Insanity

[Embar Angylwrath]

Some in NY do choose to quit rather than ride out the years long process. That doesn't mean quiting is the solution to streamlining the disiplinary process. As for Kulaf's "fix", that seems really extreme to address a problem that the district itself says only affects 0.009% of teachers. Seems more like he just wants to eliminate the union and isn't concerned with addressing the actual problems with the disiplinary process.

So you retract your previous statement about people benig forced to sit in the room. You acknowledge its a personal choice on their part, and since its a personal choice, then any so-called psychological damage they receive from sitting in the room is the result of their choice. Glad you see it the correct way.

Also, does it really make sense to spend millions of dollars to protect 0.009% of the teachers? Life isn't perfect, sometimes people get the shaft. But couldn't those dollars be better spent on books/meals/classroom supplies than protecting 0.009% of the teachers?

[Kulaf]

Yup....called that one right:

Effective immediately, the DOE must adhere to the following timelines, from the date of the reassignment, for affected employees:

•The amount of time for the chancellor’s Office of Special Investigations to conduct an investigation will be 90 days.
•The amount of time to transfer a criminal case to the Administrative Trials Unit will be 30 days.
•The amount of time for the DOE to draft 3020A charges will be 40 days.

[Lurker]

So you retract your previous statement about people benig forced to sit in the room. You acknowledge its a personal choice on their part, and since its a personal choice, then any so-called psychological damage they receive from sitting in the room is the result of their choice. Glad you see it the correct way.

Ha!!!

You are reprising Kulaf's idiotic argument (with Rsak joining in) from the Attorney firing scandal where he insisted they weren't "forced to resign" because they chose to resign instead of being fired. You even participated, equating "force" with "coerce". For people familiar with english either word applies.

Also, does it really make sense to spend millions of dollars to protect 0.009% of the teachers?

Nobody is defending the system NY uses.

Yup....called that one right:

There was a good faith agreement between the union and the district with the goal to shorten the time required to discipline teachers. No, they didn't agree to remove all protections and have on-the-spot firings, but there was more to the agreement than what you listed.

[Kulaf]

So what exactly did the union give to help weed out "bad" teachers?

[Embar Angylwrath]

And why are you dodging my question? (@Lurker)

[Lurker]

So what exactly did the union give to help weed out "bad" teachers?

The question asked was if the union was interested in speeding up the process. The union agreed to an increase in arbitrators, an increase in arbitration dates, and testimony by phone, in addition to sticking to a tighter schedule.

And why are you dodging my question?

I did answer your question. Nobody is defending the disciplinary system used in NY. If you want a fuller answer... Yes, the money would be better spent on all the things you listed. But removing all protections would result in a lot more innocent people getting the shaft, and the money likely wouldn't make it into the classroom anyways.

I understand we have a fundamental disagreement here. You want to abolish the unions. I get it. I think the protections are important but there are obvious areas that need to be improved.

Edit: Just to add, and as I've said several times... The unions need to make it easier to fire bad teachers.

[Kulaf]

So the answer is nothing. Yeah.

[Lurker]

That wasn't the purpose of the agreement and it wasn't the question asked.

I agree unions need to step up to the plate and help weed out bad teachers. Obama made it clear that needs to be part of education reform.

[Kulaf]

Wait helping getting rid of bad teachers who might in fact be clogging up the entire system doesn't help speed up the process? Come on......that is being a bit disengenuous.

[Partha]

Question.

If they investigate and find nothing, then the teacher isn't guilty of being a bad teacher, correct?

If they investigate and find something, the teacher gets fired, correct?

The article makes the NY system seem much like Guantanamo by Dummies. The teachers aren't guilty of anything yet, because they haven't been disciplined or fired, they're in limbo until they get investigated and either cleared or fired. That by itself doesn't make them 'bad', anymore than getting arrested makes someone 'guilty' until they've actually had a trial.

[Kulaf]

Question.

If they investigate and find nothing, then the teacher isn't guilty of being a bad teacher, correct?

If they investigate and find something, the teacher gets fired, correct?

The article makes the NY system seem much like Guantanamo by Dummies. The teachers aren't guilty of anything yet, because they haven't been disciplined or fired, they're in limbo until they get investigated and either cleared or fired. That by itself doesn't make them 'bad', anymore than getting arrested makes someone 'guilty' until they've actually had a trial.

Ok....John Doe is accused of touching little Billy's no no. Do you leave him in the class room until you can decide if he is guilty or not? Or course not. You have to err on the side of protecting the children. Now of course both sides could agree on some other work these people could be doing to actually EARN their pay. But that is another point of debate.

[Partha]

What would you be having a teacher do instead of teaching or sitting? And wouldn't you be calling that kind of makework wasteful anyways?

If they can't prove he touched the kid in 40 or 60 days, then I don't know what to tell them. But like Lurker said, you're all about the union busting.

[Kulaf]

I'm about protecting workers that NEED protection. A bunch of college educated people in a low risk job don't need protection.

I think it is wasteful to pay people for doing nothing. I am sure there is administrative work they could be doing.....there is seemingly a backlog right?

[Partha]

I'm about protecting workers that NEED protection. A bunch of college educated people in a low risk job don't need protection.

You're not only shortsighted, you're wrong. What about secretaries who need protection from sexually harassing bosses? How about accountants who can be threatened with firing if they are too vigorous about opposing bad ideas that management has? Every employee needs protection as long as the boss can use the threat of unemployment to force them to do things that are dangerous or who use that threat to coerce them into doing something illegal or who use that threat for personal gain from that employee. Only a fool thinks otherwise.

I think it is wasteful to pay people for doing nothing. I am sure there is administrative work they could be doing.....there is seemingly a backlog right?

Evidently there's a backlog of complaints against teachers. Maybe we should have teachers on administrative leave investigate complaints!

[Kulaf]

I'm about protecting workers that NEED protection. A bunch of college educated people in a low risk job don't need protection.

You're not only shortsighted, you're wrong. What about secretaries who need protection from sexually harassing bosses? How about accountants who can be threatened with firing if they are too vigorous about opposing bad ideas that management has? Every employee needs protection as long as the boss can use the threat of unemployment to force them to do things that are dangerous or who use that threat to coerce them into doing something illegal or who use that threat for personal gain from that employee. Only a fool thinks otherwise.

I think it is wasteful to pay people for doing nothing. I am sure there is administrative work they could be doing.....there is seemingly a backlog right?

Evidently there's a backlog of complaints against teachers. Maybe we should have teachers on administrative leave investigate complaints!

Gee and here I thought we were discussing unions. But I guess you need it spelled out for you so here we go. Highly educated people working in low risk jobs do not need UNION protection.

God yer a dumb ass.

[Lurker]

Well, the Village Voice story you linked seems to indicate otherwise. It is good to know you are pro-union for uneducated people in physically dangerous jobs though. That's progress.

[Harlowe]

I am for that!

[Kulaf]

Well, the Village Voice story you linked seems to indicate otherwise. It is good to know you are pro-union for uneducated people in physically dangerous jobs though. That's progress.

I am for sane unions for people who may not have a lot of choices due to the economic conditions in their area. As I have said I grew up in a union household and have heard all of the stories both good and bad. The problem is based in organizational behavior and how the union itself and its survival starts to become more important than its original intent. When the union starts making decesions so it doesn't lose power rather than in the best interests of its members then things go horribly wrong.

[Lurker]

I agree with most of that. We just have a difference of opinion on how to solve the problem, and I think the unions still have an important role to play.

Look at the situation in NY. There are bad teachers that the union is protecting when they probably shouldn't, and there are good teachers that are falsely accused and in danger of losing their career.

I want to push the union into making it easier to remove bad teachers. That would be a win-win for everyone. You want to abolish the union. Sure, that would make it easier to remove bad teachers, but it would also guarantee an untold number of good teachers get the shaft.

You can say the union would never agree to this or that, but like I said earlier, union concessions are a hell of a lot more likely to happen than the union just vanishing.

[Kulaf]

Well when I say that.....am I wrong? The only time I have ever seen a union backpeddle for anything significant is when it is faced with its own destruction. Like the UAW. Unless the union itself is in jeapordy.......things will not change because it is not in the unions own self interest as an entity to allow change.