Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref
The conclusion was based on the fact that it was printed (I've read so much on this subject, that I don't remember where) that some principals who had stated intentions to vote for the raise, when they heard threats of a walkout, changed their votes.
|
Why didn't these principals vote for the raise last year then, when there was no walkout? Sounds a bit fishy to me, the idea that they were so going to vote for a raise finally, and now they are NOT going to, because a minority f officials walked out?
How do they justify that, btw? Surely the decision about how to pay someone is important enough that they would not let the actions of a minority effect their decision making process....right? Why, that would not be very professional on their part.
Quote:
|
Hard to imagine that an actual walkout would change the votes back. All this occurred, of course, under an existing contract. Refusal to accept the renewal of this contract without a raise, should be easy for all parties to understand, and easy to support.
|
What people say to the media does not often have much to do with how they actually feel though, as opposed to what they think will have the effect they wish to create.
And like I said - they didn't vote for a raise for 21 straight years. Seems to me like it was time to start doing *something* different, since taking it with a smile every year apparently wasn't working.