Letter: Negotiating rules are legitimate

Regarding "Consider tax caps, open negotiations" [Letters, Oct. 12], the writer presents a one-sided view of the Taylor Law's Triborough Amendment, and a lack of understanding of the negotiations process.

Requiring continuation of contract provisions allows for stability while negotiations continue. The writer's claim that "employee unions can simply hold out indefinitely, because they still get step (longevity) increases" paints a one-sided and inaccurate picture. In my experience, school boards have more often been the party that prolongs the process -- in one case, as long as five years. Can you imagine the temptations for boards to hold out forever if employees would lose health benefits, as well as other hard-earned contract provisions and benefits? The Taylor Law does not provide finality to the process, so that either party cannot decide to just say no.

Granting step increases is a problem that can be easily solved. Just reduce the gap between starting and final salary from as much as 25 years to seven years -- the time it takes many police and other public employees to reach maximum pay.

The writer also suggests an "open" negotiations process, one that no responsible negotiator would support. Residents are presently well-represented by the board members they elect. The board in turn hires experienced, competent and well-paid lawyers to represent its views. Nothing positive would result from taxpayers, teachers, parents, etc., weighing in at public meetings while negotiations are going on.

Ed Goldstein, Baiting Hollow

Editor's note: The writer is a negotiator who represented school administrators in negotiations with Long Island school districts.