<p>jym, that doesn’t make it right. it’s probably a good thing i’m not in the private sector. i realize that not keeping my mouth shut at times has hurt me but i can live with that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You document the poor performance and make sure the teacher has had due process. If a principal does those two things union members can be dismissed as easily as non-union members. As a building rep I can tell you that the only thing we can do is make sure that the teacher has had due process.</p>
<p>A non-tenured teacher, union or not, has virtually no union protection from dismissal.</p>
<p>If you feel better suited for a work environment with guaranteed benefits, union protection and a shift work mindset, thats fine. Fully understand and respect that. But then please don’t mock the people in the private sector who work long hours, with no guaranteed salary, benefit or even employment protection. When I worked in a salaried position I understood that my work required many after-hours responsibilities, coverage/on call duties nights and weekends and vacation that can and was cancelled when they felt they needed me there. I cant speak for the other posters on this thread, but the attitude of “I don’t get paid to do that” just makes me shake my head.</p>
<p>
I didn’t say they have alternatives - I admitted they don’t have any. BUT you seem to believe the school board is unfeeling or has no interest in negotiating. My point was - what is the school board’s alternative? They can’t lock the teachers out. They can’t lay them all off and close the school. And they CANT give them 28% over 3 years. Or anything close to that. Even 2% per year for 3 years will probably require a positive vote from the taxpayers of all 3 towns in this district, many of whom are laid off or have seen their own income go down. So what else can the school board do but wait for the teachers to come to their senses and accept reality? Yes, the teachers need to accept the working conditions that the town offers. Or they are free to look elsewhere for employment - oops, no one else is hiring or paying much better. Well, welcome to the real world.</p>
<p>Tom- to answer your question, I don’t imagine the hirees are clued in to the lack of pay increases/insurance details, but yes, I would say the pay for them is adequate.</p>
<p>I will follow this thread when I get back from school. Going in to help some of my students prepare for a qualifying exam for possible study abroad scholarships for next summer.</p>
<p>“I am a public sector manager (non-union) and my pov is that any manager that blames the union because they will not deal with a poor performer is not doing their job. I feel that argument- the union will not allow me to deal with a poor performer is a canard, a feeble excuse for the manager to not take responsibility for doing their job.”</p>
<p>Interesting but that’s not the way it always works. In the situation I’m thinking of, the kindergarten teacher refused to teach the required subject material and her students were clearly failing relative to other teachers’ students. Fortunatlely she was close to retirement. She finally retired when, the assistant superintendent moved her to a less desirable school (of course dumping the problem onto another school) and threatened to keep moving her.</p>
<p>DocT- but isn’t that exactly what the manager did rather than take responsibility for evaluating the teacher they moved her. I guess that was a calculated way to solve the problem but if the teacher did not retire they had an obligation to document the poor performance.</p>
<p>I just took over a branch of operation and reviewed the performance of the staff. I found they had several employees not performing the duties required for the job. I was told they were not able to perform these functions so I asked the manager to show me in the performance review where it was documented and how it was dealt with. The review said the employees were adequate on all measurements of the job. I had to meet with the two main non-performers and the manager and supervisor and advise them that it will no longer be tolerated. One voluntarily took a demotion and the other has stepped up to the plate and is now doing what he should have always been doing. The manager is now on notice not to allow that nonsense to continue. All of them are in the union and the union made not a peep. I also have a very strong supervisor in another office that has taken control of several poor performers. Their previous supervisor allowed them to coast so they did. The new boss will not allow it. Both have submitted their retirement papers. Again no complaint from the union.
I had a manager (in the union) take control of an office and was then charged with harassment by other union employees. The union and I supported him but our own HR department did not. He ultimately cleaned HR’s clock and was completely exonerated at arbitration.</p>
<p>“DocT- but isn’t that exactly what the manager did rather than take responsibility for evaluating the teacher they moved her. I guess that was a calculated way to solve the problem but if the teacher did not retire they had an obligation to document the poor performance.”</p>
<p>It was documented. The only way of easily getting rid of a teacher in that system is if she is drinking, doing drugs on the job or sexual harrassment.</p>
<p>Why does the Board of Ed allow that? Did they sign away their right to remove poor performers in the contract? I also do not think it should be either easy or impossible to remove a poor performer. Somewhere in the middle is fine.</p>
<p>I have a question for the teachers. Although I have never been in the classroom the first thing I think a good teacher must be able to do is control the classroom. If they can not control the class I do not see how they can adequately teach the subject matter. Am I off base?
To go along with that would cameras in the classroom be a good idea?</p>
<p>tom, please start a new thread for those questions. This one’s about a specific dispute over pay in a district in Mass.</p>
<p>“Why does the Board of Ed allow that? Did they sign away their right to remove poor performers in the contract? I also do not think it should be either easy or impossible to remove a poor performer. Somewhere in the middle is fine.”</p>
<p>This situation I described is in a poor city. The board of education is made up of people who are for the most part not particularly swift and there is a lot of political nonsense that is going on that doesn’t always lend itself to what is best for the kids. None of the parents who kids go to this school are educated - most are on welfare and unfortunately are not in tune or care what their kids are doing.</p>
<p>Late to the party here. Please don’t lump all teachers in the same pot. In terms of sick days, I, too, have around 100. When I retire I can donate some to the sick bank, not sure how many, and the rest are toast.</p>