Third Danko Meeting 5:20 7:20 November 12 2002
Present: Fukuyama-san, Kamoshida-san,
Kumata-san, Ron Dirkse, Bill Jacobsson, Mid Squier, Marguerite Arnote, Noda-san, Tim Thornton, Tim Ilse
This is not meant to be a word by word summary, but an honest attempt to reasonably
convey what was said.
Fukuyama-san repeated that under Japanese laws any regulations
of working conditions must be filed at the Mitaka Labor Office. ASIJ was told
this 9 years ago and still has not done this. Changes of working regulations
have been late in submission to the Labor Office. We are negotiating based upon
these laws. Disadvantageous modifications of working conditions are not permitted. Under Japanese laws people who are working under old conditions may express their
disagreement with changes. Work rule labor practices should be in accordance
with agreed upon labor policies.
Fukuyama-san: After
retirement and rehiring to non-regular contract are there any differences in working conditions for the teacher?
Tim Thornton: No.
Fukuyama-san: If
the working conditions are the same then we are of the opinion that this is not equal pay for equal work and is disadvantageous
modifications. According to your background sheet, you mentioned that Tokyo Board
of Education reduces salary by 40%. There are many extra items regarding this. At retirement there is about 33,000,000 yen lump sum retirement payment and then monthly pension.
Discussion of salary of Tokyo-to teacher.
Actually about the same as ASIJ. ASIJ top is about 14 million, Japanese
public about 11-12 million. Tim Thornton wants this difference noted. Fukuyama-san noted that there is reduced teaching load and responsibilities for these teachers. Two kinds of rehired teachers: 32 hours a week or the other
possibility is 16 days a month.
Tim Thornton: ASIJ
teachers can also start collecting retirement at age 60 if they want.
Fukuyama-san: Age discrimination is legally prohibited in many
countries including USA and in Japan employers are obliged to employ up to 60 and recommended to retain over 60. As for private schools in Tokyo, 56% of these have age of 65 for retirement.
Tim Thornton: Is there a difference in salaries of private
schools and public schools?
Fukuyama-san: Yes,
there is a difference. Private schools pay more.
Bill Jacobsson noted that in the files there is a study that
showed that after a number of years Japanese schools' salaries are higher than ASIJ.
Fukuyama-san: In ASIJ, Japanese staff has retirement age of
65. Why is the Board continuing this discrimination and even expanding it?
Mr. Thornton pointed
out that in Japanese schools Principals may stay later for retirement.
Fukuyama-san: In Tokyo retirement age for teaching and non-teaching
staff are the same.
Mr. Thornton: ASIJ should move its non-teaching staff retirement
age to 60?
Fukuyama-san: No,
that would be unfair labor practice.
Fukuyama-san: At the first meeting the Union stated that for
nearly 40 years the ASIJ implementation and interpretation of the retirement policy was that satisfactorily performing teachers
who handed in this request for extensions were allowed to stay on. Since 1992
at least 7 persons were allowed to stay. What do you think?
Tim Thornton: So
7 people have been rehired? What is the point?
Fukuyama-san: As background information (from Ad Hoc) it stated
that waivers were never considered automatic. They were always at the discretion
of the Headmaster. We accept that 60 year old retirement/extension age was never
automatic. It was based on evaluation and other factors.
Tim Thornton: We
expect that all ASIJ employees can perform their job. So when someone reaches
60, the administrative council makes a decision. There was never any automatic
extension of any person.
Fukuyama-san: So
for non-regular contract everyone can automatically receive this?
Tim Thornton: Yes.
Fukuyama-san: Later we will ask if there were any teachers
in past not rehired.
========================================
Fukuyama-san: As ASIJ Teachers Union we again request that
there be a collective bargaining session between Administration/Board and the Union.
This is based on Japanese law.
Tim Thornton: The
non-regular contracts affect the whole school. We do not at this time have any
intentions to have specific discussions with the Union. We (administrators) will
discuss it. I do not see any need for us to have special discussions with the
Union. This would be unfair to other teachers.
Fukuyama-san: The
reason we are asking for collective bargaining is that we believe that these changes are disadvantageous modifications of
our working conditions . This is not the same as informational meeting.
Tim Thornton: Again,
at this time we will not meet with the Union on this.
Fukuyama-san: If
we request collective bargaining on this matter you will refuse?
Tim Thornton: We
believe that we have answered the question and we do not believe there is any need to have a separate meeting on this.
Fukuyama-san: We
agree that discussion should be with all school members, but as a Trades Union we have the right to collective bargaining. We request this collective bargaining. Any
trade union in the school has the right to have collective bargaining.
Tim Thornton: We
feel we have made sufficient opportunity there and we right now say No. If you
have specific questions you may raise them just as any other person may. These
policies affect the whole school so we are not going to negotiate something which affects the whole school with just the Union.
Fukuyama-san: It
is only Trade Unions that can negotiate on the new personnel policies and we would like to reconfirm whether you will refuse
that request.
Tim Thornton: Yes
Tim Ilse: Are
you suggesting that only the eight members of the union have collective bargaining rights and the other 150 plus have no rights?
Fukuyama-san: It
is Japanese law.
Tim Ilse: If we
have other ways (FSCC) to discuss these issues, must we stop talking with the others and negotiate only with the Union?
Fukuyama-san: As for the rest of the staff they may also form
a union.
Tim Ilse: Are you telling us that the only way this problem
can be negotiated is through your trade union? Is that collective bargaining
or selective bargaining?
Fukuyama-san: According
to Japanese laws nobody except trade unions has collective bargaining rights. We
know that you have explained with FSCC, but FSCC is not a trade union, they have no collective bargaining rights.
Tim Ilse: We think
one way and you think another way. I don't think we can resolve this at this
table, do you think so?
Fukuyama-san: We
want to have collective bargaining on the whole personnel polices not just the retirement issues. We notice that there have been many changes proposed in the policies and we wish to discuss all of them.
Tim Ilse: Do you
mean that we have to go back to the school and tell the rest of the faculty that they have no right anymore to discussion?
Fukuyama-san: We
know that you have the need to explain to all, but as a Trade Union we have the right to have collective bargaining.
Tim Ilse: Why have there been no proposals put forth by the
Union? Everyone has the right to put forth proposals which can be discussed in
a public setting.
Fukuyama-san: ASIJ
Teachers Union does not negotiate from an egotistical standing. The Union will
consider the rights of all the faculty. And we would remind you that we have
the right to collective bargaining and the right to strike by Japanese laws.
Tim Ilse: That
is very generous of you for the Union to think of the rights of the other 150 people who are not represented.
Tim Thornton: Why
is this coming up now? If you had concerns why has it been two months since you
have raised this?
Noda-san: The
Union has only given us three questions so far. First, the union wants a meeting
to discuss policies. Second, the faculty representative should be chosen by democratic
means. Third, there was a request to see the finances of the school. We have already answered those questions. Other than that
we have not received any other requests. When Mr. Squier signed his contract
we received a request and we answered it. After September 16 we have not received
any other proposals.
Fukuyama-san: We
will submit a letter of request for collective bargaining and will list concerns
Tim Thornton: What
is the purpose of this? I find this very insincere.
Fukuyama-san: As
a trade Union of ASIJ we would like to ask questions
Tim Thornton: Again,
I find this very insincere on your part, but if you send us a letter we will look at it.
Fukuyama-san: There
is a big difference between an explanatory meeting and a collective bargaining meeting.
Tim. Thornton: Okay,
but why two months? Have you been so busy?
Fukuyama-san: As
for collective bargaining we have requested collective bargaining since April and this is now only our third danko. Again, by Japanese law we request that the representative of the faculty be selected in a representative
manner.
=========================================
Fukuyama-san: Yesterday
we received your answer on this matter. You mentioned that the school should not interfere with the selection of this representative. But in a previous situation the selection was not done in a representative manner.
Mr. Thornton: Again,
that is a teachers' issue as far as the administration is concerned.
Fukuyama-san: In
the past you have interfered with the selection of the representative in the Japanese staff.
Mr. Thornton: Again,
I don't understand the question (Noda-san explained the past situation) I see. You want us to give guidance to the FSCC in this matter.
Fukuyama-san: At the last danko, Mr. Thornton said that as
to the revised reduction to step 5 that this was discussed with the FSCC. But
members of the FSCC confirmed that we were not shown the policy ahead of time nor were we asked to approve the policy.
Tim Thornton: I
don't think that is true. What I said last time (about discussing with FSCC)
was correct.
Fukuyama-san: Reading
from letter of FSCC member regarding lack of knowledge about Step 5 and not seeing proposal before it was approved.
[Biased Note,
not part of danko discussion: There is a big difference between discussing it
with FSCC and discussing it in Personnel Committee where two FSCC members sit but usually have no vote nor can discuss
with anyone else what transpired.]
Tim Thornton: The
policy was not approved until May. I believe that FSCC was involved, FSCC members
are on the Personnel Committee which discussed this, it was discussed prior to this on Feb 7 or Jan 24 (PC minutes). On Feb
7th we presented a proposal to the whole faculty. From this time until
the proposal was approved as policy in May, the FSCC and faculty as a whole had input on this proposal.
Fukuyama-san: So
at those meetings, reduction to step 5 was discussed?
Tim Thornton: Yes,
on February 7, quoting from a memo to the staff from Peter Cooper, Step 5 was stated as a part of the proposal.
Fukuyama-san: FSCC
is not a decision-making organization. So we do not think that this was discussed
at this meeting.
Tim Thornton: Was
Mr. Fukuyama there? I said that this was discussed at administrative level and
with FSCC. I don't know what FSCC discussed at their meetings, but this was discussed
with FSCC.
Fukuyama-san: We
disagree with you on this matter. We would like to repeat our stance on this
matter and the disadvantageous change of working conditions. Other members of
the Union will ask some questions at this time.
==========================================
Ron Dirkse: Why
would we have members of FSCC state such a thing which is just the opposite of what you stated? We have FSCC people stating that "I am sure we have never discussed Step 5 specifically. We were not shown the policy before hand." That is why it was such a shock when Mid received his contract.
Tim Thornton: The
memo of Feb 7 of Peter stated that step 5 was part of the proposal. Are you telling
me that FSCC never knew about Step 5?
Ron Dirkse: This
is possibly the same as when you were sure that Step D5 was told to the faculty before Mid had to sign.
Tim Thornton: If
I was Perry Mason, like you, I would have had all these facts down and never make a mistake.
I have Peter Cooper's memo right here.
Tim Ilse: After
this memo went out, why didn't they discuss this?
Tim Thornton: After
the proposal went out in the memo of Feb 7 all of our meetings were based on Step 5.
I wouldn't know why FSCC wouldn't discuss it.
Tim Ilse: Mid,
when you signed, you knew it was step 5
Mid Squier: Yes, and added a sentence to show disagreement
with the policy.
Ron Dirkse: What is the seniority of non-regular teachers (in
terms of RIF policy)
Tim Thornton: We
would continue to honor seniority based on that. And it is something that
has been clarified in the Personnel Policies.
Ron Dirkse: What
differences are there in the policies?
Tim Thornton: Salary and retirement.
Ron Dirkse: Whose 5.27%?
School is not paying anything? I thought after the Sept 16 meeting this
was a big surprise to many.
Tim Thornton: That is the policy. School is paying it into the retirement but it is the teacher's salary.
Ron Dirkse: Could you give us an idea of the number of teachers
who were not given waivers under the old policy because they turned 60?
Tim Thornton: From
1992, four.
Ron Dirkse: Because they turned 60?
Tim Thornton: Well
again. We didn't grant waivers to 4 people.
Ron Dirkse: Because
they turned 60?
Tim Thornton: It
doesn't matter.
Ron Dirkse: Oh yes it does.
It matters very much.
Tim Thornton: What matters is that the school didn't grant
waivers.
Marguerite Arnote: Were they 60 in that year?
Tim Thornton: In
at least one case.
Marguerite Arnote: So
there is really only one.
Ron Dirkse: And they were not extended solely because they
turned 60?
Tim Thornton: Again,
that has never been the case. In the old policy we had a waiver policy which
allowed the headmaster and later the admin council to make a decision from 60 onwards.
And again that is the way it was interpreted. The waiver could have been
at any time.
Ron Dirkse: And
the reason for the waivers was?
Tim Thornton: Again
it was often subjective and often it came from collective discussions of whether this is best for the school or not.
Ron Dirkse: And it was never based upon that you turned 60
this year and therefore we will not extend you?
Tim Thornton: It
was based on admin council. The person turned 60 so it became discretionary to
admin based on a host of factors. It
would be beyond me tonight to list all the factors.
Ron Dirkse: You have been here for 5 years. Most of us have been here for 30. In all of these years it
has been standard practice that if people followed the proper rules and handed the request in on time and were good teachers
that they expected to be extended.
Tim Thornton: That
is your expectation. If you go back to past years it has been discretionary. A
handful of people have been granted waivers. It was not a large number of people. I don't know why Ray granted them, but I know that in recent years it was always looked
at as discretionary and not automatic.
Ron Dirkse: Soon
after Peter came he hired two people over 60. And at the same time when you reach
the age of 60 you have to go?
Tim Thornton: Well
I think what was said that under the waiver system when you reach the age of 60 some people can stay and others we don't want.
Ron Dirkse: No,
this past year he didn't say that. And that is why we have formed a Union. And that is a question that you never want to address. The fact that past practice
of ASIJ has never to been to say to a person that since this year you turn 60 you will not be extended. That has never been past practice.
Tim Thornton: But when you signed your contract you knew there
was retirement age of 60. Why would you have a retirement age -- at some stage
you have to stick to that age.
Ron Dirkse: But the past practice of this was that you could
extend.
Tim Thornton: The administration could extend, you could not.
Ron Dirkse: Over the past 38 years it has been if you were
a good teacher..
Tim Thornton: That is your interpretation. I don't think
so. You are making assumptions here that are not based on facts.
Ron Dirkse: I'm
sorry but we have a lot of old time teachers who can relate to this and you can't.
Tim Thornton: Maybe
so. but the policy says, and has always said, that it is the discretion of the administration.
There is nothing in there which says if you are doing a good job.
Ron Dirkse: Yes,
but Japanese law says past implementation of a policy is much stronger than any written words.
Tim Thornton: Great.
If you feel that and we disagree with that, then we have a basic disagreement.
Ron Dirkse: But that is Japanese law.
Tim Thornton: We
feel that the school has a retirement age of 60 and we can argue this until we are blue in the face. It is your interpretation.
Tim Ilse: If this
is the case of disagreement, let us step aside and let lawyers deal with this. Take
this to a third party. I have been in your situation. You can say, continue to bargain. But we have a fundamental
disagreement about the condition of the policy. I understand what you are saying. But I have a different perspective. Why
should we continue to rehash this?
Bill Jacobsson: If
it is the Japanese law process...
Tim Thornton: I
have been here for 24 years and have been in Japanese courts more than you. I
know that there is no black and white in the system. Your lawyers say you are
right and we have lawyers that say we are right.
Ron Dirkse: Have
you been honest with your lawyers? Do they know the reasons why people have not
been rehired?
Tim Thornton: Of
course we have lied to them. We have a list of everyone since 1992 and back to
1983 with people who have stayed.
Ron Dirkse: We
can go back much farther than that.
Tim Thornton: You
and I sitting here will never solve this. We can talk until we are blue in the
face.
Ron Dirkse: The
Japanese process is to go through the danko system to lay the ground work for any legal process.
Bill Jacobsson: We
need to pursue these fact finding meetings to find common ground. I don't think this
has been a waste of time. What you have talked about with the other 150 faculty
is fine. But as a union, we have a legal right to discuss these issues concerning
retirement. If we think that danko meetings don't make any more sense and our
representatives feel that they are no longer productive, then we will follow that advice.
But if they feel the need for more, then you need to meet with us
Ron Dirkse: Is
this change coming from the Board or Administration?
Tim Thornton: All
policies are the Board's. Generally speaking the Board and Admin work on things
together. I can't remember that it was Admin or Board telling the other.
Ron Dirkse: When the change to the new policy was implemented
and Peter told us that because we are 60 and you are out, wasn't there some discussion at admin level concerning moral issues,
ethical issues, legal issues?
Tim Thornton: It
was discussed thoroughly at both the Board and Admin level and naturally there are different opinions, but the overal feelings
were on both sides that this was a proper direction. What is morality? Age of 60? America has an age discrimination policy, Japan
does not. The Board and Admin do not really see this as a moral issue.
Ron Dirkse: We
do not say that the administration does not have the right to grant or not grant extensions, we do not say that the new policy
is illegal. But we do say that under Japanese law, you do not have the right to make the new policy apply to those faculty
who have been under the old system for many years.
==========================================
Fukuyama-san: We
would again request that Mr. Daniels and Mr. Cooper should be in attendance at these meetings and we want to make sure that
sincere answers are given to questions.
Tim Thornton: First
of all I find it very rude that Mr. Fukuyama always requests that Mr. Daniels and Mr. Cooper should be here. We have been chosen by the Board and we presented this letter to this meeting at the first danko. We have tried to answer the questions as sincerely as possible to settle this issue.
Fukuyama-san: You have shown some new proposals to some teacher?
Tim Thornton: Yes,
I did discuss this matter and Mr. Fukuyama said I have the right to discuss with any faculty.
He is a long time friend and happens to be a Union member.
Bill Jacobsson: I
think this discussion came after Dr. Thornton requested that all information to be shared with the Board should go through
him as a representative. This was discussion that was not directed to the Union.
Tim Thornton: This was an informal discussion. I apologize if this seemed to be an official proposal. I apologize
if it was looked at as improper.
Ron Dirkse: I
think a lot of people look at the Ad Hoc committee in the same way. We as a union
were not informed at all. Common courtesy would seem to say that the Union should
be involved.
Tim Thornton: Again,
this was a whole school issue and the FSCC is looked at as the primary means of discussion with faculty.
Ron Dirkse: But
again, for the Ad Hoc committee to put out that "Background Sheet" which was not factual was offensive.
Tim Thornton: We
can argue on the factual aspect. I have late buses to check so two more minutes.
Fukuyama-san: Any
new proposals should be made at these meetings not through any separate person.
Tim Thornton: If
I have an official proposal I will bring it to this meeting. May I talk to a friend of mine?
Fukuyama-san: Yes,
but the purpose of this meeting is to find common ground. It is good to have
discussions with FSCC but the more important thing is to revise the disadvantageous modifications of the policies.
Tim Thornton: Okay.
Fukuyama-san: We still think that the headmaster and Board
of Directors should attend this meeting
Tim Thornton: Thank
you.
Fukuyama-san: We
would like to request that you consider to have another meeting with these present.
Tim Thornton: Thank
you.
