Changes to contract are wrong
Re “Contract conflict threatens school district detente” (Editorials, Nov. 22): The district and union’s negotiating teams agreed upon terms for a new contract, and members of the union and the board of education voted to approve it. Included in that contract are a 30-minute lunch break, student contact numbers for prep teachers and the health benefit plans offered to the personnel covered in the district and union’s collective bargaining agreement. Days after ratifying it, the district informed its employees that the health benefit offerings had been unilaterally changed.
In addition to being illegal and dishonest, making a unilateral change to the agreement is wrong. As a teacher, I can’t unilaterally decide to bypass the agreement’s language and open my classroom door at 10 a.m. or send the kids home at 1 p.m.
I love my job, and I love teaching kids how to gain new knowledge. I will continue to love these things, and I want to do so with the health care plans that are offered to me in my district and union’s agreement.
Never miss a local story.
Jody Bone, first-grade teacher, Sacramento City Unified School District
Helping the homeless
Re “Sacramento leaders dither as homeless people shiver” (Editorials, Nov. 23): We are spending more than $400,000 for each unit of housing, like Mercy and Hotel Berry for the homeless and low-income folks. This helps only the developers. We need to make better use of the millions we spend on homeless shelters.
Evan Jones, Sacramento
How low must schools go?
Re “Tuck is a challenge for Dems coalition” (Daniel Morain, Nov. 2) Marshall Tuck was endorsed by every major newspaper in California. Yet the Democrat populace followed their political leaders and conformed to the pied-piper tactics of the state teachers unions. The unions win but the students and their families lose again. Our schools rank No. 45 in the nation. How low must they sink before the electorate takes action?
Paul Lozancich, Fair Oaks
Pathetic 49ers offense
Re “Old-fashioned stuffing” (Sports, Nov. 28): The 49ers offense has been pathetic the entire season. Greg Roman needs to talk to the offensive coach at Folsom High School. That team knows how to put points on the board.
Dan Buntjer, Sacramento
Why fear carbon fees?
Re “Drivers to start shouldering the costs of carbon auction (Page A1, Nov. 28): What seems to be missing in the discussion of carbon pricing, as we nervously gauge the bulk of our wallets, is the larger issue of morality. Do we need to consider the fate of our grandchildren? Or do we let the chips fall where they may?
Whatever we decide, future generations will look back at us and know that we took this decision in the face of scientific evidence as obvious as the rising tide. Ignorance will be no defense. Although California’s cap-and-trade may not be the ideal solution – a revenue-neutral carbon fee would be more transparent – the revenue does not simply disappear into a black hole and take jobs with it. Oil industry propaganda notwithstanding, ordinary people will not suffer in the long run. So why should we fear repealable carbon fees more than forcing irreversible climate change on our grandchildren?
Stephen J. Hardy, Woodland
Protest versus riot
Most of us can appreciate the right to protest. Rioting is another subject and is usually caused by an individual or individuals who see an opportunity to satisfy their own interests.
Inciting a riot is against the law, and from what I have seen and heard on TV, there seems to be enough evidence to single out some individuals for what has occurred over the past few days in Ferguson. It may not be easy, but it may certainly send a message that when you speak to a large audience advocating something other than peaceful protesting, you are on the borderline of being in conflict with the law and subject to its penalty.
John Olsen, Carmichael
Not so law-abiding
Re “Mexican officials warn of scam artists” (Our Region, Nov. 25): The phrase “law-abiding undocumented immigrants” strikes me as odd. Am I the only one who detects a significant contradiction in terms here? These people committed a crime the day they crossed the border into this country without the government’s authorization. They have been criminals each day since. Regardless of whatever rhetoric one chooses to label them in an attempt to evade the facts, the truth remains that they are in this country illegally, and by definition are criminals. Hardly “law-abiding.”
Dave Mosley, Orangevale
Arrogance gone awry
President Obama’s act on immigration might be the most flagrant disregard of the Constitution in recent memory. He said he wanted a discussion on the matter and then decides to go it on his own, blaming Congress for not doing what he wants. It is always Obama’s way or the highway from the moment he told Sen. John McCain “we won John, get over it.” The man through his own words is interested in fundamentally changing this country. He is doing it by circumventing the U.S. Constitution. My parents immigrated here legally. We never received one red cent from the government in benefits, of any kind and we paid for everything after waiting four years in line to get into the country. My wife immigrated when she was 21 doing the same thing, having to prove she had a job and no benefits were afforded her. If we don’t fix our borders soon, our country will become the largest Third World country in existence.
EXTRA LETTERS ONLINE
Find them at:
HOW TO SUBMIT
Online form (preferred):
Other: Letters, P.O. Box 15779,
Sacramento, CA 95852
150-word limit. Include name, address and phone number. Letters may be edited for clarity, brevity and content.