Paraprofessional hiring practices in spotlight for local union, Pine City school board

Pine City Public Schools paraprofessionals represented by AFSCME Council 65 are continuing to call for "transparency, consistency, and adherence to district policy regarding starting wages for newly hired employees," according to a news release issued on Nov. 20.

According to the release, paraprofessionals have been expressing concerns about new hires being placed at "unusually high" steps on the salary schedule for several months.

"We have no interest in preventing the district from being competitive," said Local 1647-3 President Elizabeth Perrault in the release. "We're asking for consistency, a fair process, and for the district to follow its own policies."

The release states that, during negotiations, the union suggested the following language to bring consistency to hiring practices:

• "Qualified applicants may be hired up to Step 3 provided they have the same or similar experience within another school setting."

• "At the discretion of the District, new employees may be placed above the lowest step with successful college, technical school, or business college, or who have had one year or more of successful experience within a school setting."

According to the release, those proposals do not prohibit placing new hires higher on the scale. The release states that the local union also attempted to negotiate longevity pay to offset the new hires starting at higher wages than veteran staff.

"The district refused these proposals as well and only agreed to a $500 stipend after 15 years of service or $650 after 20 years of service," the release reads.

The release states that the union and paraprofessionals remain committed to "working collaboratively" with the district, and is asking the district to provide explanation or documentation allowed under board policies when starting new hires at higher steps; establishing consistent criteria for step placement; and honoring the spirit of the collective bargaining agreement.

"Placing new hires above long-serving paraprofessionals without explanation undermines more and violates our trust," Perrault said. "We have asked for documentation. We have asked for consistency. We have asked for fairness. The district has provided none of it."

School board response

On Nov. 21, Pine City school board chair James Foster provided a statement in response to the union's news release.

"The district has made a concerted effort to address the ever-increasing staff shortages plaguing public education, as well as create a workforce that brings a broad and diverse set of real-world skills to foster the best possible educational environment for the students of Pine City Public Schools," the statement reads in part. "Part of this effort has been for the district to seek out new hires with broad and diverse backgrounds. To that end, all relevant experience is considered and welcomed at ISD 578."

The response also states that placing a highly-qualified candidate with substantial relevant experience at a lower step would be inequitable and hinder the district's ability to "recruit the best possible staff."

"To remain competitive and to ensure that our students benefit from a wide range of skills and expertise, the district assigns salary placement in a manner that appropriately reflects each candidate's prior experience," the response reads.

Foster also stated that the union's proposed language would limit "acceptable experience" to only similar school-based roles, and cap placement at Step 3 regardless of experience.

"Such limitations would make it more difficult to address staffing shortages and build the effective workforce our students deserve," Foster wrote.

Foster also spotlighted the annual bonus for employees with 15-plus and 20-plus years of service, as mentioned in the union's release, longevity-based vacation payouts, and competitive compensation determined by the district and local union as demonstrations of commitment to long-term employees.

The response also points out that compensation for members of the bargaining unit remains in effect through June 30, 2026, and the district is unable to modify contract language or adjust compensation "outside of the required negotiation process."

"If the union is seeking changes to pay structures, salary placement provisions, or benefit levels, those changes can be proposed during the next negotiation period in 2026," the response reads. "If the union believes that the current contract language is not being appropriately applied, the contract provides a clear grievance procedure. Should resolution not be reached through that process, the union has the right to pursue arbitration."

The response concludes: "The district has always respected the union's right to seek changes and to utilize the proper contractual and legal channels. Airing concerns in a public forum does not change the binding nature of the contract and is counterproductive when a structured, agreed-upon process already exists for resolving such matters."