Please click on the pages below to see a larger version. Please click on "comments" to leave a comment.
2 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I don't know enough to comment intelligently on these suggestions, but, on their face, some of these seem like important points to consider. I'm sure district employees could offer a lot of ideas like these. Were their opinions or ideas on cost savings sought?
Clothing/uniform allowance also extends to supervisors and administrative secretaries. This is unbelievable to me. I am not convinced any group should have a clothing allowance, period. Everyone who works anywhere has to buy clothes to wear to work. Should we all have clothing allowances? I am required to wear a suit at work; should my employer buy my suits? If a uniform allowance is necessary, then shouldn't a uniform be required. The only "uniform" I see at the schools is an LPS patch that has been sewn to an article of clothing of the person's choosing. I could understand if employees were required to wear an actual uniform, for security purposes, so there is no mistake of who is in the buildings. But that is not what I see at the buildings. None of the employees are actually in uniform, so why pay the allowance. It would be cheaper to stock the patches to give employees to attach to their own clothes. Or have them wear an easy defining article of clothing, such as a vest with the LPS logo. "No uniforms" should be "no uniform alowance."
And longevity should be bargained OUT of the contracts? Isn't a salary, an annual increase, plus step increases, and increases for degrees and college hours sufficient for pay? Already this is much more than people receive in the business world. Longevity is just another obvious place to cut costs that escapes the administration and the BOE.
2 comments:
I don't know enough to comment intelligently on these suggestions, but, on their face, some of these seem like important points to consider. I'm sure district employees could offer a lot of ideas like these. Were their opinions or ideas on cost savings sought?
Clothing/uniform allowance also extends to supervisors and administrative secretaries. This is unbelievable to me. I am not convinced any group should have a clothing allowance, period. Everyone who works anywhere has to buy clothes to wear to work. Should we all have clothing allowances? I am required to wear a suit at work; should my employer buy my suits? If a uniform allowance is necessary, then shouldn't a uniform be required. The only "uniform" I see at the schools is an LPS patch that has been sewn to an article of clothing of the person's choosing. I could understand if employees were required to wear an actual uniform, for security purposes, so there is no mistake of who is in the buildings. But that is not what I see at the buildings. None of the employees are actually in uniform, so why pay the allowance. It would be cheaper to stock the patches to give employees to attach to their own clothes. Or have them wear an easy defining article of clothing, such as a vest with the LPS logo. "No uniforms" should be "no uniform alowance."
And longevity should be bargained OUT of the contracts? Isn't a salary, an annual increase, plus step increases, and increases for degrees and college hours sufficient for pay? Already this is much more than people receive in the business world. Longevity is just another obvious place to cut costs that escapes the administration and the BOE.
Post a Comment