The Granddaddy of the Rubber Room

busybody..

Literotica Guru
Joined
Jul 28, 2002
Posts
149,503
The Granddaddy of the Rubber Room

In recent years, we've been treated to horror stories about the "rubber rooms," where public school systems dump teachers who are accused of wrong-doing, or simply incompetent. Thanks to union protection, these "educators" (and we use that term advisedly) report to holding areas while their cases wind through the system.


It usually takes years to get rid of a bad teacher, and they collect full pay and benefits while sitting in the rubber rooms. Many spend their days surfing the internet, sleeping, or even pursuing a second career (some of the dud teachers in NYC have earned real estate licenses while sitting in purgatory and sell properties from the holding rooms--all on the taxpayer's dime). When you consider that veteran teachers in New York can earn more than $90,000 a year, the rubber rooms represent a horrific waste of education dollars.


While it's not uncommon to find teachers who have spent four or five years on hold, the New York Post has discovered the "Granddaddy" of the rubber room set. Seventy-five-year-old Roland Pierre has been assigned to a holding facility since 1997, after he was accused of molesting one of his students. New York school system Chancellor Joel Klein refuses to put Pierre back in the classroom, despite the fact that criminal charges against him were dropped, and education department hearing officers let him off the hook.


So, Mr. Pierre keeps reporting to the rubber room each workday, drawing full pay and health care benefits. His current salary is just over $97,000 a year.


On June 26, 1997, Pierre, then 62, was arrested on felony sex-abuse charges after he allegedly called one of his students into an empty classroom where he taught English as a second language, closed the door and molested her.


[snip]


The girl left and went to the administrative office, where she "burst into tears" and reported the incident, [investigators] said in a March 6, 1998, report on the investigation, released to The Post last week.




The report says Pierre refused to speak to investigators, but gave a two-page typed statement acknowledging that he had met the girl behind closed doors.




While Mr. Pierre reached retirement age years ago, he simply refuses to leave--and under union rules, the school system can't fire him. And there's little incentive for him to quit. Where else can you earn more than $100K a year (including benefits) for doing absolutely nothing?




Our sympathies go out to those of you living in New York. Roland Pierre is yet another example of what's wrong with our education system, and why public employee unions are literally killing our cities and states.
 
Busy I'm shocked you don't actually read what you c&p. How is this the union's fault if the school chancellor doesn't want to place him back into the classroom?
 
From the c&p:





While Mr. Pierre reached retirement age years ago, he simply refuses to leave--and under union rules, the school system can't fire him.
 
There's an implication there that while, on one hand the original administrator made a decision, probably based on the litigious nature of the community that hired him, in subsequent years, it was the union, at best, in a partnership, keeping the man on the public dole...
 
There's an implication there that while, on one hand the original administrator made a decision, probably based on the litigious nature of the community that hired him, in subsequent years, it was the union, at best, in a partnership, keeping the man on the public dole...

There's actually zero indication of that. Where do you see the union fighting to keep this man on the payroll?
 
Wow. You're making a strong case for the union.

No, I'm just noting that if you read the entire clip, or went to the original source that it somewhat negated your original point.

It's also a very strong anti-union statement in that it upholds the stereotype, like GM used to be big about, btw, didn't they FAIL? that unions keep people on the payroll even when they aren't working...

;) ;)

__________________
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
 
The PRE-fought for him in negotiating...

Now they just sit back and explain the rules.




It's pretty clear when they say he can't be fired under union rules. If you fire him, you get sued and that's oftentimes the governing mechanism, I posted an excellent flow chart within the last year of the convoluted steps (and expensive) required to fire a teacher, and I'm pretty sure it was in NY...
 
No, I'm just noting that if you read the entire clip, or went to the original source that it somewhat negated your original point.

It's also a very strong anti-union statement in that it upholds the stereotype, like GM used to be big about, btw, didn't they FAIL? that unions keep people on the payroll even when they aren't working...

;) ;)

__________________
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, it actually doesn't

What you've just advocated is that the teacher in questions should be able to let go simply based on his age, not his competency.

The only thing preventing this man from being in the class room is the school chancellor, as stated in the article. The union has had nothing to do with this, unless you're referencing some other information that isn't provided here.
 
There's an implication there that while, on one hand the original administrator made a decision, probably based on the litigious nature of the community that hired him, in subsequent years, it was the union, at best, in a partnership, keeping the man on the public dole...

Oh.

Well, teenage girls NEVER lie.

Like WHEN one of my sister in laws went to my first wife and SWORE she saw me fucking my first wife's best friend on our couch. ( I found out about this a year or so later.)

Even this day I have only wild guesses why she would do such a thing.

She would not give me an answer.

Cathy was a fine looking woman but... I never came on to her and as far as I know she never wanted me.

What I'm saying here is that smoke doesn't always come from the location it appears to at first glance.

He should have been put back in the class room and and if anything like that happened again seriously investigated and possibly let go.
 
The PRE-fought for him in negotiating...

Now they just sit back and explain the rules.




It's pretty clear when they say he can't be fired under union rules. If you fire him, you get sued and that's oftentimes the governing mechanism, I posted an excellent flow chart within the last year of the convoluted steps (and expensive) required to fire a teacher, and I'm pretty sure it was in NY...

Again, not true. The union did not fight for this man, they fought for due process, which he would get anyway without a union contract. He could be fired even with the contract and he would have an excellent case for age discrimination.

You did post it, and immediately after it was discredited. Plus, it has nothing to do with this case.

If you read the article the only thing preventing this man from being in the class room is the school chancellor.
 
What didn't you understand about the following?

While Mr. Pierre reached retirement age years ago, he simply refuses to leave--and under union rules, the school system can't fire him

Um, that it isn't true.

Unions don't make rules.

Just because someone reaches retirement age does not mean they must retire. That isn't a rule the union put in place. If the school system fired him as this situation stands right now, he'd have an excellent case of age discrimination. He wouldn't need the union contract for that. Of course, assuming any of this is true.
 
No, it actually doesn't

What you've just advocated is that the teacher in questions should be able to let go simply based on his age, not his competency.

The only thing preventing this man from being in the class room is the school chancellor, as stated in the article. The union has had nothing to do with this, unless you're referencing some other information that isn't provided here.

The question is "why?"

The answer is lawsuits by the teacher and the union. It's implied.

s 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.

The regulations are so onerous that principals rarely even try to fire a teacher. Most just put the bad ones in pretend-work jobs, or sucker another school into taking them. (They call that the "dance of the lemons.") The city payrolls include hundreds of teachers who have been deemed incompetent, violent, or guilty of sexual misconduct. Since the schools are afraid to let them teach, they put them in so-called "rubber rooms" instead. There they read magazines, play cards, and chat, at a cost to New York taxpayers of $20 million a year.

Once, Klein reports, the school system discovered that a teacher was sending sexual e-mails to a 16-year-old student. "This was the most unbelievable case to me," he says, "because the e-mail was there, he admitted to it. It was so thoroughly offensive." Even with the teacher's confession, it took six years of expensive litigation before the school could fire him. He didn't teach during those six years, but he still got paid—more than $350,000 total.
John Stossel

http://reason.com/archives/2006/10/01/how-to-fire-an-incompetent-tea
 
Um, that it isn't true.

Unions don't make rules.

Just because someone reaches retirement age does not mean they must retire. That isn't a rule the union put in place. If the school system fired him as this situation stands right now, he'd have an excellent case of age discrimination. He wouldn't need the union contract for that. Of course, assuming any of this is true.

No they negotiate procedures.

Rubber rooms are not just seen in the New York school system but in many school systems across the country (usually in the larger cities) as well as other union infested industries like the auto industry under the heavy hand of the United Auto Workers (UAW).

The problem with these rubber room policies is that teachers are being paid sometimes for months and other times for years -- as in the case of Mr. Pierre - while their cases snail through the system of constant claims, counter claims and arbitration forced on school systems by unions. Sadly, taxpayers across the country are footing the bill for thousands of these union members to sit around in a relaxing climate without having to work day in and day out.

Often it is so hard to fire these people that some of the most outrageous cases of misconduct never sees justice done and teachers fired. Another New York teacher, for instance, actually impregnated a 16-year-old student and a few years later molested two 12-year-olds yet the state still found it impossible to fire him.


Read more: http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/pub...t-be-fired-thanks-to-union.html#ixzz19VL1nZb3
 
Again, not true. The union did not fight for this man, they fought for due process, which he would get anyway without a union contract. He could be fired even with the contract and he would have an excellent case for age discrimination.

You did post it, and immediately after it was discredited. Plus, it has nothing to do with this case.

If you read the article the only thing preventing this man from being in the class room is the school chancellor.

No, they did not fight for this man, BECAUSE HE WAS NOT FIRED!

The reason he was not fired is BECAUSE THEN THE UNION WOULD FIGHT FOR HIM!

They negotiated a strong set of fail-safes. There are multiple links to multiple cities and states that have the same damned problem with union negotiated contracts protecting bad teachers.

Google: How to Fire a Teacher
 
Have you ever heard of a Union Contract? It's the rules, the conditions of a members employment. If they negotiated it, and it's in their contract, they made the "rule."

If they "negotiated" by definition the union didn't make the "rule".

And as I further pointed out, nothing the union negotiated is preventing this man from being fired.
 
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...
 
If they "negotiated" by definition the union didn't make the "rule".

And as I further pointed out, nothing the union negotiated is preventing this man from being fired.

Did they not negotiate FOR the rules to protect teachers?

You think the City just up and offered such expensive byzantine procedures on a whim?
 
No, they did not fight for this man, BECAUSE HE WAS NOT FIRED!

The reason he was not fired is BECAUSE THEN THE UNION WOULD FIGHT FOR HIM!

They negotiated a strong set of fail-safes. There are multiple links to multiple cities and states that have the same damned problem with union negotiated contracts protecting bad teachers.

Google: How to Fire a Teacher


You're putting an awful lot into this article that simply just isn't there.

In no way shape or form is it ever stated or implied that Mr. Pierre is a bad teacher. You're simply making that up out of thin air.

Again, there is nothing the union negotiated that is preventing Mr. Pierre from being fired. The law is preventing the school from firing him without ramifications.
 
Absent a conviction on the original indictment and if state, school and union rules do not permit a useless employee to be fired - it appears that this is a case of "make your bed and sleep in it".

The school, absent a valid criminal or civil case, CHOSE to allow this person to continue as a teacher without portfolio. It is the school administration's choice to keep Mr. Pierre in a non-teaching position, and if they truly want to be rid of him, they can assign, "Other Duties" to him, as the union contract allows - and if he refuses to perform - could fire him for cause.

If the state/union/school does not have a mandatory retirement age - that is a non-issue and posting about it is a pointless exercise.
 
Back
Top