Comments on: Teacher’s Union Says No To Contract Concessions

By: OLD TIMER

OLD TIMER — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 00:56:27 +0000

No contracts were ever re-opened to give anybody more than what was in a contract. There were times unions made gains, but there was always give and take. Neither side is ever happy with the results their negotiating teams bring back. Many times getting approval by the council or the BOE, or the union membership, has been very hotly debated. In recent years, unions generally have given back more than they gained, not just City municipal unions, but unions all over the country, in many industries.
While salaries have not been cut, they have not kept up with cost of living and benefits, especially medical insurance and pensions, have suffered. Big companies used bankruptcy as a way to void contracts and never missed a day in business or lost any assets, but retirees saw pensions reduced. Top executives continued to do very nicely. Union members see themselves taking the blame for mismanagement and slipping further behind all the time. Union members are not unreasonable, but re-opening a contract without some incentive beyond helping an administration save face will not be easy. Reading some of the comments here will not make it any easier. The administration brags about “no-layoffs”, but how many jobs disappeared and were not refilled ?

By: John carvel

John carvel — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 20:48:16 +0000

Be easier to just tie raises directly to cost of living incrrases. If it goes up 1%, raises only go up one percent. If it goes up 10%, so will raises. That way there is no risk to either side on multi-year contracts.

By: annnonymous

annnonymous — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 20:33:27 +0000

Exempt all teachers who were teaching in the 70′s.

By: John carvel

John carvel — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:53:22 +0000

Hey old timer… would you happen to remember if the City reopened the contract in the 70′s when inflation and the cost of living skyrocketed so they could give union members more money?

By: OLD TIMER

OLD TIMER — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 22:08:57 +0000

How does overtime, at the rate agreed to in the contract, justify firing someone ? The City negotiated with the teachers and agreed to a contract. Now that the City is not taking in the projected income they expected, they want to re-open a contract and take back something the agreed to. While that may be understandable, there is nothing automatic that gives the union president the authority to agree to any change in the present contract, anymore than the mayor or the superintendent has the authority to agree to changes in the contract. There is a process, it is in the contract, and the BOE members should know that. Expecting the union president to give away anything at a BOE meeting was foolish. Criticizing him here for playing by the rules is not fair. How loud would the criticism be if the new superintendent agreed to give the teachers big raises, at that same meeting ? We all know that would be beyond his authority, just as giving away anything at that meeting is beyond the union president’s authority.
The commenter that brfeaking contracts has no effect on credit ratings has obviously never broken a contract with a bank.

By: Older Democrat

Older Democrat — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 20:18:27 +0000

That Rhode Island story is amazing-wonder if it could happen here? Those teachers wanted $90 an hour to work overtime to teach their failing students-that’s a reason to fire them immediately. Norwalk is already under state supervision for having so many low performing students. Maybe the new super will get tough with Bruce Mellion and use this example for renegotiating the contract.

By: Apathetic Voter

Apathetic Voter — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:43:29 +0000

Part of the reason Norwalk is in such a money crunch is because of all those “early retirements” that were being touted as the way to save money in 2009. Unfortunately whomever thought the retirement idea up neglected to take into consideration how much these retirements were going to cost the city by way of pension and insurance payments. And when you also add the fact that more people took the early retirement package than the City expected them to….. is it any wonder that in the current economic situation we now find ourselves in severe financial straits?

By: OLD TIMER

OLD TIMER — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:48:16 +0000

BOE is the City. If they asked the Union president, at a BOE meeting, to agree to change an existing contract, they knew before they asked he cannot do that. Some genius thought it was a good idea to get him on the record in that format. What a clever way to re-open negotiations. If there is any hope to change the contract, that was the worst possible approach.

By: turfgrrl

turfgrrl — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:17:17 +0000

Old Timer: Mellion said it at a BOE meeting. It’s not the City that asks to reopens the contract, but the BOE, and someone on the BOE said they wanted to.

By: OLD TIMER

OLD TIMER — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:13:10 +0000

Where is all this story coming from ? Was there a real approach by the City to the teacher’s union, or are we getting bits and pieces from informal conversations between people in the administration, or the union, with some reporter, or mere speculation ?
If, and when, there is a formal request by the City to re-open an existing contract for the purpose of taking back something, then we might have a real story.

Kurmudgeon: Before there was a teacher’s union ? How far back are you looking ? There has been a teacher’s union since at least the 40′s. The first teacher’s strike in the country was in Norwalk, in the 40′s, over the issue of gender based wage discrimination. Classes were larger years ago and it would be hard to prove that adding a few students to each class now would be harmful.
Taking a 28 student class up to 31 students, should save a lot of money.