To: Board of Directors of the American School In Japan
Board Representatives:
Lee Daniels Chairman Board of Directors
Stan Beesley Personnel Committee Chairman
From: ASIJ Teachers' Union (ASIJTU)
Dear Sirs,
In the spirit of maintaining the leading edge of educational
excellence, we must say that, as Union members, we were very disappointed in Lee Daniels' attempt at trying to justify the
continuation of employment discrimination by AGE at ASIJ.
ASIJ has a blanket policy that denounces discrimination
in any form at the school (Non-Discrimination policy #4000). Mr. Daniels even
cited and acknowledged this policy in his remarks. He then went on to concede
that in actuality discrimination does exist at the school and tried to use this as justification for installing the new Board
sanctioned Retirement Policy #4146 and the resulting Non-Regular Contract (NRC) policy #4140 XVI (65 + step 10.5). This is a policy that discriminates against employees solely because of AGE in years lowering both salary
and benefits without significant reduction in job expectations and/or responsibilities.
The Board's attempt to make a case for adding discriminatory
polices (Retirement and NRC) by acknowledging the existence of discrimination in other school policies is circular reasoning
and non-productive. Instead of creating new instances of discrimination the school
should be eliminating existing cases. The faculty, in years past, has promoted
opportunities to build equity and unity in the workplace and job security among co-workers by accepting salary-step freezes
and taking on additional class loads. Why were we not given the opportunity to
creatively work toward acceptable solutions to the Board's perceived problems - whatever they are?
In the meetings of Wednesday May 21, 2003, the Board had
an excellent chance to demonstrate its integrity, show its resolve to support the Non-Discrimination policy #4000 and lift
the morale of the faculty, but instead the Board elected to continue down the slippery slope of discrimination. Discrimination is the real issue behind the retirement policy. The
Board clearly indicated that the retirement issue is off the discussion table next year but is the topic of
discrimination still a valid issue to be discussed?
Mr. Daniels stated allowances for children and housing
are existing examples of discrimination within the present set of school policies. He
continued by seemingly equating these allowances with the previous retirement policy (extensions after 60) and the current
sexual preference policy. His comments led us to understand him as implying that
since discrimination exists within some school policies it is acceptable to have discrimination in the retirement and NRC
policies. He apparently is comfortable using this reasoning as justification
for including AGE discrimination in the school's newly revised policies for retirement and NRC. This structure of policy formation needs careful articulation in order to produce: 1) Clear understanding
of the rationale behind the conclusions that are following from it, and 2) Support for the policies among school employees. When will this issue be discussed and clarified?
In our view, allowances are in place to equalize
living conditions and allow the school to enjoy the benefits of structured families within its teaching staff. Age and sexual preference discrimination are measures used to restrict and eliminate
people from the workforce. How can the existence of policies for allowances justify
the reduction of salary and benefits or removal from one's job because of AGE?
The citing of other area and regional schools by Lee Daniels
as having a 60 retirement age was an incomplete list favoring the Board's position and, generally, off the mark as ASIJ has
always prided itself as being the leader in education in the schools of this globe.
If the counsel of other schools is sought, the complete retirement picture of these schools should be presented and
thoroughly evaluated. Has this been done?
If so, please, share the results of the study with the faculty and Union.
Putting the retirement issue on hold for one year after
Tim Carr's (new Headmaster as of August 1, 2003) arrival, stating it would be unfair to catch him between Board and faculty
forces his first year, is unfair to the faculty and NOT perceived as an appropriate measure by many faculty and Union members. The Headmaster has not, as yet, been integrally involved in the discussion of the
retirement policy with the FSCC, Ad Hoc or the Union. So far, Tim Thornton and
Tim Ilse are the Board's representative spokesmen to the FSCC, AD Hoc and Union. Does
the year's protective moratorium mean Headmaster Carr will, in his second year, actively lead reviews of the retirement policy
and Union negotiations? Retirement is an issue that the faculty is deeply concerned
over and it is having an impact on our morale and livelihoods as this letter is being written.
The issues are present now. They are affecting the health of our school. Dialog and negotiations need to continue uninterrupted. Will the Board consider alternative venues of discussion that do not involve Tim Carr's time, efforts and/or
adjustment to life at ASIJ?
"Paying a price" is spending more on an issue than one
really wants to pay. The faculty and entire ASIJ community appreciate the time,
energy and expertise each Board member donates to making ASIJ a terrific school. But
about the remarks concerning "untold man" hours spent on this issue by the Board and Administration, let the Board recognize
the untold hours members and family of Union members have spent trying to secure jobs and protect what is legally and morally
their rights. Unlike the Board, who give up evenings to meet but then can go
home removed from the impact of their decisions, the affected faculty too spend time away from family but, also, have to consider,
weigh, and endure the pain caused them for fighting these perceived injustices. The
faculty has to process these thoughts and feelings all the while harboring the knowledge of the financial and social impact
these on-going negotiations will have on the well-being and happiness of their families and themselves. Who is paying the greater price--the Board or faculty? We
think the faculty unquestionably pays the greater price. The Board's untold hours
pale in the light of the cost to those faculty families living under the consequences of the newly revised Retirement and
Non-Regular Contract policies.
The Union and faculty are pleased Lee Daniels conceded
that the interpretation of the ASIJ retirement policy has changed -- a major contention of the Union's concerns. Why haven't those faculty who are integrally affected by the policy revisions been allowed to directly
contribute to their formation. Why weren't discussions held (as was done with
previous Headmasters) with older faculty one-on-one with the Headmaster to discuss the needs of the teacher and school
regarding continued employment after the age of 60? Why wasn't the entire faculty
allowed to offer creative solutions to whatever the perceived problems are--financial and rejuvenation? Why haven't the tenets of the Non-Regular Contract been clarified and included in the contracts of those
who are now asked to sign and honor them? What are the Board's financial concerns? Can we, as a faculty, again help resolve these concerns? What is the working definition of rejuvenation at ASIJ? How
is it to be applied to the faculty and staff?
"We will abide by the laws of Japan "(Lee Daniels). There is another country mentioned in the name of our school. Because we are Americans we have laws that help keep us from straying too far from those values we, as
a nation, hold true and inalienable. America has adopted laws to protect its
citizens from what the Board of Directors of the American School In Japan is imposing on its faculty. In the USA the newly revised ASIJ retirement policy is AGE discrimination and illegal. Why don't we abide by the laws of the USA as well as those of Japan?
Because we are "out of"our country is our country "out
of" us? Can we just walk away from our civic responsibility? Is this attitude acceptable in other areas of life as well? What
about our spiritual life? Are we to walk out of our spiritual responsibility
when the service is over in our houses of worship or are we to live those principles and moral responsibilities throughout
our daily lives and where ever we go? Is there to be no moral responsibility
to uphold the values of and beliefs of our namesake countries in daily life at ASIJ?
Why does the Board NOT acknowledge, accept and then model the global moral responsibility of non-discrimination in
the school policies? This stance on responsibility should be visible to all in the ASIJ community through and within the Board's
policies, actions and directions and publicly held high as an integral part of the educational process at our school. Responsibility cannot be turned on and off, like water from a tap, at one's personal
convenience. The ASIJ mission is: Developing compassionate, inquisitive learners
prepared for global responsibility. Can global be redefined to mean regional,
national, ethnic, or what ever appeals at the moment? Can morality be separated
from responsibility and can responsibility be separated from law?
From the initial Non-Regular Contract survey, it was reported
(by Stan Beesley) that the faculty approved the contract changes. Confused questions
containing misleading and incomplete instructions frustrated voters, even the collection process was flawed with one Administrator
collecting and counting the ballots. Little chance to discuss the survey was
given before voters were required to submit their vote. The February 14 AD Hoc
survey also was flawed and the Board interpretation was again NOT in accordance with the results of that vote. Interpreting flawed balloting as an indication of faculty approval for the retirement policy and NRC is
like building a house on sand. Its foundation will not support the building. The surveys do NOT represent the feelings and will of the faculty and the retirement
and NRC policies do NOT have significant faculty support.
It needs also to be mentioned that the Union members did
as the Administration asked and submitted questions they wanted to ask the Board in advance of the Wednesday May 21, 2003
meetings but the questions were not addressed in the downstairs Conference Room meetings nor in the upstairs meeting in room
213. Will these questions be formally answered in the near future?
Sincerely,
ASIJ Teachers' Union
---------------------------------------------
Questions submitted by Union for the
meeting
To: Mr. Lee Daniels and Mr. Stan
Beesley
CC: Fukuyama-san
Questions for the Board of Directors at ASIJ Regarding
Non-Regular Contract Policy
May 21, 2003 3:15 Conference Room
Mr. Daniels and Mr. Beesley: There
are probably more questions than can be answered in our 20 minutes for this meeting.
Will you provide a written response to the following questions at some time, or continue our discussions after the
town meeting tonight or at a date in the near future?
Over the past few years many questions have been submitted in relation to the
retirement issue and while many of them are very important to us, such as: Why does the Board not
allow the inclusion of the word AGE in the non-discrimination clause?, we would like to focus on union specific
questions. The union was formed because we felt our rights were being abused. The danko sessions we have had in
some cases seem to have been in the stalling mode. So specifically related to union and danko meetings to try to resolve
the retirement issue . . .
1. Would the Danko process be
moved along more speedily if you or another Board member attended??
2. At the RT meeting (December
2001) when the retirement issue was first presented to the faculty, you said that you and the Board would be willing to come
out to the campus as often as necessary to discuss the issue of retirement. But
there were no more Board/Faculty meetings, until now. Everything had to be channeled through the FSCC. Why?
3. Related to the Ad Hoc committee
and proposal:
a) Are you aware that the Ad Hoc committee never asked
for any union input on the accuracy of their background sheet that was sent to all faculty, nor in the formulating of any
proposal?
b) Are you aware that the Ad Hoc proposal on Non-Regular
Contracts was not endorsed by a majority of those who voted? 29 (in favor) above
neutral and 35 (not in favor) below neutral. And yet it was approved. Why?
c) Are you aware that the comments for the Ad Hoc proposal
were over 4:1 against? And yet it was approved.
What justification can you give for approving this Non-Regular contract?
d) Are you aware that turning 60 results in a 3 million yen
loss in salary and benefits?
4. The term rejuvenation of faculty has been used a number of times in retirement
meetings. Can you explain the Board's position on rejuvenation?
5. Your representatives repeatedly
state in the dankos that the interpretation and implementation of the retirement clause has NOT changed from what it has been
for nearly 40 years. In our last Danko in March we asked your representatives (since the information was said to be confidential)
to have Mr. Daniels attest to the accuracy and validity of a list of ASIJ teachers who were released (not issued an extension)
solely because they had reached the age of 60. Are you prepared to do
this?
6. The current Headmaster has
publicly spoken of teachers being "easily" replaced. In this Centennial year, is that the philosophy of the Board? The financial
benefits of such decisions are superficially easy to enjoy. It is not until one looks below the surface that the effect on
morale and programs offered to students is discovered. What are the Boards views
as to positives and negatives of frequently changing staff?
7. Why have teachers and administrators who were over 60 been hired by Peter
Cooper, if the retirement age is 60? (Mandatory retirement age, according to
one of your representatives, Tim Thornton) Why is rejuvenation of faculty wanted,
but not rejuvenation of staff? And if rejuvenation of staff is not wanted, then
why was Suzanne Hayase's (who was a 62 year old clerical library staff) clerical
contract not renewed for school year 2002-2003?
8. Do you have any explanation
as to why in the past few years, janitors, accounting office personnel and other staff have joined unions--as have we? Why the Japanese teachers are contemplating a lawsuit?
Why have other teachers asked us and our union for assistance in their situations?
These worker actions have never before been part of ASIJ life. Why in
the last 4-5 years have they occurred?
Finally, we have been very frustrated in our efforts at dialogue. In addition to some of the above examples, let us add a few more examples:
A. (Quotes from the
danko #4)
Ron Dirkse: So from the Board's position, the Administration's position, what does
the word rejuvenation mean?
Tim Ilse: I don't think I'm ready to
answer this. It is irrelevant to what we are talking about--tangentially relevant.
B. (Quotes from Danko
#1)
Fukuyama-san: You have said that the Board has a financial responsibility, but there has been record
enrollment [during the onset of this policy] at the school so we would like to ask you again, what are the grounds for reducing
the wages?
Tim Thornton: Again, this decision is not a financial decision, it is based on a management decision
to have the policy to stay until 65 and the rehire conditions to go to step 5. This
has nothing to do with anything other than a management decision.
C. FSCC Minutes (March 3, 2003)
· In the last Union meeting [Danko] it seems that something from the minutes
of a recent FSCC meeting was discussed at length. Tim Thornton would like us to be careful that nothing in the minutes can
be pulled out and taken as inflammatory.
· This was something said at the
Ad Hoc meeting on the non-regular contract.
· The minutes reflected what was said.
· We won't censor the minutes
D. Nancy Reckord stated in the Ad Hoc town meeting, Feb 14, 2003, that it is okay
to change personnel policies during the year, even though contracts have been signed.
"I don't see that changing something in the personnel policy like saying we are not going to have sabbaticals for a
year violates somehow something for you in your contract. I think those are the kinds of things that change."
Looking forward to our meeting.
Sincerely,
Ron Dirkse
President, ASIJ Teachers Union
-----------------------------------------------
Other questions submitted by concerned faculty
1a. Why does the Board and the Administration feel that every teacher's life
should end at the age of 60. Everyone is different and should be looked upon as individuals and not automatically placed in
the "Useless" category?
2a. Why does the Administration evaluate teachers' performance if it is never taken into account?
3a. If the Admin. and the Board feel that 60 is in fact "Old" --therefore the need to pay us less is a grave factor,
why would they ask us to carry the same class load and extra-curricular duties. It is quite obvious that they do not feel
we can do the job.
4a, The Board and Admin. speak of rejuvenation and I take that to mean they want younger more motivated teacher/coaches,
why then would they want an old person like me to coach two sports and accompany
students on a week long rigorous outdoor Ed. program.
5a. Why do they feel that it is ok to ask me to carry on while they humiliate me and treat me as though I'm used up
and no longer a productive human being?
---------------------
1b. If the change to a mandatory retirement with the option to be re-hired under a Non-regular contract is found
to be illegal under Japanese Law, would those hired before the non-regular retirement rules be grandfathered? I realize the newest employees were told that they should not expect to work after the year they turn 60.
2b. If the change to non-regular contracts for those over 60 is upheld by the Japanese negotiations going on now,
does the reduction of salary and benefits really equate with the reduced work hours (leave at 3:15?) and missing a few staff
development days? Most of us here put in 8-12 hour days even when not coaching. The Japanese "model" this reduction seems to be based on would indicate a much bigger
reduction in work load than what is now on the books.
3b. I was told that if the Japanese Government raises the minimum age for mandatory retirement from 60 to say 65,
that ASIJ would automatically change the 60 to 65 for going to the "non-regular" contracts.
Is this true?
4b. I still would like the Board/Administration to explain why after 100 years, that ASIJ is forcing a non-regular
contract on their most experienced employees. I have seen wonderful, energetic
employees such as Ki Nimori and June Tsurumi put in many great years after they turned 60.
What a benefit they have given to the school. Why the abrupt change based
solely on an arbitrary age of 60 and not on performance? Performance should be
exemplary no matter what age the employee is or they should be counseled to change or seek another place of employment.
5b.Would you define rejuvenation? Is it professional growth, professional
leadership, graduate courses, professional workshops, professional meetings? Or
is it just turnover?
-------------------
1c. Why was grandfathering not done in this policy, as has been usual
with policy changes in the past? I am talking about grandfathering with respect
to the birthdate cutoff and grandfathering of the entire former waiver policy and former interpretation of it.
**********************************
Regarding the
Union questions submitted:
Not addressed: #1, #2, #3, #6, #7, #8, last paragraph
Minimally referred
to: #3
Partially answered: #5
Regarding other
faculty questions submitted:
Not addressed:
#1a, #2a, #3a, #4a, #5a, #2b, #4b, #5b
Minimally referred
:
Partially answered:
#1b, #3b, #1c
