Ohio concealed carry for teachers

[BobK]

can we just go Utah style and be done with it?
anyone who has a license issued by Ohio can carry in K-12 school.
Done and over.

Yep. Leave the union out of it by not making it a job duty. Simply, an employee or visitor who is licensed to carry has the means to protect him or herself should they desire.

[WayneB]

Is it not possible to leave the additional terms & conditions, seniority, etc.etc. out of it if the teacher volunteers for a duty, freely and knowing the conditions that comes with it? If not, then it seems a bit of an overreach by the union to get involved where a human being can no longer make their own decisions that affect them personally. Don't want to do it - don't have to. Don't volunteer. No big deal. It doesn't affect everyone collectively.

I certainly get that the collective bargaining unit would need to be involved if the teacher(s) were being forced to do something based upon new mandates, etc. that affected all teachers.

I like the Utah version!

[Tweed Ring]

It all boils down to terms and conditions of employment, for their union members. Additionally, they could grieve such a practice, hoping to win at binding arbitration, asking the arbitrator to disallow teachers to be legally armed at the workplace. If this goes to arbitration, it's anyone's guess who will win.

Since when does binding arbitration trump an act passed by the Ohio General Assembly and signed by the Governor?

Every time management loses an arbitration. ORC 4117 was passed by the legislature and signed by a governor, as well.

[Tweed Ring]

Is it not possible to leave the additional terms & conditions, seniority, etc.etc. out of it if the teacher volunteers for a duty, freely and knowing the conditions that comes with it? If not, then it seems a bit of an overreach by the union to get involved where a human being can no longer make their own decisions that affect them personally. Don't want to do it - don't have to. Don't volunteer. No big deal. It doesn't affect everyone collectively.


I believe not. Depends upon the language in the union contract.
I certainly get that the collective bargaining unit would need to be involved if the teacher(s) were being forced to do something based upon new mandates, etc. that affected all teachers.

I like the Utah version!

[Werz]

It all boils down to terms and conditions of employment, for their union members. Additionally, they could grieve such a practice, hoping to win at binding arbitration, asking the arbitrator to disallow teachers to be legally armed at the workplace. If this goes to arbitration, it's anyone's guess who will win.

Since when does binding arbitration trump an act passed by the Ohio General Assembly and signed by the Governor?

Every time management loses an arbitration. ORC 4117 was passed by the legislature and signed by a governor, as well.

Indeed. But the proposed amendment to R.C. 4117.08(B) will significantly limit what actions can be submitted for arbitration, and a properly drafted agreement between the board of education and the armed teacher will limit it even more. The bill passed the House by more than a 2-to-1 ratio (63-29), so it is somewhat clear that our legislators are willing to tell the union that these matters are none of their business.

[mreising]

It would sure be nice if we were RTW.

[Tweed Ring]

If the grievant, and his union, file a well-worded document, detailing how the terms and conditions were impacted, an arbitrator will, in all probability, hear the compliant. Frankly, this is a grievance almost ripe, and begging to be heard.

I predict, if this ever comes to pass, the OEA will ask for training held on paid OT, will eventually request a performance bonus, and possibly other enhancements.

Ohio's Collective Bargaining Legislation was passed by a Democrat OGA, and signed by a Democrat governor. It would never be passed today, by this OGA and this governor. But, when the OGA tried to pass SB 5, and pulled the governor into that mess, a change to the Collective Bargaining process, they got their lunch handed to them.
The OEA will involve themselves as much as possible in this situation. Eventually, they will ask for paid (OT) training, and eventually a performance bonus or performance enhancement. It's the way of bargaining collectively in Ohio. I doubt the OGA, once burned, twice shy, will involve themselves in this issue.

Please don't believe me...just watch what happens.

[cashman966]

I wonder if any teachers union requested contract modifications due to the added responsibilities associated with the implementation of Alice training?

[Werz]

If the grievant, and his union, file a well-worded document, detailing how the terms and conditions were impacted, an arbitrator will, in all probability, hear the compliant. Frankly, this is a grievance almost ripe, and begging to be heard.

I predict, if this ever comes to pass, the OEA will ask for training held on paid OT, will eventually request a performance bonus, and possibly other enhancements.

Ohio's Collective Bargaining Legislation was passed by a Democrat OGA, and signed by a Democrat governor. It would never be passed today, by this OGA and this governor. But, when the OGA tried to pass SB 5, and pulled the governor into that mess, a change to the Collective Bargaining process, they got their lunch handed to them.
The OEA will involve themselves as much as possible in this situation. Eventually, they will ask for paid (OT) training, and eventually a performance bonus or performance enhancement. It's the way of bargaining collectively in Ohio. I doubt the OGA, once burned, twice shy, will involve themselves in this issue.

Please don't believe me...just watch what happens.

Well, if the OFCC and BFA membership shrug off this legislation and let the OEA run roughshod over the Ohio Senate, that's a possibility. However, if we get behind it, I think it has a good chance of success, including the collective bargaining exemption.

The "underpaid teacher" meme has always been a major benefit for teachers' unions. Sacrificing the safety of our children for a small bump in pay or benefits is not likely to sell nearly as well. This ain't SB 5.

[Javelin Man]

The new OEA president, Becky Higgins, a first grade teacher, is an unknown in OGA. She probably won't be able to wield much weight concerning any legislation, but will at least let the OEA be heard. The only resolution passed by the OEA at the Fall RA was that teachers were not to be "Asked" to carry weapons in school. To me that's similar to not being asked to get a CDL and drive a school bus for your own field trips or marching band festivals.

[Tweed Ring]

No, this isn’t SB 5. My point is the recent Republican OGA had the chance to modify SB 5 and they “wiffed it.” The prime responsibility of the OEA to to protect their bargaining unit members, and to become involved in their terms and conditions of employment. That includes but is not limited for extra pay for extra work, training, extra assignments, etc. The OGA will be involved no matter what steps OFCC, or BFA takes.

The language of the contract is key. I am going to guess that Management Rights section in that labor agreement is limited to one or two paragraphs. Back in the day, I dealt with the OEA, so I have some insight to their unique approach to management/labor relations.
It’s always about terms and conditions, and also money. That’s why the union collects the duze.

[db9938]

Well, as a teacher, in a non-union school district(yes, they do exist, especially in the rural areas), I am in favor of the steps that are being taken to remove the "soft target" status of our schools. It is, the very reason that the events of recent have happened.

That said, I am torn on the aspect of compensation angle.

No, this isn’t SB 5. My point is the recent Republican OGA had the chance to modify SB 5 and they “wiffed it.” The prime responsibility of the OEA to to protect their bargaining unit members, and to become involved in their terms and conditions of employment. That includes but is not limited for extra pay for extra work, training, extra assignments, etc. The OGA will be involved no matter what steps OFCC, or BFA takes.

The language of the contract is key. I am going to guess that Management Rights section in that labor agreement is limited to one or two paragraphs. Back in the day, I dealt with the OEA, so I have some insight to their unique approach to management/labor relations.
It’s always about terms and conditions, and also money. That’s why the union collects the duze.

I am going to make the assumption that you are implying that since that a school board allows for armed teachers, that the unarmed teacher is at an increased risk?

Couldn't the same argument be made that, there is more risk without armed teachers? And as such, would imply lack of safety in the environment?

Insofar as the selection, training, of the staff member, I would also add weapon and ammunition would have to be board approved. As I am sure that part of the liability would fall within the purview of what firearm and ammunition is selected, along with the amount of training that individual had received.

Now, is this an "extra duty," hmmm? Well, I understand that there may be some folks that may try to pursue this angle, and that is a sad statement about why some folks are in the position that they are. But, I would also add that whoever management chooses to ask, it has to be completely voluntary. This may upset union leadership, and they may feel subverted as a result, which is also a sad statement onto itself. But under these conditions OPSEC, is critical.

With regards to paid training, I am going to disagree with a few folks here. In order to reach the level of proficiency that will be required to operate under these conditions, will require time. And the only time, outside of class time would be over summer, winter, or spring break. And in my humble opinion, all three would be needed to take a complete novice to that level. With that sort of time commitment,it would be exceptionally difficult to recruit anyone to step forward.

Now, all this said, the idea of hiring retired LEO's as security,is not a half bad idea. The same for the School Resource Officer(SRO) program, that the school I am at, has. The down side of this, as any LEO will tell you, it also makes them a target.

[Tweed Ring]

Well, as a teacher, in a non-union school district(yes, they do exist, especially in the rural areas), I am in favor of the steps that are being taken to remove the "soft target" status of our schools. It is, the very reason that the events of recent have happened.

That said, I am torn on the aspect of compensation angle.

No, this isn’t SB 5. My point is the recent Republican OGA had the chance to modify SB 5 and they “wiffed it.” The prime responsibility of the OEA to to protect their bargaining unit members, and to become involved in their terms and conditions of employment. That includes but is not limited for extra pay for extra work, training, extra assignments, etc. The OGA will be involved no matter what steps OFCC, or BFA takes.

The language of the contract is key. I am going to guess that Management Rights section in that labor agreement is limited to one or two paragraphs. Back in the day, I dealt with the OEA, so I have some insight to their unique approach to management/labor relations.
It’s always about terms and conditions, and also money. That’s why the union collects the duze.

I am going to make the assumption that you are implying that since that a school board allows for armed teachers, that the unarmed teacher is at an increased risk?

Couldn't the same argument be made that, there is more risk without armed teachers? And as such, would imply lack of safety in the environment?

Insofar as the selection, training, of the staff member, I would also add weapon and ammunition would have to be board approved. As I am sure that part of the liability would fall within the purview of what firearm and ammunition is selected, along with the amount of training that individual had received.

Now, is this an "extra duty," hmmm? Well, I understand that there may be some folks that may try to pursue this angle, and that is a sad statement about why some folks are in the position that they are. But, I would also add that whoever management chooses to ask, it has to be completely voluntary. This may upset union leadership, and they may feel subverted as a result, which is also a sad statement onto itself. But under these conditions OPSEC, is critical.

With regards to paid training, I am going to disagree with a few folks here. In order to reach the level of proficiency that will be required to operate under these conditions, will require time. And the only time, outside of class time would be over summer, winter, or spring break. And in my humble opinion, all three would be needed to take a complete novice to that level. With that sort of time commitment,it would be exceptionally difficult to recruit anyone to step forward.

Now, all this said, the idea of hiring retired LEO's as security,is not a half bad idea. The same for the School Resource Officer(SRO) program, that the school I am at, has. The down side of this, as any LEO will tell you, it also makes them a target.

I have no problem with teachers being armed and/or unarmed, as long as those conditions are approved by the employer/appointing authority. As someone who trains Ohio’s CHL, I believe there should be initial situational/tactical training, and subsequent annual refresher training.

Over the years, I have come to believe any unarmed person may be at an increased risk, no matter their chosen career field.

Moreover, I believe any soft target is a target of opportunity. I have worked as a manager in a very hard target environment, in a very soft target environment (whereat former employees, including those I had terminated, seemed to have the run of the place, and the contract security officers could be, periodically, awoken from their slumber to act, if sufficiently motivated) and in the Red Zone in Iraq whereat my security staff tried to kill me. Each employer situation provided unique security concerns.

Clearly, I favor a hard target environment.

The responsibility of any labor organization is to enhance and improve the terms and conditions of their members. Teachers unions are no different in this respect. In a union environment, the union will want input on the process, and additional compensation for the armed staff. That is simply the nature of collective bargaining.

Generally the standard union contract has one small “management rights” paragraph while the rest of the document is filled with 47 pages of negotiated union rights. So, it will not always be “the folks” who pursue this angle – it will be the union who will pursue this angle for “their folks” who are covered by the agreement.

LEO’s are always a potential target. Comes with the territory. I have no knowledge of school resource officers, but if they are armed, they are also a potential source of weapons for the bad guys, once downed. My high school had armed East Cleveland coppers.

I think any teacher who is so trained should also be compensated for their time and effort. I think there should be some employer mandated standards regarding selection of teachers to be armed, training hours, authorized weapons/ammunition, etc.

[db9938]

I am at a loss o familiarity with collective bargaining. I've never been in one, nor had an opportunity to be a part of one. That said, I will defer to your experience with regards to their innate behaviors.

I do have one question, that is somewhat related to the idea of additional duties. Do, or have, bargaining units ask/asked for additional monies for maintaining Red Cross or American Heart Association certifications in CPR and AED use?

They may appear to be unrelated, with regards to CHL, but both are potentially life saving measures, require training, and can be deadly if applied incorrectly.

With regards to your statement on target type and classification, we are in total agreement. Sometimes the best defense is just the image of invulnerability.

And yes, the SRO's are armed. Here is a website that has some more info:

http://www.osroa.org

[Javelin Man]

Almost all personel trained in CPR would be coaches so that's part of their required training. It's paid for or taken care of by the school in most cases. I'm still surprised I'm not required to be certified but I'm not complaining.