Thursday, June 2, 2011

Board members weigh in on NFT proposal

From an article appearing in . . .

Tuesday evening, the Neshaminy Federation of Teachers unveiled a new contract proposal to the public and members of the press.

Though the Neshaminy School Board members didn't get the contract proposal until this morning from the board's solicitor, they have been able to review changes made by the NFT in this proposal.

Board member William O'Connor said Wednesday that he is gratified that "for the first time in three years" the NFT has agreed to contribute toward health care.

School board President Ritchie Webb said that the NFT contract proposal agrees to pay a flat rate toward health care. NFT President Louis Boyd said Tuesday that the contribution is estimated at about 8 percent toward the current health care plan, but with a flat rate contribution Webb said that if the cost of the plan goes up the teachers will still be paying the same rate.

In addition, O'Connor said he is still concerned about retroactive pay.

Boyd said Tuesday that the NFT would like to have a contract by the end of the school year. O'Connor said he thinks that is "highly unlikely" because the board has already committed to having a resident advisory panel, meeting with the union on June 13 and there are "a great many issues that going to have to be worked on."

"I think it would be difficult, but I’m certainly willing to work toward that goal," Webb said of the NFT having a contract by the end of the school year.

You can read the entire article by clicking here.


1 comment:

Langhorne Resident said...

Mr. Webb,
In response to the article in the BCCT on Friday regarding legislation to resolve labor disputes, you stated you think the "Back to Educating Our Kids Act" is unfair. Why?

I will admit, I do not think either side (Union or the Borad) has conducted themselves in an acceptable manner. But, your comments lead me to belive you are close minded to progress.

If either side really wanted to resolve this dispute, you would meet weekly, as the Act suggests.

The Act sets deadlines to move the discussions along. Given certain circumstances, the each side has to give something up to continue negotiating. Your comments that "this puts unfair pressure on the Board" confuses me. How is this more unfair to one side than the other. Isn't the point of this to give our children the best possible education and academic experience?