Good Luck With That!
From the San Diego Union-Tribune:
Vista school trustees are seeking reimbursement from the teachers union for about $128,000 in salary payments made to the union’s president over the past three years.
Under a 1995 agreement, the Vista Unified School District has been paying for the union president’s salary, even though that person is on leave from the classroom. In exchange, the union has paid the salary of a replacement teacher, who invariably is on a lower pay scale. As a result, the school district has paid more money to the union than the union has returned to the district.
As ridiculous as it might be to pay a teacher’s salary (and benefits, unaddressed here) to someone who is running a union full-time, it is a standard provision in most collective bargaining agreements. If this draws more attention to the issue of release time, all well and good. But there is zero chance the district will get the union to return that money.
December 14th, 2009 at 10:28
I understand that it may not ever be returned but a Board Majority that is over 90% supported by the Vista Teacher’s Association shouldn’t be voting on this as they have a conflict of interest. After all, they were bought with the money that is owed the Vista Unified School District. CSEA is suffering the cuts, yet the VTA has very few cuts. Hmmm.
December 14th, 2009 at 16:07
Sorry Jack, that is called politics. The union’s political action committee has just as much right to support candidates as any other private entity.
As far as the issue itself. What does the contract say? If the contract…a bilateral agreement signed by the district…only says the union will pay the salary of “a” teacher and not the president’s salary, then the union is right to do just that. If the School Board does not like that provision of the contract they can bring the issue to the next round of bargaining. The unmentioned issue is whether the replacement teacher was successful in teaching the students.
December 19th, 2009 at 17:09
I think that the union is paying for the actual cost of replacing the teacher. That sounds reasonable to me…