In what seems like a really strange turn of events, the NLRB has apparently declared that the teachers who want to be unionized in Chicago are private employees, not public ones as the teachers union (and the teachers) had assumed. All I have so far is the IFT press release, but it seems to me that, legally and politically, this is a poison pill move for charters, who have been claiming to be public schools, accountable, etc. for the last five hundred years. Now, all of sudden, thanks to the folks at CICS and Civitas, they're not public schools any more?
UPDATE: Click here to see the filings pro and con that were submitted to the NLRB by Civitas and by the IFT. This may have little practical effect, assuming the unionization vote proceeds, but has tremendous (negative) political implications. Still trying to find out if there's any precedent.
UPDATE 2: The folks at the AFT tell me that this issue has come up a dozen or so times in other regions and the decision is, while new to Chicago, not entirely unprecedented. It sounds like the NLRB decisions have gone both ways and aren’t numerous enough to declare a trend. And it seems like the IFT and AFT both want to keep the focus on moving forward, not on the public/private issue. (That’s apparently why the somewhat muted language is in the IFT press release, and why AFT president Randi Weingarten isn’t putting out a release.)
It’s worth pointing out that the new charter law just passed by the state legislature clears this issue up going forward, declaring that charter school employers are public. Yes, Illinois raised the cap on charters and declared them to be public employers. But the legislation is not yet enacted and won’t be retroactive.