SMCPS teachers in the news

[GW8345]

No, you're absolutely right. Teachers don't have a leg to stand on.

Your wife asks you to take out the trash. You agree to do so and then don't do it. She gets upset with because you agreed to do something and didn't do it. Good thing you don't have a contract with her to take out the trash, it was just an agreement. So she doesn't have a leg to stand on. What's her problem?

A friend asks you to pick them up at the airport. You agree to do so and then don't do it. Your friend gets upset with you because you agreed to pick them up and you didn't. Now they're stranded at the airport. Good thing you didn't have a contract with your friend to pick them up from the airport, it was just an agreement. So they don't have a leg to stand on. What's their problem?

Your boss asks you to take on an extra assignment at work. You agree to do so and then don't do it. Your boss gets upset with you because you agreed to do something and didn't do it. Good thing you didn't sign a contract with your boss regarding completion of the extra assignment, it was just an agreement. So your boss doesn't have a leg to stand on. What's their problem?

Do you see a pattern here? Maybe some similarities to the current situation that teachers have been put in? Is a court enforceable contract really a requirement for you in order for you to do something? SMCPS agreed to increase teachers' salaries and they didn't. Do teachers have the right to be upset and do something about it? They most certainly do. The same right that your wife, friend, and boss have to be mad that you failed to live up to an agreement you had with them. Just because an agreement is not a court enforceable contract doesn't mean that there won't be consequences for violating the agreement. Back to Basics is exactly that. It's a consequence for repeated violation of the agreement between SMCPS and the teachers.

There's a difference between legality and morality, remember, part of the equation here is politicians and we all know there is very little to none morality when it comes to politicians. This issue also is a business issue and ever smart business person knows that you get all agreements in writing, otherwise, you are going to get screwed because morality in business is few and far between.

Also, this issue clearly shows to me why Martirano is running away; and people think he's done a good job. I'd like to know what happened to that 6 million the county had to give the school board because they can't seem to figure out a budget.

 

[Gilligan]

Not diversionary BS. As intertidal said, semantics. Replace "contractual obligation" to "legal obligation" and you still have the same thing.

When the difference defines whether the enforcement or arbitration falls under a court's jurisdiction, the difference is FAR more than "semantics".

 

[glitch]

I agree with you whole-heartedly. The truth is, in my opinion, teachers tend to be those who partied the hardest in college, and ended up majoring in history or sociology or English, degrees that are relatively easy to get but rather hard to get jobs with. Most teachers in my view are those who never wanted to get out of school in the first place. Many teachers I know, especially the young female teachers, try to be like their students by dressing like them, talking like them, gossiping with them, and becoming their "friends" on Facebook or other social media.

There is a reason the saying, "Those who can't teach," came into existence, and it is not something someone just pulled out of the air for no reason.

Ah yes, over-generalization and stereotyping of large groups of individuals. This has informed opinion written all over it. It's amazing to me that you know and have spoken with enough teachers (1000+ since that's what you need for a representative sample) to make these kinds of statements. You must be a very busy man.

I've always found that particular saying odd since one of the best to determine whether or not someone has an actual understanding of a skill and or content is to have them try and teach it to someone else. If they can't, they don't understand it well enough and need to hit the books a little harder. Plenty of people can do things, few can teach others how to do them.

 

[intertidal]

So what you are saying is that "contract" you have been link'ing isn't and all the supporters have been using as a reference really isn't a legal contract and thus the teachers/EASMC really doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to demanding to a pay raise.

Well, this does answer the question why no one will take the county to court, they don't have a leg to stand on.

This line of reasoning suggests that all other county workers MUST have an absolutely iron-clad contract with the BOCC since their increases were honored. If that is so, then where is it? (it took me, someone not covered by the EASMC agreement, just a few minutes to find their signed agreement with the county on the internet, so let's see the county workers' contract - which must exist, eh?)

 

[intertidal]

When the difference defines whether the enforcement or arbitration falls under a court's jurisdiction, the difference is FAR more than "semantics".

Agreements are agreements. When you negotiate and obtain a signed agreement with the designated authority, what more can you do? If the BOCC decide to change their own rules for negotiation with the teachers' union and choose instead to actively participate personally in collective bargaining with the union, then I doubt the union would object. Until then, they should abide by the negotiations done on their behalf by their designees.

 

[Gilligan]

Agreements are agreements. .

You obviously live in a world that is quite different than the one I have been trained to negotiate contracts, US and international, in for 30 years. I love the sentiment....but recognize the fatal fallacy. Just sayin'...

 

[intertidal]

You obviously live in a world that is quite different than the one I have been trained to negotiate contracts, US and international, in for 30 years. I love the sentiment....but recognize the fatal fallacy. Just sayin'...

OK then. Please show us the iron-clad negotiated contract between the other county workers and the BOCC. Surely, it must exist - are not their raises proof of it?

I've also been part of negotiating teams - and never have I heard anyone claim that by negotiating with the designated authority on the other side of the table, that our agreement might be invalid.

 

[Gilligan]

OK then. Please show us the iron-clad negotiated contract between the other county workers and the BOCC. .

Are there any?..and what does that have to do with this thread?? Thanks.

 

[intertidal]

Are there any?..and what does that have to do with this thread?? Thanks.

It is relevant only because some posters claim the EASMC agreement is not technically a contract, but "only" an agreement with the Bd of Ed, and not the BOCC. Since other county workers were fully funded, perhaps they have such a contract with the BOCC? Otherwise, how could their increases be justified? Somewhat playing the devil's advocate here, but really wondering how do you otherwise justify raises for all county employees except teachers? So I'm asking - if this agreement is not a contract and that is why they did not get their increases, where is the contract for those employees who did receive increases?

 

[Gilligan]

It is relevant only because some posters claim the EASMC agreement is not technically a contract, but "only" an agreement with the Bd of Ed, and not the BOCC. Since other county workers were fully funded, perhaps they have such a contract with the BOCC? Otherwise, how could their increases be justified? Somewhat playing the devil's advocate here, but really wondering how do you otherwise justify raises for all county employees except teachers? So I'm asking - if this agreement is not a contract and that is why they did not get their increases, where is the contract for those employees who did receive increases?

*sigh*..this thread has been filled with assertions that fall to pieces. That surely is not helping.

 

[BigBlue]

Personally I'm tired of all this BS about equal pay for SMC teachers.....

You know what.... YOU WANT EQUAL PAY..... then fine! Give these teachers equal pay! BUT... guess what?

YOUR AZZ BETTER BE IN THAT DAMN SCHOOL FOR 8 HOURS A DAY... MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY..... YEAR ROUND!!! No more summers off!


You want summer off... I hope you got 100 days of vacation saved up beloved teacher! JUST LIKE THE REST OF US WHO HAVEN'T RECEIVED A RAISE IN YEARS!

Oh yeah..... FORGET ABOUT THE TEACHER IN-SERVICE DAYS! GONE!!!! You can earn your money just like the rest of us.... WORKING and teaching the children you are PAID to teach!

PUT UP OR SHUT UP AND JOIN THE REST OF THE WORKING WORLD!

LOL eff you ! Do you people ever read what it is you write ,my effing God ! Teachers don't get half of what they should ,just to let you know and I don't know about your father but teachers now are off during the summer taking more class's to stay qualified to teach your little pains in the AZZ's .Bad enough that now to teach you need a Master's which mean more student loan debt out of college but they have to deal with the likes of all the over blown DIck parents and their children like all of you here on this thread .If any of you had read the story the teachers are teaching but not doing the extra's they don't get paid for like running chess club or debate club .No teachers deserve a hell of alot more ,name another job where when people complain about you they are always right,parents some who never got out of high school them selves (like GW8345) can complain because their child is perfect , every parents child is perfect ....and then this teacher with a BA and MA in education has the nerve to tell them little johnny can't read so they want her fired ! Teachers are good people doing something you can't or don't want to do ,they deserve better .

 

[Radiant1]

When the difference defines whether the enforcement or arbitration falls under a court's jurisdiction, the difference is FAR more than "semantics".

Of course it's semantics, Gilligan. If one party fails to live up to the agreement, then it certainly falls under *a* courts jurisdiction if and when it is brought forward. Whether it goes to county, state or fed court makes no difference. CBAs are legally binding in MD, and I pointed out to you that MD has designated the BoE to arbitrate such agreements on behalf of SMCPS. If there was language in the CBA regarding pay raises being dependent upon funding from the BoCC or any other entity, then I'd back off in my support, but as far as I can tell there is no such designation. The pay was promised without a contingency.

 

[Ken King]

Of course it's semantics, Gilligan. If one party fails to live up to the agreement, then it certainly falls under *a* courts jurisdiction if and when it is brought forward. Whether it goes to county, state or fed court makes no difference. CBAs are legally binding in MD, and I pointed out to you that MD has designated the BoE to arbitrate such agreements on behalf of SMCPS. If there was language in the CBA regarding pay raises being dependent upon funding from the BoCC or any other entity, then I'd back off in my support, but as far as I can tell there is no such designation. The pay was promised without a contingency.

Semantics, I know, but I don't think arbitrate is the appropriate term in this instance. The BoE is the employer and the EASMC is the union and they together negotiate the collective bargaining agreement, which is a binding labor contract if the union agrees (through member ratification) once the employer and union negotiator affix signature to it (and the date of activation is achieved). Under this agreement disputes are to be first dealt with via the negotiated grievance procedure and if no suitable resolution is achieved it can then be sent to arbitration, which is the preferred dispute resolution avenue. Failing to resolve such dispute at that level it would next progress to the Public School Labor Relations Board and then the appropriate court of jurisdiction.

As I see the issue, the problem is where the BoE agreed to pay increases that either the BoCC did not fund or maybe they did and the Superintendent/BoE used the funds elsewhere. Regardless of why they aren't receiving the raises it is a violation of the labor contract.

 

[Radiant1]

Semantics, I know, but I don't think arbitrate is the appropriate term in this instance. The BoE is the employer and the EASMC is the union and they together negotiate the collective bargaining agreement, which is a binding labor contract if the union agrees (through member ratification) once the employer and union negotiator affix signature to it (and the date of activation is achieved). Under this agreement disputes are to be first dealt with via the negotiated grievance procedure and if no suitable resolution is achieved it can then be sent to arbitration, which is the preferred dispute resolution avenue. Failing to resolve such dispute at that level it would next progress to the Public School Labor Relations Board and then the appropriate court of jurisdiction.

As I see the issue, the problem is where the BoE agreed to pay increases that either the BoCC did not fund or maybe they did and the Superintendent/BoE used the funds elsewhere. Regardless of why they aren't receiving the raises it is a violation of the labor contract.

 

[Gilligan]

Of course it's semantics, Gilligan. If one party fails to live up to the agreement, then it certainly falls under *a* courts jurisdiction if and when it is brought forward. Whether it goes to county, state or fed court makes no difference. CBAs are legally binding in MD, .

so we're back to asking then...why isn't this dispute being handled in a simple legal fashion?..instead of resorting to "stunts"?

 

[Ken King]

so we're back to asking then...why isn't this dispute being handled in a simple legal fashion?..instead of resorting to "stunts"?

It might be being handled in the appropriate manner of first being a grievance, then being arbitrated, it could even be before the Public School Labor Relations Board at this time, I have no clue as to where in the process they are as I am not a party to the issue. And while the process is ongoing the "stunts", as you refer to them, could be just a method of showing the BoE that they are serious in seeing that the agreement be adhered to.

 

[Gilligan]

It might be being handled in the appropriate manner of first being a grievance, then being arbitrated, it could even be before the Public School Labor Relations Board at this time, I have no clue as to where in the process they are as I am not a party to the issue. And while the process is ongoing the "stunts", as you refer to them, could be just a method of showing the BoE that they are serious in seeing that the agreement be adhered to.

You are doing a lot of guessing. I don't indulge in that in that if I can avoid it. I don't like "stunts"...that's just me; and always has been.

 

[intertidal]

You are doing a lot of guessing. I don't indulge in that in that if I can avoid it. I don't like "stunts"...that's just me; and always has been.

It may look like stunts, but it is important this year to refuse extra favors considering that the workload this year has been increased to compensate for decreased staffing in the face of increasing enrollment. Working to basics means they will still have more students and more work than they did last year - before all the begging for extra out-of-contract work they are not supposed to be doing in the first place.

 

[Gilligan]

It may look like stunts, but it is important this year to refuse extra favors considering that the workload this year has been increased to compensate for decreased staffing in the face of increasing enrollment. Working to basics means they will still have more students and more work than they did last year - before all the begging for extra out-of-contract work they are not supposed to be doing in the first place.

My sister is a HS teacher in VA. When her district presented them with two options..reduced number of teachers or decreased pay...they decided overwhelmingly to accept the pay decrease so that nobody lost their position.

Whatever. I'll be the first to say that this county has done a terrible job planning for and dealing with the growth of the student population....terrible.

 

[Ken King]

You are doing a lot of guessing. I don't indulge in that in that if I can avoid it. I don't like "stunts"...that's just me; and always has been.

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?