Dear Editor,
We were extremely disappointed with the article that appeared in
Saturday’s edition of the Dispatch,
”
Union Wants More Cash to do the Math.
”
Dear Editor,
We were extremely disappointed with the article that appeared in Saturday’s edition of the Dispatch, “Union Wants More Cash to do the Math.” To begin with, the association had stressed to the reporter that teachers were less interested in the salary increase than they were in determining and clearly defining who was going to control the additional time teachers were going to spend doing their jobs outside of direct instruction.
When the Board of Education approved extending the student day at the middle school on May 4, the rationale was to provide more instructional time for the students (additional math and elective classes). A byproduct of this decision was an extension of the teacher work day. Teachers would be required to stay on campus longer each day.
It was determined, by the Association, that if teachers were going to be expected to stay on campus longer, cutting into tutoring, meeting, and preparation time, it would only make sense that they have some control over how the unsolicited time was going to be spent. Unfortunately, because the district wanted to control this time, it slowed negotiations down considerably and made negotiations more difficult than they needed to be.
In regards to the request to increase salary, it is important that the public knows that the issue of compensation was first brought up by the district, not the Association.
On March 1, when the district first presented a proposal to increase the teacher work day, it clearly stated that compensation would need to be negotiated. The only reason that the Association did not push the issue earlier was that it was not clear if this change was going to be implemented next year. And, once that decision had been made, without input from teachers and parents, we hoped that the Board would reconsider its decision to extend the day and start the process anew.
When it became clear that the Board would not reconsider its decision, we met with the middle school teachers to determine what agreement would be acceptable. When we met with the district again on June 8th, we were still in the middle of exchanging ideas.
While the Dispatch was correct when it stated that the morning of June 8th was relatively cordial, what happened that afternoon is still not clear.
It is the nature of negotiations to make proposals and counterproposals until the two sides can agree on a compromise. When we proposed that the teachers have control over two Wednesdays instead of just one, and for a salary increase to balance the additional time spent on campus, we were completely taken aback at the intensity of the district’s reaction. Our proposal was not that extreme. It was not our intent to draw swords and engage in battle. We expected the district to come back with a counter proposal. And, with all due respect to the superintendent, who was not even in the room, not one teacher was “rude” or “combative.”
The afternoon that the district’s negotiating team became upset that we put a 3% salary increase on paper, we had already told them, before lunch, (not after lunch as the article claims), that we were interested in discussing compensation. Although the article in the Dispatch admits that we “mentioned the raise in the morning”, the opening paragraph “Fairly peaceful negotiations exploded when the union returned from lunch and requested an across-the board raise,” makes it appear as if the union intentionally dropped a bomb on the district. This is not accurate, does not reflect the intent and does not take into account the negotiations process. In fact, if we had been allowed to finish discussing our proposal calmly and rationally, we may have agreed to accept an alternative or compromise. And in fact, that is exactly what happened when we concluded negotiations on Monday, June 12th.
And so, in response to the Editorial Board’s Cheers and Jeers for June 8th, calmer heads (patient and experienced in the process of negotiations) have indeed prevailed and we have reached an agreement.
Michelle Nelson, President, Gilroy Teachers Association
Phyllis Bartu, Lead Negotiator, GTA
Kelley Meloy, 1st grade teacher, Luigi Aprea
Shawna Morejon, English teacher, Gilroy High School
Suzanne Seekatz, 5th grade teacher, Luigi Aprea
