MR

And I absolutely love it. Union won't allow the letting go of horrible teachers who have seniority, or are tenured....next best thing, fire their asses then hire back the good ones......amidst a budget crunch, this couldn't come at a better time....

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/02/23/national/main20035613.shtml

http://newsblog.projo.com/2011/02/all-providence-teachers-to-rec.html

http://www.newsy.com/videos/providence-ri-fires-all-teachers/

Awesome.

I also say awesome

I can't believe that numbskull at the end of the article compared the situation to the U.S. getting attacked by Japan at Pearl Harbor.

conversationpc wrote:I can't believe that numbskull at the end of the article compared the situation to the U.S. getting attacked by Japan at Pearl Harbor.

Just goes to show what kind of education kids are getting in RI...

Personally, I do not shed one tear for teachers. I do not agree with reaching such a point that no matter what you do 'wrong' - there is no recourse. I do not believe in seniority, and I do not believe entirely in tenure. I had a college professor, who later I learned left a college in VT due to questions raised about him, who kicked me out of a course because I missed a class due to my father having a heart attack. He did not care why, only that I did, indeed, miss his class. it was a high level psychology course in which we were doing work that he would later publish and get credit for. He made a stink about it, and I was kicked out of the class. I cornered him in the hall one day and asked what logical basis he had for kicking me out. He explained that I was an adult, and my priorities were out of whack. I, again, explained about my father's heart attack, even bringing in hospital paperwork. He still didn't care....to which he explained that his work was of utmost importance and he needed professional students that would carry out his instructions, and he needed to make a deadline for publication, and I had set him back....and he can't get that time back - he said it wasn't fair that he shows up, and I didn't. To which I immediately blurted out, "Hmmm, so let me get this straight Dr. Malloy, I'm paying for this course, paying your salary...but I can't be excused due to an extreme family issue? And furthermore, how about the times when I showed up for class, only to find out that you, Dr. Malloy, took the day off for a reason I really don't care about? Can I have part of my tuition back for those instances where *I* showed up, and *YOU* didn't?" he said i could try, but he was tenured, and nothing could be done about it. I took the issue up with some school board thing.....he won, and I had no further recourse.

Teachers claim they care about kids, and go into the biz because they love to teach. These people do not go into this profession to become rich. But somewhere along the line they lose that fire they once had - and turn into politicians. Striking every fucking time their contract is up for renewal.

It strikes me as odd that teachers often complain about having to buy the supplies to effectively teach their classes (and I know this does in fact happen), yet if the school system didn't have to pay out the extra monies in their benefits, perhaps they would be able to afford those necessary supplies... It annoys the piss out of me every year to have to stock my kids' classrooms with tissues, clorox wipes and hand sanitizer. I have no problem providing paper, pencils, stuff like that, but tissues and cleaning supplies... WTF!

I totally respect teachers and the work they do, especially in today's society! It is a thankless PIA job. With all that's going on in the country and all the light that's been shed on them lately with respect to the union debates, I guess I'm just not as sympathetic as I once was. Besides... I want my summers off too!!!

The headlines (as usual) on this story are VERY misleading. I just saw this story on the local news and Providence isn't coming close to firing all of their teachers. Apparently, their contract stipulates that any layoff notices MUST be given by March 1st, which is just a few days away. Providence simply did this to ensure that they were compliant with the union's contract and will later sort out who is going and who isn't.

Enigma869 wrote:The headlines (as usual) on this story are VERY misleading. I just saw this story on the local news and Providence isn't coming close to firing all of their teachers. Apparently, their contract stipulates that any layoff notices MUST be given by March 1st, which is just a few days away. Providence simply did this to ensure that they were compliant with the union's contract and will later sort out who is going and who isn't.

They have been fired....teachers will have to reapply for employment. This way, the school system can hire back either younger, cheaper teachers, or hire back the good ones - and ditch the useless bad ones....if they laid them off, they'd have to hire back by seniority. That's what's going on....

S2M wrote:

Enigma869 wrote:The headlines (as usual) on this story are VERY misleading. I just saw this story on the local news and Providence isn't coming close to firing all of their teachers. Apparently, their contract stipulates that any layoff notices MUST be given by March 1st, which is just a few days away. Providence simply did this to ensure that they were compliant with the union's contract and will later sort out who is going and who isn't.

They have been fired....teachers will have to reapply for employment. This way, the school system can hire back either younger, cheaper teachers, or hire back the good ones - and ditch the useless bad ones....if they laid them off, they'd have to hire back by seniority. That's what's going on....

Sorry, I know this is an older issue, but I had my computer down a while.

I am a non Union teacher. I don't like Unions. Now having that said, I want to say something on teachers behalf.

Yes there are bad teachers.
Yes, they should have worked with their gov officials to avoid closing.
Do you realize we pay for our retirement funds every month?
Put it this way, if in financial bind would the board hire A unskilled young teachers fresh out of college due to low cost, or B pay for a good teacher who worked hard for years who gets three times as much?
Just food for thought!

What they are going to do is hire back to GOOD teachers, and not hire the lazy ones that are just mailing it in.....Now I agree that this may be a bit shady, but with the powers of the union - these bad teachers couldn't be touched.

Two points for common sense! The school board must have read Charlie's new book to have come up with such a genius idea.

Another thing...for the most part, people need to get over the issue with seniority. I understand the concept, and I think that at it's most basic function - seniority is a good starting point. But at the point where bad workers, in any field, are protected due to years in - something needs to be done.

As an ex-postal worker, I can tell you that I literally because nauseous listening to the older workers whine and bitch because they had to do an extra 15 minute split on a route in which the regular carrier was out sick....Not only did seniority get to pick which routes, or which pieces of the route they did for overtime, but they also got to actaly refuse the OT...which was good for me because I wanted all the extra time I could get. But the negative was in the winter - delivering mail in pitch black darkness, in unfamiliar territory(a route I didn't know well), with a minor's light on my head....all this whining made it possible forus newbies to get back WELL after dark, and made the supervisors stay past the usual closing time....and these are the supervisors that get bonuses for the time they save each month....they weren't saving money when the regulars would bitch every day.

Seniority has more negatives than positives, IMHO....cause the older people get, the more lazy they become in the workplace. Here I am, unemployed for the past 16 months, want to work....submitted WELL over 150 applications, resume on monster.com - and I haben't even sniffed a call back....and unions are protecting lazy, bad workers with seniority...and in companies without unions - seniority reigns supreme as well....

artist4perry wrote:

S2M wrote:

Enigma869 wrote:The headlines (as usual) on this story are VERY misleading. I just saw this story on the local news and Providence isn't coming close to firing all of their teachers. Apparently, their contract stipulates that any layoff notices MUST be given by March 1st, which is just a few days away. Providence simply did this to ensure that they were compliant with the union's contract and will later sort out who is going and who isn't.

They have been fired....teachers will have to reapply for employment. This way, the school system can hire back either younger, cheaper teachers, or hire back the good ones - and ditch the useless bad ones....if they laid them off, they'd have to hire back by seniority. That's what's going on....

Sorry, I know this is an older issue, but I had my computer down a while.

I am a non Union teacher. I don't like Unions. Now having that said, I want to say something on teachers behalf.

Yes there are bad teachers.
Yes, they should have worked with their gov officials to avoid closing.
Do you realize we pay for our retirement funds every month?
Put it this way, if in financial bind would the board hire A unskilled young teachers fresh out of college due to low cost, or B pay for a good teacher who worked hard for years who gets three times as much?
Just food for thought!

A4P, I think you make a good point, but I think this speaks to the broader overall issue of pro or against unions, and what strength they have in certain matters in this case, tenure, senority. In your situation, you aren't union so you are making many if not all the same financial contributions that many of the rest of us are. I try to stay neutral in political type conversations as best I can, but for many unions, and a lot of teacher unions, they aren't paying into this or are not paying at the % of the common individual. The school systems/local governments are paying, but in reality you and I are paying because it comes out of our taxes, and the tax payers are tired of footing such bills, especially when the status quo usually is just increase taxes.

A non-teacher example: I work with a woman whose husband is in law enforcement in NJ. He pays NOTHING into his benefits and not much, if anything, into his retirement. The state pays for everything, and of course he's part of a union. I am a volunteer firefighter and have the utmost respect for police, fire, and emergency professionals, and understand what potential dangers they face, as do they, so this isn't anything against their profession. But, why as a tax payer do I or anyone else need to subsidize this guy's benefit package 100%? His wife is bitching and moaning that Gov. Chris Christie is an asshole and is talking about reforming this/that, so he actually has to pay something. The damn state, as are many others, is broke. You can't spend what you don't have, and you can't just keep taxing everyone to try and make up the difference. They have been mismanaged for years, regardless to what party "ran" the state. But in this day an age, anyone on this board would love to have all their benefits and retirement compensation handed to them, without paying a penny. My paycheck would be awesome if I wasn't paying into my insurance and such.

I am all for people getting the best compensation from their employer, in a safe working environment, assuming they have the skills to do the job. But at some point there has to be a realization that in SOME cases, these people have it beyond good.

marco17 wrote:


A non-teacher example: I work with a woman whose husband is in law enforcement in NJ. He pays NOTHING into his benefits and not much, if anything, into his retirement. The state pays for everything, and of course he's part of a union. I am a volunteer firefighter and have the utmost respect for police, fire, and emergency professionals, and understand what potential dangers they face, as do they, so this isn't anything against their profession. But, why as a tax payer do I or anyone else need to subsidize this guy's benefit package 100%? His wife is bitching and moaning that Gov. Chris Christie is an asshole and is talking about reforming this/that, so he actually has to pay something. The damn state, as are many others, is broke. You can't spend what you don't have, and you can't just keep taxing everyone to try and make up the difference. They have been mismanaged for years, regardless to what party "ran" the state. But in this day an age, anyone on this board would love to have all their benefits and retirement compensation handed to them, without paying a penny. My paycheck would be awesome if I wasn't paying into my insurance and such.

I am all for people getting the best compensation from their employer, in a safe working environment, assuming they have the skills to do the job. But at some point there has to be a realization that in SOME cases, these people have it beyond good.

Hence, the comparison of Unionism to Socialism in some quarters.