1. Dan McMinimee:
This is in response to your e-mail to me of June 12, 2012.
Exclusivity
Exclusivity for a union with majority support is not a monopoly, it is democracy. It is order
rather than chaos. It allows employees to select their representative freely, without coercion
from the employer. It allows them to amplify their voice through collective action under our
constitutionally protected right to freedom of association. Without it, under current Colorado
labor laws, the employer would be free to discriminate among employees to divide and
conquer them. It would allow the employer to grant favors to some individuals or groups,
influencing the employees’ choice of representative. It permits the formation of different
classes of teachers, depending on their willingness to accept inferior wages and working
conditions. We will not agree to it.
Recently, scholars have published extensively on the issue of “members only contracts” and
minority unions. We have offered to share that scholarship with your attorney, but he has not
taken us up on that offer. I request any literature upon which the District relies in its
advocacy of a members only contract for a majority union. All of the scholarship advocating
for representation without exclusivity focuses on the rights of minority unions to bargain
when no union has majority support. It relies heavily on statutory protections, not applicable
in this case, to insure that employers cannot play unions off against each other to gain
domination over them.
The Board has granted an exclusive contract to the bus drivers’ union, raising the appearance
of favoritism based upon a union’s complicity with the demands of the employer. We will
not enable the sinister employment practices of discrimination and employer domination of
unions by agreeing to delete exclusivity from the contract.
Communications with Members and the Public
The Union will not agree to any restrictions on its ability to communicate with its members
and the public. Both parties should make their best efforts to engage in such communications
with honesty and candor. Both sides should exercise tolerance and understanding that they
may not share the same point of view on important issues.
We stand by our agreement to put the language in the contract concerning working
conditions spelled out by the four square bullet points of your June 12, 2012, e-mail.
Denial of Employment Status to Union Representatives
The School District proposes to terminate teachers serving as full time union representatives,
even though the DCFT has agreed to reimburse the full costs of their compensation to the
School District. Since the union’s proposal is cost-free to the District, the District’s position
can only be intended both to punish individuals for choosing to be active in the union but

2. also represents an unwarranted interference with the union’s own decision about the best
form of representation – employee-leaders, rather than full-time professional leadership.
This is an organizational decision that should be left to the union membership itself.
Additionally, if union representatives are not teachers, they will not be able to administer and
implement the teacher training program owned by the American Federation of Teachers,
Educational Research and Dissemination. (ER &D) Since 1996, ER & D has been a valuable
program in the District advancing the skills of teachers which positively influences every
student passing through their classrooms. The Union cannot, on its own, choose to continue
this program through non teachers.
Pay for Performance
The Union has agreed to a cost neutral allocation of teacher compensation funds.
Additionally, the Union will work with the District to make modifications to pay for
performance. However, the Union opposes diverting compensation dollars to building
programs. The Union also does not oppose the phase out of longevity, Extended Service
Severance and Knowledge Level Advancement so long as the parties agree on a clear
alternative which provides for compensation to teachers.
Dues Deduction
The District has agreed to permit the employees represented by another labor organization to
authorize voluntary union dues deduction. The Union pays the full costs of dues deduction.
The District has articulated no legally cognizable justification for this discrimination. It
should agree to allow the teachers the same rights as other employees in the district.
Brenda Smith
DCF President