The Morning Call's Arlene Martinez (read her article here) and the Express-Times' Courtney Lomax (read her article here) both reported on the meeting today.
In the Morning Call article it was noted that a fact finder has now been assigned and has until November 25, 2006 to report back to the parties.
Paul Blunt, teachers union representative who made the above noted comments and does not work for the district, was the one responsible for cancelling further talks between the parties.
From the Express-Times article:
"Generally speaking, I do not see it as being anything but a waste of time to meet unless the district has a better proposal to make as I do not believe that my team is prepared to modify their offer," Paul Blunt wrote in a letter to district mediator Ellis Katz.What do you think? This to me is a very troubling shift. It seemed earlier in the week that they were ready to move forward and get back to the table placing the onus on the District. The District responded by setting up a session and the teachers back out. It is clear to me now that the teachers will accept nothing less than what they demand, yet they won't tell us what they want and now they won't meet with the district to tell them either.
4 comments:
This angers me to no end. At the Board meeting on Monday, the NAEA pres-elect gets up and says how they are willing to meet Tues/Weds/Thurs. The District agrees to Weds and then the NAEA says, "oh, well this wasn't going to be a negotiation session, we just wanted to sit down and talk like a family again".
Give me a break. The NAEA and PSEA doesn't want to negotiate. They are unwilling to conceed anything. They talk and talk at these meetings about how they want a fair offer from the board and want to be a family again, but apparently that's all for the public show. In private, when push comes to shove, they are unwilling to budge.
This is not a rant against the teachers but aimed at the NAEA leadership. To me, it seems there is a disconnect between the NAEA leaders and the rank and file. At all the meetings I've attended, the NAEA has made it sound like they are not the far off in terms of salaries. However, every teacher that gets up and speaks, talks about how they want to be paid more (in comparison with other school districts). Does the NAEA even have a good grasp on the needs/wants of it's rank and file? Or is it trying to make a stand here in Nazareth for the entire PSEA?
If there is a disconnect between the rank and file and leadership of NAEA, I'd imagine there is an even bigger one between them and the PSEA.
It seemed like we were moving in the right direction and now that the PSEA appointed rep comes to the meeting we're back to "gutted" health plans, illegal district action on benefits, talks are a waste of time, and the union won't budge on its demands (which I'd love to see in writing, in full).
I understand the reason for having outsiders involved in these matters to try to find common ground, but this outsider appears to be here for only one reason to get everything he can for the union with no consideration for the community.
Can you tell this upset me too?
I feel for the teachers at this point who will take the brunt for being engaged in the community, living here, shopping here etc., and for their spouses and kids who will now be hearing more and more talk against the teachers position.
Its a shame, on a larger scale we are again seeing the fabric of the community being torn apart just as we did in the summer in the borough with the proposed building project in Hall Park.
We're all losing on this one.
On that note - have a great weekend and maybe with any luck the union will see it different next week. If not the kids may have the longest winter holiday break on record.
NOC-
You are so right about the PSEA. It is apparent that they ultimately do not care for the individual communities. They only seem to care that they continue to look relevant (e.g., not backing down on any issue).
At the teachers support meeting last week, there was a clear delineation between the PSEA and NAEA comments. The NAEA was careful in choosing words/comments not to incite/defame the board. The PSEA rep had no such qualms. He routinely blasted the board, saying the "bad", calling them a "runaway board", etc. etc.
If I'm a teacher, is this how I want to be represented?!
I firmly agree with the moderator in that I want to see what the teachers want.
The board has put out on the table for all to see what they are offering, which appears to be a pretty darn good offer in my opinion.
The teachers union so far has refused to say want they want, only that what was offered wasn't good enough. Do I take it that they are also asking for a longer school day? If they want pay equal to that of the surrounding districts, shouldn't they also put in the same number of hours they do as well?
Negotiations are are a two way street with give and take on both sides. So far I have seen give on the boards side, but only take on the teachers.
If the NAEA does not agree with the PSEA position, then they should grow a spine and tell them to go away, but I believe they are really trying to play good cop/bad cop by using the PSEA as the heavy while they look good for local interests.
I am a taxpayer, and as such, in effect, these teachers work for me. I work hard for my paycheck, and if you want a larger piece of it, you are going to have to give me explicit details on why you should have it.
The union and its reps have brought this down to a kindergarten level of name calling, accusations and generally throwing a temper tantrum with their only response to the question of why being "because" with no substantiating facts.
At this point, they only come off poorly to the general public.
Post a Comment