Many, many years ago my father was elected the head of the Teacher's Union in Lancaster Wisconsin. It was a position that he gladly accepted and was justifiably proud of. When he left Lancaster it was thought by many that he was, as one person later on in the 2000s put it to me “run out of town” by the Lancaster WI School Board. Well, that just isn't so. So I am posting today to say that ---
This is to tell my father's side of the story because he can't anymore. He died Oct 8th 2002. I finally decided that this needed to be posted on this blog.
This is for him.
The Teachers Union of Lancaster Wisconsin was one of the first – not the first, but one of the first -- Teachers Unions in the United States to ask for and receive a prorated employment payment contract based on a twelve month payment period and not the norm of the time. You see, up until this time most teaching contracts were presented, accepted and payed on a school year basis which consisted of a nine month calender period. This means that when a teacher received and accepted a contract from a school board that the teacher would be paid during the time spent in the school year. Previously a school year was based on a nine month schedule starting in September (sometimes August) and going until May (or perhaps early June). It just depended on the start of the year. This was not uncommon in the teaching industry at the time and was, in fact, the norm. Then the summer of 1969 happened.
For those of you who do not know what I am referring to let me refresh your memory.
In the summer of 1969 a Teachers Union in the city of New York, New York went on strike. It made national news at the time. In case you are to young , or you just don't remember, making the national news broadcast at that time was a BIG! DEAL!! That's because more people watched the national news broadcasts of ABC, CBS, and NBC, (in particular Walter Conkrite of CBS NEWS) than any other broadcasts on television. Period.
One of the reasons that this Teacher's Union went on strike that year was because of the payment time issue, not necessarily the pay increase of the day. You see, as like most people teachers live twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, three hundred and sixty five days a year. One of the things that they asked for and did not receive was:
To have their salary pro-rated over the entire calender year. In other words, at that time when a teacher was employed by a school the teacher was paid for only nine months of work. The Teachers Union asked for a Pro Rating of EVERY teachers contract, beginning in 1970, so that each teacher would receive the same amount of pay over the entire calender year. The teachers were not asking to be paid more, they were just asking to be paid longer.
Today this makes perfect sense and is the standard for paying teachers. But back then it was very new. This was not the only issue of the day, but it was one of the major issues during that time. Now, to those of you who don't think that this was a big deal let me state to you that IT WAS and IT IS! Teachers Unions have what they have now, today, because of people like my father.
People went to war over this kind of stuff. So much so that in the summer of 1969 this Teacher's Union went on strike and picketed. The police were called out to break up the picketers. Water cannons were used on them and an ensuing riot took place with several teachers being arrested. This went on for several weeks during the summer of 1969.
Needless to say, hard feelings were created by and on both sides of the issue. And it was all on TV. This was pretty hard stuff for folks to watch on the national news.
This all happened when my father was hired in Lancaster Wisconsin in the summer of 1969. When he got to Lancaster he ran for and was elected the head of the Lancaster Wisconsin Teacher's Union (LTU). It just so happened that in his first contract negotiation with the Lancaster School Board (LSB) he asked for this type of payment for his Union members.
When asked what he would suggest for union members to do if the LSB denied this particular request he later stated to me that his reply was --- “well, I could always suggest that we (the LTU) could go on strike”.
Suffice it to say --- this did not go over well with the LSB members. This was the start of a feud.
Now, during my father's employment in Lancaster there were both good and bad times, both for my family and the Lancaster School System. Yet, the ensuing years brought the LSB many legal set-backs at the hand of the LTU. I can not tell you if this was because the LSB was just incompetent at the time, or if the legal representation of the LSB was incompetent, or if the LTU legal representation was that much better than that of the LSB at that time, or..., or..., etc.,.....
What I can tell you is this:
that at that time, under the leadership of my father and others, the LTU was successful in suing and obtaining legal judgements that went against the LSB. In other words the LTU won it's legal battles of the day vs the LSB. This resulted in the LSB having to pay monies to the LTU. And it happened several times. In fact, during my father's leadership of the LTU he NEVER lost a legal argument to the LSB! EVER!!! This did take several years. And it also built up resentment.
Because of this the LSB decided to bust the LTU by getting rid of my father. Losing does that to people. Losing money in the process is even worse. And losing tax payer's money because of incompetence is worst yet.
My father was eventually reduced to part time status. Then, after a period of two years, let go from the Lancaster School System.
But here is the rub. Now, remember what was stated above, my father NEVER lost a legal argument with the LSB. He sued the LSB for wrongful termination. This went to arbitration. The LSB claimed, at the time, that the overall school system population was declining and that my father's position would be eliminated because of it. (You can't make this stuff up folks!)
The arbitrator's decision in this case was:
Because the LSB was eliminating my father's position due to school population decrease, the LSB could let my father go. If, however, the LSB should ever resume this position --- and my father was still living --- and the LSB wanted to re-hire someone --- anyone --- for this position, then my father will have the right of first refusal for this position, or my father will be paid an amount set by the arbitration (which remains undisclosed to this day) if he should turn the position down.
(Like I said folks, you can't make this stuff up!)
This decision and arbitration was set forth in the year 1982.
Fast forward twelve years. It is now the year 1994.
It just so happens that in1994 my father turned sixty five years of age. In our society this is traditionally the age at which one retires. It just so happened that this was also the year that the LSB decided that they were going to re-instate the position my father had held from 1969-to-1982 and had been let go from in 1982.
You see, in August of that year he received a letter from the LSB stating that his former position was going to be re-instated in the Lancaster School System. The reason for this was because the overall school population growth had increased to previous levels and that the position was again needed.
How coincidental is that? Isn't this sounding familiar?
I have seen this letter and check. It stated that he would be offered his former position at a higher salary rate. It also stated that in accordance to the termination agreement a check was enclosed in the case that my father did not want to accept this position.
I recall asking him what he was going to do. He stated that he would cash the check and that if the check bounced he'd have to sue the LSB for breach of contract, again!
Now, I'm not going to say how much the check was for, but I can tell you that it was in the five figure amount (this does not include decimal points). As far as my father is concerned this was the end of that event for him.
But it isn't for me. You see, in the 1990s and early 2000s I had a small business. This business took me all over the mid-west and one of the places that it took me to was back to Lancaster WI. While there I had an opportunity to meet with some of my father's old teaching friends. It was here that I learned of the consensus in town: that my father had been run out of town by the LSB.
Well, I knew that that just wasn't the case and so I informed them of “The Rest of the Story” (who used to say that?) which they were unaware of.
When I was visiting Lancaster on business it was stated to me by some of my father's old teaching friends that they really liked my dad. They also wished he was still the head of the LTU. He was a good negotiator and had gained some things which were rolled back after his removal (as is often the case).
Let's just put these events into proper prospective: Pure and simple, this was a case of union busting by the LSB. And in 1982 it happened to my father. Then in 1994 the LSB took a calculated risk concerning the re-instatement of his former position.
Now, in case you are from Lancaster WI and you are reading this let me state that my father never begrudged anyone anything for what happened to him concerning the LTU and the LSB. He always said that his work was his work and that he tried to perform his duties (whatever they were) to the best of his abilities. Life happens. Sometimes we control it and sometimes we don't. My father always stated that he was not going to hold a grudge against anyone from that town. I do not recall him ever be-ratting anyone from Lancaster. Ever. If he did it is unknown to me.
People are entitled to their own opinions, but never to their own set of facts.
The fact of the matter is that my father was never “run out of town”. He was let go from a position, as many people are for any number of reasons. In this particular case it was under rare circumstances albeit in kind of a strange way. But let this be said of him --- he ALWAYS tried to teach his students the best he knew how even when it was stressful. In my opinion this is something to be proud of.
I can see how some people have come to their conclusions. My father was a tough negotiator with the LSB and people (LSB members) sometimes held it against him. These are the facts. They just are what they are.
However, we (my family) do not hold grudges but we do remember the past! And Facts are Facts!
If the LSB ran a budget deposit in 1994 my father didn't help the situation any. But the check did cash. Regardless, this is an example of how and why students and statistics are used in education. This is only one case.
My father's name was Buddy Lorraine Fraser.
And we miss him!
