On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Rosalie B. wrote:

x-no-archive:yes



"JennP" wrote:

"dragonlady" wrote in message
...
In article kU4tb.148962$9E1.751296@attbi_s52,

The point is that the change in schedule was the RESULT of negotiations
with the union. Individual teachers might not be happy with the change,
but the union negotiations were just completed and the union (with an
affirmattive vote of its members) approvved the contract with the new
calendar. There would be no wrong doing on the part of the school,
which is merely complying with their (new) union contract, and therefor
no basis upon which to file a grievance.

Two points - a) not all teachers belong to the union - at least IME.
That means that not all of them - maybe even a majority of them did
NOT vote on the contract. For one thing - to belong to the union, you
have to pay dues and some teachers don't feel that they have the extra
money for that or even be anti-union.

b) Also IME, the union does the best it can to negotiate with the
school board which may not (probably does not) have the teacher's
interests at heart. Especially if the teachers have gone without a
contract and negotiations have dragged on so long (since teachers are
not permitted to strike like other unions-the most they can do is work
to rule),

Teachers can't strike in right to work statess but in other states
they can strike. In my previous state, where union dues were mandatory,
we could strike. In my current state where dues are optional, we cannot
strike.