The public must realize that it is a union leaders job to get the most lucrative contract for their members that they can negotiate. Conversely, it is the job of public officials, i.e. school board members, to negotiate the best educationally oriented contract they can, within the ability of their constituents to pay.

The problem is where you have union leaders unduly influencing management and in effect sitting on both sides of the negotiating table.

When you realize that in the past, Massapequa School District labor contracts have routinely been settled for 2-3 times the annual cost-of-living, you find hard-pressed seniors and young couples unfairly subsidizing the educational industry employees.

But again, you can't blame the union leaders for asking, you must blame the local school boards for giving away public dollars.

As a fairly new school board member, elected May 1997, I feel I helped negotiate a fair labor contract for our MFT teachers. One that was accepted by an overwhelming majority of our teachers, about 3-1, as I remember it. The teachers realizing that their own cost of living was dropping dramatically, averaging under 2 percent during the three year negotiation period, they ignored the inflexibility of many of their more vocal MFT leaders and settled for a fair raise and a reasonable give back package, resulting in a total package, just about the cost of living level of 2 percent.

Unfortunately for some, the school board's makeup changed shortly after the contract was signed, conceivably due to acknowledged union involvement.

Next came extended negotiations with the MFT secretarial unit, who in the judgment of some, had been delaying their final negotiations until they could see what their associates in the MFT teachers unit settled for.

Considering the fact that our secretaries work a full "education industry year," at least more than the 180-185 day years that teachers in New York State traditionally work, they were not overpaid. Yet they demanded and received salary increases well over those given to the teachers and well above the cost of living rate, by then having dropped to about 1.7 percent.

Unfortunately, just as I predicted, Massapequa School District elected officials are now confronted with other school union demands for even higher raises than those given the secretarial or teachers units, even while Social Security Commissioner Kenneth Apfel indicated, Social Security recipients will get the smallest annual cost-of-living increase in a dozen years, an average of $10 a month, the downside of the robust economy that is keeping inflation low. This anticipated increase has now dropped to about 1.3 percent, down from 1.9 percent last year. Actually, it is closer to only 1.1 percent, as the hard-pressed seniors will soon have to pay Federal mandated increases in their Medicare premiums of 3.3 percent, cutting down the meager $10 a month to a little over $8.

It seems logical that all school board officials should reflect on prioritizing the use of tax dollars; with first priority to be given to the educational needs of our children, second to the ability of local taxpayers to pay, and third being satisfying union member needs or demands. If school board officials could publicly repudiate anticipated union political support in their May '98 school board election strategies or contract negotiation strategies, we would all be better off.

Robert S. Thompson