The collective bargaining agreement for SESA (Saugerties Educational Support Association) personnel expired over three years ago. That's a long time to wait and to do without raises and resolutions to contractual items. It's got to be tough for SESA members to keep up their morale. They're the only district employees without a contract. They're to be commended for their continued dedication under the circumstances. Recent board meetings have seen teaching assistants, teacher aids, clerical staff, and food service personnel appear and stand while their SESA representative talks during the public comment period about the lack of a contract. The SESA members that appear represent about 175 SESA members the school district employs. There's general sympathy to their situation. After all, they're our neighbors and our friends. We depend upon them on a daily basis when we send our children to our schools. When the SESA member speaks at a monthly meeting, they urge the school board to give them a contract. Give them a contract? Hold on. If they simply wanted a contract, they could just accept the district offer and sign on the dotted line. Since they haven't done that, it would appear there are some issues between the two sides. Let's go so far as to call them disagreements between the school district and SESA. The district in this case is the superintendent and board. Contracts involve negotiations. It's a two-way street. Maybe give up something to get something. Also to be considered is whatever is added or removed to the SESA contract may have repercussions to other future school employee contracts in the district. Maybe other resolved contracts are having a bearing on this one. How does the public really know who's at fault for the lack of a contract? The school board wouldn't be fulfilling its role as the taxpayers' guardian if it simply gave in to union demands. Likewise, the union wouldn't be fulfilling its role to SESA membership if it didn't look out for their best interests. SESA spokespeople have blamed the district for a lack of negotiating sessions. We don't know the district's view on this because they are cautiously quiet in public. And remember, meetings alone don't mean progress as long as one party refuses to budge. The Taylor Law requires both sides to negotiate in good faith. That doesn't mean, however, that either side has to agree to a proposal or make a concession. Interestingly, after 3 years, neither side has apparently called for an impasse. An impasse would mean that a deadlock has occurred in negotiations, and a third-party, such as an impartial arbitrator, would be assigned to resolve the issues. Maybe neither side feels their case is strong enough to risk it being decided by an outsider. So, it's left to all the insiders to resolve. As it has been for over three years. |