Well, we are in a New Year and we need to close up our 2008 SAUSD corruption thread before it becomes overwhelmed with comments. Consider this to be our new 2009 SAUSD corruption thread.
Click here to read our 2008 thread. And here are links to all our previous SAUSD corruption threads:
- SAUSD-Mijares corruption thread, 2008 Comments
- SAUSD-Temporary Thread (Migration 5/16/2008) Comments
- SAUSD-Mijares corruption thread, 2007 Comments
- SAUSD-Mijares corruption thread, 2006 Comments
The results of last year’s SAUSD School Board elections were disappointing. The incumbents were re-elected. Shame on the teacher’s union for supporting them! And the one new Trustee, Roman Reyna, is not likely to make a difference.
The SAUSD budget is a mess and our Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, appears primed to make it worse. So this is going to be a very tough year. As always, this forum will be here to allow you to vent about what is going on at the SAUSD!
Al Mijares is long gone, but the corruption at the SAUSD continues unabated…
Geez…I can’t even post anything without getting grilled. Look…I can vote for whoever I want to. It is none of your business why I plan to vote for him. I am honestly done discussing on this board. Susan Mercer is one of the negotiators so I would rather vote for Donald Duck. Enough said. 🙂
Electric hand dryer? More like empty paper towel holder. I guess I’d send my kid with hand sanitizer in his backpack.
Japan is paying Mexican workers to go back to Mexcico due to the Swine flu. I hope we get to wear masks at work if we get any cases. I think this a statewide problem . I would like to see our state try and protect us but I think they will delay any action until it becames a pandemic. Wash your hands -brings wipes to school wash down the desks and send the sick kids. home. The Japanese article is on the web. Just google it.
No to Susan Mercer. I agree. Donald Duck gets my vote too.
If you want business as usual then go with Robert Chavez. The union cabel wants nothing more than to keep control of an out of control situation. The district office wants Chavez because he is easily manipulated and pliable to the district’s mandates. Susan Mercer is the antithesis to Chavez. She fully comprehends the budget and the needs of the members. My vote goes to Susan Mercer.
Jill, I had no intentions of “grilling” you and if you would like to explain more clearly why you are voting for Robert Chavez and not Susan Mercer, please do. It just seems that there are many people who are not willing to become a part of the work the union does and they are only willing to criticize. Believe me, there are so many ways a person could become involved in the union and be welcomed with open arms.
Jill has done nothing but criticize and attack the union even though to my knowledge she have never been to rep council or helped or as much as bothered to get to know the people who work there. So I don’t know what she meant when she wrote that she will never go there again when she has never gone there to begin with.
How Jill has any opinion of Susan Mercer is beyond me. It almost sounds personal. She has no clue how much Susan Mercer has done for SAEA and our members over the years. All the PowerPoint presentations at Rep Council were created by Susan. She understands the District’s budget better than anyone I have ever known in SAEA. Anyone who has attended rep council meetings over the past few years cannot help but be impressed with her. Susan will not only get my vote, but I have no doubt that she will easily win the election. I can’t think of anyone more qualified or prepared to lead our members after David Barton retires.
By the way, the Tentative Agreement passed by 82%.
505. Tell that to the 1440 who have lost their secondary medical benefits when they retire,and have had their vested years disappear thanks to the new negotiations that Ms. Mercer was part of– There needs to be totally new leadership in this union.
The old contract always had the 10 years of vested service to the district , they the union and district rewrote the rules mid career for many teachers. The Reps. pushed this through. Who knows why. Maybe they have plans to move up the union ladder as we..
I don’t know who Robert Chavez is, but I do know he is not Mercer. I am sure Mercer had her contract signed prior to the 1999 cut-off so she will reap the benefits. Her usual response is “this is the best we could do.” Status quo… more of the same if you go with Mercer.
I would like to thank Board Member, Palacio for weighing in on post # 488 in response to Janelle’s request:
Art:
Have her contact SAUSD’s Human Resource Department. Have her contact Juan Lopez who is the Associate Superintendent for Human Resources:
Juan Lopez juan.lopez@sausd.us
Although I am not an educator, it would seem to me that she should also consider the Human Resource Departments of other school districts as well…especially one’s where she is interested in applying for employment and/or that would be convenient for her to do student teaching at. Growing districts versus school districts that are facing declining student enrollment would be important to ensure employment down the road.
Human Resources needs to be involved from the very beginning to ensure that she gets proper credit for her work.
john palacio
I have notified the poster via email as well 😉
Does anyone have any electronic campaign literature from any of the candidates that can be posted here? It seems like there is plenty of conflicting information about candidate choices posted so far. Candidate statements, bios, resumees would be welcomed information from any and all candidates. If anyone has links or has files that can be copied/pasted, then please do so. You can also send any information to be posted at: rvixen@gmail.com
Indicate SAEA elections in the subject head, please
I would think that anyone that is serious about their ambitions to represent unionized teachers would be happpy AND organized enough to provide solid information to the voting members.
Thanks in advance –Rv
Of course the tentative agreement passed with 82%, teachers were too busy with Open House to go to the information meetings Tuesday and Thursday afternoons, relying on the Reps. who told them to vote Yes, and basically being a little too naive. I feel that the union pitted one group against another and started a new precedent of back dating agreed upon contract language. Teachers I know who were recruited to come over 9 years ago, who are not young, have lost those five years. What does the union say to them. “Oh well”. I wonder what the union and district will agree to undo during the next round of negotiations. This is what you get from a district that you once helped out by taking a pay cut for– They have one bottom line: Theirs.
I never doubted this would pass. There was absolutely no transparency in the tentative agreement. It was purposely clouded. I did not see on power point that pointed out the immense consequences this would have. The power point spent more time on the new stipends for counselors and Gate coordinators than the loss of benefits of half the teaching staff. Mercer and the negotiating committee = No transparency.
FYI–We now have a public health emergency, re: the swine flu. Soap up when you wash your hands, get the wipes for the desks. Do not rely on the district get these things this weekend and send the sick kids home. Our school had a lot of kids who spent extra time in Mexico over Spring break.
Take care of yourselves.
I hope that we all can keep from getting “personal” about the upcoming elections.
NO ONE should be scapegoated because they have an opinion about how things are being run or why a particular candidate is better than others. The best way to have a discussion is to have campaign information available for debate and discussion. Anyone that is using their own name or a version of their own name should be respected. They easily can become a target of retaliation by the school district or the union. If that happens, we’re going to post it. Please be respectful and tolerant as we all wait for information to come forth about which direction is best for SAEA membership, going forward. Tia –Rv
Red Vixon,
The Candidates have been sending out flyers to the school sites. They will be speaking at rep council this Tuesday at SAEA. The election will begin on May 1. Candidate statements will then be sent out with the election materials. They should be posted on SAEA’s web page as well. They haven’t gone out yet because nominations won’t be closed until Tuesday night’s rep council meeting when candidates can still be nominated from the floor.
Another Newbie,
Please don’t underestimate the intelligence of our members. Most people understood the contract just fine and that is why they voted yes. We have had a very rich health benefits plan for years. It is virtually unheard of to continue to get health benefits up to age 70. Medicare kicks in at age 65. Medicare becomes the primary benefits plan for all of us when we turn 65. The only change for those who have less than 10 years (because they don’t have 10 years vested) is they will need to purchase supplemental plans for medicare at age 65 instead of age 70 (which is what practically everyone else in the world does). Even those who have the 10 years will still have to use medicare as their primary benefits plan when they turn 65 as well.
It was the only way to keep the cost of the benefits plan down which continues to go up every year. We can allow everyone to get supplemental benefits until age 70 if we all want to pay a lot more for our benefits now. Those on SAEA’s bargaining team, the board, and rep council all want to get the best deal possible. We are living in very difficult economic times. Health care costs continue to rise significantly year after year. And by the way, one member of the bargaining team has less than 10 years.
The Tentative Agreement was posted on the SAEA’s web page along with a PowerPoint for quite some time before the election even began. SAEA had 3 informational meetings. If you couldn’t make the last one that was held on the night of Open House, then why didn’t you attend the first info meeting they had back on April 16? You could have also picked up the phone and called the SAEA office and actually talked with Susan Mercer, David Barton, or anyone else at SAEA. They would have been more than happy to go over this contract with you.
I found this info on SAEA’s web page.
Tentative Agreement Passed!
SAEA’s Election Committee counted the votes on Friday, April 25, 2009. The Tentative Agreement passed by 82%.
Contract Vote Results:
Yes 1190 No 254 Invalid 38
SAEA Chapter Elections
SAEA’s 2009 Chapter Election Voting will take place from May 4th-21st at each school site.
Candidates will be making speeches at Rep Council this Tuesday April 28th at the SAEA office. All members are welcome.
http://www.sateach.org
I wholeheartedly support Susan Mercer for SAEA President. She has proven her willingness to listen to all sides and negotiate in good faith. She has been instrumental in helping the membership understand the crucial issues within the district. The only information I have on Robert Chavez is that he shows up late for meetings, asks questions that have already been answered and lengthens the meetings with his continual speeches which only repeat the information already provided. He is intent on disagreeing with everything rather than truly listening to the issues and responding constructively. It is very apparent that his communication skills and ability to relate to the membership would hinder any progress for the union.
As a teacher who has been riffed for seven years running now, I have grown completely disillusioned with SAEA. For whatever reason, they have made and stuck to a decision to do NOTHING to help teachers retain their jobs. Pink Friday and the fraudulent hearing were shams. I wish there were no SAEA but since we are stuck with them, at least for the foreseeable future, I would be interested in hearing what those running for President plan to do when the rifs come around next year.
Also, I hope that every teacher will lobby their friends and families to support the propositions on May 19. As difficult as things are now and as flawed as the propositions are, we will have a much better chance of getting our jobs back this year and keeping them next year if the propositions pass.
514–Don’t make assumptions about who attended the information meetings. Many teachers did not have the time nor did they think they had to. It is done and those who had the Vesting time changed were largely unaware of it. Maybe they still are unaware. They trusted their Reps. I for one read the tentative agreement and understood it right away. It was the language that was confusing.
I hope the Riffed teachers have learned from this election and the general way the union handles the Rif process.
By the way I am aware that one person on the negotiating team has less than 10 years. I never questioned the intelligence of the members of SAEA , I questioned if they had the opportunity to be told exactly how this would effect them. Yes, they will have to purchase a supplemental plan. No one can tell how expensive that will, my advice to those somewhat older teachers who have less than 10 years as of May 2009 is too start saving now. I know a few who are in their 50’s who came to SAUSD signed a contract that stated 10 years of service, not 10 years of service starting May 1999. and now that contract , basically has been invalidated. They are too old to move on. Yet, because of the Magic Date May 1999 they are not Vested. Talk to them when they have to start paying for their supplemental insurance in less than a decade. Best of luck to them.
514–Don’t make assumptions about who attended the information meetings. Many teachers did not have the time nor did they think they had to. It is done and those who had their Vesting time changed were largely unaware of it. Maybe they still are unaware. They trusted their Reps. I for one read the tentative agreement and understood it right away. It was the language that was confusing for some not all.
I hope the Riffed teachers have learned from this election and the general way the union handles the Rif process.
By the way I am aware that one person on the negotiating team has less than 10 years. I never questioned the intelligence of the members of SAEA , I questioned if they had the opportunity to be told exactly how this would effect them. Yes, they will have to purchase a supplemental plan. No one can tell how expensive that will, my advice to those somewhat older teachers who have less than 10 years as of May 2009 is too start saving now. I know a few who are in their 50’s who came to SAUSD signed a contract that stated 10 years of service, not 10 years of service starting May 1999. and now that contract , basically has been invalidated. They are too old to move on. Yet, because of the Magic Date May 1999 they are not Vested. Talk to them when they have to start paying for their supplemental insurance in less than a decade. Best of luck to them.
i have scrolled this blog for some days now and have noticed the tendency of tmare to defend all that is ultimately pro District and anti teacher. Thank you tmare, your insistence on pushing mercer has clarified that my vote will go to robert chavez! by the way, are you running for any position?
Does anyone have any info. as to if it is possible to fire a Union? I heard at my site that recent legislature allows unsatisfied Union members to interview another Union and present an alternative to the members???
wow tmare! one thing is to support and promote a candidate you like, but don’t attack others so viciously! i am beginning to wonder??? are you mercer?
If anyone knows a labor attorney maybe he could help us with firing the union. I also wonder if we have a possible class action suit. Largely the problem was the language, especially the issue of start date, as they said “date of ratification” Ten years prior to that.
I wonder where we stand on that. I hope someone does start a class action suit I would join it.
ditto for 522/520
Good luck with that class action suit. Who is going to file a class action suit? The 20% who voted no on the Tentative Agreement? And good luck with firing the union. I’m sure you will get far.
It’s called decertification of the SAEA and the CTA should be contacted. This local is full of clowns but unfortunately Chavez is an Imperial Clown, a much higher level of true Buffoonery than the merely incompetent SAEA Circus lvl clowns.
There actually was a serious attempt to replace SAEA with an independent teachers union about 12 years ago. Dissatisfaction with SAEA seemed to be concentrated at the secondary level, with K-6 against a change. The effort was defeated, if I recall correctly, with about 75% of SAUSD teachers voting to retain SAEA.
SAEA can’t be replaced. Legally, teachers have to be represented by a bargainning unit. A group of teachers attempted to pull SAEA out of CTA/NEA as our parent organization and become part of the AFT. The members didn’t vote to retain SAEA. They voted to continue to have CTA/NEA as SAEA’s parent organization. The members overwhelmingly voted it down in the early 1990s.
No, I am not Susan Mercer. I would recommend that anyone who would like to make their voices heard, attend the SAEA meetings. There is one tomorrow at 4:00. It is time for those who want change to actually participate. #525-Nicely put, I was trying to be a little more subtle, but I guess you know Robert better than I do.
O.C. Register 4/27: “OC Schools on alert over flu..” Does Fermin Leal just make up news stories? There wasn’t a thing said about the flu alert at SAHS today.
Crunching numbers are a reality in any budget situation, whether from a personal standpoint or a district standpoint. Nobody knows the reality of the “number crunching” any better than Susan Mercer. As a 34 year teaching veteran, 23 in SAUSD, I would want to have an individual with knowledge of where the “hidden” dollars are and that is Susan Mercer. I am not a union supporter or devotee, but I can appreciate the professional demeanor that Susan brings to the negotiations.
Electing an individual that only throws up roadblocks during negotiations will never be able to find common ground to reach a fair agreement. There is only so much that can be “bled” from the turnip, and we will be holding a turnip that has no more to give if we vote individuals into SAEA positions that only want to argue. Here is where my concerns begin about Robert Sanchez as a possible SAEA president.
Reasonable individuals in power at SAEA are what is needed to give teachers the best possible contract. I am a secondary teacher in SAUSD, but I hope that empowered Greenville teachers are aware of this website and will post their true feelings and thoughts regarding Robert Sanchez and his ability to negotiate in their best interests. They have worked with him, but I am afraid that we are getting only one side of the story, the radicals at Greenville are supporting him, but the productive and functioning teachers at Greenville are not aware of this site and are not posting their opinions. Please talk to other individuals at Greenville that know how effective Robert Sanchez would be–talk to the productive and functioning teachers–they really know how they feel about the possibility that Robert Sanchez would be their union president representing them at the negotiations table.
Research and check out all sources, and keep in mind that we need an individual that can truly crunch the numbers as to what is really “available” to negotiate. Screaming louder and asking for more will not produce that which is not there. Susan Mercer is an individual that truly understands the budget, she is realistic and reasonable. All I ask you to do is to research the issue and make the final decision based on logic and not emotion…and isn’t that what we want our union representatives to do? I don’t expect miracles from them, just fair and logical negotiations that are not based on emotional appeals, but pure logic based on the financial constraints of the situation at hand.
Times are very difficult, we need to be true, honest, and negotiate for that which is fair for all parties. If an individual involved in the negotiating process is not willing to listen because only his side is right, we are heading down the path of “lethal” destruction for all teachers in the classroom. We need to include the word COMPROMISE in negotiations. You need to decide who is the individual that is most willing to compromise in negotiations to reach a fair agreement for all parties. I don’t want that individual that is not willing to “give in”, we all need to realize the capacities of both sides, we don’t want to be the child that says either you agree with me or I will cry!
I am a reasonable individual that always feels there are two sides to every story. I realize that we are in difficult times, and I do not want an individual in charge of SAEA that does not understand both sides of the issue and realize that compromise might have to happen in order to preserve the viability of our contract for those that follow.
I apologize that in my previous response #530 that I stated the name “Robert Sanchez”, that should be stated “Robert Chavez”. I am sorry for this error.
Thanks, #530. I hear it from another source that there is also another teacher at Greenville running for the position of SAEA President as well.
Fairandlogical:
Thank you for your intelligent and thoughtful words on this blog. That is so lacking here. Don’t worry, Susan Mercer will win this election easily. Her opponents have done nothing for SAEA or our members. Most of the reps along with our members know that Susan Mercer is hard working, dedicated, honest and extremely intelligent.
SAUSD teacher’s union screws younger teachers out of five years of benefits
http://orangejuiceblog.com/2009/04/sausd-teachers-union-screws-younger-teachers-out-of-five-years-of-benefits/
Fairandlogical:
I do believe Susan Mercer is an intelligent woman. I also believe that the wording on the documents for the tentative agreement was not
clear. I also think that the teachers who lost their benefits did not realize that was what they were voting for or against. It seems unusual that a majority would vote something away that comes at such a critical time in their life. Somebody down at that union hall owes a lot of explaining to the 1400 teachers who now need to start saving for those five years with Medicare only– That was the number give to me by a union spokesperson 1440 not 800-900. Wow that was a fairly large swindle with minimal effort. I wonder what the union and district have planned for the next round.???
No one is losing their benefits! We all have to go with medicare when we turn 65.
Well we lost something—what do you want to call it? the supplemental?? The district with the union’s help will save a bunch . We now gave them more money to mismanage and a precedent to go retroactive 10 years again—it does have a name–Yes we all have to go onto Medicare at 65 but some of us will have a supplemental via the district others won’t — –but for some their ten years were weighted differently, to use teacher – speak—
Members keep an eye on the next tentative agreement and see what they chip away at next.
Well, then I can rest assured , for some reason I though 1400 people lost their supplemental insurance when they turn 65, even when they were “vested” with 10 years. It was so silly of me to think that I lost something.
Wait everyone! We all need to stop hurting each other and try to come up with a plan. Is there ANY way that we can have a re-vote on that contract? Is there anything anyone can do now or is this set in stone? I am not going to point fingers, but I just want to say that (YES) I did sign on to this district thinking that I was covered and that they wouldn’t change the rules as they went along. I honestly do not think that choosing the year 1999-2009 was too fair. They should’ve said…from this point on 2009-? don’t you think? Why punish the people who have worked many years there? In fact, I have teaching 20 years (only 7 in SAUSD) so now I better get 3 jobs to pay for myself in my 60s. Thanks, but you have to understand why people are upset. I understand that the Union people think we are bashing them, but try to understand this side as well 🙂 Is there anything we can do?
No, you can’t have a revote on the contract. My goodness. If the vote was close, then you could challenge the election. But it passed by 82%. So good luck with challenging this election.
When you leave one district to go work for another, you will lose some things. That’s just how it is everywhere. That is why it is hard for teachers to change districts after they have put in a lot of years in one district. But what follows you from one district to the next is your STRS.
I don’t think you understand what “vested” means. It takes 10 years to be vested. That is why SAEA and the District couldn’t just keep the retiree benefits plan the way it is for everyone from 2009 on. Those with less than 10 years are not vested. THAT IS STATE LAW! There is nothing the union or the district could do about that. This was the only way the union could at least keep this plan going for those who are now vested. But the District cannot continue to pay for supplemental benefits once retirees get medicare while at the same time keep the costs of the plan down for working teachers. Not in this economic climate and not while heath care costs continue to rise year after year. Our PPO and HMO would otherwise have to go up considerably. Orange use to pay lifetime benefits for retirees and it broke them. They had to stop and if you know anything about Orange Unified, they have about the worst benefits plan in Orange County now and their salary is also one of lowest as well. These are all very difficult choices. No one wants to give up anything.
I’m not one who wants to give anything back to SAUSD, believe me. But in this awful economic climate, we have to be realistic. I think we would all like see us get raises. But we know without any COLA coming from the state, that’s simply not going to happen. Some districts are talking about pay cuts for their teachers. This was just a very difficult choice that SAEA and SAUSD came to agree on in order to the benefits plan down for working teachers. Virtually no one in the universe gets supplemental benefits once medicare kicks in. We all have to use medicare once we turn 65.
Totally different issue but a heads up to those in the intermediate schools that are not on an 8 period day. It is about to be crammed down your throats! It means an extra period of classes (add 40 to your current rosters) unless you teach math or language arts and a shorter prep period. Contact the union as soon as you hear anything about it if it is not something your school site teachers are in favor of. It is a change of working conditions and needs to be negotiated or voted on by the staff with union involvement.
Yes, I understand that switching districts is not wise to do (NOW), but back in 2002 who would’ve known all this was going to happen? Back then, I was hearing (teaching shortage)…baby boom…smaller class sizes to 15…etc. I didn’t realize that they would pack them in like sardines then cut all benefits or NO…I wouldn’t have switched. So, I guess what you are implying (I could be wrong) but you are saying..too bad…you switched districts…it’s your own fault. Ok, I will take that…..so punish me…and just throw water balloons at me 🙂 just kidding
Anonymous 540, do you realize that “vested” teachers, who will be on their 11th year next year, have been left out of the retiree benefits? Yes! Teachers who are on their tenth year, right now, were cut from the benefits because the union is allowing the CBA to be dated retroactively!!! These teachers will be on their 11th year of next 2009-2010. This is an incredible injustice! If the negotiating team for the Union so strongly believes on this Collective Bargaining Agreement, then let ALL the teachers have the same insurance. Don’t allow separation, a cast system! “Mature” teachers have an obligation to defend and support the rights of the incoming teachers. We, vested teachers, have what we have because, when we where at the “infant level”, someone stuck their neck out for us. It is immoral to allow the new generation of teachers to get less and less and be over worked more and more… The union was created to ensure this would not happen. I say let all the Union leaders show their solidarity by adopting the new teacher’s benefits and coverage. Then and only then will we see pioneering defense, solidarity, respect, and true justice.
anonymous :Excuse me I think we all know what vested means. We signed contracts 2000, 2001, 2002 that stated , once we reached ten years we would have the supplemental medical after 65 through 70. Period. Then along come 2009… the recession etc. Our contracts now state that we had to be “vested” by the ratification date. So people have lost something. I am tired of the Yes voters saying that the after-1999ers did not lose something. Of course we did. Then to go and preach about what the other districts have or don’t have. That’s not the point. Start the new contract year with the lack of the medical for retirees, but don’t go back 9 years and take away someone’s medical dental and vision when they are 65. The district does pay for a group of people, you state they can’t, they chose which group; The ones who presently have 10 years. It might be legal language and it may even stand up in court.It is entirely unethical. This will totally blindside people in the next five year to ten years as people get ready to retire.
I urge the teachers to be very watchful of what other retroactive contract changes tha SAEA and the District conjure up. Will it be the spouses benefits, the step and column?? This precedent was very dangerous and I wish someone knew a good labor lawyer to look into the contract language. I agree with Jill this should go to a re-vote without the Reps urging Yes. The language should have been much clearer.
Heads up Jill, Starbucks gives benefits for part-timers. Or, stay healthy and work through 70!!!
Maybe by then we might get a Cola
Be prepared to hear the union Reps. say” the district is not legally required to pass on the Cola. ” Why has our union become the cheerleaders for the district? What do they do with the Cola that they do not legally have to pass on to us? Do the board members get the supplemental insurance?? Now or did they have the same retroactive repeal of our benefits.
tmare you should have told your members ” heads up the union is going to shove a contract down your throat that will take away your supplemental benefits.”
Members: check out the Wall Street Journal–More and more doctors are opting out of Medicare. Where will that leave us> Up a creek.
Stay healthy and start saving for that “Gap “insurance, we’ll need about 50,000 minimally for those 5 years we lost!
The following is the text of the candidate’s speech for President that I made to Rep Council today.
I am running because I believe that our chapter needs change.
I first became involved with SAEA when Gladys was President. I’ve served in several positions including Elementary Director and Treasurer. Over time, I have seen our Association accomplish many victories. At the same time, I know we can be stronger and more effective.
Bargaining, grievance processing, and communication are some of the areas that need change.
We need to become experts on the District’s budget. Of course, the District claims they are impoverished. We need to be prepared to refute their arguments where they are not factual. From my current study of Budgets, Unaudited Actuals, and Auditors’ Reports from 04-05 through the present, I can tell you that we are carrying over HUGE reserves from year to year, far beyond the legally required amount, and that we shouldn’t be leaving them at the bargaining table. One CTA expert, Bill Ribblett, made this comment regarding this year’s negotiations after looking at our District‘s financial documents: “…no cuts needed to be made, no compromises needed to be made.”
We need to be making sure that the categorical money, such as EIA funds, that was swept from the sites the last two years gets back to the schools and the students where the law requires that it go.
Besides not allowing our benefits to be eroded any further, we need to be involved in addressing the injustices of the ridiculous profits being made by healthcare providers.
As for communication, let’s begin with telling the truth. Many members do not feel that they received accurate information on the just-ratified contract and that this reflects a pattern of misinformation beginning with the Tentative Agreement which included the 4% pay cut.
We also need to improve representation in contractual matters. Our members shouldn’t feel that they have to obtain their own representation, as some do, to make sure their case is properly resolved. Members should be encouraged to seek redress when wronged by the District; it’s our job to see that justice is served. We need to fight hard for our members every step of the way, from oral grievance through arbitration, if necessary. Teachers have to know that their right to speak out will be protected.
(My two minutes expired at this point, so the following remarks were not made at Rep Council.)
They have to know that we will be right there, right then, when they need us.
I believe that the changes I’ve mentioned are so urgently needed that, if we do not make them, we risk losing more and more members. It’s time to make sure our members know we’re working for THEM, not leaving them to wonder whose side we’re really on.
Enough is enough. I invite you to join me in making SAEA the powerful chapter we can be.
Pat’s got my vote. Let’s hope that the Reps. don’t push their favorites down our throats…
let’s all remember who was on this years negotiating “TEAM”
I am glad someone finally acknowledged the 4% pay cut (also known as the COLA that wasn’t passed on.??)
Patricia O’Neil is lying! The Tentative Agreement does not include a 4% pay cut. You need to get your facts straight! We took a pay cut years ago…wasn;t Patricia O’Neil treasurer then? Or was it Sandra Rubio? They helped the district back door that fine deal! And, I’ve never heard of anyone who has ever had to get their own representation. What cases are you speaking about? You aren’t getting my vote!
Fed-Up
We took the 4% pay cut 5 years ago. No one here mentions that we got a 13% restoration in 2006-07 and another 5% raise that year as well. So our salary went up 18% in 2006-07.
As for representation, most of our members are represented by SAEA when they need help. Very few teachers get their own representation outside of the association. That is very rare.
I plan on working another 7-8 years. I am a realist. I know that if this recession continues, my retirement may very well be less than the teachers who went out this year. It sucks but this is the reality that most Americans live with – so stop whining. We are still better off than most.
Dear Fed-UP:
The pay cut referenced in my speech was from several years ago. I referred to what I (and many others) consider a pattern of misinformation beginning at that time. At the time the Association was trying to secure a “yes” vote on the pay cut, several untrue statements were made. These included telling the membership that the restoration of Class Size Reduction hung in the balance when, in fact, it had already been formally restored by the School Board, that the District had to immediately repay the Tustin Settlement money, and that the District was facing a state takeover, loss of bargaining rights, and a potential 10% pay cut imposed by the State if we did not vote yes. Different bits of misinformation were disseminated at different sites.
I did not help the Association in their campaign for ratification of the pay cut. I campaigned against it. At that time, I was serving as a non-voting member of the SAEA Board as a State Council Representative. I resigned from the Board in order to campaign against ratification, because I did not want to make the Association susceptible to an Unfair Labor Practice Charge. I later learned that Bargaining Team members are legally prohibited from arguing against ratification after a Tentative Agreement has been reached, but that Association Board Members are not similarly restricted.
As for members having to secure their own representation, I can use my own case as an example. Excellent representation was ultimately provided by CTA, but not with the help of our chapter. It was only due to the intervention of others outside of the chapter that I was able to secure this representation. The attorney to whom I was first referred by the local discouraged me from pursuing the case in which I eventually prevailed.