School is changing our contracts in the spring

[PsyGuy]

I disagree with @Sid. It may be take the new contract or leave it, but it may be an opportunity for you to re-bargain and negotiate. There might be some discretion that leadership has in those new contracts. You could approach leadership and if your valuable enough get some of that back. Sometimes ISs and leaders will pull something like this just to see if they can get away with it and to what degree. They may simply be using current events to justify a pull back of befits and coin, simply because they can and leadership that saves coin is rarely if ever disciplined or sanctioned. If your worth X in the market you may have more leverage than you think.

@Heliotrope

No, it happens ALL the time, that it doesnt happen on a large scale and instead is small scale doesnt make it a rarity.
That an IS chooses to honor its contracts doesnt change the logistics of enforceability of those contracts. Thats what determine the worth of the paper the contract is written on, can the contract be used to enforce the terms of the contract. That an IS chooses to act honorably doesnt mitigate or extenuate the value of the contract itself.
We disagree.

Leadership may not of known, it may have been something ownership was aware of or formulated and didnt convey to leadership for whatever reason (the changes may have effected their contracts as well). Regardless contracts and agreements either mean something or they dont. Contracts arent a suicide pact, and that works both ways, but non-performance of the contract by the IS should put them at the mercy of the IT. The IT should feel nothing about whatever they decide to do. ITs dont owe an IS consideration after the IS breaks the contract.
It could be and its the smart thing to do, to wait to offer adverse terms until its as late as possible in the recruiting cycle, thats how you curve attrition.

@Thames Pirate

Local penalties mean nothing if you can and do leave the country.

[Heliotrope]

PsyGuy wrote:
> @Heliotrope
>
> No, it happens ALL the time, that it doesnt happen on a large scale and
> instead is small scale doesnt make it a rarity.

That's why I added something after saying that 'it doesn't happen all the time':
"but it does not 'happen all the time', at least not in the sense that most teachers are at great risk of it happening to them."


> That an IS chooses to honor its contracts doesnt change the logistics of
> enforceability of those contracts. Thats what determine the worth of the
> paper the contract is written on, can the contract be used to enforce the
> terms of the contract. That an IS chooses to act honorably doesnt mitigate
> or extenuate the value of the contract itself.
> We disagree.

A contract is worth something if that contract is honored by the school, even if it inconveniences them.
Yes, some schools don't, and those contracts aren't worth much, and some teachers break contract and leave and those contracts weren't worth much either.
I get your point about the enforceability, but in many countries you'd still have a pretty good shot at holding a school to the contract (of the teachers I know that sued their school, most won), but many teachers just don't bother. I'm not sure I would either to be honest, even if I knew I had a good chance of winning, depending on what was at stake of course.
We disagree.

[PsyGuy]

@Heliotrope

We disagree.
The integrity of the contract itself and the character of the ISs ownership and leadership are not synonymous with one another. That an ISs leadership chooses to act honorably does not transfer some degree of credence to the contract, if it CAN be discarded with little effect.