niknight_ml t1_j8kq314 wrote
Reply to comment by ShawshankExemption in There’s a push to give teachers (and other public employees) the right to strike in Mass. What to know. by bostondotcom
The entire point of a labor demonstration IS to cause an inconvenience. If there is no inconvenience, there is no possibility for change to occur in those situations.
​
>If government is going to change the law to permit teachers to strike, it should only be during the summer
Are you really suggesting that they strike during a period in which they aren't under contract? That's like striking from a bagel shop that you haven't worked at in years...
guesswhatihate t1_j8mr6pk wrote
Kramer?
ShawshankExemption t1_j8krhmm wrote
You realize in mass teacher contracts go for multiple years and automatically extend if no new contract is ratified, so there isn’t a period when teachers aren’t cover by a contract right? Districts meet various federal and state requirement for grants, PD, and other items during the summer. A summer strike still causes pain for the district, admittedly not as much as during the school year.
Yes- I fully see how strikes are intend to get districts to the table to negotiate, specifically by inconveniencing them. I’m saying that the entity that inflicts that inconvenience and the nature of that convenience should not be a closure of schools, but rather other mechanisms as caused by the state law/reg I’m advocating be out in place.
One example could be an arbitration process. No new contract by x date? Forced arbitration run by the state. To extend the example, look how baseball handles their arbitration, each party (player and team) puts in what they think the pay should be for the next season. The arbitrator, using formulae decided by CBA (in this case it would be state law), determines what the number should be, and picks which ever is closer the player or the teams number. No splitting the difference so no incentive for one side to cook their number, and it frequently incentivizes teams/players to come to agreement before arbitration.
niknight_ml t1_j8kwgnm wrote
>You realize in mass teacher contracts go for multiple years and automatically extend if no new contract is ratified, so there isn’t a period when teachers aren’t cover by a contract right?
It's a little more nuanced than that. While the contract between the union and the district lasts for multiple years, individual teacher's contracts are year to year. One of the guarantees of professional status (aka tenure) is that the district has to offer you a contract for the next school year. This is why non professional status teachers (who haven't finished 3 years employment) can be non-renewed at the end of each year without reason.
​
>One example could be an arbitration process. No new contract by x date? Forced arbitration run by the state.
And you've just struck on the reason for pushing the bill allowing for strikes. Ask for the ability to strike, settle for forced arbitration. No district would willingly add it to their existing contracts (since it cedes power that they currently "have"), so you backdoor the state into requiring it as a compromise.
ShawshankExemption t1_j8kygl9 wrote
Sure- but teachers aren’t trying to negotiate their individual contracts, but their CBAs. That, combined with that this labor action is across the union, not just those teachers without professionals status, means those YoY contracts aren’t really material to that.
So teachers unions are pushing for a law/policy (striking rights) that they don’t actually want? They’re negotiating in bad faith! (/s kinda)
I think you and I agree that state government should take specific action so that unions have more leverage in negotiation. You would be okay with permitting strikes, it’s what this specific law would permit. It’s fine to say you could compromise from that, but you can’t say you don’t what what the law would give you. I personally think striking would cause far more harm than good to public education in this state broadly and that law makers need to take that into account when giving teachers unions the greater leverage they should have.
pillbinge t1_j8lcfmw wrote
As a teacher, I have never once attended anything during the summer that was required. Not at all.
ShawshankExemption t1_j8mlait wrote
You’ve never had a minimum of 3 PD days before school started? Never heard of summer school? Never been expected to prep for your year over the summer?
pillbinge t1_j8nfsm3 wrote
2 days, but those are part of the 183-185 day contract. Summer school is optional already. Prep is optional, and the onus to prep is put on teachers without pay anyway. Keep trying these entry-level responses to an actual teacher.
ShawshankExemption t1_j8nkpin wrote
Keep trying to fuck over kids you don’t give a shit about. You just want to strike to be vindictive , which is fine the district administration can be a load of ass holes, but it’s entirely wrong to say it’s in the interests of the students and the legislature should disregard those students and allow teachers to strike legally.
pillbinge t1_j8ocyv0 wrote
I work to my contract. If you don't like the contract, get a new contract during negotiations - the same way any other company would have to deal with it.
I'm begging you to stop making a fool out of yourself, though. No teacher is so vindictive. You want quality educators? Pay them. Simple as that. Far better to strike for a lousy one week than watch a slow leak of qualified veterans turn to other fields. Even lower-paying fields that are just easier to process and handle healthily.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments