Sometimes stupid loses

On Thu, 5 May 2011 08:58:35 -0400, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
wrote:

It's a fact in some cases, other case I'm sure it's not. My wife's teacher's
union is a good example of where the union acts for it's own beneift - or rather
the benefit of the union President who rules over the entire union with an iron
fist.

How did he get the job? Elected? By whom?

The union bylaws state that all officers have to be uniopn members, i.e.,
teachers. Negotiations with the school district over the years were never
confrontational, it was pretty much the usual 3% raise each year and over time
the teachers would contribute more and more towards their health care insurance.
Last year was the first real test, it was the first time that the teachers were
asked for give backs and pay cuts. This was the first real test he had. The
teachers agreed to the cuts and give backs as long as the state aid was going to
be less than the previous year. It turned out that the aid was kept at the same
level but the "union" (the President) never stipulated that the give back and
cuts would be void if the aid came in at the same level as the previous year.
The cuts and give backs have future affects on retirement. A simple $ 1,000.00
give-back resulted in a typical teacher in retirement losing $ 100K over the
course of the retirement. Further, the union president pulled a fast one on the
members. He mad a deal with the school board to offer teachers an incentove of
25% of their current salary

If he made a deal - a good deal or a bad deal - then he is involved
with negotiations. Nu?



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 5 May 2011 08:58:35 -0400, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
wrote:

It's a fact in some cases, other case I'm sure it's not. My wife's teacher's
union is a good example of where the union acts for it's own beneift - or
rather
the benefit of the union President who rules over the entire union with an
iron
fist.

How did he get the job? Elected? By whom?

He's elected to a multiple-year term by the union members, most of whom have no
idea what he's trying, or rather did, get away with. His term still had two
years left when he retired. So he managed to get the bylaws changed so he can
finish his term. When the meeting was announced for Executive Council to vote
on the change, the announcements were not made in accordance with the bylaws.
The meeting was suppossed to be posted "X" number of days (14, I believe) before
the meeting. This did not happen, the announcement was never posted in most
schools. This was challenged at the vote but the head of the Executive Council
rejected the challenge. Who is the "head"? The union president. He knew the
vote was illegal because the membership had no opportunity to meet with their
delegates who would then express their wished to the Council. Those teachers
who were aware of what was going on attended the Council meeting but they are
not permitted to speak at those meetings. It was also discovered that the
former union secretary was not a member of the union, i.e a teacher, for the
last eight years of her term which was a violation of the bylaws. This was
never disclosed to the members.

In the end, the union members get what they deserve because they've elected this
con artist for over 20 years. Those that are actually involved and aware of the
union dealings are in the vast minority so this guy is assured of getting
elected again. Some members have requested a financial accounting of the union
expenses. They see Jaguars parked outside in the union offfice parking lot and
they want to know if they're paying for them or not. The union won't release
the information. Imagine, a union not allowing the members to know how the
money is being spent.

The union bylaws state that all officers have to be uniopn members, i.e.,
teachers. Negotiations with the school district over the years were never
confrontational, it was pretty much the usual 3% raise each year and over time
the teachers would contribute more and more towards their health care
insurance.
Last year was the first real test, it was the first time that the teachers
were
asked for give backs and pay cuts. This was the first real test he had. The
teachers agreed to the cuts and give backs as long as the state aid was going
to
be less than the previous year. It turned out that the aid was kept at the
same
level but the "union" (the President) never stipulated that the give back and
cuts would be void if the aid came in at the same level as the previous year.
The cuts and give backs have future affects on retirement. A simple $
1,000.00
give-back resulted in a typical teacher in retirement losing $ 100K over the
course of the retirement. Further, the union president pulled a fast one on
the
members. He mad a deal with the school board to offer teachers an incentove
of
25% of their current salary

If he made a deal - a good deal or a bad deal - then he is involved
with negotiations. Nu?

He is the only person who negotiates with the school board on behalf of the
teachers.