I'd like to stress the following "understandings" that I've taken away from the meeting. If folks would like to post more points they feel strongly about in the comments, I'd be pleased.
- A salary freeze is a non-starter. The preponderance of members are adamantly opposed.
- Any conversations between the Negotiating Team and the Administration that might take place do not in any way abrogate the terms of the contract. The contract remains whole and in force until the membership and the school board have ratified any changes.
- Many members feel that negotiations at this time are premature -- many questions about the federal, state, and local budgets need to be answered.
- The folks who have expressed concerns about the possibility of negotiations at this time are not intending any disrespect for Jessica Kaplan and the Negotiating Team -- confidence in them was reiterated several times during the RA meeting.
- This is the third year of a three-year contract negotiated in good faith by the Board. Lower increases were accepted in part because this year was the payoff.
- Consideration must be given to members planning to retire within the next three years whose retirement pay would be reduced by a reduction in next year's salary.
2 comments:
First, thank you to all the SPTA officers and RA's who are willing to take the time to provide leadership and representation on the SPTA.
I have participated in the RIF process ( fired ) from a school system that chose to accept their raise over keeping teaching staff. It is a painfull process and was quite dividing to the school. I still hold a degree of contempt toward my fellow staff members at that school that decided their pocketbook was more important.
Can you honestly look a fellow teacher in the eye and say I would rather have my $2036 raise ( my scheduled, or $25/wk )than to keep you employed as part of the school? I would feel guilty and ashamed, and this would do little to help the overall economy of the state.
If we feel that every employee position is important and required, then we should be willing to either accept a lower raise to help keep those positions, or be willing to pay more as community members in state and property taxes to fund those positions. Are you? Is the general public?
And if we have positions that aren't required, then why were they created in the first place? Perfect evidence of the expansion of government beyond what it needed to be in the first place.
Remember this - fewer teachers will mean higher class sizes and fewer varied experiences for the students.
Also, how would the general public view us if we chose to keep our pay rate, and either increase taxes on them or fire dozens of teachers? Might make some view teachers and not caring about anything but themselves.
I agree we should open negotiations. Proposed changes, if any, should be discussed now so there can be plenty of discussion. Final changes and authorization should wait until firm numbers from the state/city are available.
I think it's a bit scary to think people wouldn't give up their raises to save the jobs of their peers. $25ish a paycheck, or $2000ish extra a year, doesn't seem worth it when it comes to cutting positions.
I hope people look at the amount of cuts and the amount of the raise and seriously consider which is more important when it comes down to the wire.
Thank you to all for the work being done on this matter, and thank you for blogging/keeping us up to date!
Post a Comment