Teachers just want what they’ve earned

To the editor:

What’s wrong with teacher concessions? Time and again our community is being told that if teachers would make some simple pay concessions, like the other Clark County School District employee groups did, the budget problems would be resolved. One would logically assume the teachers are being selfish and short-sighted by trying to hold out for more money.

The Clark County Education Association has been forgetting to remind our community that these pay increases are the result of hard work and thoughtful investment in ourselves as professionals.

Since before any of the current teachers began their careers, teachers have been encouraged contractually to earn more money with higher levels of education — education teachers pay for themselves. Over the past several years, many teachers and counselors have paid approximately $3,300 for 18 credits in Center for Teaching Excellence (CTE) courses. After taking these 18 credits, teachers earn the reward of moving into a new pay column that’s accepted and published by the district. The district agreed to accept CTE classes as legitimate coursework necessary to advance across the pay schedule.

Without warning, district officials decided to change their mind about offering additional pay for additional coursework. Those of us who paid our personal funds for these courses are supposed to simply be happy with the improved skills without the pay increase. Many of us would have likely paid the tuition fees into mutual funds or something similar had we been told ahead of time the pay schedule was no longer going to be honored.

In addition, teachers have been making pay concessions since Gov. Kenny Guinn took office in 1998. Even though times were “booming” in Nevada, school districts were already cutting. There have been several instances over the past 14 years where the district’s salary schedule didn’t include any cost-of-living allowance.

Every time I hear leaders of our school district or our community complaining about teachers being unwilling to forgo our earned pay increases, I wonder if they’re aware that such concessions mean so much more than simply living on the same pay as last year.

BRENT BANDHAUER

LAS VEGAS

Commerce clause

To the editor:

There seems to be a misunderstanding about the U.S. Constitution’s commerce clause. It was included for the purpose of keeping the states from having trade wars with each other.

Until the 1930s — before the Supreme Court was packed by Franklin Roosevelt — this was understood. Now, the false interpretation is considered precedent as an excuse to justify social engineering.

Matt Davis

Henderson

Union vote

To the editor:

The Culinary union published an impressive full-page ad in Friday’s Review-Journal. It was designed to urge Station Casinos to allow its employees to vote to unionize. The exact language was, “We demand that Station Casinos ownership and management respect our signatures and agree to a fair process for us to decide whether to have union representation without management interference and intimidation.”

The problem with that is that the Culinary union is not interested in “a fair process.”

Station Casinos officials have agreed to allow a secret ballot organizing election by their employees, but Culinary leaders want an open card count so they can see who voted for and against the union. Management intimidation? How about union intimidation, the traditional tactics used by unions for decades?

Culinary officials do not want a secret ballot, and they have said so. I guess we know who wants to intimidate whom.

I urge Station Casinos to stand its ground until the Culinary union agrees to “a fair process” for all of employees to decide whether to have union representation.

Rick Ainsworth

Henderson