered on how TSIA funds should be calculated and whether certain state allocations for Florida Empowerment Scholarship dollars were subtracted should be excluded before distribution.

During the July 23 session, district officials indicated they did not want the issue to become a stumbling block and revised calculations using total TSIA funding after charter school allocations.

As discussions continued, the parties worked jointly on a Memorandum of Understanding outlining procedures for verifying teacher eligibility and distributing funds.

On July 27, an MOU was signed regarding the process and timeline for verifying eligibility for TSIA dollars as well as a method to determine the amount that would be available.

Health insurance remained a recurring topic throughout all three sessions.

MEA argues that increases in premiums and out-of-pocket costs could erase salary gains for many employees. MEA repeatedly requested additional information regarding employees who have reached certain thresholds within the health plans to better understand the financial impact on members.

District officials acknowledged the concern and said they were working to obtain additional data.

Following a caucus on July 27, Proud informed management that the union remained unable to support the offer because of the combined effect of salary increases, insurance premiums and increased employee costs under district health plans.

Another major discussion centers on paraprofessional pay.

MEA’s position is that the small steps of a nickel at the first 10 steps of the salary schedule have created compression and have done little to encourage employees to stay with the district. Union leaders cited turnover rates among paraprofessionals and advocated for structural changes to the salary schedules as well as across-the-board increases.

District officials reviewed potential revisions to paraprofessional schedules but returned to a proposal featuring a uniform 21-cent-per-hour increase plus a step advancement.

The district said additional schedule modifications would require resources that were not currently available within the authorized compensation package.

The parties also discussed working conditions for Exceptional Student Education (ESE) teachers, particularly those serving as case managers.

MEA raised concerns that some ESE Pre-K teachers are expected to complete Individual Education Program (IEP) paperwork and case-management responsibilities during student nap time rather than during dedicated planning periods.

District administrators responded that teachers should have planning opportunities while paraprofessionals supervise students during those periods and stated they were willing to clarify expectations for principals if necessary.

The discussion did not result in contract language changes but prompted both sides to continue examining the issue.

By the end of the July 27 session, neither side introduced a new compensation proposal.

MEA indicated that it remained in the same position as the previous bargaining session and could not support the district's offer. District representatives said they wanted an opportunity to meet with School Board members before returning to the bargaining table.

Rather than meeting again immediately, the parties agreed to postpone negotiations until after the district’s bargaining team met with the Board.

The next bargaining session was scheduled for Aug. 5 at 5 p.m. at the School
Support Center in a room TBA, where both sides are expected to revisit all unresolved compensation and benefit issues.