Oakland Teachers’ Contract: Let’s Do the Math and Learn the Lessons

The original demand of the union, the Oakland Teachers’ Association, was for a 12% raise over three years.  Management, the Oakland Unified School District, countered with a raise of 8.5%.  Rounding to two decimal places of a percent, management’s offer amounted to 2.83% per year, while the union’s demand was 4% per year.

The settlement was for a one time bonus of 3%, plus 11% over four years.  So over the course of a four year contract, that comes out to 11.75%, since 3% is spread over four years.  This is about 2.94% per year.

So this settlement was .11% more than what management offered, and 1.06% less than what the union asked for.  Roughly speaking, the settlement was ten times closer to management’s original offer than the union’s original demand.  Everything else contained in this settlement are promises that come with caveats.

How is this a victory? This strike was characterized by parent solidarity that was reported by the union to be 97% and management to be 94%. Whichever figure is more accurate, the solidarity of the parents, coupled with undeniable support from the community, was overwhelming.  Why didn’t this translate into better numbers?

From the outset, the union instructed picket captains to keep a lid on militancy.  No blockage of cars, whether those of parents, management, or scabs, was allowed.  No engagement of anyone was permitted, although some parents were handed a list of alternative day care sites and conversation with teachers ensued.

I witnessed and participated in one temporary blockage of a scab; but it was ended by a picket captain after a visit by a cop and a union representative.  The cop refused to order me to move, instead protesting that the union had agreed to no blockage of cars.  I finally moved when the picket captain insisted and pulled me by the arm.

At another picket there was a high school, an elementary school, and a charter school sharing the same complex.  Since the charter school might have been inadvertently affected, no picketing took place – just a sidewalk gathering to talk and munch treats.  The possibility of connecting the struggle against charter schools with the teachers’ strike was  present, but rejected.

At one school that was deemed most “problematic” a principal accelerated her car while crossing the picket line in an attempt to intimidate picketers.  We were told that no photograph of that would be permitted, in spite of it being a crime.  A male parent came out to browbeat a female picketer, hurling racial insults.  When one picketer came to her defense, he was admonished for using the word “ignorant”. What was noteworthy about this particular picket was that any common sense concern for the safety of pickets against physical hostility from management and their defenders was absent.

Certainly there were rationales for the strategy employed, such as the need to have constructive relations with parents.  But consider the fact that alternative care was available, and these were the few parents who chose to not use it.  In too many instances this was coupled with overt hostility, sometimes racially charged – a cynical and shameful maneuver by management, who encouraged at least some of it.

Perhaps most telling was that the pickets were tightly controlled by the union, not with a strategy to “shut it down”, as one union official reportedly advocated; but instead to ensure that no tactics that might have guarded against “picket fatigue” might be employed.  No matter what lack of militancy might have been present on the part of the picketers, any militancy that did come up was quickly tamped down by the union.

If this contract is ratified, and it looks likely that it will be, some strategic consideration needs to be done.  We are told what a victory it is, but simple math shows us that it is not.  A proposal regarding a funding source that I submitted to the union, that of the fees from the Port of Oakland that is politically controlled by the city administration, be used, went unanswered.

This strike was representative of a pattern seen too often, that of a union that feigns militancy while those who are close to the action – or lack of it – see the opposite.  The specifics of how to react to this will certainly be debated as much as what actually happened; but we should be honest in saying that this is not the victory that could have been achieved, and a debate on how to do better moving forward needs to occur.

More articles by:


June 18, 2019
John McMurtry
Koch-Oil Big Lies and Ecocide Writ Large in Canada
Robert Fisk
Trump’s Evidence About Iran is “Dodgy” at Best
Yoav Litvin
Catch 2020 – Trump’s Authoritarian Endgame
Thomas Knapp
Opposition Research: It’s Not Trump’s Fault That Politics is a “Dirty” Game
Medea Benjamin - Nicolas J. S. Davies
U.S. Sanctions: Economic Sabotage that is Deadly, Illegal and Ineffective
Gary Leupp
Marx and Walking Zen
Thomas Hon Wing Polin
Color Revolution In Hong Kong: USA Vs. China
Howard Lisnoff
The False Prophets Cometh
Michael T. Klare
Bolton Wants to Fight Iran, But the Pentagon Has Its Sights on China
Steve Early
The Global Movement Against Gentrification
Dean Baker
The Wall Street Journal Doesn’t Like Rent Control
Tom Engelhardt
If Trump’s the Symptom, Then What’s the Disease?
June 17, 2019
Patrick Cockburn
The Dark Side of Brexit: Britain’s Ethnic Minorities Are Facing More and More Violence
Linn Washington Jr.
Remember the Vincennes? The US’s Long History of Provoking Iran
Geoff Dutton
Where the Wild Things Were: Abbey’s Road Revisited
Nick Licata
Did a Coverup of Who Caused Flint Michigan’s Contaminated Water Continue During Its Investigation? 
Binoy Kampmark
Julian Assange and the Scales of Justice: Exceptions, Extraditions and Politics
John Feffer
Democracy Faces a Global Crisis
Louisa Willcox
Revamping Grizzly Bear Recovery
Stephen Cooper
“Wheel! Of! Fortune!” (A Vegas Story)
Daniel Warner
Let Us Laugh Together, On Principle
Brian Cloughley
Trump Washington Detests the Belt and Road Initiative
Weekend Edition
June 14, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Michael Hudson
Trump’s Trade Threats are Really Cold War 2.0
Bruce E. Levine
Tom Paine, Christianity, and Modern Psychiatry
Jason Hirthler
Mainstream 101: Supporting Imperialism, Suppressing Socialism
T.J. Coles
How Much Do Humans Pollute? A Breakdown of Industrial, Vehicular and Household C02 Emissions
Andrew Levine
Whither The Trump Paradox?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: In the Land of 10,000 Talkers, All With Broken Tongues
Pete Dolack
Look to U.S. Executive Suites, Not Beijing, For Why Production is Moved
Paul Street
It Can’t Happen Here: From Buzz Windrip and Doremus Jessup to Donald Trump and MSNBC
Rob Urie
Capitalism Versus Democracy
Richard Moser
The Climate Counter-Offensive: Secrecy, Deception and Disarming the Green New Deal
Naman Habtom-Desta
Up in the Air: the Fallacy of Aerial Campaigns
Ramzy Baroud
Kushner as a Colonial Administrator: Let’s Talk About the ‘Israeli Model’
Mark Hand
Residents of Toxic W.Va. Town Keep Hope Alive
John Kendall Hawkins
Alias Anything You Please: a Lifetime of Dylan
Linn Washington Jr.
Bigots in Blue: Philadelphia Police Department is a Home For Hate
David Macaray
UAW Faces Its Moment of Truth
Brian Cloughley
Trump’s Washington Detests the Belt and Road Initiative
Horace G. Campbell
Edward Seaga and the Institutionalization of Thuggery, Violence and Dehumanization in Jamaica
Graham Peebles
Zero Waste: The Global Plastics Crisis
Michael Schwalbe
Oppose Inequality, Not Cops
Ron Jacobs
Scott Noble’s History of Resistance
Olivia Alperstein
The Climate Crisis is Also a Health Emergency
David Rosen
Time to Break Up the 21st Century Tech Trusts