Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Teachers' Union Counsel explains the "risks"

Sorry for the fuzzy video, but here's the Teachers' Union Counsel giving some sort of nonsense answer about why the Teachers' Union cannot discuss wages. In my opinion, it was a bunch of hokey bunk.

I'm sure many of you can do a better job than me at dissecting these arguments:

Tim White


Anonymous said...

so to be clear, if the town were to offer an additional 5% riaser per teacher regardless of tenure, the teachers union could not accept as it could be seen as reopening the contract. This is bs. Any contract, or portion, can be addressed outside of anegotiation by mutuual consent withoutnimpacting the remainder of the contract. this is a MOU (memorandum of understanding). It is done all the time. The teachers Union are lying or ignorant

Anonymous said...

"so to be clear, if the town were to offer an additional 5% riaser per teacher regardless of tenure, the teachers union could not accept as it could be seen as reopening the contract."

LOL...isn't it silly what they're doing. Contracts have been opened, closed, fully renegotiated, partially renegotiated for year. How is then the the union was able to come to the table to offer up an interest-free loan? That would've opened up the contract to one specific section. They were all for it. They're so hypocritical they can't see through the BS covering their eyes these days. It's comical at best.

Look, if the union doesn't want to give up anything JUST SAY SO AND BE HONEST ABOUT IT.

Anonymous said...

They chose to turn the parents against the BOE and TC, blaming them for not passing the budget. They use the statement that Chapman may have to be closed to get all the parents riled up.
If the only option to fix a defecit in the school buget is to close a school, then the BOE isn't doing a very good job.

Too bad the parents don't educate themselves on this process. They will see if the teachers gave back a small percentage, we wouldn't have any problems.

To those who say raise our taxes, lets just raise yours. First I hear 1 person say it will only be around $7 per month, then another wants the turf, which will only cost $7 per month, then we we need to subsidize the pool, for only $7 per month. When does it end??

Teachers should stand up and say they would be happy to give back to help this community. Instead, they try and turn the community against the elected officials who are facing a difficult challenge in tough econimoic times.

Anonymous said...

"Any contract, or portion, can be addressed outside of anegotiation by mutuual consent withoutnimpacting the remainder of the contract. this is a MOU (memorandum of understanding). It is done all the time."
Can you give one example where this has been done in CT and OK'ed by the courts? Apparently Guilford tried and it is tied up in the courts. Is that what we want, a court battle?

Anonymous said...

Frankly, when the BOE passes a $300,000 additional cut of the school budget on a 4-3 vote and does not have the decency to explain where those cuts are coming from to the public or the BOE CHAIR, it does not exactly inspire trust.

Anonymous said...

It is the classic case of the boy who cried wolf. I can't remember one year when Cheshire didn't say they had no money. Remember '04-'05when there was a ZERO budget? I suppose that was the last great depression?

Anonymous said...

March 24, 2010 8:23 PM

To you and to all others who blog about the BOE budget. It really is helpful if you know your facts. so, FYI you can go to the Board of Education at any time and the suprintendant is more then willing to go through the budget line by line with you. You can ask any questions you might have and get a real factual basis for you comments. It is a helpful excercise and allows you to look for all the "hidden" money. The comments can be based on reality instead of speculation.
Tim, I have heard the offer made to the TC as well. Have you done this? Did you find missing money? Can you help put some perspective on if cuts really do need to be made or they have pools of money to dip from?

Anonymous said...

Besides, as I understand it the contract does not need to be reopened. A memorandum of understanding is supposed to be a sufficient way of addressing the budget gap.

But Tim, you just went on and on about hos the attorney can not be believed, how what he says is bunk. In other posts you have mentioned: that teachers are being greedy, that their raises are unfair, that they need to take on the burden with the taxpayers, that the union is basicly horrible, that they can not be trusted, that they only care about money not students.....
Then you wrote in another post that everyone reads your blog, and seemed quite pleased with that.
Well, if teachers are reading this blog, and you have certainly made your very negative opinion of them known, and your negative opinion of the union known, and your belief that they are greedy known.... then what in the world would make them trust you? Why would they trust you to act fairly and honorably when all you have done is bad mouth them in these pages? Theyre supposed to trust a memorandum? I sure wouldnt reading what you have had to say. Maybe you needed to rein in those opinions, even though it is soo much fun to incite you followers, and instead try to treat them with a bit of respect and a willingness to work together. Maybe if that had happened we would not be where we are now.

Anonymous said...

No doubt the speaker was most concerned for local tax payers. After all, if the contract were in any way re-opened our historically greedy local teachers union along with various unnamed state regulations and state statutes will cause an increase to the current 14% pay raise to maybe 20% or so.

We should all be thankful the current pay raises stopped at just under 15%.

Anonymous said...

This is a joke, all of it and all of you. Get a life!

Anonymous said...

Finally...we are to the crux of the matter...TRUST. For years we have heard doom and gloom and each year things have worked out. How we could trust a BOE of a TC operating this way? All the hidden money? If it's really there, then how can we trust the Superintendent? Until all parties (TC, BOE and EAC) can talk honestly with the INTENT to negotiate, not have one way or the other, Cheshire will continue to operate as Hartford and Washington do. A complete overhaul needs to happen.

Anonymous said...

Funny thing about 'Risk' is that somehow the administrators, custodial and instructional assistant unions all seem to trust Cheshire...(they're VOLUNTEERING true concessions). Dr. Florio talked this at the beginning of the budget process.

Interesting how the EAC saw no risks, or legal precedent, stopping them from coming to the table with a no interest loan to the town. Where was the lawyer advising them NOT to do so for fear of 'risk'?

Where was the lawyer advising them not to promote the HSA?

Where was the lawyer advising them not to promote early retirement incentives?

Where was their lawyer advising them not to ask for job guarantees?

Any one of these 'concessions' offered by the EAC requires a section, be it existing or new, in the contract to be modified/added/deleted thus opening it up.

Funny how nobody in the EAC, be it union leaders or union lawyers, cried wolf by playing the 'risk' card when proposing their ideas. But once Cheshire asked for a true concessions suddenly there's 'risk'. Some call this cowardice...others call it hypocrisy...most feel it shameful.

Nice try.