D46 Board/Union Reach Deal

The District 46 Board and the Teachers Union reached an agreement Thursday night. This came with the help of the Federal Mediator who had originally brokered the tentative agreement back in Dec.


          

Months of tension in Grayslake Elementary District 46 over its teachers contract ended quietly when both sides agreed to resolve their interpretations of some of the details, the two sides said Friday.

The resolution came Thursday night, hours after the Grayslake Federation of Teachers union issued a news release blasting the district board. It threatened to ramp up its litigation efforts if a settlement wasn’t reached soon.

It appears the Board gave into the Union after they increased the rhetoric earlier in the day. The vote of no confidence was a planned stunt since they had to know the meeting with the mediator had already been scheduled.


          

With this agreement, the union has announced it will drop the potentially costly litigation against the board, an indication the union is satisfied with the terms.

“The union bargaining team is pleased with the outcome of the discussions last evening and looking forward to rebuilding our relationship with the Board of Education,” union President Diane Elfering said in a release.

I’m sure the Union is very happy with this agreement. They got what they wanted at the expense of the taxpayers of the community.

The Board needs to really examine how this came about. They allowed the Union to continually put information out to the public with no response. They may wonder why the community was not more vocal on this issue. It is because they had no information except what the Union put forth. We were left in the dark not knowing exactly what to do. If you want support, you have to tell the public what is going on!

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Tumblr
  • TwitThis

8 Responses to “D46 Board/Union Reach Deal”

  1. Hi, on February 26th, 2006 at 11:19 am Said:

    “The Board needs to really examine how this came about. They allowed the Union to continually put information out to the public with no response.”

    Could it possibly be that the Boards position was indefensible? I’m not so sure they’d have been intersted in sharing that with the public. I would suggest you ask them, and their counsel, as the facts certainly seem to indicate that.

    This Board didn’t cave; the mediator, and the Boards own counsel, got them to see the light. There were copius notes by all parties that reflected the spirit of the agreement they chose to ignore, and this Board seemed to think that wasn’t material. Well surprise!…it is.

  2. site admin, on February 26th, 2006 at 4:01 pm Said:

    These excuses are boring me. Please provide the proof.

  3. Hi, on February 26th, 2006 at 4:59 pm Said:

    So let me understand; opinions like,

    “It appears the Board gave into the Union after they increased the rhetoric earlier in the day. The vote of no confidence was a planned stunt since they had to know the meeting with the mediator had already been scheduled.”

    and

    “I’m sure the Union is very happy with this agreement. They got what they wanted at the expense of the taxpayers of the community.”

    don’t require verifiable proof, but those that oppose yours do? I would suggest you contact the board to see if they deny it. Meanwhile, I’m sorry the truth bores you; would you prefer fiction?

  4. site admin, on February 26th, 2006 at 5:28 pm Said:

    I am seeking the truth. You bore me with your statement after statement without any proof. You think we are just supposed to believe you because you say so. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. You need to reread some of the older posts. I have provided as much proof as I have available about the situation. You have provided innuendos and snide comments.

    Provide verifiable proof!

  5. Hi, on February 26th, 2006 at 6:07 pm Said:

    So it’s only what you deem appropriate truth that belongs here? Your conjecture like,

    “The vote of no confidence was a planned stunt since they had to know the meeting with the mediator had already been scheduled.”

    is acceptable, but an opposing view is not?

  6. site admin, on February 26th, 2006 at 8:01 pm Said:

    Your views have been allowed here. Read them. Whether I believe them is a different story all together.

    You are anonymous and you claim “There were copius notes by all parties that reflected the spirit of the agreement they chose to ignore, and this Board seemed to think that wasn’t material. Well surprise!…it is.”

    I used logic to come to my conclusion while you claim physical notes existed. Your logic does not follow. I never claimed physical evidence. You did. Provide the proof.

  7. Hi, on February 26th, 2006 at 8:16 pm Said:

    So you have no evidence to support your conjecture? And you would expect your readers to accept that as fact? While the facts in evidence say,
              
    “Months of tension in Grayslake Elementary District 46 over its teachers contract ended quietly when both sides agreed to resolve their interpretations of some of the details, the two sides said Friday.”

    Your logic interprets that to mean,

    “It appears the Board gave into the Union after they increased the rhetoric earlier in the day.”

    Could it be “sour grapes”?

  8. Lisa, on February 28th, 2006 at 5:43 pm Said:

    “So let’s see… what lessons have we learned today, children?” asked teacher.

    “Media whining, wearing buttons, using children as pawns, making sure that you don’t work anymore than contractually demanded of you, telling the public selected private information, costing the district more money, and filing grievances… gets you what you want.” answered student.

    “Lesson learned, student. Now go and make this world a better place!” exclaimed teacher.

« »