In this day and age, even a one-day strike that receives 75% support from the union membership is something to applaud. I agree, if you have to, you get out and stay out - but I don't have a problem with starting with a one-day strike just to show you're serious and turn up the heat.

Lawson is right. They need to stay home until the district caves. monkey fingered.

They seem to do a lot of those one-day strikes in European countries. I have no idea how effective they are, though. (Teachers are prohibited by law from striking in my state.)

Thanks, all.

Larry and BBE, I do see your point. But this isn't a factory, it's a school district. Different considerations apply, and the tactics have to be adapted. With 75% support for a one-day strike, and pressure from parents and older students (high school, maybe some junior high) that I hope will materialize in support of the teachers, they may not have to escalate past this. We'll see.

And Larry, I don't know the percentages. As to your other point, it's a cute idea, but the number of board members is probably set by law - I don't think they can lay themselves off. Anyway, chances are they don't get paid, or not much - a school board is an elected governing body that meets maybe once a week at most - not a paid full-time administration.

Jeannette, thanks for the comment. You're absolutely right that the one-day strike is a European model (France, Italy, Greece) - only there, it's often a general strike, at least among public workers. We here in the US could benefit from emulating that model more often. And by the way, the UTLA members are not authorized by their contract to take this action. I don't know if it's against the law, but it is a contract violation. But, as the UTLA is telling its members, if everyone goes out, the administration will be hard put to discipline all of them, so they'll probably just let it go.

And last but never least - Stellaa - If you think things in CA are bad now, just wait. Those propositions that the budget compromise was premised on are not going to pass, and the Governator and the Legislosers are going to have to start all over again trying to put together a 2/3 majority out of a group half of which refuses to even think about raising taxes, even on gazillionaires. This summer's budget process is going to be ugly.

It will take a lot more than a one day strike to force the representatives of capital in the state house to provide quality education for the people of California. All across the state and nation school boards are doing the dirty work that the capitalist class has planned for public education, its destruction.

Despite all the smily faced talk from Obama about saving education, in my district three schools will close, class size will be increased and staff will be laid off. To force a realignment of priorities we need to follow the example of the Republic Window and Door workers and occupy schools that are slated for closure. We need to follow the example of the workers of the French Islands of Martenique and Guadaloupe where successful general strikes forced the state to meet their demands. Until our labor organizations choose to wield the true power of the working class through massive united statewide and nationwide strikes we will be forced to endure cuts in our schools, our wages, and social services. If we don't act now it will be too late when unemployment reaches 20-25% because the masses will be too afraid to fight back.

Larry: It's not MY school district. I live in the Bay Area, not Los Angeles. The number of board members for a district is set at 5 or 7 by California state statute, as is the length of their terms (Education Code section 35012). Under the Los Angeles City Charter, section 801, the LA board has 7 members. Maximum compensation for board members is also limited by state statute (Education Code 35120). In large urban districts like LA, the maximum is $2,000 per month for board members who attend all meetings. That's the maximum; the LA City Charter, section 804, provides that the actual compensation is set by an appointed committee including 2 parents. 2 business people, 2 representatives of labor, and one economist or similar expert. The committee members are appointed by the mayors of the cities included in the district, plus the county board of supervisors.

So much as I hate to defend these layoff-mongers, they can't really be accused of using their position to line their own pockets, and they really don't have the power to reduce the size of the board.

That's really not the issue. The issue is how the union can put them in a position where overwhelming pressure from the district workers, the parents, the students, and the public forces them, as Charles says, to realign their priorities - i.e., to use the district's dollars to retain more teachers and keep class sizes as low as possible, NOW, rather than setting the money aside for other possible future uses. Charles is right that ultimately this will not happen just from a one-day strike. But it's a start.

orgonian...thanks for posting this. There's no reason the union should have to match the stimulus in "sacrifices." I didn't think that was the purpose of the stimulus package.

Dolores: Exactly. They didn't ask the bankers, AIG execs, and auto company managers to match their stimulus money dollar-for-dollar with pay cuts and repayment of bonuses and profits. Actually, that might have made some sense, since it was those people's bad judgment, recklessness, and greed that caused the economic crisis in the first place.

But the shortage in funds for public education in California is not the fault of teachers, it's the fault of Proposition 13 and the incompetence and laziness of the State Legislature. So why should teachers, who are underpaid to begin with, have to pay out of their own pockets to have school district's bailout money put to the use for which it was intended, i.e., to save jobs and prevent increases in class sizes? Preposterous!

I will say as a teacher that it seems administrators should usually go first. The field is over-bureaucratized. It is killing the spirit of the thing.

Three school board members proposed that the district explore using the stimulus funds to reduce layoffs, but only on condition that the funds used be matched dollar-for-dollar by union pay concessions. [emphasis added]

Oh, good grief! What a way to destimulate the economy. Lay off teachers... at the expense of investing in children's education. Or expect the teachers to give up even more in pay concessions. I really don't think they have heard any of Obama's priorities listed in his stimulus and budget proposals.

In order to get more actions like this, we need more unions, and more workers registered as members.

Hooray for the teachers' union for having the guts to do this... and maybe, too, for those nurses who took on the governator and inspired the teachers to a similar action.

Going slightly off topic, but it is part of the overall problem:

ktm: "I really don't think they have heard any of Obama's priorities listed in his stimulus and budget proposals."

One of Obushma's priorities was to get the auto workers to make concessions. None of the bankers did. Another O priority was to make nice to Republicans and Republicrats by putting useless tax cuts in the stimulus package, and making it too small to fix the problems.

He also doesn't seem to be interested in using his electoral mandate and popularity to push on the Employee Free Choice Act.

So, ultimately, they have "heard" his actions and are going with the much louder sound they make then his words.