SMCPS teachers in the news

[Gilligan]

No more than you or anyone else that isn't directly involved. And is it a stunt to "work to rule" or are you just guessing that it is a stunt and not an accepted labor dispute practice?

I'm sure you, if anyone, understands what a labor stunt is. It's more about how how its advertised, publicized and otherwise shouted loud about than what it actually is. What good is a temper tantrum if nobody who cares ever sees it?

 

[Ken King]

I'm sure you, if anyone, understands what a labor stunt is. It's more about how how its advertised, publicized and otherwise shouted loud about than what it actually is. What good is a temper tantrum if nobody who cares ever sees it?

Sure do, it's contractually agreeing to paying raises based on tenure or a cola and then refusing to pay them.

 

[Gilligan]

Sure do, it's contractually agreeing to paying raises based on tenure or a cola and then refusing to pay them.

And here we are full circle again...is this a cut-n-dry contractual matter/breach..or isn't it?????

 

[Ken King]

And here we are full circle again...is this a cut-n-dry contractual matter/breach..or isn't it?????

Cut and dry, for me it seems to be. A CBA is a legally enforceable contract for a specified period, between the management of an organization and its employees represented by an independent trade union. It sets down and defines conditions of employment (wages, working hours and conditions, overtime payments, holidays, vacations, benefits, etc.) and procedures for dispute resolution.

Are CBAs and standard business contracts different, absolutely. Here is an old article from the Yale Law Journal that might give you a better understanding, a little long but a good read none the less if your desire is to understand. http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4907&context=fss_papers

 

[Gilligan]

Cut and dry, for me it seems to be. A CBA is a legally enforceable contract for a specified period, between the management of an organization and its employees represented by an independent trade union. It sets down and defines conditions of employment (wages, working hours and conditions, overtime payments, holidays, vacations, benefits, etc.) and procedures for dispute resolution.

Are CBAs and standard business contracts different, absolutely. Here is an old article from the Yale Law Journal that might give you a better understanding, a little long but a good read none the less if your desire is to understand. http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4907&context=fss_papers

But I'm still confused. If the BoE makes a financial commitment that they cannot keep...what happens then? Is the BoCC supposed to just "bail them out"? Or did the BoE make those commitments with the direct knowledge and consent of the BoCC and promises to provide the requisite funds?

 

[Hijinx]

But I'm still confused. If the BoE makes a financial commitment that they cannot keep...what happens then? Is the BoCC supposed to just "bail them out"? Or did the BoE make those commitments with the direct knowledge and consent of the BoCC and promises to provide the requisite funds?

What happens?? The Superintendent hauls azz.

 

[intertidal]

But I'm still confused. If the BoE makes a financial commitment that they cannot keep...what happens then? Is the BoCC supposed to just "bail them out"? Or did the BoE make those commitments with the direct knowledge and consent of the BoCC and promises to provide the requisite funds?

Well, you've been in negotiations - wouldn't it be great to read the minds "across the table" to know how much they have been authorized to pay (or give up) so you don't leave money on the table? In this respect, it is like a poker game.

 

[Gilligan]

Well, you've been in negotiations - wouldn't it be great to read the minds "across the table" to know how much they have been authorized to pay (or give up) so you don't leave money on the table? In this respect, it is like a poker game.

I was only asking about the outcome, not the negotiation "process" per se. I'm only asking about any commitments actually made. So again, when the BoE makes a commitment on salaries and benefits...who has the ultimate responsibility to honor that that commitment with real money? The BoCC??. From what I'm reading here, it almost sounds like the BoE is writing checks when they have no bank to draw from.

 

[Ken King]

But I'm still confused. If the BoE makes a financial commitment that they cannot keep...what happens then? Is the BoCC supposed to just "bail them out"? Or did the BoE make those commitments with the direct knowledge and consent of the BoCC and promises to provide the requisite funds?

The financial commitment for salaries should have been a known value to almost certainty as the requirements are spelled out and should have been budgeted accordingly. Other BoE liabilities might be more volatile but to compensate for that by denying agreed upon increases for the teachers isn't the method that should have been employed. Does anyone know with any confidence what caused the fiduciary turmoil that lead to this act? I don't as I'm not connected or involved enough to know.

 

[dave1959]

These discussions end up being more entertaining that the thread topic itself.... Lmao

 

[Lurk]

The financial commitment for salaries should have been a known value to almost certainty as the requirements are spelled out and should have been budgeted accordingly. Other BoE liabilities might be more volatile but to compensate for that by denying agreed upon increases for the teachers isn't the method that should have been employed. Does anyone know with any confidence what caused the fiduciary turmoil that lead to this act? I don't as I'm not connected or involved enough to know.

If what you say is true, and I believe it is the underlying problem in this case, the Superintendent of schools is responsible for not re-budgeting the amount of funds allocated. The schools might have to do drastic things like eliminate or charge for extra-curricular activities, not fund new equipment for high school sports programs, eliminate/re-assign central-office resources, etc. to pay for the salary requirements.

 

[Ken King]

If what you say is true, and I believe it is the underlying problem in this case, the Superintendent of schools is responsible for not re-budgeting the amount of funds allocated. The schools might have to do drastic things like eliminate or charge for extra-curricular activities, not fund new equipment for high school sports programs, eliminate/re-assign central-office resources, etc. to pay for the salary requirements.

And that is just it. It is the Superintendent's job to point that out to the BoCC when getting his funding. That they empowered him to negotiate the deal and that they must honor the obligation by the complete funding of those salaries. This should be done before any other funding is discussed.

 

[Hijinx]

And that is just it. It is the Superintendent's job to point that out to the BoCC when getting his funding. That they empowered him to negotiate the deal and that they must honor the obligation by the complete funding of those salaries. This should be done before any other funding is discussed.

Didn't the Superintendent quit? Don't they have an interim superintendent?

 

[Ken King]

Didn't the Superintendent quit? Don't they have an interim superintendent?

Yeah so. Had he quit before he agreed to the CBA or submitted the budget to the BoCC?

No interim yet, I believe that the interim won't be in place until 9/22 or so.

 

[awpitt]

Didn't the Superintendent quit? Don't they have an interim superintendent?

The superintendent doesn't leave until late September. The interim superintendent starts at that time.

 

[kom526]

Advice was given to the Superintendent regarding how the money needed to be allocated to avoid the deficit, but that advice was not entirely heeded. :shrug: Look for greater oversight by the BoCC in the future in regards to the budget.