Throwing Down the Gauntlet

Having been given the mandate by our gracious blog host to continue discussing the bargaining strategy of the MTEA, it is here that I throw down the gauntlet and ask Sarah Fadness, "Why no response to my most recent post?"

I've been involved in too many debates with hard-core MTEA backers to believe she would just sit back and agree with the things said in my last post. I find it amazing that she hasn't challenged me for saying the MTEA is fighting the wrong battles.

Perhaps she needs more material. So Sarah, here's what I'd like you to do. There is no confusion about the fact that the MTEA is livid about the decision regarding the health-care benefits. In addition, the Union takes no issue with stating that it's health-care plan would have saved the District more money. Would you please, for the benefit of our audience, specifically explain the differences between the District and Union health-care proposals. Most notably, would you please address the issue of exactly how the Union's health-care proposal would have been more financially viable for the District, preferably addressing both the short, as well as long-term effects.

My feeling is that this will lead to one of two things: Either you provide an explanation that will clearly outline why the Union proposal was the superior plan, or... the explanation will remain vague and ambiguous, in which case I will try and counter by explaining why I think the arbitrator and the public simply didn't rally behind the teachers. In either case, it's a fantastic opportunity for us to put the issue of health care more firmly in the public eye, something I think we both agree needs to be done.