To the Editor: So, the Warwick School Department intends to defy the collective bargaining agreement that they themselves signed on November 20 a mere three weeks ago (Warwick Beacon, Tuesday December 12). Or, in the words of Superintendent Dr. Phil,
This item is available in full to subscribers.
We have recently launched a new and improved website. To continue reading, you will need to either log into your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free website account by clicking here.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
|
To the Editor:
So, the Warwick School Department intends to defy the collective bargaining agreement that they themselves signed on November 20 a mere three weeks ago (Warwick Beacon, Tuesday December 12). Or, in the words of Superintendent Dr. Phil, they "wouldn't be able to include retroactive or proactive pay raises in the December 21 check."
Now, one has to wonder why they "wouldn't be able to," since for the past three years they have not spent the money on teachers. Where, then, could the money have gone? Oh, that's right. They spent it on lawyers. That certainly helped the students of Warwick!
Jeffrey Miner
Warwick
1 comment on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
Kammy
The money hasn't "gone" anywhere. The WSC is waiting for the WCC to release the funds. This has been backed by Ferrucci, who is the Budget Officer. If you recall, the $3.3 million was withheld at the time of the FY18 budget and would be made available once a contract was reached to cover the increased salary costs. The argument can be made that the WSC could pay for the retro raises with the budget they currently have but that money has already been earmarked. As has the $3.3 million. But instead of having a conversation or coming to a common sense solution for both parties they did what? They decided to picket. Now they are still getting paid their normal salary. The retro pay was not even a solid guarantee until a few weeks ago. Why the drastic measure? Why does it always have to come down to a knock out, drag down fight? If it is 6 months from now and not a penny has been sent out then YES, go right ahead. But at this juncture it just seems way over the top.
Wednesday, December 20, 2017 Report this