patrick.net

marcus says

IF you make it easy enough to fire teachers (after they have proven themself), or if you had no union, what's to stop say one day a brilliant high level administrator from initiating a plan to replace all senior teachers with beginning teachers that they can pay 30K less than the average senior teacher ?

Marcus how many times do I have to beat this through your thick skull. I dont have issues with teachers being protected from unfair administrators. And I dont want an easy way to fire teachers. I would just like to be able to fire a teacher for obvious abuses. THe problem is that teachers unions do whatever they can to help even those who are abusers. This is why the guy at Mira Monte was paid to quit rather than being fired. Why was this guy paid to quite and not fired? Because of the teachers unions! This is why the teachers unions blocked legislation to fire teachers who commit serious or egregious acts. If we can prove a teacher commits these serious acts why should we not be able to fire them? I have never said lets fire anyone for baseless accusations, only those who commit unlawful acts or is incompetent.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/29/local/la-me-teachers-20120629

BTW I have no issues of a teacher can prove that they are innocent. Also I am not saying get rid of unions, so again please do not put words into my mouth or make up things to support your point.

marcus says

Answer: Because the job is a service job that doesn't pay that much, and if one commits themself to this kind of job, they should have some confidence that the job will still be there when they are 55 and have a family to support. THe job security (not for lazy incompetents), helps to offset the mediocre pay.

Marcus Ive already agreed with you that teacher pays are not that high, especially compared to other public workers like cops whose average pay is 131k with 49k in benefits each year.
WIth that said, no one is saying teachers should be fired at will for no reason. However no one should be entitled to anything. No one in the private sector is entitled to anything, so why should you? Sure if a teacher is competent they should not be fired for no reason. However if they are incompetent, break rules, commit crimes, cant teach, they why should they not be fired?

Meccos says

However if they are incompetent, break rules, commit crimes, cant teach, they why should they not be fired?

But they are, and you're lying, when you imply that they can't be. Are there examples of teachers taken out of the class room, but not fired immediately ? Yes.

To those with severe cognitive challenges, this leads to a generalization that ALL incompetant teachers and all teachers who break rules can NEVER be fired ? Because of the union?

Again, why do you deny being a rapist pedophile ?

(see how it works ? I can imply anything I want, that doesn't make it true. )

marcus says

But they are, and you're lying, when you imply that they can't be. Are there examples of teachers taken out of the class room, but not fired immediately ? Yes.

I am not saying they can not be fired. Again you are putting words into my mouth. I am saying that it is extremely difficult because of the crazy amounts of protection these teachers get from their unions. Why are you so against teachers being fired if they commit a crime or are incompetent? I would think it would be easy for all of us to agree on this.
marcus says

To those with severe cognitive challenges, this leads to a generalization that ALL incompetant teachers and all teachers who break rules can NEVER be fired. Because of the union.

Perhaps your cognitive impairment is the reason why you keep thinking that I am saying they can NEVER be fired...

marcus says

Again, why do you deny being a rapist pedophile ?

(see how it works ? I can claim anything I want, that doesn't make it true. )

You are right, making a claim doesnt make it true, but examples I have given you do make my comments true. Let me clearly state it just so your cognitive limitations do not get in the way.

Your teachers unions protect incompetent teachers and protects teachers who even brake the law. Example Mira Monte. Example the dozens of teachers who sit in a room to get paid for doing nothing. Example, a teacher who teaches so poorly, the district had to hire another teacher to come teach for him, all the while he sits in his classroom and just watches the other teacher teach. This last example was not in the news, but seen personally.

Marcus,

As this thread has digressed into the teaching world, let me just get it back on track to the original argument.

Public unions have too much power. You may not see this so much in other states, but you living in California should know better... To argue that public unions have little or no power only makes you seem either clearly biased or an idiot.

Meccos says

I am not saying they can not be fired. Again you are putting words into my mouth.

Oh really. Do you have any idea what it's like responding to you ?

Meccos says

I suppose this lack of political power is the reason why teachers cant be fired for feeding sperm to kids

Meccos says

Your reasoning is a rather pitiful excuse to protect all teachers at any cost.

Meccos says

I have a fundamental problem with teachers who break the law or are completely incompetent but yet they are still not fired because they are backed by the unions.

Meccos says

THe problem is that even when teachers are found to be incompetent or even commit felonies, the unions back them up and makes it impossible for these people be fired.

This is just one topic where you lie, exaggerate and lie again. THere are about five others that I could respond to, and you would just cover it up and neither respond nor comprehend.

I explained in detail what the law is about membership in non rtw states, and that employees are only reuired to pay a much smaller agency fee and they are not required to become members, and yet you repeatedly pounded that drum after that. It's worse than talking to the wall.

There are at least three other examples that are much like me saying:

How is it that you contiunue to deny being a rapist and a pedphile Messos ?

I just do have time for your trolling or whatever it is you think you're doing.

In Meccos world, if the district finds it more expeditious and less costly to
pay the guy to quit (essentialy severance pay), rather than go through the process of firing him, you want to use this as a propaganda sound bite.

"They couldn't fire him."

Ignore.

See you later when you select your 15th Patnet identity.

Marcus,

EVERY example you used was me talking about teachers who cant be fired for committing a crime, which is clearly different from any teacher who cant be fired for other reasons. Shouldnt it be obvious and without much opposition for teachers to be fired for committing a crime?!?!?! How is it that a teacher is not fired for feeding sperm to kids and taking pictures of it?
Explain that one to everyone... please im sure we all would love to hear it.

marcus says

I explained in detail what the law is about membership in non rtw states, and that employees are only reuired to pay a much smaller agency fee and they are not required to become members, and yet you repeatedly pounded that drum after that. It's worse than talking to the wall.

this is so funny. They dont have to be members but they are still REQUIRED and FORCED to pay a fee. How is that right?

marcus says

I just do have time for your trolling or whatever it is you think you're doing.

Oh ok, now I am trolling because Im calling your union thuggish activities out...

Let me summarize.

Unions have helped protect teachers who have committed crimes against our kids from getting fired

Unions have protected incompetent teachers from being fired, instead having them placed in rooms to sit all day long and collect pay and benefits.

Unions have required teachers who do not wish to join the union into paying a fee even against their wishes.

Explain how any of these things are ok...

marcus says

In Meccos world, if the district finds it more expeditious and less costly to
pay the guy to quit (essentialy severance pay), rather than go through the process of firing him, you want to use this as a propaganda sound bite.

"They couldn't fire him."

Exactly, the unions have made it so costly and time consuming to even try to fire a teachers who commit felonies, that it is better to pay them them to quit then to fire them. Thank you for proving my point.

marcus says

Ignore.

See you later when you select your 15th Patnet identity.

My first and only... bye bye..

I work in a union shop too....

Here's the reality. A lot of unions love the "us" versus "them" game. Even when an employee is blatantly in the wrong and should be disciplined or fired, the union will play the game, file their grievances to discipline, argue there baseless grievances, and try to arbitrate it with a moderator that is sympathetic to there "I've been oppressed" mantra.

A lot of union workers don't feel they should be accountable for anything! They know the union is all to happy to defend their incompetence, apathy, and laziness. After all, if the union doesn't stay busy and file grievances (Mainly without just cause), what is the point of having a one (Other than group bargaining)? They have to create problems so they have justification for existence!