The teachers DID NOT threaten to resign . They said there would be a work stoppage . The board interpreted it as a mass resignation . This however, was an error in the interpretation by the board's solicitor . The board backed down because they would technically lose in this matter. You have to read the previous articles to get the angle on the story .
No, the teachers didn't threaten to resign, but the Superintendant took that stand and the Union backed down - not the board.......... finally a school with some cajones stood up to threats by the teachers union.
I did read the article. The "work stoppage" threat is wimpy and ill-timed. If they're so unhappy, they should resign and wait for for the summer to do so.
Whether work stoppage or resignation: the teachers said they would be unwilling to work for the 2005-6 school year if there was no contract. So if there is no contract, then the board is obligated to suspend the school year, hold the teachers' jobs for a year, and the students have to put a year of their life on hold? Why?