The post ✨ The Schools Our Students Deserve Start With Us – Join Us for Community Meetings appeared first on JESPA.

While lawmakers in Colorado move to strengthen protections for riders of Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) through HB25-1291, there’s a glaring loophole that could put our most vulnerable passengers — students — at risk.

HopSkipDrive markets itself as a safe, student-focused alternative to Uber or Lyft — but operates similarly by contracting with drivers through an app to transport children, often for school districts. Despite offering rides for minors, it’s unclear whether HopSkipDrive will be held to the same standards as TNCs under the new legislation.

Here’s what the bill does:

· Limits drivers to 10 consecutive hours to prevent fatigue.

· Requires biometric ID verification and frequent fingerprint-based background checks.

· Mandates continuous audio and video recording for every ride (with opt-outs allowed).

· Requires fast transparency when a complaint is filed.

· Holds companies accountable under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.

All common-sense safeguards, especially when you’re transporting kids.

So what’s the problem?

HB25-1291 doesn’t clearly spell out whether student transport companies like HopSkipDrive are included. And based on how legislation like this usually plays out, HopSkipDrive is already lobbying behind the scenes to opt out or classify themselves differently.

Why? Because compliance would cost them. Cameras, background checks, tighter oversight — all of it means less profit, more accountability. And what happens if they’re allowed to opt out? Children — many with disabilities, IEPs, or mental health concerns — continue riding in cars with far fewer protections than adults using Uber.

Let that sink in:

Adults get biometric ID, continuous recording, and guaranteed complaint responses within 24 hours.

But a 9-year-old riding to school with a stranger? Maybe not.

“We Already Do That” — So Why Not Put It in Writing?

HopSkipDrive is reportedly telling lawmakers:

“We already follow all of these safety measures. There’s no need to include us in the bill.”

But here’s the thing: If they’re already doing it, there should be zero problem being legally required to. Unless, of course, they want the freedom to stop doing it at any time.

The Reality of “Voluntary” Safety Measures

HopSkipDrive is regulated by rules promulgated from SB22-144, found in 4 CCR 723-6 (starting on page 102). These rules do not require fingerprint background checks unless a school or district contract explicitly includes them. As stated in Rule 6724(d):

“… If a fingerprint background check for a driver is required, as specified in a contract with a school or school district, the criminal history record check shall be completed pursuant to the procedures set forth in § 40-10.1-110, C.R.S…”

Other current rules only require GPS monitoring for “real-time safety anomalies” — not continuous audio or video recording — and largely rely on self-regulation. Drivers are expected to self-report any new criminal convictions, and oversight from the state only happens once every three years through a review process by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and the Colorado Department of Education (CDE).

In contrast, HB25-1291 would:

· Mandate fingerprint-based checks before hire and every six months thereafter

· Require audio/video recording of rides (with opt-outs)

· Shift oversight from company discretion to state enforcement

The contrast is clear: what HopSkipDrive markets as safety is not enforced by law — and often left up to self-regulation, contracts, or internal policy.

What HopSkipDrive promises and what they’re legally obligated to do are two very different things.

Forced Arbitration: The Hidden Danger

Companies like Uber, Lyft, and HopSkipDrive use mandatory arbitration clauses that force users and drivers to give up their right to sue in court. These agreements:

· Block class actions

· Force disputes into secretive arbitration

· Waive core consumer rights

HB25-1291 directly challenges this, declaring it void to waive certain rights. That means victims of misconduct might finally get their day in court — if the company is subject to the bill. If HopSkipDrive is carved out? The arbitration shield stays up. Even if something terrible happens.

Lawmakers should not accept vague promises of voluntary compliance. If HopSkipDrive is already doing all the right things, it should have no objection to being included in the bill. In fact, they should demand it, to raise the bar for the entire industry.

Because child safety shouldn’t rely on corporate goodwill. It should be the law.

HB25-1291 must apply to all companies transporting children — without exception.

The post Safe Rides for Adults, Loopholes for Kids: The HopSkipDrive Exception appeared first on JESPA.

The post JESPA Calls for Real Policy to Protect Students and Workers appeared first on JESPA.

The post Recap of JESPA’s First Bargaining Session of 2025 appeared first on JESPA.

Last year’s negotiations proved to be contentious within the first four hours of the first session. The district then hired an outside lawyer to impede bargaining. This union-busting tactic pushed JESPA to an impasse and ended with JESPA’s bargaining team securing a 6% raise for all district ESPs in the mediation process, as well as as a 1% one-time stipend for all qualifying employees.

The first session this year was a change from that contention. This year’s JESPA bargaining chair is Darcy Hassler, para educator at Adams Elementary. Also on the bargaining team at the table were Vicki Flores, JESPA Executive Director; Zander Kaschub, JESPA president and ; Tiffany Beastrom, para educator at Sobesky Academy, Nikki Saunders, health tech at Secrest Elementary; and Sarah Smith, ECIP at Adams Elementary. The district team is led by Amanda Pierorazio, Chief Human Resources Officer.

JESPA’s team presented the interests and solutions that have been heavily discussed by their respective sub-committees. Safety of employees and students features high on the union’s priority list, along with staffing, ending outsourcing, professional development, respect, and pay for bilingual employees who use their language skills on the job. 

At all pre-bargaining meetings, JESPA members pointed out that safety and respect are concerns that affect every other interest that will be bargained, such as pay and benefits, staffing, and bilingual pay. 

The JESPA team’s solutions presented to the district were specific and included demands for more comprehensive training, audits of staffing levels, minimization of outsourcing, hazard premiums for custodial staff, and much more. You can read the entire document of JESPA’s Interests and Solutions here. 

In the team’s closing statement, Kaschub said, “Addressing the issues of safety, staffing, benefits, and respect is not just about fairness—it’s about ensuring the long-term stability and effectiveness of our workforce. When ESPs are supported with the resources, compensation, and recognition we deserve, we can deliver the consistent, high-quality services that our students rely on to thrive.”

After JESPA’s presentation of their Interests and Solutions, the district presented only their Interests. In spite of the inclusion of Solutions on the agenda written by the district team, they did not have theirs prepared. Pierorazio apologized for not coming with more specific solutions related to their interests. 

The district’s Interests were vague, lacking any substance that could be used for true bargaining. Each interest section includes reiterations of the phrase “The district bargaining team is committed to a fair and equitable process”  followed by each article topic. No specifics were given in regards to the district’s interests. You can read the district’s Interests document here.  

The next bargaining session is Dec. 17, 2:00-4:00 p.m., when the district is scheduled to have their solutions. We look forward to those including specific language that can be negotiated at the table.

The post JESPA Bargaining Team Off to a Strong Start! appeared first on JESPA.

As the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE) engages in rulemaking over the Protections for Public Workers Act (PROPWA), the Jeffco Education Support Professionals Association (JESPA) Executive Board expresses deep concerns about ongoing retaliation faced by its nearly 4,000 Education Support Professionals (ESPs). ESPs, encompassing roles from paraprofessionals to food service workers, interpreters to bus drivers, custodians to secretaries, mechanics to maintenance skilled trades workers, are essential contributors to the success of students in school districts like Jeffco. JESPA serves as their collective voice, advocating for workers’ rights, fairness, and improved working conditions.

JESPA strongly urges the CDLE to safeguard workers’ rights and uphold the original intent of PROPWA, which was enacted to protect public employees from retaliation for engaging in protected activities. JESPA members in Jeffco Public Schools have faced repeated retaliation for their union activities, speaking out on matters of public concern, and advocating for their students.

Instances of retaliation include maintenance employees facing intimidation and interrogations after raising concerns about district policy violations, and preschool teachers advocating for safe learning conditions experiencing being forced to work off the clock and unfair treatment. Food service leaders and paras advocating for healthy school meals and a living wage also faced intimidation and investigation.

The Need for Transparent Recourse: These instances highlight the urgent need for a transparent and effective channel for recourse when retaliation occurs. The CDLE’s rulemaking on PROPWA is a crucial opportunity to ensure the Act’s intended protections are fully realized. Without such safeguards, ESPs remain vulnerable to intimidation and reprisals, compromising their ability to ensure the safety of both themselves and the students they serve.

As rulemaking progresses, JESPA seeks assurance that the CDLE will prioritize the original intent of PROPWA, addressing the concerns raised to safeguard the rights and protections of public workers. The commitment of the CDLE is pivotal in creating a work environment where ESPs can advocate for their interests without fear of retaliation.

Urgent Request for Commitment: In a letter addressed to Director Moss, JESPA calls for a commitment to uphold the integrity of PROPWA and its intended protections. We stress that the safety and well-being of its members, as well as the students we serve, and depend on the steadfast commitment of the CDLE to workers’ rights. Here is the letter to Director Moss:

Deaar Director Moss,

We, the Executive Board of the Jeffco Education Support Professionals Association (JESPA), write to you with deep concerns about the continued retaliation faced by our members for their union activities. 

JESPA represents nearly 4,000 ESPs whose roles range from paraprofessionals to bus drivers, food service workers to custodians, and many more. These professionals are the unsung heroes of school districts, are often parents and grandparents, live in the community where they work, and contribute tirelessly to the success of our students.

JESPA serves as the collective voice for ESPs, dedicated to safeguarding our rights, promoting fairness, and advocating for improved working conditions. As we strive to ensure the dignity and respect that ESPs rightfully deserve, we are reaching out to express our concerns and seek your support.

We strongly urge you to safeguard workers’ rights and uphold the original intent of SB23-111, the Protections for Public Workers Act (PROPWA).

Our members within Jeffco Public Schools have repeatedly encountered retaliation for speaking out about matters of public concern, for their union involvement, and for advocating for their students. It is imperative that PROPWA’s intended protections are upheld to ensure their safety and well-being.

Numerous instances of retaliation against our collective efforts have been documented. For instance, maintenance employees who bravely raised concerns about district policy violations regarding misuse of district finances and resources faced intimidation and interrogations instead of having their valid concerns addressed. The district administrators not only failed to investigate the reported violations but also threatened workers with “retribution” for their involvement.

Preschool teachers, advocating for safe learning conditions, were met with retaliation, with the district resisting their inclusion in our union. The lack of union representation left these hourly preschool workers vulnerable to exploitation, denied sick time, and pressure to work off the clock. During the pandemic, working conditions further deteriorated, with seasoned educators being bullied into leaving or terminated without cause. Shockingly, teachers were instructed to have students eat off the floor near bathrooms, and when they raised safety concerns, they were given copy paper for students to use as placemats. They spoke out and faced retaliation by their department.

Similar instances of intimidation and investigation were faced by leaders in Food Service advocating for healthy school meals for their students when we took a collective action to highlight the poor quality of the highly processed school lunch. Paras across Jeffco were warned of potential cuts to hours and benefits if they supported JESPA’s campaign for a living wage.

When incidents of retaliation occur, it is crucial to establish a transparent and effective channel for recourse. These instances, such as those where workers advocate for improved learning conditions for our students and accountability for use of taxpayer dollars, underscore the necessity of fully implementing PROPWA’s protections. Without these safeguards, our members remain exposed to intimidation and reprisals, jeopardizing their capacity to uphold the safety of both themselves and the students they serve.

We urgently request your commitment to uphold the integrity of PROPWA and the intended protections. Our members and the students they serve rely on your steadfast commitment to workers’ rights.

Thank you for your attention to this crucial matter. 

Sincerely,

Zander Kaschub, Kitchen Worker

Trevor Byrne, Bus Driver

Loni Byrne, Bus Driver Assistant

Melanie McClain, Kitchen Worker

Andrea Cisneros, Kitchen Worker

Ricky Martinez, Custodian

Anthony Trujillo, Custodian

Jon Duran, Electrician

Jeff Miller, Area Grounds Worker

Sarah Smith, ECE Instructor

Tonya Toller, ECE Instructor

Ny Cahill, Paraprofessional

Darcy Hassler, Paraprofessional

Tina Steinbach, Secretary

Edward Morgan, Campus Security

Corrine Carpenter, Campus Security

The post Open Letter -Protecting Public Workers: Concerns Over PROPWA Rulemaking appeared first on JESPA.

While we know that understaffing is a problem in many industries, blaming our high turnover and lack of staff on the economy while ignoring issues we can solve continues to be a problem.

Here are a few practices that fuel these concerns:

• Posting Jobs with Inaccurate Pay Rates: A common practice of posting the wrong wages to discourage potential candidates. It raises the question of whether the district is intentionally aiming to keep positions understaffed to save money, rather than valuing the well-being of the students ESPs serve.
• Cutting Hours to Beneath the Benefit Threshold: Offering positions just beneath the threshold required for employee health benefits is counterproductive.This practice might unintentionally dissuade talented individuals from applying, as they question the district’s commitment to their welfare and find better offers elsewhere.  Alternatively, current employees who need better benefits for themselves and their family leave the district while the district digs their heels in on maintaining the status quo on our benefits.
• Labeling Employees as Temporary: The designation of “temporary” for certain positions raises eyebrows – especially when the district’s most understaffed positions, paraeducators who serve students with special needs, are posted as temp jobs.   It prompts us to reflect on whether the district’s intent is to avoid providing full job security, benefits, and necessary resources to its employees. This practice potentially compromises both the quality of education for the most vulnerable students, and the well-being of those providing it.
• Dismissing the Value of ESPs: Treating ESPs as “less than” and even blatant disrespect is no way to retain employees.  Our exit surveys show that lack of leadership and poor treatment ar one of the main reasons employees leave the district.  Employees don’t feel valued in their paycheck, and are underappreciated.  District practices seem to push perfectly good employees, desperately needed essential workers, right out the door

These practices force us to consider whether there is a genuine commitment to the students, educators, and support staff who form the backbone of our educational system. Addressing these issues requires open dialogue, collaboration, and a collective commitment to prioritize the well-being and success of everyone involved in our schools.

JESPA members, who are also community members, parents, grandparents, caregivers, and dedicated Jeffco Employees are leading the change!  If you’re not a member, contribute and join today!

The post Why is the District so Short-Staffed? appeared first on JESPA.

The post Click link to read the winter digital issue of the JESPA Viewpoint appeared first on JESPA.

Review their procedures here:

As always, front line workers are the barrier between safety and danger, equity and unfairness, order and chaos. If you see something unsafe at your worksite or you have first hand knowledge of a violation of these COVID procedures, speak up! Contact you JESPA Rep. Your effort could save lives.

The post COVID-19 Procedures According to Jeffco appeared first on JESPA.

After months of discussion with the district about the untenable working conditions during the heat of the summer, we have officially filed a grievance against the district. Read on for the full list of violations and our requested solutions.

We were told by Tim Reed that unless buildings are occupied by students, per district protocol, the chillers could not be turned on. However, we know that chillers have been turned on when principals entered the buildings. This is the action that triggered our grievance. Please let us know the date chillers were turned on in your building.

We wish to thank the many custodians, maintenance workers, and food service people who have already come forward with their stories. We’ll be in touch soon with the date of our hearing, and until then, solidarity!

Not a member yet?  We’re stronger together. Join us here.  

Grievance Statement: The district violated its stated policy that unoccupied buildings will not be cooled when it turned on the AC/Chillers in buildings on Monday, August 3rd, and in some cases prior to that, when school Principals returned to in-person work.

The district violated its stated policy AC “to provide a safe learning and work environment where all members of the school community are treated with dignity and respect” when they refused to turn on chillers for summer custodial workers because buildings were unoccupied but then turned on chillers when Principals arrived on August 3rd to unoccupied buildings.

The district violated OSHA recommendations that work sites be between 68-78 degrees Fahrenheit when it determined that chillers won’t be turned on in summer months.

The district engages in systemic discrimination against workers of the custodial department, who are more likely to be people of color and/or of a lower socioeconomic status than members of the administration by refusing to turn on chillers except when administrators are on school premises.

The district violated CDE guidelines on preventing heat stress in hot working environments by failing to provide extra breaks, increased staffing, responding to hot weather advisories, and increasing the air velocity through chillers/AC units/ and industrial fans.

The district fails to recognize custodians and maintenance workers as people in their definition of occupied buildings.

Applicable Articles, Etc: The district’s policy AC offers employees a safe and respectful work environment free from discrimination. In effect, this policy creates a unilateral contract between employer and employees which makes it subject to the grievance process.

Relief Requested:

• Redefine “occupied” to include whenever people are present in the building, including, but not limited to custodial staff.
• Allow supervisors to send workers home when an assigned work area reaches higher than 80 degrees Fahrenheit, with full pay.
• End the practice of district-wide chiller shut downs and allow local control over using chillers when the custodial staff is working.
• Follow OSHA recommendations of keeping work sites between 68-78 degrees Fahrenheit year round.
• Follow CDE guidelines on preventing heat stress, including but not limited to, increased staffing and using the AC/Chiller units when available in a building.

The post Grievance Filed appeared first on JESPA.