Life keeps getting busier. NewsOverCoffee is the place where neighbors connect to share news and information about Nazareth, PA.
In short, it is where Colonial Hospitality meets information technology to ensure an even better community.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Fact Finders Report Online
Thanks to the reader who posted the link in the comments.
And yet, they seem to have left these facts out of the "open letter". I would have to firmly agree that this is a 2-2-4 season for both teams.
The NAEA, through their spokesperson, have done themselves no favors.
With all of the information being made available to the general public, I am quickly seeing a picture of greed being drawn here.
We the taxpayers are not a bottomless ATM that the teachers can withdraw money whenever they want more, not without providing us with explicit details as to what and why.
The NAEA has approached this as if it is some clandestine operation and all the details have to stay hush hush. Sorry folks, things don't work that way here.
I believe the taxpayers would fully be behind the NAEA if, and this is a big IF, they would only tell us, in detail, what their demands are.
I have a feeling that their demands may border on unreasonable, which is one explanation as to why they have yet to air them to date.
I would love to be wrong, but at this point, I don't have any other options to think this way.
The report appears to be a tie, but in the end, our children are the losers of this game, and if the NAEA gets everything they (potentially) want, so will our pocket books.
2-2-4 is an inaccurate assessment of both teams. The 4 items that were left unresolved are in favor of the school district based on the use of the phrase, "meet and discuss." as mentioned in the union's posting on this site, that phrase has a direct interpretation by law to mean that the employer has the right to decide the issue and the employees give up their rights to negotiate or grieve it. Also, the teachers did not win the healthcare premium issue. a flat rate per paycheck was asked for, but the fact finder still thought that a percentage of pay was the way to go. I'm not sure why this was the case considering only one other school district in our area conducts business this way. the percentage idea guarantees the school district receives more money for healthcare every year since salaries go up slightly every year (it turns the 4.49% pay raise into more of a 3% pay raise).
After saying all that, the actual score for the eight items in the report is: school district - 7 teachers - 1
Since NAEA will only say that "meet and discuss" is a legal term in which they give up all their rights, I decided to look it up. According to http://www.paessp.org/About_MemberBenefits_Act93_1.aspx, NAEA has a right to the “Meet and Discuss in good faith with the school board - The purpose of these discussions is to present data and arguments for salary increases and methods of determining future raises and benefits”.
According to the Fact Finder, he recommends “…the parties meet and discuss the curriculum leader issue in an attempt to negotiate appropriate contract language, without necessarily taking into account my “findings” above. If no amicable resolution is reached by February 15, 2007, either party has the right to invoke “interest arbitration,” with selection of an arbitrator through the Pennsylvania Bureau of Mediation or the American Arbitration Association, for a final and binding determination regarding the appropriate curriculum leader language.”
It seems that the arbitrator is saying to both sides, give each other more information, and try to come to an agreement. For example, NAEA states they have horrible benefits, but have yet to offer information regarding how they are horrible compared to other schools. If then no agreement is reached, it appears a arbitration hearing can be set up by either side.
I have posted this comment with about ½ hour research on Google and no formal law degree. Maybe a representative for NAEA with legal expertise can give the general public a few legal internet links as backup documentation. NAEA needs to recognize that as the general public encounters future increases in their taxes, cost of health care, etc., they will become less tolerant of the handsome salaries and benefit packages of the teacher salaries which they ultimately pay. NAEA is clearly pushing the "entitlement" mentality to the limit.
As a public educator we do not have any individual right to negotiate. Even if we don't join the union, we still have to pay fair share dues since the contract negotiated by the union is the one accepted by the district for all employees
But once again, it would seem that the NAEA membership is wrapped around the axle of "meet and discuss" now, which is yet another stone to throw.
Every post I have seen on this site from a teacher, every news item that has come out of the NAEA reps, has been only to attack what is before them.
Not once, and I will repeat, not ONCE has anyone presented to the public forum WHAT THE NAEA WANTS!
This is a very simple concept.
This is a very simple site to use.
Oh, and did I mention it is ANONYMOUS. Nobody will know who posted it.
You can keep hiding behind the veil of "meet and discuss" is illegal, or that the board/administration is bad (it seems to keep changing through various phases of this process), but at some point you will have to come out into the light of day and put your cards on the table.
Actually, I think that time is long past.
We are taxpayers. We are owed an explanation. We are owed what the NAEA demands are. Period!
In the meantime, NASD board and admin are doing as they want with only having one public viewing of the over the cost(over budget) of the building of the new 7-8 building. This will take place on 1-9-07, I beleive. If you want to give a public comment , you must be on the agenda. So as the nego continue the board and admin are sitting pretty to spend. One public meeting to take place only one month after it was announced at a school board meeting. That i sall she wrote.Too bad that did not get the advertising and public notice as did the contract dealings. Again a vote with only 4 in favor of accepting the fact finder there is a problem and major issues. Regardless we need highly skilled and quality teachers that are respected and in their field of work. But they too are being force to become a cookie cutter mold of the PSSA 's. The admin at NASD is very top heavy and they do as they wish much with or without student, tax payers, staff best interest or not.
i'm not sure why people are saying the teachers are not being clear about what they want.
the proposed salary by the union is in the fact-finder's report so there is one clear-cut item.
our current healthcare plan is on the district website - we are asking for items such as well-baby visits and orthodontics to be included in it. As for the premiums - We want a flat rate comparable to the flat rates paid by other school districts in our area, not a percentage.
In the past, building level administrators took advantage of teachers and scheduled multiple meetings keeping teachers well past their contracted day. In the last contract, we agreed to "no more than 4 meetings per month." This was to protect the teachers from administrators such as the ones mentioned above. Most buildings only had 1-2 meetings per month, but when some newer administrators came on board, they interpretted the contract as "there should always be 4 meetings per month." So, we are asking for 1 meeting per month, but would most likely be agreeable to 2.
Prep time was another issue. Our current contract does not say anything about a set amount of prep time. That means a building level administrator can technically not give any prep time at all (which occassionally happens in the elementary schools). This issue is fairly close to being resolved - some of the language just needs to be cleaned up.
Actually, you are the first to actually post what any of the demands of the NAEA are, either here or in any other media. I have posted this same request on this forum over the past couple of months, but have never received a response until now. (you really need a new spokesperson as the current one is not doing you any favors)
Thank you for stepping up.
I will agree to disagree with you on the salary and health care portion.
So another district has a different rate. They may also have a worse plan. The short of it is, if you want what the other guy has, move, don't tell us to make our district look like theirs.
Also, I did a comparison between ALL the surrounding districts. I broke it down to an hourly rate (apples to apples), very simple math. Let's assume that teachers most likely put in the same amount of before/after school time, so it is really not a factor. On an hour by hour basis, Nazareth teacher salaries are withing pennies of ANY district around us, at every level/step. In some cases at the higher levels/steps, Nazareth makes quite a bit more per hour (it was a little over $8 per hour against Parkland).
If you are also lobbying for a longer school day, then I am fully behind you and will support you in your endeavor for a pay increase.
If you intent is to keep the school day the same, then sorry, I can't get behind that.
As for the meetings, yes, there I really feel for you, to some extent. Four meetings a month? I do that many in a day at times, but I fully understand that it takes away from other (probably more important) duties. Let's face it, meetings are a drag.
Prep time is something I am sure anyone will support you on. You really can't ask your students to be prepared if you're not.
Yes, as you said, the information was in the fact finders report. Months after all of this started. The people of the community that you are asking to foot the bill for this, deserve to know what the demands are.
I do keep hearing that the teachers don't get respect from the board/administration. Well, speaking as a taxpayer, the NAEA has given me zero respect when it has come to this whole process. If you want respect, you need to give it.
Of interest from the fact finder report to me were the following:
"The comparative data with respect to contiguous districts show that the Association's proposal is on the high side..."
"the recommended average annual salary increases, inclusive of increments are: 4.64%, 4.62%, 4.33%, 4.56% and 4.31%, for a total of 22.46%. The recommended average salary increase over the five years is 4.49%. When compounding is taken into account, the average salary increase over the five-year term is 4.91%."
"teachers at every level receive significant raises each year."
"teachers will reach the highest paid step in fewer years."
"those receiving a small percentage increase in the first year, due to compression, are due to receive substantially higher increases during the ensuing four years."
"Because I have recommended substantially higher salaries for bargaining unit members - with greater annual increases than found in comparative school districts - I find that it is appropriate to increase premium shares, but at a lower rate than requested by the District."
We all make choices. We chose our professions for a variety of reasons. There are pros and cons. I think, for me at least, the biggest problem I have with the outright rejection of this proposal is that it is very good from the perspective of salary and benefits.
I hope the teachers will look at the comments that have been posted in this regard as an attempt to make them aware of the fact that the offer is very good compared to the private sector at this point in time.
I don't think any of us like to see costs go up, increased contributions to medical, or nominal pay raises, but at the same time, when someone offers something that is better than what most other people are getting, it should be appreciated, not scoffed at. This seems to be what bothers me most about the offer and recent vote.
I appreciate everyone using this forum to have what is obviously a personal and emotional discussion in as civil a manner as is possible and more so than what many would probably expect given the ability to post anonymously - it speaks volumes of the people and intent of their comments. Best wishes - Ross
I know you may not be the biggest fan of our union, and from what I understand of him, our PSEA appointed lawyer is not exactly a people person, but when compared to other health care plans sate-wide, ours ranked in the bottom 5% (I did not research this myself since I am one of those teachers who brings work home with me on a nearly nightly basis and I am taking graduate classes to further improve my abilities).
As for the salary. I would like to see your research that shows we have the shortest school day in the area. If that is indeed fact, did you also research how many school days those schools work? I know we work a longer school year than almost all other schools in our area (190 or 191 depending on certification). This would need to be factored into you salary comparisons. Personally, the actual raise offered is fine for me except for 2 things: 1. The contraction of steps - so even if I am on step 8 now, on the new salary schedule, I get moved down to step 5. It is important that the public understands this since most would view step 5 as being a teacher of 5 years, but that is not the case. 2. With the fact-finder's proposal of a 4.49% raise and us paying 1.5% for healthcare, the raise is really more of a 3% raise. so whoever posted it earlier that they feel the recent administrative raise is cause for resentment, they are correct. I would imagine that, as a parent, you would want your tax money to go to the people who have the most impact and connection with your kids. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Our school board and administrators gave themselves raises and spend tax money recklessly. Keep in mind those school board members were voted into office by the people of Nazareth. My budget for actual supplies for my classroom was cut this year and I barely have enough textbooks for all my students. Does that sound like a "rich" school district? Maybe you should go to board meetings and have them show you where the money is going if it's not going to the classrooms and the teachers who use them.
Thanks for your input into this very emotional discussion. I do have a question that perhaps you can clear up.
You mentioned that as a current level 8 teacher, you would get moved to a level 5, so in essence you are an 8 yr veteran at level 5 and that comparing you to a level 5 at surrounding districts is unfair. I understand that.
However, for a new teacher coming into the district this year, in 5 years they would be on equal footing with other district teachers at level 5. And those comparisons show that Nazareth teachers are indeed well compensated compared to their equivalent peers.
I understand that for the current teachers, the contraction issue further clouds the discussion. But from what I have heard, the contraction was something that the NAEA was pushing for.
Thank you to every teacher who gave input here! It goes a long way to understanding where the issues are.
A few thoughts:
1. Anyone who is giving you a ranking of your healthcare plan statewide is giving you meaningless information. It's like comparing Essroc's plan countrywide, (put their plan up against IBM and their employees probably won't be happy). The larger the company-- the better rates they can negotiate. The same with school districts. NASD is a small school district.
2. The days of healthcare plans completely funded by employers are over. WE all hate seeing our costs go up, but in the end if you can look at your yearly increase compared to your contribution increases and you are still on the plus side-- you are doing pretty good.
3. NASD is a 'rich' district in that we have decent facilities and ample supplies. Nazareth is not a rich area. We are surrounded by truck depots, not high revenue producing corporations. We are mainly a blue-collar population and many of the students you teach have parents living paycheck to paycheck. Don't be fooled by the mini-mansions you see popping up all over. Many of these homes have been purchased with 'paper equity' gained in other higher priced areas. Many people are house-poor with no furniture, just large houses.
4. As for the NASD board members, I think most everyone agrees with you and they probably all should be thrown out. But bad board members is not a reason to insist on more money. It is a reason to replace them and after this fiasco, I wouldn't be surprised when they are up for re-election if most people vote with an 'anybody but the incumbent' strategy.
Just had a thought-making it mandatory for the teachers contracts to be negotiated and approved by both sides prior to administration receiving their contract renewals &/or salary increases/et al---maybe that would give the board and admin. a bit more incentive, and $$$'s, to get it done---feels like we paid the flight attendants before paying the pilots---and when I fly I certainly care a whole lot more about the pilot being happy than the drink slinger-any thoughts?
regarding the last post - in addition to the teachers and admin, there is also the support staff and maint/grounds (teamsters union I believe). All four of these contracts are negotiated and I'd guess in a different year (though I'm not sure).
Unless you do them all at the same time, you can't really say which is first or last. It's an ongoing cycle and they are each going to want to get at least as much as what everyone else got since the last contract they had and as much as what everyone in their function got at nearby districts.
And everyone compares to the most advantageous, not the average.
It may make a difference when these are negotiated in comparison to one another, but the root problem seems to be with the overall process of school strikes in PA and the collective bargaining groups.
It doesn't appear there is any consideration given to how much is really available to spend on raises and what was accomplished since the last contract that warrants a raise.
I also don't expect to see the collective bargaining go away, as one person noted even if they don't join the union they have to pay for the work the union does for them.
This isn't exclusive to the teachers, the admin also has a group contract, and they will want at least what the teachers get this time around plus more as their "executive" status warrants. Its something that we all ought to follow closely when the time comes.
In the meantime we're stuck with a lousy system and have to rely on these two parties negotiating (as one person noted which involves give and take not just take) and resolving this bad situation before it reaches ugly.
You are right. I am not a fan of any union. In my opinion, they breed mediocrity. It has created a system where bad teachers are rewarded the same as excellent ones, and I am sorry to say, I have encountered a number of bad teachers in Nazareth. But, I have also encountered just as many great ones, and those are the ones that should be rewarded and the bad ones should be let go. But alas, under the current system that is not possible.
You throw out the comparison with other districts, and do so on a statewide basis. How can you do this? Are you now saying that Nazareth should be compared to Philadelphia? Pittsburg? North Penn? I keep hearing the posting teachers and supporters asking for an apples to apples comparison, but yet, you throw out an apple to oranges one. Take a stand and stay with it, not change the argument to suit you objective.
As for the salary comparison, simple legwork. I will give concede the fact that surrounding districts might differ by a couple of days. But in the grand scheme of the calculations, this doesn’t make that much of a difference in the hourly rate by more than a penny or so.
As for what you are defining an effective increase of only 3%, well, do you not already pay a premium somewhere in the range of about 1% today? That would mean only and increase of .5%, and give you an effective increase of just a hair under 4%. Again, you have skewed the facts to improve your argument. Call it disinformation if you like.
This has been the hallmark of the NAEA throughout this entire process. Facts have been withheld from the taxpaying public, only coming to light with the release of the fact finder report, and information has been skewed to put cast a shadow over the board and administration tied together with personal attacks. These things alone have gone a great distance to weaken support for the NAEA from the general population. If you stick with the facts and keep the emotion out of the equation, you will win every time.
On the administration pay increase, here I agree with you completely. There has been a tremendous backlash against executives in the corporate world that have been getting large bonuses while their company continues to sink. In many cases, these execs have been removed. I think it was idiotic to award such large increases to administrators (and have said so before in this forum) KNOWING that the contract with the teachers was up for negotiation. Add to the fact the number of construction projects (some needed, some frivolous), it was just a bad idea, and personally I think they should turn it back.
Thank you for the comment on the supplies and books. This again points to the idiocy of the administration to pursue unneeded building projects (at very high costs) while our teachers, classrooms and students are lacking the basic items needed to learn.
In response to 9:08 , I see what you are saying about the increase for benefits. I would gladly pay more for my benefits if the benefits were worth it. I know that most of us all hate our insurance companies and the ropes that we have to jump through at times. We are asking for some simply improvements like well baby visits.
Also why should I who have been employed by the district for quite a few years have to pay more for my benefits than a teacher who was hired this year. We are both receiving the same benefits so we should be paying the same price for them.
I have the same benefit package as the teachers for my small business. With the exception of my copays and deductibles being much higher, I still have to jump through the same hoops. I don’t necessarily blame what you conceive as bad benefits on the district. Unfortunately, that's how benefits are on the whole anymore. It’s not as easy as many think to get a service or two upgraded by an insurance company.
As a business owner, I do understand the percentage vs. same fee health care. The older employees drive up the cost of health care for the younger employees. Simply put, younger employees are statistically healthier than older ones. An insurance company sets the premium for a business (or school district) at the same rate for each employee. The percentage vs. set fee assures the younger teachers that older employees pay their fair share.
IN RESPONSE TO 10:28PM. AS FAR AS PAYING MORE FOR THE SAME BENEFITS. THE RAISES YOU RECEIVE ARE BASED ON YOUR GROSS SALARY...SUCH AS IF YOU MAKE 40,000 PER YEAR AND YOU RECEIVE A 3% INCREASE IN RAISE YOU THEREFORE RECEIVE A $1,200 INCREASE IN SALARY SO WHY DON'T YOU THINK THE PAYMENT FOR BENEFITS SHOULD BE BASED ON A PERCENTAGE. I FEEL PERCENTAGE BASED ON SALARY FOR PAYMENT OF BENEFITS IS FAIR BECAUSE THAT IS HOW RAISES ARE CALCULATED. SO DO YOU THINK SOMEONE WORKING AS A CUSTODIAN MAKING HALF THE GROSS SALARY YOU DO AT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT SHOULD PAY THE SAME AS YOU DO FOR BENEFITS WHEN I AM SURE THEIR RAISES DON'T NEARLY EQUAL YOURS. KEEP THE RICH RICHER AND THE POOR POORER ATTITUDE. TOO BAD WE CAN'T GO BACK TO THE OLD DAYS WHEN A BENEFIT OF WORKING FULL TIME WAS TO HAVE YOUR BENEFITS PROVIDE BY YOUR EMPLOYER BUT BECAUSE OF THE GREED OF CERTAIN ENTITIES WE ARE ALL PAYING THE PRICE. I DON'T AGREE WITH YOU. YOU SHOULD PAY MORE BECAUSE YOU MAKE MORE.
22 comments:
A quick review of the report shows that there were eight issues in contention.
Of those the fact finder sided with:
Neither party in four instances (The Health Plan, Work Day, Income Protection, and Curriculum Leaders)
NASD in two instances (salary and work year)
NAEA in two instances (amount of premium co-pay and prep time)
Doesn't seem as one sided as it was made out to be when you read it.
And yet, they seem to have left these facts out of the "open letter". I would have to firmly agree that this is a 2-2-4 season for both teams.
The NAEA, through their spokesperson, have done themselves no favors.
With all of the information being made available to the general public, I am quickly seeing a picture of greed being drawn here.
We the taxpayers are not a bottomless ATM that the teachers can withdraw money whenever they want more, not without providing us with explicit details as to what and why.
The NAEA has approached this as if it is some clandestine operation and all the details have to stay hush hush. Sorry folks, things don't work that way here.
I believe the taxpayers would fully be behind the NAEA if, and this is a big IF, they would only tell us, in detail, what their demands are.
I have a feeling that their demands may border on unreasonable, which is one explanation as to why they have yet to air them to date.
I would love to be wrong, but at this point, I don't have any other options to think this way.
The report appears to be a tie, but in the end, our children are the losers of this game, and if the NAEA gets everything they (potentially) want, so will our pocket books.
2-2-4 is an inaccurate assessment of both teams. The 4 items that were left unresolved are in favor of the school district based on the use of the phrase, "meet and discuss." as mentioned in the union's posting on this site, that phrase has a direct interpretation by law to mean that the employer has the right to decide the issue and the employees give up their rights to negotiate or grieve it. Also, the teachers did not win the healthcare premium issue. a flat rate per paycheck was asked for, but the fact finder still thought that a percentage of pay was the way to go. I'm not sure why this was the case considering only one other school district in our area conducts business this way. the percentage idea guarantees the school district receives more money for healthcare every year since salaries go up slightly every year (it turns the 4.49% pay raise into more of a 3% pay raise).
After saying all that, the actual score for the eight items in the report is:
school district - 7
teachers - 1
By the way, to those who feel the teachers are being greedy for rejecting the fact-finder's report, ask yourself this:
Would you vote to accept a document that is potentially illegal and would take away your rights to negotiate an issue.
Striking to get what you want is not negotiating. Negotiating is give and take on 2 sides, which appears to be what the fact finder accomplished.
You all gave up your 'individual' right to negotiate when you joined the union.
Since NAEA will only say that "meet and discuss" is a legal term in which they give up all their rights, I decided to look it up. According to http://www.paessp.org/About_MemberBenefits_Act93_1.aspx, NAEA has a right to the “Meet and Discuss in good faith with the school board - The purpose of these discussions is to present data and arguments for salary increases and methods of determining future raises and benefits”.
According to the Fact Finder, he recommends “…the parties meet and discuss the curriculum leader issue in an attempt to negotiate appropriate contract language, without necessarily taking into account my “findings” above. If no amicable resolution is reached by February 15, 2007, either party has the right to invoke “interest arbitration,” with selection of an arbitrator through the Pennsylvania Bureau of Mediation or the American Arbitration Association, for a final and binding determination regarding the appropriate curriculum leader language.”
It seems that the arbitrator is saying to both sides, give each other more information, and try to come to an agreement. For example, NAEA states they have horrible benefits, but have yet to offer information regarding how they are horrible compared to other schools. If then no agreement is reached, it appears a arbitration hearing can be set up by either side.
I have posted this comment with about ½ hour research on Google and no formal law degree. Maybe a representative for NAEA with legal expertise can give the general public a few legal internet links as backup documentation. NAEA needs to recognize that as the general public encounters future increases in their taxes, cost of health care, etc., they will become less tolerant of the handsome salaries and benefit packages of the teacher salaries which they ultimately pay. NAEA is clearly pushing the "entitlement" mentality to the limit.
to anon 9:03
As a public educator we do not have any individual right to negotiate. Even if we don't join the union, we still have to pay fair share dues since the contract negotiated by the union is the one accepted by the district for all employees
But once again, it would seem that the NAEA membership is wrapped around the axle of "meet and discuss" now, which is yet another stone to throw.
Every post I have seen on this site from a teacher, every news item that has come out of the NAEA reps, has been only to attack what is before them.
Not once, and I will repeat, not ONCE has anyone presented to the public forum WHAT THE NAEA WANTS!
This is a very simple concept.
This is a very simple site to use.
Oh, and did I mention it is ANONYMOUS. Nobody will know who posted it.
You can keep hiding behind the veil of "meet and discuss" is illegal, or that the board/administration is bad (it seems to keep changing through various phases of this process), but at some point you will have to come out into the light of day and put your cards on the table.
Actually, I think that time is long past.
We are taxpayers. We are owed an explanation. We are owed what the NAEA demands are. Period!
In the meantime, NASD board and admin are doing as they want with only having one public viewing of the over the cost(over budget) of the building of the new 7-8 building. This will take place on 1-9-07, I beleive. If you want to give a public comment , you must be on the agenda. So as the nego continue the board and admin are sitting pretty to spend. One public meeting to take place only one month after it was announced at a school board meeting. That i sall she wrote.Too bad that did not get the advertising and public notice as did the contract dealings. Again a vote with only 4 in favor of accepting the fact finder there is a problem and major issues. Regardless we need highly skilled and quality teachers that are respected and in their field of work. But they too are being force to become a cookie cutter mold of the PSSA 's. The admin at NASD is very top heavy and they do as they wish much with or without student, tax payers, staff best interest or not.
i'm not sure why people are saying the teachers are not being clear about what they want.
the proposed salary by the union is in the fact-finder's report so there is one clear-cut item.
our current healthcare plan is on the district website - we are asking for items such as well-baby visits and orthodontics to be included in it. As for the premiums - We want a flat rate comparable to the flat rates paid by other school districts in our area, not a percentage.
In the past, building level administrators took advantage of teachers and scheduled multiple meetings keeping teachers well past their contracted day. In the last contract, we agreed to "no more than 4 meetings per month." This was to protect the teachers from administrators such as the ones mentioned above. Most buildings only had 1-2 meetings per month, but when some newer administrators came on board, they interpretted the contract as "there should always be 4 meetings per month." So, we are asking for 1 meeting per month, but would most likely be agreeable to 2.
Prep time was another issue. Our current contract does not say anything about a set amount of prep time. That means a building level administrator can technically not give any prep time at all (which occassionally happens in the elementary schools). This issue is fairly close to being resolved - some of the language just needs to be cleaned up.
Any other specifics about what we want?
Actually, you are the first to actually post what any of the demands of the NAEA are, either here or in any other media. I have posted this same request on this forum over the past couple of months, but have never received a response until now. (you really need a new spokesperson as the current one is not doing you any favors)
Thank you for stepping up.
I will agree to disagree with you on the salary and health care portion.
So another district has a different rate. They may also have a worse plan. The short of it is, if you want what the other guy has, move, don't tell us to make our district look like theirs.
Also, I did a comparison between ALL the surrounding districts. I broke it down to an hourly rate (apples to apples), very simple math. Let's assume that teachers most likely put in the same amount of before/after school time, so it is really not a factor. On an hour by hour basis, Nazareth teacher salaries are withing pennies of ANY district around us, at every level/step. In some cases at the higher levels/steps, Nazareth makes quite a bit more per hour (it was a little over $8 per hour against Parkland).
If you are also lobbying for a longer school day, then I am fully behind you and will support you in your endeavor for a pay increase.
If you intent is to keep the school day the same, then sorry, I can't get behind that.
As for the meetings, yes, there I really feel for you, to some extent. Four meetings a month? I do that many in a day at times, but I fully understand that it takes away from other (probably more important) duties. Let's face it, meetings are a drag.
Prep time is something I am sure anyone will support you on. You really can't ask your students to be prepared if you're not.
Yes, as you said, the information was in the fact finders report. Months after all of this started. The people of the community that you are asking to foot the bill for this, deserve to know what the demands are.
I do keep hearing that the teachers don't get respect from the board/administration. Well, speaking as a taxpayer, the NAEA has given me zero respect when it has come to this whole process. If you want respect, you need to give it.
I'll stand by the 2-2-4.
Of interest from the fact finder report to me were the following:
"The comparative data with respect to contiguous districts show that the Association's proposal is on the high side..."
"the recommended average annual salary increases, inclusive of increments are: 4.64%, 4.62%, 4.33%, 4.56% and 4.31%, for a total of 22.46%. The recommended average salary increase over the five years is 4.49%. When compounding is taken into account, the average salary increase over the five-year term is 4.91%."
"teachers at every level receive significant raises each year."
"teachers will reach the highest paid step in fewer years."
"those receiving a small percentage increase in the first year, due to compression, are due to receive substantially higher increases during the ensuing four years."
"Because I have recommended substantially higher salaries for bargaining unit members - with greater annual increases than found in comparative school districts - I find that it is appropriate to increase premium shares, but at a lower rate than requested by the District."
We all make choices. We chose our professions for a variety of reasons. There are pros and cons. I think, for me at least, the biggest problem I have with the outright rejection of this proposal is that it is very good from the perspective of salary and benefits.
I hope the teachers will look at the comments that have been posted in this regard as an attempt to make them aware of the fact that the offer is very good compared to the private sector at this point in time.
I don't think any of us like to see costs go up, increased contributions to medical, or nominal pay raises, but at the same time, when someone offers something that is better than what most other people are getting, it should be appreciated, not scoffed at. This seems to be what bothers me most about the offer and recent vote.
I appreciate everyone using this forum to have what is obviously a personal and emotional discussion in as civil a manner as is possible and more so than what many would probably expect given the ability to post anonymously - it speaks volumes of the people and intent of their comments. Best wishes - Ross
to anon 10:34
I know you may not be the biggest fan of our union, and from what I understand of him, our PSEA appointed lawyer is not exactly a people person, but when compared to other health care plans sate-wide, ours ranked in the bottom 5% (I did not research this myself since I am one of those teachers who brings work home with me on a nearly nightly basis and I am taking graduate classes to further improve my abilities).
As for the salary. I would like to see your research that shows we have the shortest school day in the area. If that is indeed fact, did you also research how many school days those schools work? I know we work a longer school year than almost all other schools in our area (190 or 191 depending on certification). This would need to be factored into you salary comparisons. Personally, the actual raise offered is fine for me except for 2 things:
1. The contraction of steps - so even if I am on step 8 now, on the new salary schedule, I get moved down to step 5. It is important that the public understands this since most would view step 5 as being a teacher of 5 years, but that is not the case.
2. With the fact-finder's proposal of a 4.49% raise and us paying 1.5% for healthcare, the raise is really more of a 3% raise. so whoever posted it earlier that they feel the recent administrative raise is cause for resentment, they are correct. I would imagine that, as a parent, you would want your tax money to go to the people who have the most impact and connection with your kids. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Our school board and administrators gave themselves raises and spend tax money recklessly. Keep in mind those school board members were voted into office by the people of Nazareth. My budget for actual supplies for my classroom was cut this year and I barely have enough textbooks for all my students. Does that sound like a "rich" school district? Maybe you should go to board meetings and have them show you where the money is going if it's not going to the classrooms and the teachers who use them.
Anon 11:05-
Thanks for your input into this very emotional discussion. I do have a question that perhaps you can clear up.
You mentioned that as a current level 8 teacher, you would get moved to a level 5, so in essence you are an 8 yr veteran at level 5 and that comparing you to a level 5 at surrounding districts is unfair. I understand that.
However, for a new teacher coming into the district this year, in 5 years they would be on equal footing with other district teachers at level 5. And those comparisons show that Nazareth teachers are indeed well compensated compared to their equivalent peers.
I understand that for the current teachers, the contraction issue further clouds the discussion. But from what I have heard, the contraction was something that the NAEA was pushing for.
Thank you to every teacher who gave input here! It goes a long way to understanding where the issues are.
A few thoughts:
1. Anyone who is giving you a ranking of your healthcare plan statewide is giving you meaningless information. It's like comparing Essroc's plan countrywide, (put their plan up against IBM and their employees probably won't be happy). The larger the company-- the better rates they can negotiate. The same with school districts. NASD is a small school district.
2. The days of healthcare plans completely funded by employers are over. WE all hate seeing our costs go up, but in the end if you can look at your yearly increase compared to your contribution increases and you are still on the plus side-- you are doing pretty good.
3. NASD is a 'rich' district in that we have decent facilities and ample supplies. Nazareth is not a rich area. We are surrounded by truck depots, not high revenue producing corporations. We are mainly a blue-collar population and many of the students you teach have parents living paycheck to paycheck. Don't be fooled by the mini-mansions you see popping up all over. Many of these homes have been purchased with 'paper equity' gained in other higher priced areas. Many people are house-poor with no furniture, just large houses.
4. As for the NASD board members, I think most everyone agrees with you and they probably all should be thrown out. But bad board members is not a reason to insist on more money. It is a reason to replace them and after this fiasco, I wouldn't be surprised when they are up for re-election if most people vote with an 'anybody but the incumbent' strategy.
Just had a thought-making it mandatory for the teachers contracts to be negotiated and approved by both sides prior to administration receiving their contract renewals &/or salary increases/et al---maybe that would give the board and admin. a bit more incentive, and $$$'s, to get it done---feels like we paid the flight attendants before paying the pilots---and when I fly I certainly care a whole lot more about the pilot being happy than the drink slinger-any thoughts?
regarding the last post - in addition to the teachers and admin, there is also the support staff and maint/grounds (teamsters union I believe). All four of these contracts are negotiated and I'd guess in a different year (though I'm not sure).
Unless you do them all at the same time, you can't really say which is first or last. It's an ongoing cycle and they are each going to want to get at least as much as what everyone else got since the last contract they had and as much as what everyone in their function got at nearby districts.
And everyone compares to the most advantageous, not the average.
It may make a difference when these are negotiated in comparison to one another, but the root problem seems to be with the overall process of school strikes in PA and the collective bargaining groups.
It doesn't appear there is any consideration given to how much is really available to spend on raises and what was accomplished since the last contract that warrants a raise.
I also don't expect to see the collective bargaining go away, as one person noted even if they don't join the union they have to pay for the work the union does for them.
This isn't exclusive to the teachers, the admin also has a group contract, and they will want at least what the teachers get this time around plus more as their "executive" status warrants. Its something that we all ought to follow closely when the time comes.
In the meantime we're stuck with a lousy system and have to rely on these two parties negotiating (as one person noted which involves give and take not just take) and resolving this bad situation before it reaches ugly.
You are right. I am not a fan of any union. In my opinion, they breed mediocrity. It has created a system where bad teachers are rewarded the same as excellent ones, and I am sorry to say, I have encountered a number of bad teachers in Nazareth. But, I have also encountered just as many great ones, and those are the ones that should be rewarded and the bad ones should be let go. But alas, under the current system that is not possible.
You throw out the comparison with other districts, and do so on a statewide basis. How can you do this? Are you now saying that Nazareth should be compared to Philadelphia? Pittsburg? North Penn? I keep hearing the posting teachers and supporters asking for an apples to apples comparison, but yet, you throw out an apple to oranges one. Take a stand and stay with it, not change the argument to suit you objective.
As for the salary comparison, simple legwork. I will give concede the fact that surrounding districts might differ by a couple of days. But in the grand scheme of the calculations, this doesn’t make that much of a difference in the hourly rate by more than a penny or so.
As for what you are defining an effective increase of only 3%, well, do you not already pay a premium somewhere in the range of about 1% today? That would mean only and increase of .5%, and give you an effective increase of just a hair under 4%. Again, you have skewed the facts to improve your argument. Call it disinformation if you like.
This has been the hallmark of the NAEA throughout this entire process. Facts have been withheld from the taxpaying public, only coming to light with the release of the fact finder report, and information has been skewed to put cast a shadow over the board and administration tied together with personal attacks. These things alone have gone a great distance to weaken support for the NAEA from the general population. If you stick with the facts and keep the emotion out of the equation, you will win every time.
On the administration pay increase, here I agree with you completely. There has been a tremendous backlash against executives in the corporate world that have been getting large bonuses while their company continues to sink. In many cases, these execs have been removed. I think it was idiotic to award such large increases to administrators (and have said so before in this forum) KNOWING that the contract with the teachers was up for negotiation. Add to the fact the number of construction projects (some needed, some frivolous), it was just a bad idea, and personally I think they should turn it back.
Thank you for the comment on the supplies and books. This again points to the idiocy of the administration to pursue unneeded building projects (at very high costs) while our teachers, classrooms and students are lacking the basic items needed to learn.
Sorry, the last post was in response to:
Anon 11:05
In response to 9:08 , I see what you are saying about the increase for benefits. I would gladly pay more for my benefits if the benefits were worth it. I know that most of us all hate our insurance companies and the ropes that we have to jump through at times. We are asking for some simply improvements like well baby visits.
Also why should I who have been employed by the district for quite a few years have to pay more for my benefits than a teacher who was hired this year. We are both receiving the same benefits so we should be paying the same price for them.
I have the same benefit package as the teachers for my small business. With the exception of my copays and deductibles being much higher, I still have to jump through the same hoops. I don’t necessarily blame what you conceive as bad benefits on the district. Unfortunately, that's how benefits are on the whole anymore. It’s not as easy as many think to get a service or two upgraded by an insurance company.
As a business owner, I do understand the percentage vs. same fee health care. The older employees drive up the cost of health care for the younger employees. Simply put, younger employees are statistically healthier than older ones. An insurance company sets the premium for a business (or school district) at the same rate for each employee. The percentage vs. set fee assures the younger teachers that older employees pay their fair share.
IN RESPONSE TO 10:28PM. AS FAR AS PAYING MORE FOR THE SAME BENEFITS.
THE RAISES YOU RECEIVE ARE BASED ON YOUR GROSS SALARY...SUCH AS IF YOU MAKE 40,000 PER YEAR AND YOU RECEIVE A 3% INCREASE IN RAISE YOU THEREFORE RECEIVE A $1,200 INCREASE IN SALARY SO WHY DON'T YOU THINK THE PAYMENT FOR BENEFITS SHOULD BE BASED ON A PERCENTAGE. I FEEL PERCENTAGE BASED ON SALARY FOR PAYMENT OF BENEFITS IS FAIR BECAUSE THAT IS HOW RAISES ARE CALCULATED. SO DO YOU THINK SOMEONE WORKING AS A CUSTODIAN MAKING HALF THE GROSS SALARY YOU DO AT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT SHOULD PAY THE SAME AS YOU DO FOR BENEFITS WHEN I AM SURE THEIR RAISES DON'T NEARLY EQUAL YOURS. KEEP THE RICH RICHER AND THE POOR POORER ATTITUDE. TOO BAD WE CAN'T GO BACK TO THE OLD DAYS WHEN A BENEFIT OF WORKING FULL TIME WAS TO HAVE YOUR BENEFITS PROVIDE BY YOUR EMPLOYER BUT BECAUSE OF THE GREED OF CERTAIN ENTITIES WE ARE ALL PAYING THE PRICE. I DON'T AGREE WITH YOU. YOU SHOULD PAY MORE BECAUSE YOU MAKE MORE.
Post a Comment