http://www.dailygazette.com

Quoted Text

ROTTERDAM
Schalmont teachers hit picket line over stalled contract
Deadlock is over benefits, salary issues
BY JUSTIN MASON Gazette Reporter
Reach Gazette reporter Justin Mason at 395-3113 or jmason@dailygazette.net

   Schalmont teachers picketed outside the high school campus Tuesday, claiming the administration has deadlocked contract talks by failing to compromise.
   Carrying signs with slogans of “let’s talk we’ll settle” and “it’s negotiate not no-gotiate,” more than 100 members of the Schalmont Teachers Association picketed along Duanesburg Road. The teachers have worked without a contract since June 2006, when their threeyear agreement with the district expired. The union has about 200 members.
   District officials decided to seek fact-finding in August, after several rounds of negotiations and mediation with the Public Employment Relations Board failed to yield an agreement. The independent analysis is anticipated this fall and will involve a non-binding recommendation for a settlement.
   Union President Alisha Bahrmann, a reading teacher at Jefferson Elementary School, characterized the district’s attempts to settle the negotiations as one-sided and failing to make necessary concessions to the teachers. She said the district unilaterally filed for both mediation and fact-finding without making any effort to negotiate a compromise.
   “They don’t understand what negotiations are,” she said from the picket line. “For them, it’s either you meet all our demands or you get nothing.”
   The union and district have agreed on the non-monetary items, but are at a deadlock in the area of benefits and salary. The district is proposing to switch the teachers’ health insurance from the selffunded “Schalmont plan” to a different system that would require a 15 percent teacher contribution by 2010.
   Superintendent Valerie Kelsey said the Schalmont plan costs the district $28,000 annually per teacher for family coverage. She said switching to the new plan — one that is now used by both the administration and support staff — would save the district more than $300,000 per year.
   “We’ve tried to be very fair and reasonable in our negotiations,” she said. “We have good educators in Schalmont, and I don’t want to lessen the importance of their contributions, but we also have a commitment to be fair and reasonable with our taxpayers.”
   Bahrmann said her union would be more than willing to negotiate a more affordable health plan, as long as the district is willing to make salary concessions. She said both the administration and support staff were offered greater pay increases in exchange for signing on to the benefit changes proposed by the district.
   “We’re just looking to hold onto what we have, with a salary and insurance that is comparable to what our colleagues are getting in the Capital District.”
   Bahrmann also pointed to Schalmont’s recent designation by the state Education Department a high-performance gap-closing district. She offered the designation is evidence the district’s teacher are performing at or above the level of their peers.
   “We’re doing our part as professionals to bring success to Schalmont,” she said.
   The teachers last protested to the district in June, when more than 150 members turned out to a Board of Education meeting wearing union shirts. Bahrmann said the last contract with the district in 2003 wasn’t nearly as difficult to reach because the administration at the time was more willing to compromise.
   But Kelsey said the district is keeping an open mind with negotiations and is willing to work out a deal long before the matter goes to fact-finding.
   “At any time, the parties can come back and negotiate,” she said. “The district is more than receptive at any time to sit down and negotiate.”

ANA N. ZANGRONIZ/GAZETTE PHOTOGRAPHER
Members of the Schalmont Teachers Association picket outside the school complex on Route 7 in Rotterdam Tuesday. The teachers have been without a contract for more than a year.

Now, remember as you're reading this that these are teachers who are educating our children...

Quoted Text

“it’s negotiate not no-gotiate,”

no-gotiate?

I sure hope that wasn't an English teacher carrying that one.

Get back in the classroom and do your jobs.

No sympathy for the teachers from me.
Let them pay for their medical, not me.

It's NOGOTIATE  because 1 side is NOT negotiating......... allegedly

Where do these teachers think the increased cost for all their benefits going to come from, the poor tax payer is already over their ability to pay anymore taxes now.

Quoted from johnny

It's NOGOTIATE  because 1 side is NOT negotiating......... allegedly

There is no such word in Webster's dictionary.

Quoted Text

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above.

Suggestions for nogotiate:
      1. negotiate
      2. negotiates
      3. Noguchi
      4. negotiator
      5. negotiated
      6. negotiation
      7. nonguest
      8. Naugatuck
      9. mug shot
     10. moon shot

The teachers would not have this problem if they did not belong to a union. They would be getting their cost of living raises every year like everyone else does. Sometimes unions are not the best thing. I don't think it is for teachers. Every business that has a union is always having problems. Sometimes the unions are the really the problem itself.

It's called wait and wait for someone else to do it or tell me when to do it.....

http://www.dailygazette.com

Quoted Text

Carl Strock THE VIEW FROM HERE
Reward for a good job? Not quite

   On the education front, we have settlement of a teachers’ contract in Scotia-Glenville, we have stalemate on a teachers’ contract at Schalmont, and we have — what’s this? — merit pay for teachers in New York City?
   Could it be? Why, getting rewarded for a doing a good job and penalized for doing a bad job has always been anathema to teachers’ unions, which insist on all their members getting paid strictly according to how long they have been on the job, or in labor terms, according to seniority. You make so much your first year, so much your second year and so on throughout your career regardless of whether you are a dedicated professional who spends lots of extra time with your students and gets good results or a piece of deadwood suitable for a landfill.
   No “merit pay” ever, is their position — no reward for good work, no penalty for bad work, which I would love to hear them explain to their students in civic class, though that’s another issue.
   But there was the headline the other day on the front page of The New York Times: “Teachers Agree to Bonus Pay Tied to Scores,” which the Times characterized as a “major breakthough.”
   And in a way I guess it was, though you had to read the story carefully to see how carefully shaded, hedged, and qualified this particular breakthrough was.
   You had to read pretty far down to discover that individual teachers are not going to be rewarded for improving the test scores of their own particular students. Rather, schools as a whole will get an extra pot of money, averaging $3,000 per teacher, if test scores for the whole school go up, and a four-member committee, including two representatives of the teachers’ union, will decide how to distribute the money.
   “This shuts the door on the individual merit pay plans that I abhor,” the union president was quoted as saying, just so no one gets any subversive ideas.
   Of course there was not a mention of penalizing teachers whose students do badly. That is beyond discussion.
   You also had to read a little bit to discover that this alleged breakthrough did not come free to the city of New York. They had to pay for it, as you have to pay for everything you want from a public-employees union. The price? Allowing the city’s teachers to retire with full benefi ts at age 55 if they have worked just 25 years rather than the previously required 30 years.
   That is the price for getting them to accept extra pay averaging $3,000 each! Why do you have to coax them into such a thing? Because the extra pay is tied, even if indirectly, to how well they do their jobs, that’s why. It violates a basic principle of theirs, or it comes close.
   Even with all that, it’s still not mandatory. Union chapters in each school will be able to vote on whether or not to join the program, so touchy is it.
   Which brings me back to Schalmont and Scotia-Glenville, where merit pay, as it’s called, is not an issue.
   Scotia-Glenville teachers just won a new contract that gives them the usual automatic pay raises year by year regardless of performance, pay raises averaging 4.4 percent a year over the next three years.
   This will make the pay of a 23-year teacher $83,144 next year, plus whatever bonuses he or she might receive for assisting with extracurricular activities.
   Schalmont, meanwhile, remains stalled in negotiations for a new contract, though that does not mean that salaries are stalled, much less that they are going down, despite the picket sign carried by a teacher recently and pictured in this newspaper: “TEST SCORES UP, SALARIES DOWN.”
   Nor does it mean the teachers are working without a contract, as often stated in news reports. Thanks to a state law known as the Triborough Amendment, their contract remains in effect even after its nominal term comes to an end, and their salaries continue to go up, step by step, until they reach the top step, which is after 25 years in Schalmont’s case.
   I got hold of the Schalmont salary schedule just to satisfy myself on this point, and I also talked to the district superintendent, Valerie Kelsey, and it was as I had expected. Teachers at every level are getting their automatic raises right up to the top step of $86,234, and those raises average, by my calculation, 3.25 percent a year.
   To make doubly sure, I asked the superintendent how many teachers had seen their salaries go down during the two-year contract stalemate, and she seemed puzzled by my question. “I can’t imagine how that could happen,” she said, and of course neither could I, which was why I asked. “Zero,” she said.
   So, question: How much chutzpah does it take to go out on a picket line with a sign saying “… SALARIES DOWN,” when you’re getting automatic 3.25 percent annual raises, and your pay is topping out at $86,234 (for a 180-day work year)? And you refuse to tie your pay to how good a job you do.

Thank you Mr. Strock! Here again is just another example of how unions rake the taxpayers right over the coals. And to the union employee....ENTITLEMENTS, at the taxpayers expense! NONSENSE!

The teachers should be thankful that they even have a job, they get paid a very large sum of money for only working part of the year along with an excellent retirement package with fantastic health benefits. The tax payer can't keep paying the tax increases to fund these packages and the teachers still want more. Maybe it's time to do what happened to the air controllers when they got greedy.

Quoted Text

Maybe it's time to do what happened to the air controllers when they got greedy.

August 5th, 1981. Remember who was in office then?

My kid is MORE than a test score....anyone can teach a monkey to put the square block in the square hole.......we figured it out with sex didn't we..... ;D

http://www.dailygazette.com

Quoted Text

Teachers confront school board
More than 100 show unity over stalled negotiations
BY JUSTIN MASON Gazette Reporter

ROTTERDAM — Sporting black union T-shirts and ‘no contract’ pins, more than 100 Schalmont teachers crowded into the Board of Education meeting Monday in a show of solidarity over stalled negotiations.
    Interim union President Mary Beth Flatley quietly led the crowd of teachers into the Woestina Elementary School’s gymnasium just minutes before the board’s regular meeting convened. The 200-member union has worked without a contract since June 2006, when their three-year agreement with the district expired.
    Flatley said the lasting stalemate between the administration and the union has created a deteriorating situation within the district. She said the concessions being sought by district far outweigh the contract demands of the union.
    “They’re looking for many givebacks and the only thing we’re looking for is a comparable salary increase,” she said.
    District officials sought fact-fi nding in August, after several rounds of negotiations and mediation with the Public Employment Relations Board failed to yield an agreement.
    Board President Michael Della Villa said fact-finding was completed late last month and a nonbinding recommendation for a settlement is due back within the coming weeks.
    “We’re hoping for a favorable proposal so we can put this all behind us and get down to the task at hand, which is to ensure our children get the best possible education,” he said following the meeting.
    The union and district have agreed on the non-monetary items, but are at a deadlock on benefi ts and salary. Administrators have insisted on switching the teachers’ health insurance to a different system that would require a 15 percent contribution by 2010.
    Union leadership has criticized district administrators for being unwilling to make concessions. Several teachers echoed this criticism Monday.
    Karen Ryder, a social studies teacher at Schalmont High School, scolded board members for not taking a more active role in negotiations. She also criticized them for not being more visible.
    “Don’t you think as elected board members you should have a working knowledge of the facilities you oversee?” she asked.
    The meeting was also attended by Schalmont parents that offered some support to the district’s position. Kimberly Ricker-VanLuyk, the parent a Woestina fifth grader, said the district’s teachers seem to be paid a favorable wage in comparison to other regional schools and urged the board not to be “bullied by anyone.”


MEREDITH L. KAISER/GAZETTE PHOTOGRAPHER Mary Beth Flatley, a sixth-grade English teacher and interim president of the Schalmont Teachers Association, speaks to the Schalmont Board of Education Monday at Woestina Elementary School in Rotterdam Junction.

All I can say about this is Schalmont residents are overtaxed.

Ahhhhh...the black tee-shirt trick. They all wore them at this meeting. Gee, the teacher's union must be affiliated with the Police union, cause they did the same identical thing in Rotterdam! (black tee-shirts must be a union thing). Now that is one way of showing your educated self to the school board! As if the black tee-shirts will make they pay more attention! Or perhaps the residents would want to give you more money!  How impressive, huh? :P

Kevin, do you really think that the teachers really care about the residents in the Schalmont District being overtaxed?

I know that shadow's question was gear toward Kevin...but may I simply answer.......

NO!

They have a contract, only it's the old one still in effect....not the new and improved cadillac.....I guess National Grid is knocking at their door for $$ too......

Obviously not, when they try to "accomodate everyone" by having some of the school board meetings right in the middle of the work day.  If tey truly want these to be attended, they should be when most people wouldn't have to get time off to come to the meeting.

Things can't be too awful bad for these teachers, otherwise they'd have quit long ago. And that ain't gonna happen!

http://www.dailygazette.com

Quoted Text

Carl Strock THE VIEW FROM HERE
Carl Strock can be reached at 395-3085 by e-mail at carlstrock@dailygazette.com.

Surprise!
Taxes rise
with STAR

    Don’t blame me, ladies and gentlemen. I told you way back in 1997, when the Hon. George Elmer Pataki was touting his new STAR program — standing for School Tax Assessment Relief — that it was a shuck.
    I explained that the state was going to give local school districts money to offset a reduction in property assessments with the idea that local school boards would exercise restraint, and I asked rhetorically, Is there anyone in his right mind who believes that school boards will do anything but take the money and run?”
    I remember suggesting to a fl ack in the governor’s press offi ce at the time that school boards would feel free to spend more since they would have more, and I remember the flack saying, “Oh, I can’t imagine they would do that.”
    Well, now we have the news from the Public Policy Institute, an arm of the state Business Council, that — guess what — since the adoption of STAR, property taxes have been going up faster than ever.
    “Property taxes increased 3 percent a year from 1995 to 2000, then
    percent a year from 2000 to 2005, more than double the rate of infl ation,” the institute found.
    More specifically, school tax levies “rose four times as fast been 2002 and 2007 as they did in the previous five years.
    So I believe my nickel is safe. The governor and the Legislature trumpeted when the STAR program started that school taxes would go down 27 percent, based on the fanciful assumption that school boards would absorb the new subsidy responsibly, and I offered at the time to pay a nickel to anyone who could find a school district anywhere in the state where that actually happened.
    I even remember Gov. Pataki visiting the Annie Schaffer Senior Center in Schenectady early in 1998, when STAR had just kicked in, and shamelessly telling the innocents there, “Your school taxes will go down $890.” Yes, $890!
    He had to know better. He himself had proposed limiting how much school boards could raise taxes after they got the new subsidy, and the Legislature, in response to lobbying by the School Boards Association and the teachers’ unions, rejected it.
    So here we are now in the great state of New York, paying $2,303 in property taxes a year for each man, woman and child, which is the highest in the nation and double the national average, and those taxes are going up faster than ever “under cover of STAR,” as the Public Policy Institute aptly put it.
    The remedy? The institute modestly proposes, among other things, the elimination of the Wicks Law, which requires separate contracts on big construction projects, to the benefit of the construction industry; reform of the Triborough Amendment, which keeps publicemployee labor contracts in effect for eternity; an “update” of public employees’ immensely expensive pension plans, and so on. In all of which I wish the Public Policy Institute, and the rest of us, the best of luck.
SCHALMONT CONTRACT
    Perhaps you noticed the photo in this newspaper the other day of a teachers’ union president wearing button saying “NO CONTRACT” as she addressed the Schalmont Board of Education.
    And perhaps you read the accompanying article that said, “The 200-member union has worked without
    contract since June 2006, when their three-year agreement with the district expired.”
    If so, I will repeat what I have already explained approximately 247,519 times in the past: Teachers never work without a contract, nor do other unionized public employees, thanks to the above-mentioned by the state Legislature in 1982 as a refinement of the Taylor Law.
    When their contract reaches the end of its term, it nevertheless remains in full force and effect until a new one is agreed to.
    This is different from a contract between you and me. If we draw up a contract and specify an expiration date, when that date comes, the contract is finished and we have to start over again.
    What’s more, teachers have a salary schedule that specifies annual “step increases” — or raises, in plain English — and that salary schedule is part of the contract and thus also remains in effect, meaning that teachers continue to get their raises every year even as they wear buttons or carry picket signs proclaiming “NO CONTRACT.”
    In the case of Schalmont those raises average 3.25 percent a year and culminate in a top salary of $86,234 for a teacher with 25 years’ experience.
    So when you hear them complain about lack of a contract or lack of raises, keep that in mind. What they’re demanding is an increase above the automatic 3.25 percent that they’re already getting.
    I will not spell out again the number of days a year they work, nor how much extra they get paid for supervising extracurricular activities, nor the age at which they can retire at half pay, since I begin to sound like a broken record even to myself.
    But I will note that one of the health-insurance plans that teachers have access to in Schalmont, and which the administration is trying to change, costs $28,000 a year for family coverage. Can you imagine that?
    As for the effect of all this on property taxes, I refer you back to the first half of this column

Those poor teachers working without a contract,not. I just have one question , how much money is enough? The teachers seem to forget that there is a limit on what we as residents can afford to pay.

Thank you Carl Strock for the article. Big freakin' deal that they don't have a NEW contract!! I'm so sorry that they are stuck with these awful medical benefits paid for by the taxpayer. And I'm soooo sorry that they are guarenteed an annual pay increase of 3.25% paid for by the taxpayer. And they get all of these benefits even if they stink at their job.  WAIT...let me get my tissue out and cry...NOT!!

Quoted from Shadow

I just have one question , how much money is enough?

The age-old question gets an age-old answer.  
What would be enough?  

A little more than we're getting now.

Kevin, I'll give you an old age answer,it's a little more than we have now. I'd say that $86,234 is a very high salary for a teacher with 25 years service plus benefits. There are people in the private sector with 4 year degrees that can't get that kind of money due to their companies not making enough profit to afford paying high salaries to their employees. There has to be a cap placed on salaries because NYS being the highest taxed state in the country residents just can't afford any more tax increases.

Quoted Text

I'd say that $86,234 is a very high salary for a teacher with 25 years service plus benefits

I'll agree with you on this one shadow, but I'd be a bit pi**ed if I were a teacher and heard that Eddy Kosiur, with  no formal education, receives a job starting at $80,000. And he didn't even have to apply for it. In fact NO ONE did!!

THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN....END OF STORY...

Quoted Text

I explained that the state was going to give local school districts money to offset a reduction in property assessments with the idea that local school boards would exercise restraint, and I asked rhetorically, Is there anyone in his right mind who believes that school boards will do anything but take the money and run?”
    I remember suggesting to a fl ack in the governor’s press offi ce at the time that school boards would feel free to spend more since they would have more, and I remember the flack saying, “Oh, I can’t imagine they would do that.”
    Well, now we have the news from the Public Policy Institute, an arm of the state Business Council, that — guess what — since the adoption of STAR, property taxes have been going up faster than ever.

Subprime and the credit issues---if we cant keep our own homes in line with finances, what makes us think we can keep the 'public things' in line??

http://www.dailygazette.com

Quoted Text

Teachers should contribute more to their health care

    Re Feb. 12 article, “Teachers confront school board — More than 100 show unity over stalled negotiations”: I continue to find it interesting that the Schalmont Teachers Association and their union feel entitled to health insurance benefits at minimal cost to them while most private-sector employees continue to see their out-of-pocket costs increase. In addition to not being able to afford their own, they are expected to pay more (via school taxes) so that teachers continue to enjoy these benefi ts at reduced expense.
    A recent report by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a recognized leader in health care policy, showed the average premium for family coverage in 2007 is $12,106 and workers on average now pay $3,281 out-of-their paychecks to cover their share of the cost of a family policy. The average worker is paying 27 percent of their employer-provided premium; the Schalmont administration is only asking for 15 percent — and that doesn’t occur for two more years. This is not an unreasonable request by any means.
    Several months ago, I came home to a message on my answering machine from a parent asking for support in the teachers’ battle with the school board. The message proceeded to say that the union is requesting the teachers “do less” with the children. The “do less” example referred to less projects and display of these projects in the hallways. I found this very interesting, particularly when I witness the sea of shirts asking us to invest in education, yet they are doing less.
    Dedicated, responsible teachers, who continually prove their value, should be paid a fair, comparable wage as well as comparable benefits. I have been very pleased with the teachers and instruction my children have received thus far.
    However, it needs to be made very clear to the politicians, union leaders and state administrators that the taxpayers of New York are fed up. They are fed up with continually being asked to pay more for their own benefits in addition to those of public employees. I do not feel that it is unreasonable to make all public employees contribute a comparable percentage of their salary toward their benefits as any other employer requests, and I applaud Board President Michael Della Villa and the current administration for standing their ground against this rhetoric, all in the name of “your children’s education.”
    MICHAEL PASQUARELLA
    Rotterdam

Here's one question that should really be brought up.  What percentage of the teachers who are requesting / demanding this raise actually live in (and therefore pay for through their taxes) the raises that they are requesting?

http://www.dailygazette.com

Quoted Text

Carl Strock THE VIEW FROM HERE $28,000 for insurance? You betcha
Carl Strock can be reached at 395-3085 or by e-mail at carlstrock@nycap.rr.com.

    I mentioned the other day that one of the health insurance plans that teachers have access to in the Schalmont school district of Rotterdam costs $28,000 a year for family coverage, and more than one reader inquired, “Wha? Twenty-eight thousand U.S. dollars? For health insurance?”
    That’s right, dear readers. It’s called the Schalmont Plan, and it’s a “self-insurance” plan provided by the district, descended from a state plan that many school districts participated in back in the 1960s and early 1970s, before health insurance costs went astronomical.
    Other districts negotiated their way out of these self-insurance arrangements as costs began to rise. Schalmont did not, but is trying to do so now, which is one of the sticking points in negotiations with its teachers’ union.
    What makes the plan so expensive? Well, Superintendent Valerie Kelsey advises me, it’s a “fairly rich plan.” Those who are covered by it can go to any doctor of their choice with no restrictions and with no distinction between “in network” or “out of network.”
    They are 100 percent covered for hospitalization, for 365 days of the year.
    There is no co-pay for doctor’s office visits.
    The co-pay for prescription medicines is a mere $3, regardless of the medicine.
    It doesn’t even include dental and eyeglass coverage, which is provided separately.
    Actually, only about 10 percent of Schalmont’s active teachers — 24 out of 240 — participate in this “fairly rich” plan, most of them opting instead for MVP or CDPHP plans, which are also offered and which cost the district about $12,000 per family.
    The reason that more teachers don’t opt for the Cadillac plan is, presumably, that since they contribute 5 percent of the cost of their coverage, the other plans are more economical for them, 5 percent of $12,000 being somewhat less than 5 percent of $28,000.
    But 88 retired teachers get the coverage as well, and half of them make no contribution at all, since whatever deal was in effect for them at the time of their retirement is locked in forever. They get it for life, at no cost to them.
    This is by way of follow-up to my earlier analysis of why our school taxes are so high. They are so high because the state Legislature, faithful servant to the publicemployee unions, mandates that whatever was given once must be given forever.
    The employer can never get out of any commitment, no matter how much circumstances might change, unless the union agrees. And ordinarily no union agrees unless it is given something of equivalent value, the shorthand for which is, you can have it back, but you gotta pay for it.
    Superintendent Kelsey tells me that the Schalmont administration and the teachers’ union, deadlocked in negotiations, are endeavoring to determine even now the dollar value of this anachronistic insurance plan with a view to scrapping it and switching to a cheaper Blue Cross plan.
    But whatever it’s worth, the school district will have to pay in some other coin, so even getting rid of it will yield no immediate savings.
    This is something else you might keep in mind the next time you see a picture of Schalmont teachers with picket signs claiming (falsely) they have no contract.
    If they had no contract, they would have no $28,000 insurance plan, that’s for sure.

The facts coming out of the salary dispute are starting to paint a negative picture of the teachers demands and one of the many reasons Schalmont's school tax is so high.

Quoted Text

But 88 retired teachers get the coverage as well, and half of them make no contribution at all, since whatever deal was in effect for them at the time of their retirement is locked in forever. They get it for life, at no cost to them.

Isn't it amazing how even at retirement, we are paying for their total financial existence. Between their pensions, medical benefits AND social security. Now I know that we all benefit from social security, but with that money we, in the private sector, will struggle. THEY WON'T!! And that my folks is why our taxes will continue to go even higher. I commend the school board for standing their ground and hope that they continue and don't cave cause right now they have the residents behind them.

And on another note, Schalmont is clearly not on the top list of 'best schools'!!

I hope all the residents in the Schalmont district have stock in vaseline---they will all need it.....the teachers seem to be leeches just like the welfare recipients, only the teachers dont get to talk about "my baby's daddy"---however, I will say this(and it is not a cover-all for all teachers,but a large # of the new),,,,that after going to my childrens school I noted the 'new'(yes, recent grad teachers,2-10years) wearing very low cut shirts, very large dangly earrings, tight pants, very short skirts, very high heeled shoes(3inches), talking about their whale tales, showing off their tatoos and chewing gum like cows in the field----these were all women(sorry, no men there),,,,,does their union negotiate their dress allowance---I SAY MAKE THE SCHOOL BOARD REQUIRE UNIFORMS FOR THE TEACHERS--BLAZERS AND ALL......

As a nurse of many years there are sloppy kids coming out of school and into the profession of nursing....their early learning years were probably marred by the wonderful examples of those teachers. And the childcare workers are joining the teachers union---we are royally screwed now.....
.....the childrens teeth are set on edge....

AARP cant do anything about the next generations attitudes/morals etc, but, they can get ya cheaper drugs ;D

I think there needs to be more parental participation at the school board meetings. Especially at the time of the contract negotiations. Let 'the people' have their input....such as a dress code.

http://www.dailygazette.com

Quoted Text

ROTTERDAM
Report supports Schalmont teachers
Teachers, administration react to mixed PERB results
BY JUSTIN MASON Gazette Reporter

    Schalmont teachers should accept a switch in the district’s health plan, but maintain the present level of premium contributions, a factfinder from the state Public Employment Relations Board concluded.
    In a nonbinding ruling issued last month, the factfinder also ruled the Schalmont Teachers Association shouldn’t accept administration proposals to lengthen the school day and increase teaching responsibilities in the middle school. The report also suggested the administration maintain the payment schedule of teachers attaining National Board certification and outlined a schedule of salary increase that would afford union members incremental raises until 2009.
    Interim union President Mary Beth Flatley was pleased with the results. She said the ruling further demonstrates how the administration has overstepped during the recent contract negotiations.
    “It absolutely validates our point from the beginning,” she said Tuesday. “The district was being too greedy with its demand in one contract.”
    School Board President Michael Della Villa said the ruling presented mixed results. While pleased the factfinder agreed with the administration on changes to the district health plan, he was dismayed by the suggestion to keep premium contributions static.
    “In some areas, it appeared to rely on erroneous conclusions despite the extensive documentation in our presentation,” he said in a prepared statement.
    Schalmont’s three-year contract with the 200-member union expired in June 2006. Since that time, union officials and district administrators have agreed on the contract’s nonmonetary items, but are at a deadlock on benefits and salary.
    District officials sought fact-fi nding in August, after several rounds of negotiations and mediation with PERB failed to yield an agreement. Both sides met with PERB in January and six issues were submitted for fact-finding.
    Switching from the district’s self-funded health plan would save Schalmont roughly $300,000 per year, the factfinder determined. The plan, which covers 24 union members and 88 retired teachers, was dropped by Schalmont’s other two unions and is only used by one other district in the county.
    But the report disagreed with raising teacher contributions from 5 percent to 15 percent by 2010. Increasing contributions after such a large change in coverage would be inappropriate, the report states.
    The report also suggested some of the savings from the health insurance change could be applied to teacher salary increases. The report calls into question the transfer of $2.6 million worth of reserves into the district’s tax certiorari and retirement system reserve funds.
    The ruling is critical of an administration proposal to reduce additional pay for board-certifi ed teachers from $2,500 to $1,000. Also rejected in the report were district proposals to add an hour to the work day and increase middle school teachers’ instructional assignments.
    Superintendent Valerie Kelsey said the ruling will be taken into consideration during upcoming negotiations.
    “The purpose of fact-finding is to have another opinion and to bring both parties closer together,” she said. “We hope that happens here.”
Reach Gazette reporter
Justin Mason at 395-3113

Is that PERB or PERP???

Okay, let them all go on the health care system that Spitzer is sporting. A family of 4 making $82,000/year is entitled to health care at the cost of $1400/year. I'm sure that ANYONE making that amount of money could well afford health care on their own. We, the taxpayer are still paying it, but at least it's a heck of a lot cheaper.

By the way, my daughter had something going on in class, so the parents were invited this last week.  When my daughter got home, I asked her a question.  That being "Does your teacher wear that button every day?"  And the answer to the question was simply yes.  What was on the button?  "No contract."  Simple enough.  So simple that the teachers, whether they are seeing anybody that would have a chance to do anything about it or not are actually taking this issue to the children each and every day.  

I was talking to another parent there and I asked this simple question and I pose it to you also.  If you are working, and you have a contract, then great.  If the date for the contract set to ends comes, then so be it.  After that, are you still receiving a paycheck?  Are you still getting paid at the same rate?  Are you getting the same health care benefits?  I would say that the answers to these questions are a resounding yes.  So, you still ARE working under a contract, maybe it's just not one that you've agreed with as of lately.  If you didn't have a contract, how would you know how much was supposed to be in each of your paychecks?  

Fact is, I think that the person explained to me that many of the protections that the teachers have under the contract are not there while they are negotiating.  You know what I would say in that case?  DON'T give them a new contract.  They're protected enough and they need to be held accountable.

I think that the parents should protest the idea of the teachers wearing pins that reflect their employment/contract issues. That is NOT the place for such a display. Whether you agree with the teachers or not, this is not an issue for the children to be involved in or subject to. There is a time and a place to hash this out. And it is clearly not in front of children in a classroom.

This action just re-enforced my lack of support for these teachers.

They should not be able to wear the pin.....as kids are not allowed to wear political statement tee-shirts either.....SOOOOOOO worried about the poor kids they are......I dont have a contract and I am still eating as is the rest of the country for the most part.......this isn't utopia, but it is closer than Russia or Darfur will ever be in the near future.......

BTW I think the overweight teachers should be forced to workout to lower the cost of their health insurance that we pay for......put that in your contract and smoke it....... :D :D :D :D :D :D :D and they must bring healthy snacks and lunches every day.....

http://www.dailygazette.com

Quoted Text

Strock Freestyle
Schalmont teachers
By Carl Strock
Monday, March 17, 2008

I have it from more than one reader that teachers at Schalmont, in Rotterdam, are expressing their pique at their lack of a new contract by staying outside in the parking lot until the official start time of 7:30 a.m. and then entering the school en masse.

Students, meanwhile, arrive at staggered times on their buses and begin entering the building about 7:15, meaning that for the first 15 minutes or so of the day there is minimal adult supervision in the building.

In the labor game I believe it’s called “work to rule” – abide strictly by the contract, but don’t do an iota more, and see how management likes it.

One parent thinks it’s a dangerous situation, having all those kids in the building with very few adults.

I try to work up sympathy for the teachers, but then I remember that their old contract remains in full effect, as I have pointed out before, and it provides for bigger raises and juicier benefits than many people receive in the world of private employment, including the option of a $28,000 health insurance plan giving them free everything, and somehow the sympathy refuses to rise.

I think of them out in the parking lot at 7:25 a.m., making a righteous stand, and I think, maybe they ought to try looking for some other job.

Maybe they could find a gig that entails fewer work days, shorter hours, more money and richer benefits than teaching does, including earlier retirement -- and then maybe they could come back and tell me about it, so I could apply for it too.

The teachers are getting far too greedy and I feel that their raises should be based on what the residents of the school district is able to pay.

I wish that I could see if this is true.  Only problem with that is that I have to be to work before that hour.  Anybody got any free time in the morning to see it?  Maybe videotape it and put it on YouTube.  Let the whole world know how poorly our teachers are being treated, being locked out until the time school starts.

Quoted from Kevin March

I wish that I could see if this is true.  Only problem with that is that I have to be to work before that hour.  Anybody got any free time in the morning to see it?  Maybe videotape it and put it on YouTube.  Let the whole world know how poorly our teachers are being treated, being locked out until the time school starts.

I dont think anyone would care.....it would be "Here they go again, hurry and feed them before our kids get dumber, oh the poor poor kids.".......

http://www.dailygazette.com

Quoted Text

Three-year Schalmont teacher contract approved
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
By Justin Mason (Contact)
Gazette Reporter

ROTTERDAM — District officials and members of the Schalmont Teachers Association have agreed on a new three-year contract, bringing to an end negotiations that spanned more than two years.
Members of the district’s Board of Education on Monday approved the 200-member union’s new contract, which closely mirrors suggestions offered last month by a fact-finder from the state Public Employment Relations Board. One of the most significant suggestions made by the fact-finder was that the teachers agree to switch from the district’s self-funded health plan to preferred provider organization insurance through the Capital Area School Health Insurance Consortium.
The self-funded plan, which covers 24 union members and 88 retired teachers, was dropped by Schalmont’s other two unions and is used by only one other district in the county. School board chairman Michael DellaVilla said the switch should save Schalmont roughly $320,000 during the 2008-2009 school year.
In return, the teachers will receive an average annual salary increase of 3.5 percent. The pay hike will be retroactive and cover all three years of the contract, district Superintendent Valeri Kelsey said.
The contract will expire in 14 months.
“It’s just a three-year agreement,” she said. “We’ll be back to the drawing board next January.”

So they get a 3.5% increase/yr retro active. What have they gotten over the past 2 years for increases?

http://www.dailygazette.com

Quoted Text

ROTTERDAM
Board approves teachers’ contract
Union agrees to switch health insurance
BY JUSTIN MASON Gazette Reporter

    Schalmont School District and its Teacher’s Association have agreed on a three-year contract, concluding two years of negotiations.
    Members of the Board of Education on Monday unanimously approved the 200-member union’s new contract, which closely mirrors suggestions offered last month by a fact-finder from the state Public Employment Relations Board.
    One key point was that the teachers agree to switch from the district’s self-funded health plan to insurance through the Capital Area School Health Insurance Consortium.
    The self-funded plan, which covers 24 union members and 88 retired teachers, was dropped by Schalmont’s other two unions and is only used by one other district in the county. School board President Michael DellaVilla said the switch should save Schalmont roughly $320,000 during the 2008-09 school year and will prevent the district from facing unexpected liability under the former plan.
    “This is a good first step, and we’re heading in the right direction,” he said Tuesday.
    In return, the teachers will receive an average annual salary increase of 3.5 percent, in addition to their normal step increases. The pay hike will be retroactive and cover all three years of the contract, but won’t affect the district’s recently adopted $41.5 million 2008-09 budget proposal, district Superintendent Valeri Kelsey said.
    The new contract clarifies elements of the teacher’s previous agreement with the district, including such items as how long they have to prepare for the opening of the school day. Teachers also avoided a 10 percent hike in health insurance contributions by 2010, as the district had initially proposed.
    Mary Beth Flatley, the interim president of the teacher’s association, was pleased with the new contract. She said the new agreement represents concessions from both sides.
    Flatley said she hopes the union and district can come to a more timely agreement in the future.
    “We don't want to be put back in this situation,” she said.
    Likewise, Kelsey was pleased with the agreement, but stressed its limited duration. The contract will expire in 14 months.
    “It’s just a three-year agreement,” she said. “We'll be back to the drawing board next January.”

And think...this negotiation is over with next June and will have to be re-negotiated again.  Maybe the teachers can give up a bit more that time.

The public sector has got to realize  that NYS taxpayers just can't continue on this path. However I do think the Schalmont contract was fair.

Gee, how I read this, they immediately get a 10.5% raise, and the health insurance that they  we pay for doesn't cost anything additional out of their pockets.  

I work for a health insurance company and can't get that kind of deal.  I'm sorry that it took them so long to get this deal, but they could have decided on this a long time ago.  They should have to pay an additional part of their health insurance costs, and I think this is one area of this contract that should be STRONGLY negotiated on the side of the school district against the teachers union next year.  Let's remember to remind them that for at least 3 years, they had no change in the amount that they were expected to pay towards their insurance, meaning that the residents had to pick up the additional costs.  Maybe next time, they can pay some of their own bill?

Fair, I guess, if it's what both sides decided on.  However, I think with additional benefits (a 10.5% raise seems like a nice "benefit"), should also come additional responsibilities (costs).

Luke 12:48b

Quoted Text

From everyone who has been given much, much will be required, and from the one who has been entrusted with much, even more will be asked.

I know that this wasn't in response to asking people to pay their fair share of their insurance premiums at the time, but it does apply to some aspect, wouldn't you say?