Would you rather have teachers talk or walk?

To the editor:

It is interesting that Victor Joecks’ Sunday commentary, “The fix is in for public-sector unions,” found no issue with a recent arbitrator’s decision on teacher retirement contributions that favored the Clark Country School District, but only with an arbitrator’s decision that favored the teachers on raises. I wonder how much Mr. Joecks researched arbitration before he wrote his commentary and if he is aware of the history and precedence of arbitration.

Those from the past have understood that talking is better than walking. King Solomon was an arbitrator. King Philip II, Alexander the Great’s father, used arbitration in land disputes. George Washington wrote a clause in his will that three arbitrators be selected should any part of his decisions be disputed.

The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 put arbitration on the front burner in America. The Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 and the 1991 Civil Rights Act all demonstrate federal government support of arbitration. To ensure no lag in war-time production, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his War Labor Board insisted arbitration clauses were written into all collective bargaining agreements during World War II.

Should Mr. Joecks, state Sen. Michael Roberson and other Nevada lawmakers think arbitration is a negative, they need to ask the question: How “ready by exit” would students be if going on strike – walking rather than talking – was the only option for teachers?

Gary W. Conder

North Las Vegas

Pink slips

To the editor:

The public has now seen the real enemy of the Clark County School District. It turns out not to be the teachers, after all.

For all the name-calling and talk about how broke the district is, the arbitrator saw through the smoke-and-mirrors scheme the district has tried to run. Now the truth is out and the facts have been disclosed. Still, Superintendent Dwight Jones is trying to put the fear of “pink slips” into the teachers’ minds.

Mr. Jones wants more students to graduate. Yet he wants to: pay teachers less for going above and beyond with higher degrees that cost them money; slash teacher pay for the next two years; take away their earned step pay increments; and have them become second-class citizens. Wait. Teachers have been deemed second-class for years by the public.

Remember the Fram oil filter man from the commercials in the 1970s? His slogan was, “You can pay me now or pay me later.” Well, you can pay the teacher her true worth and have the type of education we need. Or you can moan and belittle the teachers and pay for your mistakes down the road.

Trust me, the administration does not want the public calling and complaining about class size.

Why not ask why the district has so many administrators? Remember, directors are on the same pay scale as principals and assistant principals. They are just called a different name. They don’t have daily contact with your children, as teachers do. Take a gander at their pay scale and you will see where the fat must be cut.

Kim L. Chesley

Las Vegas

Dig deep

To the editor:

No one can feel good about the outcome of the arbitration between the school district and the teacher union. Although the arbitrator ruled in favor of keeping step raises for teachers, the thought of losing positions as a result can only impact our struggling schools in a negative way.

One way the district can come up with the money in its budget to offset the pay increases – trim the fat from the salaries of administrators and supervisors. If district officials really care about the well-being of students, they need to put their money where their mouth is, so to speak. And maybe that means pulling some out of their own pockets.

J.C. Duncan

Henderson

Religious symbol

To the editor:

Regarding Mary Carter’s Friday letter on the Mojave Desert cross:

Ms. Carter, in endorsing the cross, claims that she and her fellow Christians “are not trying to force our religion on anyone.” Yet at the same time, she argues that “this country needs help” and that “only God is the answer.” Why is it that conservatives such as Ms. Carter trust the government to do nothing other than wage war, yet they believe it is a good idea for that same government to promote their own brand of religion?

Ms. Carter also asks atheists to “stop trying to force [their religion] on us.” Have atheists have been lobbying the government to erect “No God” signs in every public school and courthouse? Does Ms. Carter really not understand the difference between keeping government from taking a stand on religion and the active promotion of atheism?

It is difficult to see how the removal of a government-sponsored religious symbol such as the Mojave Desert cross threatens the faith of believers such as Ms. Carter, as they are still free to worship as they wish with no interference from the government. There is only one reason for such displays, and that is for the government to promote religion to the faithless – an act that is clearly prohibited by the Constitution.

Finally, Ms. Carter feels we would be better off returning to the “good old days” of 60 years ago when, according to her, we were “human beings caring for each other.” Perhaps Ms. Carter is old enough to remember that in 1952, blacks had their very own schools, drinking fountains and place on the bus. In many states, husbands were allowed to rape their wives with impunity and, for some, the use of birth control was prohibited. Is that the “caring for each other” Ms. Carter is talking about?

Good old days, indeed.

Mark J. Chambers

Henderson