All workers are not created equal

From the Quaker faith to the U.S. Constitution, there’s broad agreement that all people are equal.

But when it comes to employment, aren’t some more equal than others? Or at least, their services are more valuable?

This editorial is not meant to demean anyone, nor to artificially elevate others. But there’s a reason some people are paid more than others; it’s because what they do is more meaningful in the organization’s quest to reach its goals.

That reality isn’t universally agreed upon, as we were reminded during the ongoing Coeur d’Alene School District contract negotiations. Closed-door meetings are no longer the province of union-district negotiations over pay and benefits. The public can attend and even though most don’t, the sessions offer intriguing insights into who’s fighting for what.

One of the revelations this time around is that classified employees — those without education credentials — want whatever the teachers get. A circulated memo from classified employees states, in part:

“…Classified staff members make up more than half of the district workforce and are equally as important and should be valued as certified staff members are. … This request is for the district negotiating team to advocate for the members of the classified ranks in order to receive equal compensation as negotiated by both teams.”

Classified staff are essential to the overall task of educating students. Somebody’s got to get the kids to school, feed them, make sure the rooms are clean, the playgrounds safe and the clerical functions properly managed. While they clearly need each other, should classified staff get the same raises as teachers and otherwise be compensated like teachers — the men and women on the front lines of one of the most challenging jobs in America? We don’t think so.

Just as those working in supply chains for soldiers on the battle front are essential, they aren’t the ones dodging bullets and bayonets. While the war teachers wage might not risk life and limb literally, their effectiveness is the single greatest barometer of success or failure in education. They bear the greatest risk; the best among them should win the greatest rewards.

Perhaps most significantly, though, the fact that two key parts of the education team might be put at odds over money seems to us further proof that our system of negotiation by group is flawed. Until a better system is devised — where the individual is fairly evaluated on his or her performance and compensated based on that performance — infighting is a likely byproduct. Tell us, how is that best for the students?