Reasons for the Formation of the ASIJ Teachers Union:

A Historical Perspective

Two items not related to the retirement issue, but are related to the issue of unilateral changes in policies:

In 2000 the Board unilaterally changed the RIF policy interpretation and wording.

Aug/Sept 2001:  Unilaterally, sabbaticals were withdrawn for the year and teachers using professional days were told they needed to pay for their substitutes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 1998, the FCC proposed inserting the word, age, into the non-discrimination clause or to change the 60 into 65 in the retirement clause--Japan suggested raising its retirement age by 5 years in 1986 and by the mid 90s most companies had 60. On April 1, 1998 this became Japanese law.   Peter Cooper told us that the Board would not agree and we had better not try to change things or we might end up with a worse situation.

In Jan/Feb 2001 Peter Cooper was telling interviewed applicants that the job ended at age 60--something the policies did not say.

November 2001: Eight ASIJ teachers/staff  (all receiving continued excellent evaluations) were told that they would be terminated at age 60--an interpretation of the retirement policy that was a unilateral change.  The non-extension of a clerical worker was directly counter to both the policy, which states age 65 for staff and the interpretation later given that we neither need nor want rejuvenation of classified staff--it is not in the best interests of the school. (From FASST minutes of 02/13/03)

In Jan 2002, Lee Daniels said in the RT that he and the Board would be willing to come to school as often as needed to resolve the difficulties with the retirement issue--They did not return until May 21, 2003 and dialogue did not occur (see notes on this meeting on page 3).

In this same RT meeting Peter Cooper mentioned that the rationale for this policy had three parts--renewal, cost, and evaluation. (Mr. Daniels used the term, rejuvenation).  The Headmaster also stated that the non-extension of Don Berger's (not named) contract should have been assumed as setting a precedent and people would henceforth realize that waivers would no longer be automatic.  However he omitted mentioning that Don had been in a serious motorcycle accident and he had requested the waiver after the deadline for granting waivers.  Mr. Cooper also failed to mention that in the next year he, himself, hired a 62-year old and a few years later hired a 65-year old.  During these years people like Vicky Downs, Ki Nimori, Bert Kraus, Dot Adamson, Irene Gilman and Tsurumi-san were routinely extended.  Vicky, Ki and Tsurumi-san were celebrated for their long service to ASIJ.

In a February 7, 2002 memo to the faculty, Peter Cooper stated that the faculty wanted to allow people to work until 65 with a soft-landing and they wanted to eliminate the waiver system.  This is NOT what any vote of the faculty said.  The faculty strongly voiced disapproval of any different treatment for people over 60 and it was the change in implementation of the waiver system that was under attack--not the waiver system itself. 

With this same February 7, 2003 memo was a notification that a survey was being put in our boxes that day ("This survey is not a vote") and it needed to be returned by the next day.  This was done without any clarification or discussion and the survey was later used as evidence that the faculty supported the new policy change.  Any supposed support for this change was in contrast to the firing that had taken place, not that the changed policy was, itself, fair or wanted.

When the Union was formed in April, 2002 and in the process of Danko meetings with the Board/Administration, the Board unilaterally set up an Ad Hoc committee in September, 2002.  This committee sent out to the faculty a substantial amount of misinformation on the history of the retirement policy, which the Union had to correct.  This misinformation came from the Director of Business Affairs, Dr. Thornton--a representative of the Board in the Danko talks.

While the AdHoc committee asked for input from the faculty at large in November 2002, the AdHoc committee did not consult with the Union until after their proposal was accepted by the Board.

The AdHoc committee chose the afternoon of February 14, 2003 to discuss their proposal--however, the completed proposal was emailed to the faculty while the meeting was in progress.

At this AdHoc meeting an administrator said it was okay to unilaterally change policies during the year.  Union question:  If policies have no meaning, then why do we sign contracts?

The survey for approval/disapproval of the AdHoc's proposal was very poorly worded and confusing--but it had already been emailed while the discussion of it was taking place.

In March, 2003 the Board/Administration's interpretation of the vote (which was clearly not in favor) was wrong.    Notice the biased wording?  Completely acceptable: 9; Acceptable- 20; Neutral- 11; Acceptable with reservations- 11; Completely unacceptable-21.  One does not consider a vote below neutral to be a positive reaction.  Why did the wording not say unacceptable to match the top acceptable?  Read the numerous comments that were posted by the AdHoc/FSCC.  Using the above scale they could be judged as 5 completely acceptable comments, 3 acceptable, 5 neutral, 16 unacceptable, and 26 completely unacceptable.  Notice the highest vote was for Completely Unacceptable in both the voting and the comments.  Yet the policy was approved by the Board/Admin.

Through FOUR dankos, from May 2002 to February 2003, there was no willingness on the Board/Admin part to discuss the issues--only to stonewall. We requested to have another danko in May 2003, but the Board team said they were too busy.   Such rude treatment is not what ASIJ should be doing.  These meetings were not even allowed to be held at ASIJ; rather the Board made us meet at the local shrine and later temple for these meetings.  In the 2^nd Danko, Dr. Thornton left in mid-question saying it was time to go home.  The transcripts of these dankos are on our web site:  http://asijtu.tripod.com

On a number of occasions the union has been lied to.  In the first danko, a member of the Admin team stated it was not a financial reason for the change, but the Board Chairman and Headmaster stated in the RT that cost was one of the three reasons. This Admin team member also stated that retirement at 60 was mandatory in the past--it was not.  No non-regular contracts even seem to exist on paper since the non-regular teachers sign the exact same one as always. The maximum of Step 5 D was never explained to the faculty, and the promised announcement to the faculty was a belated (unannounced) change in the policy on the website.  On another occasion the DBA tried to get the FSCC to censor their minutes related to this issue.  He has told us we can talk and talk but will never settle the issue, so we have the right to go to court.  Another member of your team refused to define what the Board meant by rejuvenation.  He also notified the Union that he did not want to receive any Union news sent via email (on a couple occasions) to the faculty.

On May 21, 2003, Lee Daniels and Stan Beesley came to school to answer questions that had been submitted by the Union. (Previously, Lee Daniels had told the Union that, based on advice from his lawyer, he would not be responding to the Union).  They answered very few of the 19 questions submitted to them.  Mr. Daniels told us the policy would not be changed and that Tim Carr would not be addressing this problem this year.   Lee Daniels did admit that the interpretation of the policy had changed--which has been a MAJOR focal point of our concern.   Stan Beesley said the 4 to 1 ratio of comments against the AdHoc proposal was not a concern since these comments did not address the purpose of the AdHoc committee.  In the subsequent meeting with faculty, it was announced at the beginning of the meeting that no questions from the floor would be allowed. 

June 6, 2003, a second Letter of Concern was sent to the Board by the Union.  (On March 29, 2002 a first letter of concern had been sent by a number of faculty members.)

On September 25, 2003 another request was mailed to Lee Daniels for continued dialogue and an answer to our questions of May.  When no reply had been received, papers requesting formal arbitration were filed with the Tokyo Labor Relations Board on October 8, 2003.

At the October 14, 2003 town meeting Lee Daniels again said that the Board wanted to have more dialogue, communication and transparency with the faculty and community. 

On October 29, 2003 the Union finally received a two-paragraph email reply from Lee Daniels in which he said the Board had gone out of its way to discuss the retirement issue and answered all our questions--this is not true!  He also stated that no one mentioned that there were still unanswered questions--that is not true, as the question paper submitted asked for additional meetings if necessary and a written response to those not covered.  After the meeting, the Union President, Ron Dirkse, thanked Mr. Daniels for coming and told him that there were still many unanswered questions that needed to be addressed.  In his email reply, Mr. Daniels also stated that the vast majority of the faculty supported this change--which is false.  (There might have been support for the changed policy if the alternative is firing everyone, but that does not mean the faculty supports the discrimination policy.)

On October 31, Tim Carr's memo said:  "The Board is really making a special effort to be inclusive and transparent in their communications this year, and this [meeting with Admin team] was another key step in the right direction."  If this is the Board's intent, why are we not seeing it with regard to the retirement issue?

We appreciate all the effort some of the members of the FSCC did on our behalf, but the FSCC did not have the power to keep the Board/Admin from unilaterally changing the policy.  We also appreciate the new atmosphere that the Headmaster, Tim Carr, has brought to the school and hope that this is carried over into our discussions.

Proposals/Desires that were made known 5 years ago in FCC (as it was called then). 

Although the faculty never felt any need to amend the retirement policy in 1986 when Japan suggested to companies that retirement age be raised 5 years to age 60; when this became a law on April 1, 1998 we thought it might be appropriate to change the policy.

1. Include the word age in the non-discrimination clause   OR
2. Change age numbers in current (at that time) policy by adding 5 years    OR
3. Change the retirement age to 65 and make it mandatory if desired by the Board.

We were told by Peter Cooper that these would not be acceptable by the Board.  There is no sense for the FCC to pursue these if the Headmaster states this opinion.

Some related items:

1964:  Retirement policy was made at ASIJ, with normal retirement at age 60--when Japan had an age of 55.

1967:  Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) enacted in US

Many ASIJ teachers have not been terminated at 60--we have a list of at least 16 people representing approximately 62 extensions, and some new teachers and administrators have even been hired after the age of 60. Most of these extensions and hirings occurred under Peter Cooper.  They are listed on our website at http://asijtu.tripod.com

We have replies from 6 past ASIJ administrators who concur with us that past policy worked fine, there was never a termination at 60 because of age; evaluations should be the key, etc.

With regard to the three reasons given by the Board for the policy change:  financial(cost), renewal(rejuvenation), and evaluation--

1.  ASIJ enrollment has been at record levels in recent years.

2.  There is, and always has been, a sizeable turnover in teachers each year.

3.  Evaluations of those told to leave have been excellent.

       Today, on the world scene we see Donald Rumsfeld at 72, Alan Greenspan at 76, Colin Powell at 66, James Baker at 73 and George W. Bush planning to run for 2^nd term when he will be 60.  Gephardt, Kerry and Lieberman are all over 60. The Florida Marlins coach is 72 winning the World Series. The Yankees Don Zimmer is 72.  Football coaches such as Vermiel (67), Bowden (73) and Paterno (76) and many others continue on the college and pro scene. Boeing's new CEO, Harry Stonecipher is 67, Dick Cheney is 62, Larry King is 70, Dan Rather is 72, Jimmy Carter is 79, Kofi Annan is 64, Queen Elizabeth is 77 and the Pope is 83.

        In Japan, Mr. Sakaguchi recently stated retirement age will be raised to 65 next year (Korea has also been mentioning this). The January 3, 2004 Yomiuri editorial said, "A system is needed to enable people to continue working according to their ability, instead of setting age limits.  Companies bear a social responsibility to improve this environment."  The majority of Tokyo private schools have retirement age at 65 with regular salary contracts, CAJ has no age limit, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has 73 as retirement age--however former Prime Ministers Nakasone and Miyazawa were 85 and 84 while in the Diet.  Koizumi says he will retire at 65.  Shigeo Nagashima (67) is currently heading the Japan baseball team to the Olympics. The Emperor is 70. The US Ambassador to Japan, Howard Baker, is 78 and his wife is 73. David Ussery, president of Amway Japan is 67.