From this point on the history of Puerto Rican teachers will be written before the strike of 2008 (BS) and after the strike of 2008 (AS). Events of such transcendental importance are few and far between and they undeniably change the course of future events.

During ten days, and under the most difficult conditions thousands of educational workers, mostly women, confronted management from the picket lines, providing a lesson in dignity to the entire nation. Education Secretary Aragunde and Governor Acevedo Vilá always said that teachers were incapable of going on strike and that the threat of strike was a bluff on the part of the Federation of Teachers of Puerto Rico (FMPR). They said that at the most a strike would result in a one day affair that would affect very few schools. They insisted that they had nothing to discuss with the union. Once the strike began to their surprise, they said that it would only last a few days. Aragunde and Acevedo Vilá never thought that throughout ten intense and long days educators would confront an intransigent management from their picket lines with incredible force.

Those who said there would be no resistence were mistaken. Educators demanded respect militantly and massively. Some 20,000 teachers supported the strike; 8,000 of them on the picket lines. Never before in the history of teacher strikes had there been such massive participation. A positive element in the strike was the participation of thousands of young female teachers who gave their all in defense of the picket lines during the ten days it lasted. Neither repressive threats, nor loss of salary, nor the lies of the commercial press, nor the attacks by the Tactical Police scared these young teachers. This demonstration of courage and commitment to teachers struggles is decisive evidence that the FMPR is indestructible. This is the first great achievement of the Teachers strike.

Another unforgettable characteristic of the strike was the Union's capacity to mobilize great numbers of teachers. In barely seven (7) days the Union organized four (4) massive and militant demonstrations with the participation of thousands of educators. These demonstrations helped to break the isolation of the strikers by joining them and providing them with a vision of their collective strength. We cannot recall any recent strike in Puerto Rico that has maintained a level of mobilization similar to that of the teachers strike. Herein, lies the leadership and militancy of the FMPR to reorganize as a bonafide union, overcome the management offensive and regain exclusive representation.

The teachers strike had another indisputable gain. The strike was an education for the entire nation about the real state of the educational system and of the commitment of teachers with educational excellence. Never before in our history has the subject of education had such coverage in media. Wherever you went the subject of discussion was that strike and public education. The strike had massive support from citizens and thanks to the sacrifice of educators, today our country has greater awareness of the conditions in our schools and of teachers demands.

The strike was a social phenomenon whose impact affected the lives and vision of thousands of people. In order to understand the political and syndical scope of the strike and the contribution of this event to the entire working class it is important to place the strike in its correct context. Let us look at some fundamental elements.

It is important to begin by saying that the immense majority of the striking teachers had never before participated in strikes or work stoppages. They had to overcome the fears, threats and pressure that management and its allies used to paralyze the strikers. This occurred in the context of the repressive Law 45 which prohibits strikes and criminalizes all concerted actions that imply the interruption of labor in public agencies. In fact, this same law establishes that workers can be fired for participating in any fashion in an illegal strike.

The grave economic situation of Puerto Rican educators was another obstacle. The low salary level of teachers and the fact that thousands of teachers are obliged to work at second jobs in order to meet their economic needs are well known facts. According to statistics, two out of every ten teachers are in bankruptcy, four out of every ten survive with a monthly deficit of more than $300. And an additional four of ten teachers had to depend upon loans or special savings to confront the effects of the strike. The situation of teachers is aggravated by the fact that many have to spend money out of their own pockets for school supplies and materials in order to work.

The immense majority of teachers are women, many of them single mothers. Many had to confront male chauvinist attitudes in order to carry out the tasks a strike requires.

Months before the strike was declared, vicious attacks were made by the government, management, commercial press and hired commentators. This attack was constant and aimed at defeating the striking teachers and diminishing their important role in society. This destructive strategy counted with the enthusiastic cooperation of various leaders of dues sucking unions, sectors of the independence movement allied to the Popular Party and unfortunately with various so called leaders of the FMPR who not only attacked the strike buy were also strike breakers.

WHAT WAS GAINED AND WHAT WAS NOT?
The strike was a movement of resistance where thousands of educators participated in order to gain various important demands for all teachers. Some of these demands were:
· The signing of a collective bargaining contract that offered justice to teachers and public education.
· The halting of privatization via charter schools.
· non-reprisal for striking teachers.
· Promote amendments to Law 45.

When the strike was recessed on the tenth day, Secretary Rafael Aragunde emitted a Memorandum where he specified the agreements reached with the FMPR. While it is true that these agreements are far from the original demands of the strike it is important that we evaluate them in their merit in order to understand the scope and importance to the educators struggle. The agreements reached during the strike were:
1. The Secretary agreed there would be no reprisals against striking teachers.
2. The Department of Education agreed to dialogue with the FMPR, without obligation of agreements, but without limiting the possibility of reaching them, on remaining issues, such as class size limit.
3. The Department of Education agreed to implant immediately a stipulation of non-privatization of public schools via charter schools.
4. The Department of Education agreed to maintain status quo with regards to conditions and terms of employment for members of the collective bargaining unit. This signifies that acquired rights of teachers cannot be altered, even when the FMPR is finally decertified and there is no signed collective bargaining agreement.
5. The Department of Education consented to a salary increase of $150.00 monthly beginning on July 1, 2008 and consigned the basic salary would increase to $1750.00 beginning on July 1, 2008.
6. The Department of Education committed to request that the Governor submit legislation that would in a determined amount of time increase teachers base salary to $3,000.00 monthly.

As we can see the agreements that ended the teachers strike contained positive measures for educators that cannot be underestimated. The immediate implantation of the stipulation regarding privatization is of great importance for teachers. This stipulation puts a freeze on one of the fundamental objectives of management. Job security, tenure and acquired rights were endangered by the threat of privatization and they are intact thanks to the strike. The privatization of schools with the subsequent loss of student rights was detained, assuring the right to free public and non-sectarian education for our nation. We must remember that even though this stipulation was negotiated before the strike, the implantation was to start after the collective bargaining agreement was signed. The strike assured implantation immediately.

In second place, the agreement to maintain status quo of conditions and terms of employment also has great practical relevance at this point of time by guaranteeing acquired rights to teachers. The clause on acquired rights signed before the strike would be implemented after the collective bargaining agreement was signed. The strike assured implantation immediately. These rights include such important measures as: period of professional capacitation, institutional period, five groups per teacher, tenure and paid and unpaid leave of absence. In fact we understand that the Secretary cannot change Regulations and Circular Statements (Cartas Circulares) that affect terms and conditions of employment of members of the collective bargaining unit.

Thirdly: the strike guaranteed that the promise of a pay raise became a firm and final agreement. As of July 1, 2008 teachers will receive an automatic increase of $150.00 per month. We continue to lobby intensely to increase this raise and obtain a differential that will do justice to teachers with more years of experience.

Fourth: the guarantee that no disciplinary measures will be taken against strikers is one of the most important agreements of this strike, not only for its' immediate impact, but also for the impact on future struggles. We went on strike and during ten days we violated the Law 45 and in the end we returned to work with dignity and without reprisals. All of the threats of disciplinary measures, fines and dismissal disappeared before the militancy of striking teachers. Thanks to the strike we have a new de facto state of affairs in the Department of Education which includes the inalienable right to strike.

We rescued the forgotten right to strike for all government workers. Now public employees know that there cannot be a limit to the exercise of our rights. We shook the Law 45 and there were no repressive measures, that example will without doubt have a great impact on future workers struggles.

Why weren't we able to obtain a collective bargaining agreement?

It is evident that we did not obtain a collective bargaining agreement. The reason is clear: the strike was unable to maintain the force needed for a prolonged period of time. To overcome the government's intransigence and anti-labor position, the strike had to maintain the capacity to paralyze the majority of the schools for more time. The first four days of the strike over 60% of educators supported the strike, either on the picket lines or by staying at home. The fifth, sixth and seventh day over 50% continued support. On Monday following the seventh day the percent began to descend to 33%, which evidenced the deterioration of the strike and thus the imminence of its' end.

Apparently the majority of the members of the FMPR prepared for a strike of short duration, thinking that within a few days management would cede to our demands. The length of the strike deteriorated teachers' resistance. It is obvious that the critical economic situation of educators and the threats of management played a large part in that deterioration. Especially when the large majority of the FMPR's members had never experienced the effects of a strike. There was no experience of struggle at this level.

On the other hand, the lack of experience in strikes had an impact in the majority of picket lines. The lack of resistance toward strike breakers (scabs) enabled them to enter schools freely. Even when during the first several days the majority of teachers supported the strike in many schools the scabs entered at will. In those schools where the strikers defended their picket lines, the strike was successful to the end and the morale of the strikers maintained intact. If a larger number of schools had been able to defend their picket lines we would be telling another tale. The best example is the Miguel Such School in Rio Piedras, where despite the presence of the Tactical Police Force and the arrests and police brutality, only 30 teachers out of a total of 98 were able to enter the school.

The resistance, sometimes with many participants and other times with few, made the police ineffective, causing the police to have to transport the strike breaking teachers in police vans.

It is fundamental that we all understand that the main reason the strike was unable to force management to sign the collective bargaining agreement was due to the strike breakers (scabs). They were the most powerful weapon that management used to attack the strike and refuse to negotiate. The presence of teachers in the schools served to demoralize the striking teachers, affect the solidarity of parents and increase the assistance of students. The tactic used by teachers of entering school some days and striking on others, served to measure the support for the strike but it also reflected confusion as to what a strike was. It also served to deteriorate the strike process and strengthen the Secretary's intransigence.

We can't avoid mentioning the negative impact of actions against the strike by various leaders of groups within the FMPR who betrayed the cause of educators and the union converting themselves into allies of management. On the 25 of February during the strike, Emilio Nieves, Lorelei López, Héctor Díaz, Noel Sánchez and Ana Avilés and others, met with the Secretary to betray the FMPR. These despicable elements not only attacked the strike assuming the same position as the Secretary and the Governor, but worse yet they sunk to the bottom of ignominy by breaking the strike and calling upon their followers to do the same. These traitors who change from band to band only deserve the repudiation of all teachers.

The array of actions against the success of the strike also included the dues sucking leaders of the SEIU and the Association of Teachers. At the point of major force of the strike, and when an agreement seemed possible, Dennis Hickey Rivera and Roberto Pagán amongst others, pressured the governor so that he not enter into agreements with the FMPR. They conspired against the strike like thieves in the night. Those same union businessmen who donate funds to the Governors' campaign are supporting the management related Association of Teachers in trying to gain the exclusive representation of educators; for which they have the support of the Secretary and the Governor.

All of the above reasons lead us to a greater problem: the state of conscience of the teaching class. The majority of the over 43,000 teachers still have not developed an awareness of their interests as working class educators and of their need to express solidarity in the defense of those interests and of the union as the fundamental instrument in facing management abuse. That truth, as complex as it seems is precisely the great task we have at hand in order to face future threats as teachers. The teachers strike was an educational experience where thousands of teachers learned in ten days what is generally learned in years. The strike was the best lesson both politically and union wise.

Was it worth our while to strike?

Without any doubt we would have to say yes, it was worthwhile and if we had to do it again our pulse wouldn't tremble. But it is important to dissipate some of the lies propagated by management and repeated by traitors and some friends as well about the moment the strike was declared.

Management spent 27 months evading reaching agreements at the bargaining table and keeping us without a collective bargaining agreement in order to continue doing as he pleased and violating the rights of educators with impunity. The decertification of the FMPR even though it was not firm and final, came at a perfect time for management and they used it as an excuse in order to refuse to negotiate. Secretary Aragunde could have negotiated with the FMPR, nothing impeded him from doing so. But he refused to do so time and time again.

We had to take our case to the Appellate Court so that the Secretary would concede to negotiate. After much pressure on February 13, the Secretary agreed to meet with the FMPR, but postponed the negotiation for more than a week. Realizing the strike could take place at any moment, management wanted to kill two birds with one stone: avoid the strike that they thought would begin on Tuesday, February 19 and involve us once again in the dynamics of dragging their feet and not reaching any agreements. Precisely for that reason the Secretary refused to meet the week prior to February 19, obliging us to meet that same day. As a matter of fact, the Secretary went to Culebra with Dennis Hickey Rivera rather than sitting down to negotiate with the FMPR.

When we finally sat down at the bargaining table, the FMPR presented an offer of accelerated negotiation and we spent two days to agree upon only two clauses. It was clear that managements intended to delay the negotiation and avoid the strike at all costs. The Secretary said that we would be negotiating for three weeks and did not wish to accelerate negotiations. The Executive Committee of the FMPR had decided on Wednesday February 20 to begin the strike but agreed to postpone the strike to see if substantial agreements could be reached. Management refused to negotiate amount of students per group and despite the efforts made stuck to the offer of 30 students in three years, which was unacceptable to the FMPR. We left that point on the bargaining table.

On February 20 they refused to negotiate in the morning supposedly due to problems. They arrived late an rather than bringing an offer regarding school organization they proposed an offer based upon the school council. They refused to accept any changes to their offer. Faced with this stagnation we requested a recess, declared the strike and returned to the negotiation table. Aragunde refused to continue negotiations and abandoned the table. We are certain that if we had continued wasting our saliva there would have been no strike nor any agreement. We would have been left without any means of pressuring management. We could not delay the strike because: we were losing time from teachers’ last paycheck, the strike might coincide with the primaries and loose public attention and later on we would be faced with the Holy Week which would have been a dangerous period of cooling off. Aragunde knew this which was why he wanted to keep us bogged down at the negotiating table and finally without the pressure of the strike not agree upon anything. That was the experience for those of us who were at the Department of Labor. Any other version is a story made up by Aragunde and his cohorts.

After the strike nothing will be the same.

The teachers strike transformed the FMPR, and all those who participated in this heroic process of struggle. Today we count with a never ending source of thousand of leaders forged in the strike with a renewed capacity to confront management at every level. We are also aware of the principle limitations we must overcome collectively.

We were the first union to be certified as exclusive representatives in 1999 and the first to be decertified in 2008. We have no doubt that we will be the first in recertification once elections are held. We are already receiving endorsements in order to participate in elections if they are held. It is fundamental that educators be able to count with the representation of the FMPR.

But more important than the exclusive representation is the character of the instrument we wish to forge of the FMPR. We are proud to recognize that the strike ratified that the FMPR does not sellout nor can it be bought. The FMPR places the defense of teachers rights and the interests of educators in first place, even when those interests have a high cost for the organizations leaders.

Now, thanks to the strike and the dedication and sacrifice of thousand of teachers we have an organization that is proven, militant and committed to fighting for teachers rights. We can no longer be threatened with decertification. Free of this threat, to which we paid little heed, management should take care. Without ties to bind us we are more dangerous than before. During the negotiations when management dragged their feet, management spokesmen were arrogant because they thought we had our hands tied and that we would never go on strike. That threat is over with. We have learned that we have the power to go on strike whenever it is necessary.

The teachers strike was a great battle in the war for justice for educators and for public education. Thus the adjournment of the strike is a recess in the process of struggle that continues via other means that will permit us to evaluate and identify limitations and strengths to reorganize and prepare for future battles. The electoral year is barely starting and now more than ever is a favorable time that should be utilized to advance educators demands and obtain a collective bargaining agreement. August might be a perfect time.

We cannot finish this overview of the strike without expressing our most sincere and profound thanks to all those organizations and members of the Support Group of the Teachers Strike and in Defense of Public Schools (Frente Amplio en Apoyo a la Huelga Magisterial y en Defensa de la Escuela Pública). Thank you for the solidarity.

There is no triumph without struggle, and no struggle without sacrifice.