When it comes to arbitration of public union and local government collective bargaining contracts, apparently the only thing that really matter is whether the local government’s taxpayers can afford to give a raise in pay — not whether the employees have earned a raise.
On Friday an arbitrator ruled that the Clark County School District must give raises to its unionized school principals and administrators and pay nearly $20 million in retroactive raises, according to the contribution-funded online news site The Nevada Independent. Though the decision came this past week, a search of the morning newspaper found no trace of the news.
According to the arbitrator the school district’s final offer fell $13 million below the union’s demand.Arb
The arbitrator stated:
The District offered no specific evidence indicating that teachers would be laid off if the Association’s final offer was granted, class sizes would be increased, days in the school year would be curtailed, or the District’s ability to educate children within the District would otherwise be adversely impacted.
The evidence did establish that cuts in the District’s budget would have to be made, but there was no compelling evidence indicating the District would be unable to fulfill its primary obligation of providing education to the children residing within the school district if the Association’s Final Offer was granted. In the absence of such evidence, the Arbitrator concludes the District has the financial ability to pay the Association’s requested Final Written Offer without compromising its obligation to provide an education to the children residing within the School District.
All that matters is the ability of the taxpayers to pay and pay without regard to the quality of the education outcome, which has been long established as subpar.
In Nevada, arbitrators are not allowed the split the baby and compromise between the two final offers but must choose one or the other. It seems the unions’ final offers invariable is chosen and the main reason seems to always be that the taxpayers can afford it.
The Arbitrator needed to do a hell of a lot more reading and research, for example on what administrators are paid versus instructors. That would have been illuminating. In CCSD, the average administrator, who works far fewer hard hours than the average teacher (that “only works 6 hours a day with a 3 month vacation” is BS and you know it Thomas!) pulls in roughly twice what the teacher does. Giving a raise to those deciding that cutting back on teacher benefits is not just outrageous, but possibly a violation of contract.
How sweet it is! Raises for gifting our kids with the worst public education in the Country!
Worst public education in America?
Nevada didn’t even make this list
And we came in at 13 on this list
Nevada has 2 out of 100 on this list
But 24/7 wall st and Huff say NV is the worst while MA (my childhood state, btw) remains the best.
(I say again, the reason for that is how small and localized MA school districts are. And that is due to those districts belonging to the TOWNS not the COUNTY’s.
Overall, I suppose 2 out three isn’t all that bad. There are distinct positives in Nevada’s schools.
Here we go again…that regressive left Democrat money laundry scheme…working like a well oiled clock.
“But 24/7 wall st and Huff say NV is the worst while MA (my childhood state, btw) remains the best. I say again, the reason for that is how small and localized MA school districts are. And that is due to those districts belonging to the TOWNS not the COUNTY’s.”
I suppose you consider it unrelated that the median family income in Massachusetts is $64,859, while in Nevada, it’s $48927.
Of course, I may be confusing cause and effect. Maybe the income of Massachusetts is a result rather than the cause of its superior educational system. After all, despite the liability of containing most of our nation’s ghettos, Blue states outperform red states in household income, life expectancy and education https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/31/opinion/campaign-stops/the-path-to-prosperity-is-blue.html?_r=0
Maybe an inferior education explains why red states adhere to conservative politics.
Red states have inferior schools because red states don’t fund public schools.
And red state don’t fund public schools because red states are dominated by people that don’t want to pay to see their populations educated.
The irony is that all those “reds” are really voting for the few billionaires and their children, to go to private schools (that they end up paying for) and to reduce those billionaires taxes, all the while voting for lower funded and worse public schools, that their children will attend.
Then, the billionaires that sent their children to private schools, with taxpayers money, leaving pittance a for the public schools, will decry the horrible education the public schools are providing “our children”, using lobbying groups they fund like ALEC, to reduce their already grotesquely low taxes, and dooming the masses to a low quality education that leads them no where.
Rincon, haven’t you heard?
Nevada is blue…..voted Clinton and Democrats….and it was only after the 2015 REPUBLICAN legislature took over for that ONE session that Nevada Schools got an increase in funding!
And now, those Democrats who took over for 2017 are trying to BLOCK even more school funding!
Albeit, ESA’s but they are trying to block any money for schools if it includes ESA!
Doesn’t that make Nevada Democrats friends to Conservatives?