40 replies to this topic

[Bill]

Fresh Hot-Tip from Email:

The ETA leadership came up with a proposal that would have saved a number of jobs. The proposal was for members to take a pay freeze and pay more for insurance. The agreement between the ETA president and the District superintendent was that this proposal would be reviewed at the board meeting on the evening of June 20th. If the BOE approved the proposal, a message saying such would be given to a member of the ETA leadership. The BOE approved the proposal in executive session. Votes cannot be taken in an executive session, but the BOE approved the proposal and stated that if the ETA membership voted on the proposal and the majority said yes, then the BOE would call an emergency meeting to conduct an official vote, which would immediately SAVE jobs.

After the executive session, the superintendent gave the designated leadership messenger the “thumbs up,” indicating that the BOE approved the proposal but stipulated that the membership must vote FIRST. That message was somehow convoluted into the message being that the membership had to vote on the proposal first before the BOE would consider it….at least that is what the membership was told. Anyway, on Thursday morning, the ETA president notified the membership that that afternoon’s meeting was cancelled and there would be no vote on Friday. Needless to say, the ETA president’s email was flooded with messages from the teachers whose last day of work was Friday. If they are no longer employed, they are no longer members; therefore, they do not have a vote. Getting the picture? No “yes” votes from those laid off!

The superintendent sent out his version of what happened Thursday afternoon, and that version has been verified by the BOE president. What they say makes sense. The BOE could not VOTE on a proposal. They could only say they would vote yes if the membership accepted the proposal. Why the union president thought differently…God only knows. His version of the story placed blame on the superintendent for stalling, etc.

Regardless of who stalled and the fact that a solution was finally presented at the 11th hour doesn’t matter. A viable solution was presented BY the ETA leadership and the BOE approved!! So…it seems that everything happened according to plan, but when the proposal was approved by the BOE, the ETA leadership backed out, cancelled the membership meeting wherein we would have been told the details of the proposal, and cancelled the vote. No vote, no voice from the members themselves. Jobs lost, multiple lives affected. THIS is how unions hurt their members!

[Adam]

seems the ETA "leadership" used this same tactic the last round as well, didnt allow laid off members to vote thereby advantage union

[km1997]

Why weren't they allowed to vote?

[nomorestatusquo]

Why weren't they allowed to vote?

Good question!! I wish I could tell you the answer to that.

Fresh Hot-Tip from Email:

The email from Rick said basically this and something about the BOE not voting on the proposal. (I already deleted the email.) An email from the BOE president states: "I would tell you that we discussed this in executive session and we all agreed during a straw poll that if ETA voted to approve this then we would hold a special meeting to approve it. We couldn't vote on it in public because the ETA Membership hadn't even voted on it. How stupid would it look if we voted yes and then the membership voted no? He was told that once the membership approved it that we would vote yes on it also in a special meeting. You can share this email with anyone that you would like. Ric Lombardini is incorrect. The whole issue before was that eta couldn't vote on anything until they had a contract. I don't know how you would override the union leadership but something needs to happen. This concession would save 18 to 25 jobs. Feel free to call me. 607---------. [i deleted the #]
Larry McGovern, Jr."

The original Diven group of 11 has grown exponentially since the letter to the editor in the SG and now this happening. As Larry says, we need to "override the union leadership"....but how?? Any expert advice out there??

[nomorestatusquo]

Sorry - messed up what I was trying to say in the last post. The quote didn't show up. Rick's email said what was stated in the article plus something about Hochreiter not following through...in other words...there was a misunderstanding that could have been cleared up immediately but, in my opinion, the leadership probably thought the proposal wouldn't be approved and when it was, it was like, "oh crap...now what do we do?" Soo...vote cancelled. Again, jmho.

[Bill]

http://teachersunionexposed.com/teachers.cfm

Taken directly from the above website

What Should Teachers Know About Their Rights?

As established by Congress and confirmed by the Supreme Court, no teacher is required to be a member of any union. In 22 states [including New York and the District of Columbia, however, teachers can be required to pay the union an “agency fee” for the non-negotiable privilege of union representation. Teachers must pay this fee even if they believe they would be better served under, for example, an employment contract that rewards good teaching. This fee costs the same as union dues, minus the cost of the union’s direct political giving (agency fee payers still must shell out for internal union communications, which are often highly political). Agency fee payers thus do not pay for a union’s political contributions, and they cannot be fined (as union members can) for continuing to teach when a union strikes schools.

In right-to-work states, dissenting teachers do not have to pay anything to unions at all. Regardless of a state’s right-to-work status, religious objectors to joining a teachers union are allowed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to direct all of the money they would pay in dues to a (non-religious) charity.

In states that require teachers to join the local union and pay the agency fees, it is still possible for teachers to recoup the non-agency fees. In 1977, the Supreme Court ruled that requiring individuals to pay the union more than the cost of collective bargaining (e.g., the cost of hiring negotiators, lawyers, etc.) was a violation of their First Amendment rights. In order to recover the rest of their dues, union members are required to submit a letter to their union asking for reimbursement.

http://www.uft.org/faqs/where-do-my-uft-dues-go

The United Federation of Teachers says this about agency payers:

Teachers who do not join the union “still pay an “agency fee” since the union represents them in contract negotiations and they are entitled to receive all the same benefits, salary and working conditions as the union negotiates for members. The union was elected according to law as the recognized bargaining agent for all New York City public school teachers and other units. The UFT also represents nonmembers in disciplinary situations. Since they share in so many benefits, in-service nonmembers pay what is called an “agency fee,” an amount equal to union dues that’s deducted from each paycheck. At the end of the year, agency fee payers can apply for a partial dues refund for the member services they do not receive.”

[Buster]

Spoke with a BOE member tonight and they stated that this tip is 100% correct. As much as I dislike Joe he did do the right thing in this situation and the Union is lying to their members for some unknown reason. The union alone caused the uneccasary layoff of numerous members for an unknown reason. Looks like Joe and the BOE actually tried to solve this problem and the union owns the failure to save some of their own memebers. "Shut up and pay your dues, we know what is best for you."

[Jerry]

"...Shut up and pay your dues, we know what is best for you."

Precisely why, when there are union leaders, there will be union followers.

[Adam]

Spoke with a BOE member tonight and they stated that this tip is 100% correct. As much as I dislike Joe he did do the right thing in this situation and the Union is lying to their members for some unknown reason. The union alone caused the uneccasary layoff of numerous members for an unknown reason. Looks like Joe and the BOE actually tried to solve this problem and the union owns the failure to save some of their own memebers. "Shut up and pay your dues, we know what is best for you."

how many of those laid off would have voted for concessions beyond what leadership thought acceptable? things are outta hand folks, the sense of entitlement is rediculous. one PFO skipped recognition gifts to teachers d/t most of them not actually doing any volunteer time/ volunteering and not showing etc. when they found out no gifts they pitched a fit and will now be getting something from the PFO.

[Jerry]

how many of those laid off would have voted for concessions beyond what leadership thought acceptable? things are outta hand folks, the sense of entitlement is rediculous. one PFO skipped recognition gifts to teachers d/t most of them not actually doing any volunteer time/ volunteering and not showing etc. when they found out no gifts they pitched a fit and will now be getting something from the PFO.

...and that is the entitled union way - get what is wanted or pitch a hissy fit until the entitlement is received. Even children can learn to do better than this.

[Bill]

Exactly right Jerry, but we have to remember the converse of that, they learned what works and they are simply doing what works.

We need politicians and Boards of Ed members who choose to not allow themselves to be manipulated, like a parent in checkout line with a spoiled child demanding candy.

They have to say NO, and mean it.

[Big Ed]

I'm not sure I understand something here - If you are laid off or fired, does that mean you are no longer a union member and can't vote?

[Buster]

Great question......someone in the ETA will have to answer this one. Historically the union will do everything possible to make sure the senior memebers get everything and the junior memebers get the shaft. Looks like the ETA not only threw the junior members under the bus they put the studded snow tires on, ran them over and then backed up over them.

[Berri87]

Yes Ed, once the school year is over the laid off teachers are no longer employees and therefore not union members and can't vote. To make matters worse now the district has to start paying all those teachers unemployment, as of now where this agreement could have prevented that as well. So the district gets screwed that way as well.

[Chuck]

Sounds to me like pitchforks and torches on Rick's front lawn !!

[Herb]

Funny how educated people who need degree's to do their jobs can't seem to figure out that the UNION they are forced BY LAW to pay dues to whether or not they wish to belong or not is screwing them royally over and over again ! One man (woman) - one vote should be the outcome of all this but it's being withheld from you religiously by you ELECTED LEADERSHIP ! I think it's frigging Hilarious how most teachers do not dare to post without Anonymity (in all media, not just ielmira) yet continue to contribute to the Union through dues check-off without so much as a whimper. You are getting exactly what you deserve and providing us tax-payes with more fodder to vote NO on school budget's. Only problem with that seems to be an ingrained Insanity level amidst those who still believe it's all for the "Children". Funny shit this , keep it coming . And btw , I have NEVER voted yes on a school budget and never will. All I needed to do was take a real look at the product you are producing in our Public Schools. Truly Shameful to say the least !

[Herb]

http://www.nysut.org...ocalsonline.htm

Seems funny that most of the other Teachers Union links are informative and list the leadership. Elmira comes up blank. Oh, wait , thats what were talking about isn't it ?