Anyone - what's the bottom line here?

"The negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement between the Glen Ellyn Education Association (GEEA) and the Board of Education are continuing in a productive and collaborative way. The teachers are in effect currently operating under the 2004-2008 contract in accordance with the requirements of the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board. The negotiation teams have been trained in an interest-based bargaining approach which they have used throughout the negotiations and plan to continue in the upcoming scheduled sessions."

INTEREST-BASED BARGAINING (IBB). A bargaining technique in which the parties start with (or at least focus on) interests rather than proposals; agree on criteria of acceptability that will be used to evaluate alternatives; generate several alternatives that are consistent with their interests, and apply the agreed-upon acceptability criteria to the alternatives so generated in order to arrive at mutually acceptable contract provisions. The success of the technique depends, in large measure, on mutual trust, candor, and a willingness to share information. (Compare with the duty to bargain in good faith.) But even where these are lacking, the technique, with its focus on interests and on developing alternatives, tends to make the parties more flexible and open to alternative solutions and thus increases the likelihood of agreement.

IBB often is contrasted with "position-based" bargaining, in which the parties start with proposals (which implicitly are solutions to known or inferred problems). However, even in position-based bargaining the parties normally are expected to justify their proposals in terms of their interests by identifying the problems to which the proposals are intended as solutions. (There is no case law in which FLRA has held that a refusal to so justify proposals constitutes bad faith bargaining.) Once the interests are on the table, the parties are in a position to evaluate their initial and subsequent proposals--whether generated by group brainstorming (a common method of generating alternatives in IBB) or by more customary methods--in terms of the extent they are likely to effectively and efficiently solve problems without creating additional problems. For an analytical treatment of the process, see Walton and McKersie`s discussion of "integrative" bargaining in A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations. For a popular treatment of the process, see Getting to Yes, by Fisher and Ury.

Teachers Position: Show us the money.

I just don't quite understand - will the current contract expire at the end of 2008? Does it end after the 2008-2009 school year? Did it already expire?

quote:

Originally posted by NEBF:
I just don't quite understand - will the current contract expire at the end of 2008? Does it end after the 2008-2009 school year? Did it already expire?

The last contract ended at the end of the 2007-2008 school year. There currently is no signed contract - that is what the current negotiations are about. Per the issued statement quoted above in this thread, the teachers are working under the terms of the previous (expired) contract.

Wait until you get the bill for the retroactive teacher support dating back to last spring. Why were negotiations for a new contract delayed? Too much time with consultants instead of negotiating?

Every time you turn the page, another moth flies out of these school books. How's that breach of contract litigation against the District's insurance broker going?

Ron, I'm not sure I would say that negotiations were delayed. A review of the posted BOE meeting minutes at the D41 website will indicate that negotiations were begun before the end of the 2007-2008 school year.

As you might expect, I am hesitant to comment (and in many instances, prohibited from commenting) on either the negotiations or any lawsuits.

Thank you Bob S. for explaining.

quote:

Originally posted by ronkas:
Wait until you get the bill for the retroactive teacher support dating back to last spring. Why were negotiations for a new contract delayed? Too much time with consultants instead of negotiating?

Don't lose sight of the fact that there has been NO mention of striking or not reporting for work during this extended negotiation. I would not imagine in todays climate that the teachers are expecting exhorbitant raises, and the new rates would have had to have been paid from last Spring forward regardless of whether they are retroactive or not. We don't know where the slow down in negotiations comes from (Union, the Super, the Board or a combination of entities). The teachers are working, the kids are in school and Schoolweek News is back. What more could I ask for?