User:XXsuperhistorian420XX/sandbox

Background
Teachers’ unions prior to the United Teachers Los Angeles were fleeting and largely ineffective. The first Los Angeles teachers’ union, Local 77, was chartered by the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) in 1919. However, Local 77 existed for no more than four years, as it was unable to attract enough members to sustain itself. The second union, Local 430, received its charter in 1935. It remained a small organization with a peak membership of only 800. It was dissolved in 1949 after confirmation of Communist ties. Immediately after the dissolution of Local 430, Local 1021 was chartered. In 1969, The Association of Classroom Teachers—Los Angeles was created, an affiliate of the National Education Association (NEA). The only serious rival to Local 1021, the two organizations only weakened their united cause.

Creation
In 1970, the membership of Local 1021 and ACT-LA voted to merge the two organizations into a single entity. Both the NEA and AFT served to gain from this merger. The merger would not only sway local teachers toward collective bargaining but would pressure the California Teachers Association (CTA) to do the same. Second, the merger allowed union members to pay unified union dues, meaning additional revenue to the NEA. The UTLA represented the country’s second largest teaching force, behind New York City.

History
The agenda of UTLA at its inception included increased pay, but also called for smaller class sizes. The union proposed that kindergartens consist of fifteen students, eighteen in first through third grades, and no more than twenty students in the fourth through sixth grades. The UTLA also proposed a strike to start on Monday, April 13, 1970.

The 1970 Strike
The strike lasted four and a half weeks. The UTLA won a written contract including binding grievance arbitration and several other important items. However, a group of teachers opposed to collective bargaining (the Citizens Legal Defense Alliance) filed suit against both the merger and the new contract. The merger was unaffected but the contract was ruled illegal under the Winton Act. Passed in 1965, the Winton Act decreed that school districts could “meet and confer” on labor issues, but collective bargaining did not apply. Concluding a contract with a teacher’s union was illegal. A huge blow to UTLA, the union lost internal and external power. Members lost over one month’s pay for a contract that was struck down. Leaders knew their members would not strike again soon. The UTLA’s power to withhold services evaporated. Furthermore, the UTLA lost about 5,000 members and thousands of dollars in dues.

Staff Desegregation
The UTLA has been involved in LAUSD staff desegregation since May 1973, when the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) ruled the district ineligible for ESAA funds. The OCR specifically objected to the district’s several racially identifiable staffs and threatened the LAUSD’s federal funds unless its entire staff were desegregated. A large-scale mandatory transfer of teachers was imminent. The direct threat to teachers compelled the UTLA’s immediate involvement. The effect on senior UTLA members was a major reason for the UTLA’s interest in staff desegregation. Teachers objected to being mandatorily transferred. Most senior UTLA members began working in the district when the LAUSD’s unwritten policy encouraged staff members to live where they taught. Teachers primarily lived by their schools. Most purchased homes. Their concerns centered largely on the inconveniences they would suffer as a result of being transferred. Most did not want to sell their homes, and faced increased travel expenses which the district would not pay. More fundamentally, teachers feared the conditions at their new schools. Teachers in the wealthy regions were accustomed to low pup-teacher ratios, well-furnished and nicely landscaped buildings, and relatively minor discipline problems. They strongly objected to being transferred to inner-city minority schools where conditions were considerably worse. The UTLA also had an organizational interest in protecting teachers’ rights. They not only hoped to impress its present members, but also hoped to gain new members. The UTLA was the only organization exclusively representing teachers’ rights against the OCR, Board of Education, and civil rights organizations favoring staff desegregation. The UTLA was in a position to make considerable membership gains as long as staff members perceived them as their exclusive defender. The UTLA’s response was a staff desegregation plan which included a modified seniority system. Teachers with one to five years of experience were not transferred, nor were teachers over the age of 60. However, a large number of teachers offered to be transferred, and it became unnecessary to implement the transfer lottery.

Student Desegregation
Until 1979, the UTLA claimed no interest in student desegregation. It took no position and remained uninvolved. There were two major exceptions. The first occurred in 1970, when Judge Alfred Gitelson found the LAUSD guilty of de jure segregation and ordered it to desegregate its schools. UTLA leaders publicly requested the Board of Education to comply. The second exception occurred in 1977 when the UTLA House of Representative endorsed the Citizens’ Advisory Council on Student Integration (CACSI). The UTLA’s interests in student desegregation began in 1978 with the Urban Teacher Specialist Proposal (UTSP). The district proposed the UTSP to encourage exceptional teachers to transfer to EIS (Educationally Impacted Schools) schools. The UTSP would have placed some teachers “above” the rest in both salary and prestige. The program would have identified several exceptional teachers to act as models for other inner city teachers. The specialists would be resource teachers in instruction, discipline, and curriculum. The district proposed paying specialists an additional 11% of their salaries. The UTLA opposed the program, insisting that all teachers were equal and should be paid from the same salary schedule. In addition, they believed differentiated pay was divisive to the union. The UTLA had little difficulty defeating the proposal. The UTLA’s second interest in student desegregation was the Urban Classroom Teacher Program (UCTP). The district proposed the UCTP as an alternative to the UTSP. The UCTP would pay all teachers, but no other certificated personnel, in designated EIS schools an 11% pay incentive. In exchange for the pay bump, the district required EIS teachers to work an additional 2 and a half hour per week. Finally, the district’s plan called for EIS principals to choose their own staffs. The UTLA was split on this plan. Some members believed money should be used to make EIS more desirable places to teach, while others wanted an increase in EIS salaries. However, the UTLA Board of Directors voted 19-18 to recommend the acceptance of the pay increase, and the UCTP was adopted. The UTLA’s third interest in student desegregation was the Bilingual Classroom Teacher Program (BCTP). This program was designed to aid non-English and limited-English speaking students. Its purpose was to encourage teachers to become bilingual and to encourage bilingual teachers to transfer to schools qualifying for the BCTP. The program paid bilingual teachers in those schools the same 11% bonus the UCTP paid EIS teachers. The UTLA opposed the program. However, it was ordered by a judge’s mandate.

UTLA Leadership
The UTLA’s leadership remained almost unchanged from its inception to 1982. Four different presidents have led the organization, but they retained influence even out of office. There also has been little change in the membership of the UTLA’s two governing bodies, the House of Representatives and the Board of Directors, and other elected offices. The low turnover of elected officials means that essentially the same relatively few members continued to govern the UTLA. This occurred for two primary reasons. First, organizations usually contain a large group of uninvolved members and a much smaller group with assumes leadership responsibilities. The UTLA’s Executive Director until 1980, Donald Baer, largely discouraged membership involvement for the 10 years he ran the organization. Further, Baer encouraged the notion that the UTLA was a service organization to which members paid dues and, in turn, received an array of benefits. Members were encouraged to leave the UTLA’s governance and policy making to the organization’s political activists. A second reason UTLA leadership remained the same is that leadership positions are desirable. UTLA officers have spent many years developing their political constituencies. They are paid very well. Presidents may hold office for two consecutive two year terms and, once elected, are virtually assured reelection. UTLA leaders often travel (at UTLA expense) and receive media attention. UTLA leaders are, by and large, people who entered UTLA politics when the UTLA formed and have easily retained leadership positions.