In today's Projo story on binding arbitration, School Committee Lobbyist Tim Duffy said to the paper:
In Connecticut, arbitration favors teachers unions more than half of the time, Duffy said, and strains emerge when the final decision is perceived as too expensive for the community to pay.
“Even if a district does not go to arbitration, their [negotiated] settlements reflect what arbitrators have ruled in neighboring school districts,” Duffy said.
But the actual settlements say something different.
The Connecticut experience also says something very different about the impact on cities and towns.
And don't forget, these were contracts settled when the economy was doing much better than today. Also, a small portion of contracts go through arbitration, only around 10%.
How much of the criticism of binding arbitration is really just a criticism of the right to collective bargaining, period? Most of it I think.