The people's voice., 1957-11-01


Teachers Union for that favor. In
1850 the Butte Teachers Union
brought to the Montana Supreme
Court a case to test teachers rights
against compulsory retirement. The
Montana Supreme Court ruled in
favor of the position taken by the
Butte Teachers Union. That judicial
body held that school boards could
not make a ruling which negated the
state retirement law provision which
gives teachers a ten-year optional
retirement period between the ages
of 60 and 70. At 70 retirement is
compulsory. School boards must COM
ply with the law and not arbitrarily
set an age earlier than 70 as COM
pulsory as Helena was doing.
5. Mr.. Cooper states, ''The writer
of the article objects to these eight
Butte teachers wanting the same
salaries on the salary schedule as
the union teachers" l have carefully
reread the letter in THE PEOPLES
VOICE, September issue, and no
where did | find stated objection
to that effect. 1t seems to me that
the writer wanted to put in print
some information to clarity miscon-
ceptions and erroneous facts" being
circulated in Butte and elsewhere.
He objects, it would appear. to the
eight anti-union teachers initiation
of union-breaking litigation while at
the same time they want the salaries
secured through union action. When
these eight teachers received their
contracts in the spring of 1856 their
salaries and the terms under which
they would secure them were exactly
the same as those of all Butte teach
ers with the same training and ex-
perience. These women deleted the
parts relative to union membership.
then signed the altered contracts and
returned them. This was a counter
offer made outside the accepted
channel of bargaining, the Butte
Teachers Union. | have never known
of a school board accepting that type
of alteration in a contract.
Further, in Montana. the single
salary principle was adopted first in
Butte. There is nothing in school law
which guarantees that teachers be
paid on a single salary schedule. It
is a principle in which I believe, bat
it is achieved through local negotia-
tion.
In Livingston, Montana, where the
MEA is highly organized, the grade
school teachers with BA degrees are
paid considerably less than high
school teachers with BA degrees.
Now l know that the grade schools
IF Livingston and the high school
here are operated by different
boards of education. Nevertheless.
Why doesn't the MEA ego to bat''
FOR the Livingston grade school teach
ers who have for years Loyalty sup
ported that organization? I am sure
hat there are many areas in MN
ANA in which the situation is as it is |
n Livingston and in which the MEA |
$ we'll organized. Why doesn't the
MEA straighten out these inequities |
n it's own areas?
In point of Mr.. Cooper's letter
lie states that the MEA did all of |
he research and most of the public |
'elations work for the passage of HB
-27. The MEA represents we'll over
$50 of the teachers of Montana and |
% should have large funds f)r re-
earch. l am glad to know it is so
Ioing. However it has Away, been
ny belief that any legislation is a
venture. Certainly the
'tate Department of Public Instruc-
ion which is an Independent govern
mental body and not an appendage
# the MEA must have done some
york on the legislation needed to
nance the schools. l know, too, that
nion teachers sent kilograms and
nade phone calls to secure the pas
age of HB 127. did so myself. The
1ontana State AFL-CIO under the
BILE leadership of President James S.
Jmber, former school teacher, sup
orted all legislation to provide the
ublic schools of Montana with suffi-
lent funds. The Montana Federation
f Teachers had two part-time lobby
,ts at the LEGISLATURE who to NV