SFUSD and UESF Reaches Tentative Agreement for Teachers and Paraprofessionals (edit this)
SFUSD and United Educators of San Francisco (teachers’ union) have arrived at a tentative agreement in the contracts for the certificated (teacher) and classified (paraprofessional bargaining units, beginning the school year on a very positive note.
UESF reports that the agreement came after a seventeen hour, round-the-clock mediated bargaining session that started at 6pm on Friday. Ratification procedures are still being discussed for the union.
Dennis Kelly, president of UESF, said in a statement, “My personal gratitude to all those who supported the Bargaining Team and the team members themselves who demonstrated creativity, tenacity and endurance in seeing that these contracts were settled before the students crossed the threshold to begin the new school year. ”
August 28th, 2007 at 7:20 am e
Good news!
90% of our teachers deserve a hefty raise, a much larger raise than was actually granted.
The 10% of incompetent teachers that the union protects at all costs, and that severely hurt the union’s image among parents, should be fired.
August 28th, 2007 at 11:44 am e
this is good news! lest we not forget, when calculating an annual salary for any teacher, you have to multiply it by an extra third to compare it to a year long job without a summer vacation.
the comparisons to other counties i find quite interesting. someone should go an poll other teachers that make more in neighboring counties to hear the sad truth that they probably wouldn’t work for sfusd and in uesf even if we paid them more since we have many more deep rooted issues with our union and district than money can solve.
August 28th, 2007 at 1:26 pm e
I have friends who are teachers and who work in neighboring or nearby counties specifically because the pay is significantly higher, when they would PREFER to be teaching here (all the ones I can think of are SFUSD parents and would rather be in the district where their kids attend school — plus nobody wants to commute).
Our district absolutely needs to pay teachers more — but we all saw what happened in Oakland when the former superintendent impetuously said “damn the torpedos — our teachers are getting a big raise.” The district collapsed financially and is now run by a state manager, and the superintendent who awarded the raises was forced out, disgraced.
Our high-high-high-cost area needs far more money for its schools. IMHO, the city should be stepping in with whopping support in all areas for schools — the city has FAR more money than the school district does.
(It’s an interesting side note that while our teachers make less than their peers in any nearby district, some job categories in SFUSD are really well-paid for their field and skillset. I don’t begrudge anyone as good pay as they can get, but it is weird that our caf workers are the highest-paid in the state, literally, which probably means in the nation and world, but our teachers make less than their peers. It’s just odd.)
August 29th, 2007 at 4:44 pm e
let’s not forget about the 5 years to guaranteed lifetime benefits. it all comes out of someone’s pocket and unfortunately, i fear it’s the tiny ones in our kids jeans.
:(
August 29th, 2007 at 6:21 pm e
“let’s not forget about the 5 years to guaranteed lifetime benefits. it all comes out of someone’s pocket and unfortunately, i fear it’s the tiny ones in our kids jeans.”
This is precisely what happened in the Richmond School District. The district had to close all its libraries and cancel all its sports programs in order to pay lifetime health benefits for teachers, some of whom had only three years of service.
SFUSD is heading for the same train wreck.
August 31st, 2007 at 9:45 am e
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/070830/20070830006004.html?.v=1
i’m confused how a 169billion fund for teacher retirement would let a city like sf bankrupt itself with unrealistic promises for lifetime benefits?
is there some double dipping going on here?
i also love the quote in here about restoring lost inflationary spending power in benefits
wouldn’t we all love to have that guarantee!
ah, socialism. it’s my favorite ism.
September 2nd, 2007 at 8:07 am e
It isn’t “socialism” behind the notion of employer-provided health benefits. It’s a decision that was made by both the public and private sectors back when it appeared that health benefits would be no big expense, and it was aimed at HEADING OFF the reviled “socialized medicine” (single-payer) that was so feared in this country.
Both the public and the private sectors are now being crushed by the fact that they shouldered the burden of the health-care system, and those who fought “socialized medicine” (like the AMA) 30 years ago are regretting what they’ve created instead.
September 2nd, 2007 at 8:26 am e
In directly related new, from the L.A. Daily News:
LAUSD widens health benefits
BY NAUSH BOGHOSSIAN, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 08/31/2007 12:00:00 AM PDT
In a split vote, L.A. Unified’s new school board agreed to pay health benefits to part-time cafeteria workers - a decision that will cost the cash-strapped district $105 million over three years and could force layoffs of other workers to cover the expense.
http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_6765102