The Granddaddy of the Rubber Room

[unregistered]

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I guess you want to pick fly shit out of pepper eh? By definition they had a hand in it. I doubt you have a working knowledge of that particular contract or the negotiations that preceded it.

But you do?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

And which procedure did the union install that is preventing this man from being fired?

I don't have the contract in front of me, but you challenged me and I did find a statement by Klein saying unions were a large part of his decision, so at this point, instead of lashing out, you need to play defense.

As a former union steward, I have to ask this at this point, are you rank and file and maybe a little biased in your argument?

__________________
In a Libertarian Society, Unions are a necessary good that improves productivity.
In a Socialist Society, Unions are a redundant evil that reduces productivity.
A_J, the Stupid

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I don't have the contract in front of me, but you challenged me and I did find a statement by Klein saying unions were a large part of his decision, so at this point, instead of lashing out, you need to play defense.

As a former union steward, I have to ask this at this point, are you rank and file and maybe a little biased in your argument?

__________________
In a Libertarian Society, Unions are a necessary good that improves productivity.
In a Socialist Society, Unions are a redundant evil that reduces productivity.
A_J, the Stupid

No, you didn't find a quote by Klein about how unions played a part in this particular case. You found a quote by him about another case and tried to apply it to this case.

The fact is this. The only thing keeping this guy out of the class room is the school chancellor. If the school was to fire him, he could sue for age discrimination. There's nothing the union asked to put in the contract preventing this guy from being fired.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Really?

Similar cases cannot have the same root problems?

Klein is chancellor of New York City's public school system, a monopoly so heavily regulated that sometimes it's unable to fire even dangerous teachers.

The series of steps a principal must take to dismiss an instructor is Byzantine. "It's almost impossible," Klein complains.

The rules were well-intended. The union was worried that principals would play favorites, hiring friends and family members while firing good teachers. If public education were subject to the competition of the free market, those bureaucratic rules would be unnecessary, because parents would hold a bad principal accountable by sending their kids to a different school the next year. But government schools never go out of business, and parents' ability to change schools is sharply curtailed. So the education monopoly adopts paralyzing rules instead.

It looks as if he's speaking about all cases, which makes perfect since because union rules are written to cover most all cases. Again, he didn't fire the teacher simply to save money and resources, part of that problem, logically, having to be the union.

Which local are you in?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

http://commongood.org/burdenquestion-6.html

Of course, the unions have NOTHING to do with the process, just innocent bystanders being hit by drive-by fire...

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Really?

Similar cases cannot have the same root problems?



It looks as if he's speaking about all cases, which makes perfect since because union rules are written to cover most all cases. Again, he didn't fire the teacher simply to save money and resources, part of that problem, logically, having to be the union.

Which local are you in?

You tried to pass off a quote as something that it was not.

Again, this seems to be a question you really don't want to answer. If you remove the union contract would Mr. Pierre have grounds for a lawsuit?


Your attempts to avoid this fact, and change the conversation are not going unnoticed.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I answered the question.

Go back and check.

One New Jersey union representative was even blunter about the work his organization does to keep bad teachers in the classroom, saying: “I’ve gone in and defended teachers who shouldn’t even be pumping gas.”

http://teachersunionexposed.com/protecting.cfm

o why don’t districts try to terminate more of their poor performers? The sad answer is that teachers unions have made the process prohibitively expensive and time-consuming — and the chance of a district prevailing is vanishingly small. In the 2006-2007 school year, for example, New York City fired only 10 of its 55,000 tenured teachers. The cost to eliminate those employees averages out to $163,142, according to Education Week. In New York State, the average is $128,941. In Illinois, Scott Reeder of the Small Newspaper Group found it costs an average of $219,504 in legal fees alone to get a termination case past all the union-supported hurdles. Columbus, Ohio’s own teachers union president admitted to the Associated Press that firing a tenured teacher can cost as much as $50,000. A spokesman for Idaho school administrators told local press that districts have been known to spend “$100,000 or $200,000” in litigation costs just to get rid of a bad teacher.

...


Even Al Shanker, the legendary former president of the American Federation of Teachers, admitted, “a lot of people who have been hired as teachers are basically not competent.”

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I answered the question.

Go back and check.



http://teachersunionexposed.com/protecting.cfm

Dude, seriously??

1. You haven't answered the question. If you have please give the post #.
2. You're resorting to totally misquoting people. You're trying to take quotes about other cases and make them apply to this particular case. Sorry, go try that on someone else.
3. You're completely making things up out of thin air that don't apply to this case. As I have previously stated, there is nothing in this article to imply that Mr. Pierre is not a competent teacher.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Urban teachers union contracts commonly include evaluation systems that verge on meaninglessness. The New Teacher Project documented in its analysis of Chicago’s school district (sadly typical among urban districts when it comes to grading teachers) that 56 percent of principals admit to inflating teacher ratings. The reasons why are striking, and each can be traced back to the union contract:

30 percent of the principals said the teacher’s tenure would prevent dismissal regardless of the rating;

34 percent said it wasn’t worth enduring the lengthy union grievance proceedings;

51 percent said the union contract makes it difficult to lower the rating of a teacher that has previously received high ratings; and

73 percent said that the performance evaluation doesn’t actually evaluate performance.

Disturbingly, TNTP found that “between 2003 and 2006, only nine teachers [out of the district’s nearly 25,000] received two or more ‘unsatisfactory’ ratings and none was dismissed.”

In Washington, D.C., you can see just how hard teachers unions are fighting against increased accountability. After signing a “historic” agreement that traded higher pay for a modest increase in accountability, the Washington Teachers’ Union (WTU) quickly worked to neuter the evaluation system introduced to implement that accountability. When schools chancellor Michelle Rhee set out to fire 241 teachers who had been deemed “ineffective” by the IMPACT evaluation tool, the teachers union immediately threatened to file a class action lawsuit on behalf of the teachers who were let go. In the aftermath, the American Federation of Teachers spent more than a million dollars to defeat Rhee’s boss, Mayor Adrian Fenty, and install a candidate who is far less committed to real education reform.

http://teachersunionexposed.com/teacherevaluations.cfm

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

This can be easily clarified with a direct question.

So you're saying without the union contract, Pierre could be fired and have no legal recourse?

He might have legal recourse, but he would have to either pay for it out of HIS pocket or find a lawyer who believed his case so strong that he would take it on a contingency...

With the Union involved, cost is no object because the union has a steady stream of income from the good teachers who enjoy the same protections as the bad teachers. Therefore, as I posted from Klein's own remarks, the litigation would have been very costly and they probably thought they would wait the guy out and then he'd retire and then he'd be the union's problem but then the guy would not up and retire and you get back to the legal battle with the union.

So while you are correct to say "LOOK! THEY DID NOT FIGHT FOR HIM!" you at once ignore that IMPLIED threat that, yes, they would fight for him and the negotiated procedures as outlined in their contract in order to make sure that the city would never go for a good, or MARGINAL teacher after being punished for firing a BAD teacher, in this case, one of several child-molesters...

Okay?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Are you saying that the only basis to fire is competency?

Look what happens when you try to fire based on that, the examples are legion...

 

[off2bed]

Don't you know? Unions are as clean and pure as the wind-driven snow.

Someone's spider-sense is failing them.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Let me ask the Sgt this question.



Are you saying the union is blameless in this case, that it plays NO part in this teacher not being fired? Is this just a drive-by union smear in your eyes?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Okay?

I missed that post earlier.

What you seem to be saying here is, and I don't want to misquote you, is that the only reason the school hasn't fired him is that he has a lawyer, and would probably win the case.

And for like the 5th time, there is nothing in this article to imply that Mr. Pierre was in the wrong, or is a bad teacher. You're pulling that out of thin air. There's also also no union procedure that is preventing Mr. Pierre from being fired.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Are you saying that the only basis to fire is competency?

Look what happens when you try to fire based on that, the examples are legion...

I've never said that.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Let me ask the Sgt this question.



Are you saying the union is blameless in this case, that it plays NO part in this teacher not being fired? Is this just a drive-by union smear in your eyes?

I don't see any reason to blame the union based on what is provided in the article.

 

[busybody..]

ok

just got back

and NOT gonna read the whole thing

I see SPIDER MAN is still teh BIG DUMMY

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I missed that post earlier.

What you seem to be saying here is, and I don't want to misquote you, is that the only reason the school hasn't fired him is that he has a lawyer, and would probably win the case.

And for like the 5th time, there is nothing in this article to imply that Mr. Pierre was in the wrong, or is a bad teacher. You're pulling that out of thin air. There's also also no union procedure that is preventing Mr. Pierre from being fired.

No, I'm saying that without the union, no lawyer would fucking touch his case because he clearly touched a little girl.

I'm saying the implied, hidden threat of union action controlled and directed the actions of Klein. I then backed it up with examples, statements, and statistics.

They didn't even have as good an excuse as GM who at least was keeping the workers to protect the skill set; the rubber rooms are for teachers that no one in their right mind would let back anywhere NEAR a classroom, either, obviously, for pedophilia or competence.

I'm not necessarily anti-union, but there comes a time in its natural evolution, when it becomes a partner with government, when it becomes an integral part of the problem and an impediment, instead of a partner in progress.

__________________
In a Libertarian Society, Unions are a necessary good that improves productivity.
In a Socialist Society, Unions are a redundant evil that reduces productivity.
A_J, the Stupid

 

[busybody..]

Actually it isnt the unions fault

They di what they can to get teh best deals for the members

that the shitties etc cave in all the time

IS THE CRUX OF THE MATTER

If they were to say, here is a CONTRACT, take it or leave it....anyone that doesnt take it is fired, whoever takes it is re-hired

THEY WILL ALL TAKE IT!

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

No, I'm saying that without the union, no lawyer would fucking touch his case because he clearly touched a little girl.

I'm saying the implied, hidden threat of union action controlled and directed the actions of Klein. I then backed it up with examples, statements, and statistics.

You're putting that "clearly touched a little girl" thing in there. Remember, he was exonerated of those charges.

This would not be a union action. This would be him filing a lawsuit. Yes, it would probably be with a lawyer paid for by union dues, but that isn't something that's in the union contract with the school.

You provided examples & statements, however they were in no way relevant to this particular case.

 

[off2bed]

Exonerated of charges is not the same as "he didn't do it."

[He] gave a two-page typed statement acknowledging that he had met the girl behind closed doors.

What do you think he was doing there?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Exonerated of charges is not the same as "he didn't do it."


What do you think he was doing there?

I never said it did, did I?

 

[off2bed]

I never said it did, did I?