Choose Your Location
|
![]() |
The District of Columbia-based AFT promised to “intensify” its efforts in the burgeoning charter schools.
“They want to have a voice and a fair salary and benefits and ways to improve the teaching and instruction,” AFT spokeswoman Janet Bass said.
Bass refused to say whether her union was organizing in D.C., but the city has the second-highest concentration of charter schools outside of New Orleans. It is also a city that is traditionally friendly to organized labor.
Private groups run charter schools, which are exempt from most labor laws that cover employees of the traditional public schools
The teachers’ union already represents the 3,800 teachers in D.C.’s public schools. The swelling enrollment in charter schools — by 2014, there may be more students in charter schools than in traditional D.C. schools — make the charters a contentious field for the AFT.
Locally, the teachers’ union is still trying to recover from the scandal-plagued leadership of Barbara Bullock. In 2003, Bullock pleaded guilty to bilking the union out of millions for lavish personal expenses, including a closet full of wigs.
bmyers@dcexaminer.com



Comments from Examiner Readers
2:13 PM MST on Thu., May. 10, 2007 re: "County workers union rejects pension changes"
Report as inappropriate
5:24 AM MST on Wed., May. 9, 2007
re: "County workers union rejects pension changes"
Report as inappropriate
6:36 AM MST on Fri., May. 4, 2007
re: "Union rejects health care offer"
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader said:
I am not sure where Ms. Malarkey is getting her information from, There is no "Law requiring governments to prefund retirement benefits." There is however GASB which is an accounting standard that has governments accounting for and paying for other post employment benefits, ie. health care, so they will be able to maintain their AAA bond ratings. Within GASB there is no mention of pensions. I sure do wish that reporters would verify their facts prior to printing such information. It should also be noted that this article depicts the union memebers in a positive light, which is good, but recent artcles about the BCFPE appeared to show the union as the "BAD GUYS". Thank you Ms. Malarkey for your true and honest information. Not.
225 agree | 211 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
finaly, a union that has sence to protect their members rather than line the pockets of a few. Thank You ASCME How many of the members of the other Unions voted to ratify because they were strong armed . Every employee out there should be writing to their Councilman right now and letting them know how this retirement proposal affects their family .and demand that the portion affecting prior and existing employees be removed..not approved, whether you voted to ratify or not.
216 agree | 238 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I am a little confused by Johnny Olzewski's comment --- The future action hings on the FPE vote? There are 6 unions in Baltimore County, why does the future of all employees depend on this one vote? The contract was ratified by a vote of 152 to 146! Since the majority of the members (corrections and 911) were given a two step upgrade, those numbers say a lot. 146 people were willing to give up the upgrades to protect their benefits. And what about the other 1300 employees represented by this union, many who are on the low end of the pay scale and can not afford to join for the right to vote. These changes affect them also. Remember councilman, you are in an elected position. These are not just employees, they are tax payers!
234 agree | 219 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree