We strive to provide correct and accurate information. If you see any errors in our data, please send a note with corrections and
supporting documentation as needed to CARE@eastchestereducation.org .
supporting documentation as needed to CARE@eastchestereducation.org .
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Teacher's Contract Extension: Good deal or bad?
| On March 23, 2010 the Eastchester Teachers’ Association (ETA; the teachers’ union) held a special meeting to vote on a proposed contract amendment with the school district. Their existing contract was set to expire next year; the amendment would modify the terms of the contract for the next year and extend it another two years to July, 2013. The ETA overwhelmingly approved the deal, which the District then announced and positioned as a major achievement and a first step toward reform of the teacher compensation system. The ETA cited it as a good-faith effort to show their “solidarity with the community” and “concern for the kids” in troubled economic times. The attached minutes of that ETA meeting, however, tell a different story. Click here to read... Teacher salaries and benefits account for a huge portion of the budget and the majority of annual school tax increases. Many including CARE have called for reform of this system and were waiting for next year’s contract expiration as an opportunity to rein in overly-generous salary and benefit increases that are far out-pacing anything in the private sector. The tough economy also demands changes more in line with what taxpayers can afford. Instead, without any input from the public, the District pre-empted the process by extending the contract in exchange for the union’s acceptance of smaller automatic pay increases next year and the two additional years of the contract extension. The reduction for next year was key; it allowed the District to reduce the proposed 2010-2011 budget, making it more sellable to the public and justifying this surprise move. Yet, the budget reduction for 2010-2011 amounts to only about $235 thousand out of the over $21 million for teacher salaries. And even that small savings was wiped out when the District promptly turned around and spent virtually all of it to retain two teaching positions they had planned to eliminate. The District denied they acted prematurely and gave up a strong bargaining position that could have driven more substantive, long-term changes. However, the ETA’s March 23 meeting minutes reveal that the ETA was anxious to avoid what they knew would be a tough negotiation next year. They did not want to give up more, face layoffs or, worse, end up without a contract. So, they proposed a two- year extension to delay that negotiation until “better times.” And the District went along with it, signing a Memo of Understanding (MOU) with the union. Was the District naive or complicit? Perhaps answers lie in the MOU. But the District only made the MOU available after a formal Freedom of Information Act request. Even then they omitted important attachments. We do know there were things the District didn’t mention, such as some “give-aways” for the teachers. For example, the MOU allows teachers retiring this year to cash out their unused sick days at a higher rate. But it’s hard to say what else may have been given away without those attachments. Another request has been filed for them, but no response has been received to date and we wouldn’t be surprised if we don’t receive it until after the budget vote. |