Asked to sign new contract while in the middle of a contract
Asked to sign new contract while in the middle of a contract
Hello, our school as is asking teachers to sign a new contract while in the middle of a contract. For example, signing a new one year contract with different benefits while in the middle of a 2 year contract. The contract they are offering has some gains and some takeways. But just wondering how common this is? Thank you.
Re: Asked to sign new contract while in the middle of a cont
I've seen it happen, not too often.
When I saw it before, one school was re-doing the contract overall and wanted everyone on the same page. They were fixing up the old mess of having tons of individual contracts with individual clauses, and wanted it all neat and tidy. People who didn't want to sign a new one didn't have to, they could stick to the old one until it expired, but overall it was a better deal to sign the new one.
School two was re-doing the pay scale, so everyone was getting raises. They also put in writing the pre-existing expectation that teachers all lead an after-school activity. So again, you didn't have to sign a new one, you could wait until the old one ran out, but if you did that you wouldn't get the raise. It felt heavy-handed to me, the way it was presented, but really wasn't a bad thing, just needed to be framed differently.
Are you being told you HAVE to sign the new one? You shouldn't have to, since you have a contract. But if it's all about equal in the end, why not sign? Just read it carefully to make sure you're not missing something crucial.
When I saw it before, one school was re-doing the contract overall and wanted everyone on the same page. They were fixing up the old mess of having tons of individual contracts with individual clauses, and wanted it all neat and tidy. People who didn't want to sign a new one didn't have to, they could stick to the old one until it expired, but overall it was a better deal to sign the new one.
School two was re-doing the pay scale, so everyone was getting raises. They also put in writing the pre-existing expectation that teachers all lead an after-school activity. So again, you didn't have to sign a new one, you could wait until the old one ran out, but if you did that you wouldn't get the raise. It felt heavy-handed to me, the way it was presented, but really wasn't a bad thing, just needed to be framed differently.
Are you being told you HAVE to sign the new one? You shouldn't have to, since you have a contract. But if it's all about equal in the end, why not sign? Just read it carefully to make sure you're not missing something crucial.
Re: Asked to sign new contract while in the middle of a cont
My last school did have something like that too - our salaries were written into the contract, and after the first year the owners announced an increase. That meant to get it we had to sign an amendment to the contract which also had some other (innocuous) bits in it too.
There's lots of reasons why schools do this - some for pretty underhand reasons, but even then ultimately you don't have to sign it and either you continue on the old terms and conditions or they sack you (and you submit a review to ISR naming them!) If there's no detriment to you, though, it's probably not worth debating.
There's lots of reasons why schools do this - some for pretty underhand reasons, but even then ultimately you don't have to sign it and either you continue on the old terms and conditions or they sack you (and you submit a review to ISR naming them!) If there's no detriment to you, though, it's probably not worth debating.
-
secondplace
- Posts: 191
- Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2016 12:40 pm
Re: Asked to sign new contract while in the middle of a cont
This came up at a previous school but it was in the context of a revised, and improved, payscale so no one was losing anything, only gaining.
At a different school there was a change in the legal status of the school - change of legal name and governance - so contracts were amended to reflect this, but were identical in terms and conditions.
So, it does happen sometimes.
At a different school there was a change in the legal status of the school - change of legal name and governance - so contracts were amended to reflect this, but were identical in terms and conditions.
So, it does happen sometimes.
Response
Its one of three scenarios:
THE GOOD:
For some reason they want to give you/staff more. This is the scenario you dont worry about. This is extremely rare, because an IS can always just make a policy along with an announcement and then just increase the coin or the benefit. When ISs do this its because they are expecting the documentation to be inspected or for some regulatory requirement.
THE BAD:
The IS wants to swap something. They want to give you something of minor benefit in exchange for taking something of more significant benefit. They want to substitute your current benefit for a lessor one. if they were just giving you better it would be the 'Good" scenario above, just do it, who would complain about better or more.
THE UGLY:
The want to give you less and youre there on the ground well after all the recruiting is over and you have a much weaker position. This is the more common scenario, often presented as you agree and sign or they dismiss you. Smart leadership will look for someone to make an example of early and dismiss them swiftly with nothing, and make sure everyone hears about it.
Its also possible that as @Sid indicated the IS is just cleaning up contracts , though most ISs will just do it at renewal or end of contract with a new contract. Thoroughly review the contract for any differences, very small changes can have major repercussions, something as short and simple as "The staff policy handbook is further incorporated as part of this agreement" seems innocuous but gives the IS essentially free hand to do almost anything. ISs will change the format, and organization of the contract to conceal changes, you thus need to compare the substance of the contract terms.
THE GOOD:
For some reason they want to give you/staff more. This is the scenario you dont worry about. This is extremely rare, because an IS can always just make a policy along with an announcement and then just increase the coin or the benefit. When ISs do this its because they are expecting the documentation to be inspected or for some regulatory requirement.
THE BAD:
The IS wants to swap something. They want to give you something of minor benefit in exchange for taking something of more significant benefit. They want to substitute your current benefit for a lessor one. if they were just giving you better it would be the 'Good" scenario above, just do it, who would complain about better or more.
THE UGLY:
The want to give you less and youre there on the ground well after all the recruiting is over and you have a much weaker position. This is the more common scenario, often presented as you agree and sign or they dismiss you. Smart leadership will look for someone to make an example of early and dismiss them swiftly with nothing, and make sure everyone hears about it.
Its also possible that as @Sid indicated the IS is just cleaning up contracts , though most ISs will just do it at renewal or end of contract with a new contract. Thoroughly review the contract for any differences, very small changes can have major repercussions, something as short and simple as "The staff policy handbook is further incorporated as part of this agreement" seems innocuous but gives the IS essentially free hand to do almost anything. ISs will change the format, and organization of the contract to conceal changes, you thus need to compare the substance of the contract terms.