Contract Highlights, Pros and Cons

To help teachers make sense of all the comments that are flying around, here are a couple of ways to consider the pros and cons of the proposed contract.  First is a highlights document someone sent me (pictured), which boils it down to a single page.  Click the image and see it full-size.

Second is a new web page created by a reader that allows you to view AND EDIT the pros and cons, and see what others think at the same time.  There's already lots of back and forth, with corrections and additions galore.

Filed under: Uncategorized


Leave a comment
  • 10:59, you wrote:

    "To make the most of the this tentative contract, you have to completely disregard the crossed out text."

    Crossed out text indicates the *removal* of that language from the tentative agreement. We can *not* ignore it.

    Now, mental health and dental services may still be covered, or they may not. The reality of what this contract *actually* says is at *best* highly ambiguous.

  • Matt,

    The lead delegate at every school should receive a list of every CTU member eligible to vote. There are several different designations within CTU, but those are just details. If the lead delegate doesn't receive a list of eligible members, they should at least have an slightly out of date one from the end of last school year.

    Re: how to make sure the vote is accurate and fair, the best you can do is volunteer to assist with the ratification referendum and keep a watchful eye. I always invite both UPC *and* PACT supporters to participate as fully in the process as possible.

    Once the votes are in the hands of the company hired to tabulate votes there is really nothing more to be done.

  • The NBCT salary addition of $1,750 is pensionable.

    Appendix A-29, p.22 states:

    The Board shall add $1,750 to the base salaries on the teachers salary schedule to advance teachers who are or become NBCT...The Board shall adjust the salaries of teachers who become NBCT in the future in accordance with Article 36.

    Article 36-3.1 (p.134) of the old agreement stipulates pensionability of base salary.

  • Kat,

    My intent was not hostility, but I see your point. In hindsight it does seem hostile.

    Apologies to 10:59. And thanks for clearing up dental and mental health. For the specific issues of dental and mental health insurance, it does seem to make sense to ignore the articles that are crossed out.

    But readers, please do not apply that strategy to the rest of the crossed out language.

  • What frosts my ass is much will dental cost? We have twenty pages of size 6 text full of charts and graphs showing every cost, every dollar made, every dollar for health if dental remains (I'm suspect that it does), how much is it? Is it it $10,000...

    This contract is absolutely the most rushed, most spun piece of garbage I've seen since the "proof" that Saddam Hussein had WMDs...

  • Mike,

    We have been told by CTU leadership, including Stewart, Maguire, field reps, etc. that text that is omitted from the current agreement, but not presented as crossed out, does carry over from the last contract.

    That is what we have been told, anyway.

  • 12:20,

    In the searchable pdf file, page 10 follows the first page, then page 2 and the rest in numerical order.

  • As I read through the pros and cons wiki I'm struck by something disturbing.

    The pros are either minimal gains and/or affect a very small percentage of teachers.

    The cons, on the other hand, are either major problems and/or affect a large number of teachers.

    Has anyone else come to a similar conclusion?

  • 10:17,

    Thanks for the clarification and specific citation on dental and mental health provisions. Likewise on the health insurance increases in years 4 and 5. What you've said re: increases is what we heard at the meeting and it makes sense to me. But if you read Appendix B carefully, that is not what it states in the tentative agreement.

    In the event of health care cost increases between 1% and 5%, Appendix B (p.22) states that "Employee Contributions shall be increased in an amount equivalent to 50% of that year's salary increase".

    Using your $60,000 salary example and 4% increase in the amount of $2400, the *amount* equivalent to 50% of that year's salary increase is $1200, or $100 per month.

    I'm not trying to nitpick, I promise. That's what the actual legal language of the tentative agreement says. If your formula is the one that should be used, it should be written very differently, the key change being "increased by a *percentage* equivalent to 50% of that year's salary increase."

    Appendix B, like other articles and appendices, are written in an extremely ambiguous way. If there will be no language changes between this agreement and a final contract, as our leaders told us repeatedly at the meeting, I can not vote for it based solely its poor construction.

    Because it is so poorly written, lawyers will have a field day with this document as it currently stands.

  • 10:17,

    I can see how health insurance would increase by 2% according to the tentative agreement. I can also see how it would increase by $1200 (for a salary of $60k).

    Where does the 2.8% you reference come from? Is it from appendix B? Is there a formula spelled out elsewhere?

    I'm confused.

Leave a comment