The NEA Response
The National Education Association took a different tone than that of the AFT in its response to the The New Teacher Project report, “Unintended Consequences: The Case for Reforming the Staffing Rules in Urban Teachers Union Contracts.”
Calling the report a “diversion from real issues” like, oh, increased pay for teachers, NEA trots this out as an argument:
“Moreover, the report’s language of ‘union rules’ to describe a contract is wholly inaccurate. A contract is an agreement between parties, mutually agreed to, and includes the school district. To classify it as including ‘union rules’ implies that the union unilaterally makes these decisions.”
Let’s see: An NEA local demands seniority, transfer and bumping provisions in the contract. The district says no. The union holds informational picketing, work-to-rule, “no confidence” votes, and finally authorizes a strike. In order to return students to class, the district agrees to binding arbitration. The arbitrator rules that the provisions must be included in the contract. The district abides by the arbitrator’s decision. According to NEA, this means the district has now assumed at least half of the responsibility for the existence of those rules.
By the same reasoning, how can teacher pay be too low? The union agreed to the pay the teachers received. It was a mutual agreement to pay teachers that much. Isn’t the union at least half-responsible for low pay?
* The Fall River Educators Association in Massachusetts is grieving the implementation of a school breakfast program.
November 18th, 2005 at 14:39
BINGO! JACKPOT! BULL’S EYE!
November 22nd, 2005 at 23:42
Dear General Strike,
You are free to make whatever comments you like here. I do, however, have a rule against common profanities. If you would like to post again, you can be as angry as you want, but keep it clean.
Thank you.
November 22nd, 2005 at 23:44
Ah yes, a passionate and illiterate response.
One can only admire the cruelties visited upon the English language. For example:
” I was looking for responses to the New Teachers Project online as well as get an understanding of who funds them”
Huh?
“…beat it in to [sic] your head”
“Was someone you know or work with who works for union policies not be [sic] nice to you?”
“preping [sic] 5 different Social Studies classes.”
“…a democratic body of workers who [sic] meets”
“…conditions of thier [sic] labor”
“…it seems seperate [sic]“
“we shold [sic] destroy it”
“a destorted [sic] and undemocratic position”
” I want to have a say in the determinion [sic]“
November 22nd, 2005 at 23:48
Sorry, forgot to sign my post, probably because I was busy admiring General Strike’s post.
Too bad you removed the post, Mike, it was really funny.
Ragnarok
November 23rd, 2005 at 10:53
Blogger.com – correctly – won’t let me edit the posts of others. So I had to delete the entire post to eliminate the single profanity.
Here is General Strike’s original post, with no change except a bleep where the obscenity was:
“I was looking for responses to the New Teachers Project online as well as get an understanding of who funds them and what their political objectives are, I came across this blog. WOW! What happened to you that you have this agenda? Did your parents give you an antiunion ideology and beat it in to your head? Was someone you know or work with who works for union policies not be nice to you? Are you just an *******? I am a second year teacher who worked 15 hours a day preping 5 different Social Studies classes. I am a member of a union, a democratic body of workers who meets to discuss the conditions of thier labor, profession, and the political and economic environment they work in. When the New Teachers Project’s Report says ‘union rules’ it seems seperate from teachers, it seems like this institution is only negative, is an obstructionist penalty. The logical implication of that tone in that there is something in the way, “union rules”, and we shold destroy it. WE ARE THE UNION! I will defend my right to participate in decisions about my life and profession with my life. This is the essence of democracy. The report adds fuel to the fire that unions = bad. This is a destorted and undemocratic position. What is the alternative for me to be a slave to the dictates of whatever my boss says and when. I am in a union because I want to have a say in the determinion of the policies that affect my life.”