One argument local teachers unions and the Pennsylvania State Education Association have promoted consistently in contract negotiations virtually since the passage of the Public Employees Bargaining Act in 1970 has been that pay and benefits in one district should equal or closely approximate pay and benefits in other nearby districts.

The argument surfaced again during the prolonged contract stalemate in the Seneca Valley School District. For example, an article in the Aug. 10 Butler Eagle quoted Patrick Andrekovich, Seneca Valley Education Association negotiations chairman, as follows:

"One thing our members learned from going through this process is that, as professional educators, economically, we are significantly behind those districts of similar size and wealth. That fact cannot be underestimated."

While teachers unions certainly have the right to try to negotiate a contract that matches pacts that other bargaining units have received, there is more to the scenario than the equality factor. The other main consideration is districts' ability to pay, based on overall needs of their respective school systems.

Seneca Valley, which is a high-growth area with an expanding student population, has had challenges in meeting the needs of students in terms of classrooms, books, extracurricular activities and other components of the educational picture. A district where teacher salaries are higher might be able to pay more partly because of a stable student population and the fact that there is no immediate need to renovate a school or build a new one.

Each school board must make contract decisions based on the situation that exists in its district. What pay and benefits are provided to teachers, administrators and other district personnel should be an individual matter.

Unfortunately, teachers unions and the state education association, for the most part, don't agree, and too many school boards over the years have allowed themselves to succumb to the equality argument — to the detriment of taxpayers, many of whom never receive the size of pay increases and the level of fringe benefits teachers receive year after year.

The attitude of the Seneca Valley Education Association during the contract stalemate that began after its five-year contract expired on June 30, 2006 — the teachers union sought 7 percent pay raises for each year of a new five-year pact — would have guaranteed that district taxpayers could never anticipate a year without a tax increase for the foreseeable future, unless the school board made major cuts somewhere else in the district's operation.

There is no guarantee that tax increases can be avoided even with pay raises of less than 7 percent annually, due to the challenges that the consistently growing district faces for the years ahead.

Teachers or administrators in any district who don't like their pay or fringe benefits have an option: They can seek employment in a district that provides the pay and benefits that they desire.

That's what people in private businesses and industries do. If they don't like what they have at their place of employment, they have the right to move on, and many do.

It must be acknowledged that for school systems to attract and keep talented educators, they must be fair in regard to their pay and benefits. However, there is no obligation for any district to try to equal or approximate what someone else has the resources to give.

Contract disputes lead to friction and erosion of morale, so both sides in negotiations should exhibit flexibility and willingness to compromise.

The best contract is said to be a pact about which neither side is totally happy.

The equality factor works against that premise, and many contract negotiations would proceed more smoothly if that issue were not such a dominating influence on the bargaining table.