And ANOTHER school calendar change

"Hillary Israeli" wrote in message
...
In OJ_sb.145290$9E1.744168@attbi_s52,
P. Tierney wrote:

* No, *we* have not. I never entered into a single conversation about
*emailing information home. But you and Hillary are criticizing me,
*I guess, because I'm not reading every freaking post on the newsgroup
*before entering into a discussion. That's really logical.

I'm sorry you felt criticized. That wasn't my intent. My post was really
intended more as a "oh boy, not THIS again," type of comment directed to
the readership at large more than to you specifically.

Okay, thanks.


P. Tierney

"Joni Rathbun" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, P. Tierney wrote:


Do all of the parents in the district have email connections?
Is this how they normally communicate such things?

Do we HAVE to have this discussion again. I mean, we've done it twice
in the past couple of months.

No, *we* have not. I never entered into a single conversation about
emailing information home. But you and Hillary are criticizing me,
I guess, because I'm not reading every freaking post on the newsgroup
before entering into a discussion. That's really logical.

Our last conversation (in which you participated) focused, in part, on
methods of sharing information with parents.

Not the part that I participated in. My part was about when, not
how.

I guess in my mind, email
would be considered one of the various methods available and would come
under the same type of criticism as other internet-based forms of
communication.

That's fine, but I didn't write or respond to anything about
internet-based forms of communication, sp that's why I asked my
question. I guess I didn't read every post. Didn't know it would
be on the test.



P. Tierney

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 15:22:06 GMT, dragonlady
wrote:

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.

Yep, that's it exactly. Complaint to the school board, sure (so they
understand how cranky it makes parents to have late changes, for
reference in future contract negotiations). But filing a grievance
doesn't make sense.

"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.

Ah, I didn't know the particular details of the negotiations. I probably
missed it.

I have a really hard time believing that the teachers were ok with this
though. Especially since you need a vote. Makes me wonder what they *did*
get out of the negotiations that were so great. Maybe that was already
discussed too? If so, sorry.
--
JennP.

"I base my fashion on what doesn't itch" Gilda Radner

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, P. Tierney wrote:


"Joni Rathbun" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, P. Tierney wrote:


Do all of the parents in the district have email connections?
Is this how they normally communicate such things?

Do we HAVE to have this discussion again. I mean, we've done it twice
in the past couple of months.

No, *we* have not. I never entered into a single conversation about
emailing information home. But you and Hillary are criticizing me,
I guess, because I'm not reading every freaking post on the newsgroup
before entering into a discussion. That's really logical.

Our last conversation (in which you participated) focused, in part, on
methods of sharing information with parents.

Not the part that I participated in. My part was about when, not
how.

I guess in my mind, email
would be considered one of the various methods available and would come
under the same type of criticism as other internet-based forms of
communication.

That's fine, but I didn't write or respond to anything about
internet-based forms of communication,


(looks around confused) Is there more than one P. Tierney??

"Joni Rathbun" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, P. Tierney wrote:


"Joni Rathbun" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, P. Tierney wrote:


Do all of the parents in the district have email
connections?
Is this how they normally communicate such things?

Do we HAVE to have this discussion again. I mean, we've done it
twice
in the past couple of months.

No, *we* have not. I never entered into a single conversation
about
emailing information home. But you and Hillary are criticizing me,
I guess, because I'm not reading every freaking post on the
newsgroup
before entering into a discussion. That's really logical.

Our last conversation (in which you participated) focused, in part, on
methods of sharing information with parents.

Not the part that I participated in. My part was about when, not
how.

I guess in my mind, email
would be considered one of the various methods available and would
come
under the same type of criticism as other internet-based forms of
communication.

That's fine, but I didn't write or respond to anything about
internet-based forms of communication,


(looks around confused) Is there more than one P. Tierney??

Sorry, finding a schedule online (for those that wanted it early) was
mentioned by me, but emailing wasn't. And, how an initial schedule is
distributed would follow a different process than upcoming schedule
changes (though such things don't happen here, so it isn't an issue).
Looking back at my messages, I only responded to the OP once, and
how schedules were distributed was discussed, but I didn't learn
anything about how hers were distributed then, or schedule
changes either, which is a different thing. Hence what I thought
was an inoffensive pair of simple questions.

If she's tired of the subject, then she could always stop airing
her complaints.



P. Tierney

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), they may have had to take some provisions that they didn't
want in order to get any contract at all.

So the new contract schedule may not be the idea of the teachers -
even of the union member teachers. Because if the school board
doesn't want to give the teachers what they've asked for, they don't
have to - it isn't a normal bargaining unit like in most other unions.

Ah, I didn't know the particular details of the negotiations. I probably
missed it.

I have a really hard time believing that the teachers were ok with this
though. Especially since you need a vote. Makes me wonder what they *did*
get out of the negotiations that were so great. Maybe that was already
discussed too? If so, sorry.

I never voted on any contract that we had even though I was a member
of the union.

grandma Rosalie

"Rosalie B." wrote in message
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.

Not in my district, and I know my mother's (in a different state) too.You do
have to pay dues and it was very expensive. Several hundered dollars/year,
IIRC. Definitly *not* an option.

--
JennP.

mom to Matthew 10/11/00
remove "no........spam" to reply

"JennP" wrote in message
news:HS8ub.225241$Tr4.669255@attbi_s03...

"Rosalie B." wrote in message
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.

Not in my district, and I know my mother's (in a different state) too.You
do
have to pay dues and it was very expensive. Several hundered dollars/year,
IIRC. Definitly *not* an option.

Only about 10% of the teachers in my current school belong to the union, and
there are whole states (TX, for example) where there is no such thing as a
teacher's union, at least not for bargaining purposes. There are
professional associations, which serve as insurance buying groups for
liability insurance and pay to keep lawyers on retainer, but no negotiating
body.


--
JennP.

mom to Matthew 10/11/00
remove "no........spam" to reply

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, JennP wrote:


"Rosalie B." wrote in message
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.

Not in my district, and I know my mother's (in a different state) too.You do
have to pay dues and it was very expensive. Several hundered dollars/year,
IIRC. Definitly *not* an option.

In my previous state, we had to pay dues. I think it was about $600 a year
if memory services. Among other things, it provides your liability
insurance. I consider that a must have. There was no option out.
I didn't have a problem with it. We had an excellent union, well worth
the expense.

In my current state, a right to work state, it is not required. I have
chosen not to join. This union isn't the value my previous one was.
I purchase liability insurance elsewhere.

I've been told a number of times teachers in only about half the states
are unionized - or so I understood. I haven't done any research on
the issue. It might be that these are right to work states.