Dispute Resolution and the Chicago Teachers Union Strike

By on / Dispute Resolution

When a conflict looms, it can be tempting for each side to try to make unilateral decisions on key issues because of the belief that negotiations with the other side will be a dead end. This strategy may pay off in the short term, but it’s important to factor in the long-term costs.

Take the mid-2012 contract negotiations between the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) and the City of Chicago, which led to a 10-day strike in September. After being elected mayor of Chicago in February 2011, Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s former chief of staff, lobbied the Illinois state legislature hard for an education-reform bill targeted at Chicago’s troubled school district that included changes to collective bargaining between the city and the CTU.

Specifically, the bill, which passed in May 2011, raised the percentage of CTU members who must vote in favor of a strike from 50% to 75%. The new law, known as SB7, also effectively prevented the CTU from striking over issues other than teacher salaries and limited the issues that could be negotiated – leaving out class size, for instance.

The law outraged the union, which viewed it as a signal (among others) that the new mayor was aggressively anti-union. Rumors spread that Emmanuel’s long-term plan was to gradually close public schools and replace them with non-unionized charter schools.

Chicago’s Emmanuel-appointed school board then further alienated CPS teachers by rescinding a promised 4% pay raise and, at the same time, upping the salaries of newly installed CPS executives. Emmanuel then began a campaign, ultimately successful, over a single education issue – his quest for a longer school day. But instead of negotiating with the CTU, he launched negotiations with individual schools.

On June 6, an overwhelming 90% of CTU members voted to strike, far exceeding the 75% required by the new state law. As thousands of CPS teachers joined picket lines across the city on September 10, Chicago parents scrambled to make arrangements for their children’s care. Ten days later, the CTU and the school beard reached an agreement that provided victories for both sides, including a longer school day and annual teacher raises. A strong case can be made that dramatic reforms are needed to improve the quality and viability of Chicago schools. But if one of Emmanuel’s goals was to avoid a teachers’ strike, then his strategy of dodging and delaying negotiations with the CTU and limiting the number of issues on the table was counterproductive.

When you engage your counterpart as early as possible in the timeline of a negotiation, you demonstrate your interest in building rapport and exploring options together. And by refusing to put limits on the number of topics under discussion, you exponentially improve the chances of discovering tradeoffs that will satisfy both parties – and head off a strike.

In this free special report Dispute Resolution, Working Together Toward Conflict Resolution on the Job and at Home, the editors of Negotiation cull valuable negotiation strategies and curate popular content to provide you with a concise guide on how to improve your dispute resolution skills.

Related Article: The Power of Deadlines

One Response to “Dispute Resolution and the Chicago Teachers Union Strike”

  1. Wiley /

    I heard about the current White House Chief of Staff and his involvement in negotations between the President and Congress on the fiscal cliff. It was alleged that he is so skillful that the GOP ask the White House to send someone else. Is this ripe for another negotiation topic? Reply

Leave a Comment