McHenry County Blog

Next Monday is the last day, June 30th, of the current Huntley School District 158 teachers contract.

It is also the next scheduled meeting date with the federal mediators and the teachers union.

Will a deal get done?

Not by Monday. That's for sure.

There is no incentive for the union's professional negotiators to come to an agreement before the contract expires.

Not when the union has the threat of a strike to extract big concessions from the school board in the days right before the new teachers are scheduled to report for their first day on the job (days before the first day for the students).

The school board has made it clear the union has yet to put a reasonable proposal on the table.

With the union starting at 35% for next year's increase in salary and benefits and the board starting with over 5%, the union is in the driver's seat to decide when real negotiations will begin.

The board's initial offer is higher than the rate of inflation. By starting out so high, board members have left themselves no way to increase to make a concession and be seen as responsive to their taxpayers.

As long as the union keeps its offer outside of the range of reality, the union can keep wasting the board members' time.

The union plays the game with rehearsed acting on the part of its negotiating team members. They should try out for community theater.

They deliberately frustrate the district's negotiating team by refusing to recognize economic reality. There is an enormous difference between meeting the technical legal requirements of what's called "good faith" bargaining and real sincere bargaining.

Do the professional negotiators for the union have to be reasonable with the mediators?

In a word, "No."

All the union has to do is talk a good game. And keep insisting that the school board needs to be making concessions. And, of course, keep insisting that its new proposal is reasonable.

Remember how Bill Clinton said it depends on how you define the word "is?"

Now think of professional union negotiators who know how to define what the word "reasonable" is.

The game for the teachers union in Huntley District 158 is stringing the mediators along until a before-go-back-to-school date for the teachers.

Of course, the federal mediators have been around the block and know how the IEA negotiators operate.

The easiest way for the mediators to induce a settlement is to insist the school board to start making concessions. This, of course, plays into the union's hand.

What a pretty position for the union to be in.

Unless you realize the union's taking a hard line position for months could have had the opposite of the intended effect--convincing board members the union leadership is being ridiculously unreasonable.

Something that is more likely to be resented and not result in giving the union the benefit of the doubt.

It's human nature to not take very seriously someone who is being ridiculously unreasonable.

Continuing to insist on a 35% increase in take-home pay and benefits would strike no one as "reasonable."

I can see where the school board could look at the union's lack of sincerity, step back and say,

"There's only so much money and, if the union wants to play the strike card, then there is nothing we can do about it."

Tomorrow: Restrictions and Limitations of Regressive Bargaining.

= = = = =
Same old picture from two years' ago of newly appointed Superintendent John Burkey telling teacher union leaders that the contract that the school board refused to make public and which they had no idea of the cost would not be approved that night as expected.

Labels: HEA, Huntley Education Association, Huntley School District 158, Teacher Negotiations, Teacher Salaries

Local papers have for years had reporters assigned to cover school districts.

So how is it newspapers never write about the stiff union dues teachers have to pay?

These dues are not optional when school districts agree to require every teacher to pay them. A school board can agree to a union shop in which even those who do not want to belong to the union must join or pay most of the dues for “representation.”

In Huntley District 158, for example, I'll bet the teachers have to pay almost $600 a year in dues.

Why so high?

Teacher unions have a huge infrastructure to support.

The Illinois Education Association gets $382 each year and the National Education Association's share is $153.

That adds up to $535.

The Huntley (HEA) union local dues are probably at least $40, maybe more.

So, you see, it's not tough to get to the neighborhood of $600 a year.


I wonder if the union's officers are exempt or have a cut rate.

In Huntley's case, with over 560 teachers and at $600 each, that would bring in well over $300,000 per year.

What does a teachers' union do with that kind of money?

And, if one is on the low end of the pay scale making, say $40,000 a year, that would be over 2% of the paycheck going to union dues.

And the $600 or so has to be paid with after-tax dollars. About $900 in salary would be needed to pay for this, considering all of the taxes taken out.

What is outrageous about the union dues is how a teachers who makes $40,000 get whacked for the same $575 (or more) as do the teachers making $80,000 or $100,000 per year.

Where is the fairness in that?

I wonder if anyone ever brings up how the lowest paid teachers get whacked such a high percentage of their salaries, while those who can afford to pay more pay the same dollar amount, but a much lower percentage of their pay.

And it would be hard not to be able to figure out that competent labor law attorneys, negotiators and analysts could be hired for a small fraction of the over $300,000 per year being extracted in union dues.

I wonder why the teachers in the more rural parts of Illinois don't revolt at being charged by the IEA and NEA the same amount as those living in the more highly paid Chicago metropolitan area.

As the income tax hike promoting IEA lobbyists push for more equity between the rich and poor school districts, does anyone but I see a disconnect in the lowest paid teachers paying the same dues as the highest paid teachers?

= = = = =
The cars are mainly those of teachers, who turned out in force for the first night of negotiations with the Huntley School Board.

Labels: HEA, Huntley Education Association, Huntley School District 158

In a press release covering negotiating sessions ending more than two weeks ago, the Huntley District 158 School Board dropped blockbuster bombs on the Huntley Education Association.

The board put the cost of the proposed HEA union demands at 35%!

I think that's worth an exclamation point, don't you?

In my first article, I was a piker. I only got as high as 22%.

The Northwest Herald printed what the teachers wanted it to publicize--7%--which the Daily Herald estimated just over 10%.

The school board also included this statement, which is obviously intended to inflame editorial writers at the NW Herald and the Daily Herald:

“The HEA brought up recent editorials in local newspapers. The HEA team told the Board that the Northwest Herald and Daily Herald editors would not be in the classroom teaching the children come August in the event of a strike.”

The NW Herald took the teachers' union to the woodshed, while the Daily Herald criticized the school board for offering too much (4.25% the first year, plus 0.25% more than the increase in the cost of living for the next three years).

The school board also “objected to the HEA proposal to reduce student time for HEA representatives...for 50 paid days off each year for union and political activity.”

In addition, the board criticized the proposal's request to limit grade school student contact time to 4.5 hours per day.

The entire press release appears below:

Consolidated School District 158
Board of Education
Negotiation sessions
April 28th – May 12th

The Huntley Education Association (HEA) and The CSD 158 Board of Education (Board) continued to meet weekly to develop a new collective bargaining agreement.

The Board is issuing this statement in compliance with Bargaining Procedure #14 which states, “…The semimonthly press release shall contain a synopsis of the negotiation meetings and the main discussion points.”

The Board and the HEA agreed to separate contract issues into “economic” and “non-economic” categories. The Board and HEA exchanged counter proposals on the “non-economic” items, but to date no items have been tentatively agreed upon.

As of the close of the May 12th negotiating session the HEA had not made any changes to their original “economic” proposal, which the Board determined would increase compensation and benefit costs to the District in excess of 35%. The Board requested during each session that the HEA provide a revised economic proposal that is “reasonable”, so negotiations for compensation and benefits can begin. The HEA stated they believed their proposal was reasonable. The Board reiterated to the HEA that the Board is committed to an agreement that does not require deficit spending.

The Board objected to the HEA proposal to reduce student contact time for HEA representatives. As proposed, the reduction in student contact time for the HEA representatives would include 50 paid days off each year for union and political activity. The Board cited concerns over taxpayers funding this activity, and students
spending so much time without their primary teacher. The Board also objected to the HEA proposed language limiting student contact time at the Elementary level to 270 minutes (4.5 hours) per day.

The HEA brought up recent editorials in local newspapers. The HEA team told the Board that the Northwest Herald and Daily Herald editors would not be in the classroom teaching the children come August in the event of a strike.

The Board and the HEA each pointed out what they believed to be violations of Bargaining Procedures by the other side. On May 6th the HEA requested, and the Board agreed, to seek the assistance of a federal mediator.

The Board reminded the HEA of Bargaining Procedure #14 which states, “Unless the parties request mediation, the parties will refrain from talking about negotiation details to the public or press…” The Board and the HEA agreed to continue meeting while awaiting mediation.

The next press release will be issued after the June 2nd session (no negotiations were scheduled for Monday, May 26th due to Memorial Day).

The picture at the top shows newly-hired Superintendent John Burkey explaining to Huntley Education Association leaders why their contract would not be approved that night.

Labels: HEA, Huntley Education Association, Huntley School District 158

In the Daily Herald's “Saturday Soapbox: Fox Valley,” the Huntley Education Association gets what seems to me to be a mild rebuke for not cooperating with the school board in issuing a contract negotiations' progress report to the public.

The mini-editorial, entitled, chides the teachers for not agreeing to “reasonable suggestions for the update.”

The editorial does note that by issuing the press release the school board broke the rules, so I guess an editorial could have been written from the exact opposite point of view, chiding the school board for not being patient enough.

The editorial writers themselves perhaps deserve the biggest rebuke.

They still cling to the falsehood that the teachers are asking for only a 10.6% salary hike.

Although they rightly call that request “ludicrous,” the Daily Herald has thus far neglected to notice that agreeing with the union request for the taxpayers to pay the 10.24% of salary now going to the Teachers Retirement Fund would more than double the take home pay of Huntley teachers.

I pointed that out almost a month ago.

The total take home pay requested is clearly well over 20%, when state and federal income tax implications are taken into account.

You see, the 10.24% taken from teachers' pay checks now is on money after taxes are withheld.

If the school board agreed to pay the 10.24% or any part thereof, the payment would not be taxable because it would be considered a tax exempt employee benefit.

Maybe I should not be so rough on the Daily Herald.

The Northwest Herald hasn't picked up on this union request either.

Labels: Daily Herald, HEA, Huntley Education Association, Huntley School District 158, Northwest Herad

What's this all about?

Salary Proposal Clarification

On the salary schedule of the Board of Education’s first proposal, most existing HEA members would receive a minimum 4.25% salary increase.

Teachers who have advanced to the maximum step in their given lane, or move from a lane that no longer exists, will receive a minimum 2% increase.

Thus, under the Board of Education’s first proposal, no current HEA member will receive less than a 2% annual increase during the term of the contract (emphasis in the original).

Who on earth would think that a school teacher would ever get a pay cut?

= = = = =
Last May the women in the picture were leaders of the Huntley Education Association. They were praising the retiring school board meetings when they made this appearance.

Labels: HEA, Huntley Education Association, Huntley School District 158, Teacher Negotiations, Teacher Salaries

There's been quite a debate on character education.

Should parents inculcate values or should teachers?

I thought of that controversy when I realized that teachers made a big deal about being able to make an extra $10,000 a year just five minutes away.

Here is what appears on page one of the Huntley Education Association's proposal:

"We want to be treated like our peers in the surrounding consolidated districts.

“We want to make sure that our great teachers don't leave our district because they can get paid $10,000 more five minutes away."

When I looked at the list of teacher contracts (click to enlarge) that were submitted to the Huntley School District 158's board of education, there was a glaring omission:Was that because Woodstock's union is not associated with the Illinois Education Association? (I remember being lobbied by Woodstock High School teacher Jim Birch on behalf of the Illinois Federation of Teachers before he started teaching at McHenry College. I assume it still is.)

So, what do Woodstock teachers get paid?

They are about five minutes from Huntley, straight up Route 47.

Here's what I found:

I looked at a teacher with 13 or 17 years of experience with a bachelor's degree, a master's degree and the highest education on the Huntley chart, which is master's, plus 45 credits. This master's, plus 45 credits, is the equivalent of 2 masters' degrees, plus an additional 13 credits. Overkill for kindergarten, first and second grade teachers, if you ask me.

This year a Huntley teacher's (with 13 years of experience) salary is:

$52,416 with a bachelor's degree

The Woodstock teacher's (with 13 years of experience)salary is:

$42,466 with a bachelor's degree

Wait a minute!

This bachelor's Huntley teacher can travel 5 minutes away to Woodstock and make about $10,000 less in salary!

In fact, the Woodstock teacher has to wait until year 17 to make only $45,607.

What about a Huntley teacher who has a master's degree?

This year, a Huntley teacher's salary (with 17 years of experience) is:

$65,106 with a master's degree

The Woodstock teacher's (with 17 years of experience) is:

$55,194 with a master's degree

This Huntley teacher can travel 5 minutes away to Woodstock and get a $10,000 lower salary!

What about a really educated, really experienced Huntley teacher having a master's degree, plus 45 credits beyond a master's degree, and 21 years of experience?

This year that Huntley teacher's (with 21 years of experience) salary is:

$80,869 with a master's degree, plus 45 additional grad school credits

The Woodstock teacher's (with 17 years of experience) salary is:

$68,102 with a master's degree plus 45 additional grad school credits

This most educated, most experienced Huntley teacher can travel 5 minutes away to Woodstock and get a $12,000 lower salary!

So should Huntley District 158 parents be concerned about

a) the Huntley teachers' analytical skills?

b) Huntley teachers' imparting values to their children about whatever you can get away with?

c) all of the above?

Or is there one standard of "truthfulness" for students in the classroom and another one for teachers outside the classroom when they are seeking big pay raises?

Even if you include the Woodstock school district's Teacher Retirement System (TRS) benefits (that Huntley Teachers want, along with over a 10% regular pay hike) given to Woodstock teachers, it's a gross misrepresentation for the Huntley teachers to say their elementary grade teachers can go five minutes away and make $10,000 more money.

The union proposal is obviously designed to create a false impression with residents. The union wants Huntley taxpayers to think that Huntley District 158 is not competitive on salaries and their teachers haven't received increases in summer school stipends for years. (See page 38.)

Oh, really.

Where's the evidence of that claim?

And comparing Huntley grade school salaries to Crystal Lake High School District 155 might not be fair either.

Teachers say they wanted to be treated with "professional respect." It's easy to find. The Huntley union puts it in the second line of its proposal.

Professionals I have dealt with tell the truth.

= = = = =
Click to enlarge the page of school district union contracts entered into the District 158 negotiating record. Cars in the District 158 administration building parking lot are mainly from teachers at an early negotiating session. The photo is of union leaders as of last May.

Labels: HEA, Huntley Education Association, Huntley School District 158, Jim Birch, McHenry County College, Woodstock Unit School District 200

First, the Daily Herald whomped both the Huntley Education Association and the Huntley School District 158 board on Sunday.

The teachers were asking way too much (double-digit pay hikes) and the school board was offering too much (more than a cost of living increase).

On Tuesday, the Northwest Herald followed suit.

In spades.


That's the headline.

The NW Herald says the double-digit salary hike requests proved the HEA was “in need of a reality check.”

“Even in good economic times, 10.5 percent salary hikes are rare,” the editorial points out. The editorial also points out the teachers' hope for total payment of health insurance premiums by the taxpayers for teachers (90% for families).

The editorial perceptively advises asking, “...how much of their (taxpayer) premiums are paid by employers?”

I would point out that the editorial writer still is underestimating the size of the requested take home pay increase.

Besides the pay hikes and 100% insurance premium payment mentioned in the editorial, the union is also asking that

• the entire 9.4% presently paid by the teachers to TRS, plus


• an additional 4/10ths of one percent for the Early Retirement option, plus


• an additional 0.84% to Teachers Health Insurance Security Fund, with after tax dollars be paid by the taxpayers. Since such a school board payment would be an employee benefit, it would be tax free.

From page 28, item 2: The board shall contribute the full TRS payment for each member of the bargaining party. (Not only in bold face type, but underlined in the teachers' union proposal.)

That's 10.24%.

Including that percentage with the pay hikes figures mentioned in both the Daily Herald and Northwest Herald stories is how I got over 20% in my original article.

Despite the underestimation of the compensation increase, the editorial notes the bad shape the economy is in, calling the teachers' request “selfish.” (See foreclosure rate in Huntley in yesterday's McHenry County Blog article.)

Like the Daily Herald editorial, school board members get dinged for offering more than the cost of living in their initial offer.

One of those commenting on the article, calling him or herself “db,” asked,

"Who wrote this editorial? Larry Snow?”

Labels: HEA, Huntley Education Association, Huntley School District 158, Northwest Herald, Teacher Negotiations, Teacher Salaries

"The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed -- for lack of a better word -- is good.

"Greed is right.

"Greed works."

Maybe there could be a softer word, but asking for a 22% pay increase for next year sounds "greedy" to me.

Not likely many of the Huntley, Lake in the Hills school district taxpayers will even think about getting that high a raise.

The District 158 HEA union's contract proposal, posted on the Huntley School District 158 web site yesterday, calls for at least a 22% pay increase for all existing teachers next year.

That's right.

Next year.

1 year.

At least a 22% pay increase.

Some teachers would get at least a 24% pay increase.

The operable phrase is "at least".

Many teachers would make much higher percentage increases. There are so many reasons for this I can't list them all in one article.

Here's one:

Kindergarten teachers would be paid more when they have the "burden" of more than 18 students in their class.

How much more? $400 for each student over 18 in a class.

The maximum class size allowed would be 23.

So for 5 more kindergarten students and a class size of 23 the kindergarten teacher would be paid an extra $2,000 per year.

The two grand would be on top of the at least 22% pay raise.

Almost sounds like piece work.

The co-president of the teachers union is kindergarten teacher Christy Henderson by the way. She is on the negotiating team.

The easiest way to illustrate and understand how the first year pay raise is 24% for some teachers is to look at the proposed pay of a teacher with 20 years of experience and at an education level of a Masters + 45 hours of college credit.

For this pay grade, the salary right off this year's salary schedule is $78,135.

For next year the salary for this employee would be at pay grade step 21, Masters + 45. It is $88,150. (A $10,015 increase)

Now you might think this is "only" a 12.8% pay increase.

Well, you would be wrong.

Because on page 28 of the union's proposal are these words:

The board shall contribute the full TRS (Teachers Retirement System) payment for each member of the bargaining party.

Teachers, you see, don't pay Social Security tax. Instead they contribute to their own retirement plan, the Teachers Retirement System).

How would you like to have no Social Security tax deducted from your pay check.

And get a great pension?

District 158's teachers union is asking for about a 10.24% AFTER TAX pay hike by having the taxpayers pony up what they are paying now.

So, in addition to 12.8% more in gross pay, for the teachers getting the $10,015 raise, they would be getting another $9,718 increase in take home pay because $9,718 in TRS deductions wouldn't be withheld from their paychecks.

The total increase (before tax $10,015 and $9,027 no TRS deduction boost) is $19,042.

Figure it out for yourself or accept the calculation below.

This $19,042 increase is a 24.4% increase over this years $78,135 salary.

But, that's not all.

The union's proposal would increase family health insurance benefits to teachers by about $7,000.

District 158 taxpayers pay 100% of many single teachers health care right now.

For family coverage taxpayers contribute $7,344 toward the premiums.

The union wants 90% of family coverage to be paid by the taxpayers, about another $7,000 "contribution". That's all, just another $7,000.

But the teachers' union proposal asserts on page 13:


Oh, really.

Perhaps others who write a story on the contract proposal will fall for that.

Worth a try, right?

Great way to frame the issue.

Maybe District 158 teachers think journalists and editors will quote these words verbatim from the proposal. (Even I did, but not without putting them into context.)

Or, maybe that gross underestimation of the percentage increase being requested will lead others to ask more probing questions about the contract.

Analysis is needed. Simply quoting documents or spokesmen from each side will not serve the public well enough.

The context is simple:

7% grossly misrepresents a minimum of 22% pay increase for all existing teachers. It's not close to the real double digit salary increases that anyone can calculate comparing the last year's salary schedules to the ones proposed for next year.

Propagandists over the years have proven that repeating a falsehood often enough often leads to the falsehood being accepted as truth.

You can read both the teachers union proposal and the District 158 proposal online at:

Huntley Education Association proposal.

District 158 proposal to teachers union.

Labels: Christy Henderson, HEA, Huntley Education Association, Huntley School District 158, Teacher Salaries