Why Aren't We Talking About Union Busting?

dohdough - you aren't interested in having a conversation at all. No one is throwing a hissy fit except for you so I won't even bother responding to your nonsense.

Love,
The belligerant knuckle-dragging child
 
[quote name='Javery']dohdough - you aren't interested in having a conversation at all. No one is throwing a hissy fit except for you so I won't even bother responding to your nonsense.

Love,
The belligerant knuckle-dragging child[/QUOTE]
This is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going LALALLALALLALALALLA:roll:
 
see, the best way to solve all this is to completely privatize education. Just like our prison system it'll work really well! Not only that, but then we can teach kids whatever we want, give them all A's and we'll once again be the educational powerhouse of the world since everyone will have a 4.0 GPA! And damnit all to hell thhese private schools better be able to use incandescent bulbs!
 
How is the pay/benefits of teachers in New Jersey indicative of the same nation wide? I mean I've known new teachers, either right out of college or only a few years out, who work a second part time job just to pay the bills. Imagine being a kid and seeing your teacher working part time as a car hop at Sonic*. You can't say all teachers are over paid based on a few in a particular state, and most conservatives seem to be saying just that.

*Regional restaurants
 
The problem of deferred compensation not covering the back end payout is a big issues for pensions, social security and medicare. There was something in the paper (think the NYT) about it yesterday showing how much more average couples of various incomes get in social security and medicare benefits than what they pay in. I'll see if I can find a link later. I'm sure pensions are the same way most of the time. Ones that are just deferred compensation and can just run out just like a private retirement account I'd have less issue with.

Here's a link. First is the chart that shows is and 2nd is the article.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/04/06/business/2010406_leonhardt_graphic.html?ref=business

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/b...e colors debate over medicare's future&st=cse

It is something that's going to have to be dealt with, whether it increasing pay ins, finding better ways to invest the money paid in so it grows more by the time people are eligible for the benefits, raising the retirement age now that life expectancy is higher and people are healther in their 60s and more able to keep working longer, raising taxes on the wealthy to help cover the lower classes retirements (social security and medicare, hard to apply to pensions) etc.

For pensions, that last point is a major issue since they're not based on age but on years of service. My brother joined the military at 18, he's staying in to do his 20 years (he's not and never been in any kind of combat role) so he'll have a pension of 50% of his final year salary by age 38. Sweet deal for him, but that's a lot of tax payer salary that will be going to him for decades.

Same thing with teachers, but on a less extreme extent. Start teaching at 22 out of college, teach 30 years (and some states are 20 I think) and then get 80% of salary in retirement at age 52 while people in private sectors with private retirement plans are usually not eligible to draw on their benefits until age 62 or 65. With retiring in the early to mid 50s you have a strong chance of drawing a pension for more years than you worked since so many more people are living into their 80s and beyond.

My stance we definitely need medicare, or just general universal health care, as everyone should have access to doctors and medicine. Social security probably needs to stay around as we need some kind of social safety net for the elderly who's retirement runs out/can't cover their costs when they can't work anymore. But it can be reformed with ages raised, maybe benefits cut for the wealthy who don't need it etc.

But pensions I'll just never be a fan of. If we have the above safety nets in place, then people should be investing for retirement on their own in 401k plans etc. and bearing the risks of the money running out than companies. Especially public sector since that's tax dollars at stake when tax dollars are already funding the safety nets.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Msut77']For a Lawyer JaveryH is surprisingly bad at arguing.[/QUOTE]

Because I disagree with the majority of people (teachers) in this thread? I stated my point of view and the reasons why I think the NJ teachers' union needs to be taken down a bit (free healthcare for life, tenure, last-in first-out policy, pension plan, insulation from outside economic factors, relatively high pay for less working hours, etc.). If you don't agree that's OK.

Also, I'm not that kind of lawyer (I've never been to court nor will I ever). I will crush you with paperwork though.

[quote name='Clak']How is the pay/benefits of teachers in New Jersey indicative of the same nation wide? I mean I've known new teachers, either right out of college or only a few years out, who work a second part time job just to pay the bills. Imagine being a kid and seeing your teacher working part time as a car hop at Sonic*. You can't say all teachers are over paid based on a few in a particular state, and most conservatives seem to be saying just that.

*Regional restaurants[/QUOTE]

I'm only commenting on NJ (where I live) and the NJ teacher's union because that's all I really know about (I thought I was clear on this).

My sister makes almost $70,000 a year (5th grade) and she's only 34 and been teaching about 7 or 8 years now. She doesn't have to pay a penny for healthcare for her entire family EVER but she can retire plus get a pension before turning 50. She also can't be fired and never has to stress about having a job - you can't put a price on that kind of peace of mind. No other profession is like that.

dmaul - I agree with everything you wrote (more elegantly than I can express the point, apparently).
 
Something that is part of a negotiated contract is not free, because it has been negotiated. It is simply part of the compensation package for employment.

If a teacher makes $60k per year, and we think they deserve $40k, do we say they get $20k in their salary for free? So why do we think of part of the non-wage compensation as such, and not as compensation, i.e., as a wage?
 
Yeah, I have no problem with pensions from that angle. It's just part of the contract. Just like with the optional private retirement plan I opted for instead of the pension they contribute 9.x% of my salary to my retirement every paycheck (I have to contribute 5%, can't go up or down). It's not and extra 9.x% of free money. It's part of my negotiated compensation package. The pension option is no different from that angle. So I agree with you.

The problem is what I outline above where there's not money to cover the benefits drawn during retirement. On private retirement you have to get buy on your retirement savings and social security. If your funds run out and you can't get buy on social security, then you have to find a way to make money. No reason pensions should be different. They should only guarantee a percentage of salary if they are sure they can pay that back without running big deficits. If not, then scrap them and go to a private retirement system with employer match/extra contribution and put the risk and responsibility for saving on the individual.
 
All this bullshit would be moot if we didn't have such extreme polarity in income disparity. It hasn't been this bad since the fucking 1920's, although, I'm sure our fellow republitard CAGS would happily roll us back to the 1800's.

The entire reason we have unions and pensions is exactly because of bullshit like bailing out Wall St with a trillion dollars while cutting social services to poor folks when things are bad. If the most vulnerable of populations can make a wage that enables them to save and enjoy life a little, we wouldn't have these problems, but instead, you have pukes defending highly compensated CEO's while bashing teachers. WTF...makes me wanna burn this mofo down.
 
This is the wrong battle, plain and simple. We are talking about peanuts compared to what is being spent on corporate welfare and wars to prop up the weapons and mercenary industries.

The teacher union battle divides poor ass people against each other when we should be focusing on those who have a surplus of money...
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Something that is part of a negotiated contract is not free, because it has been negotiated. It is simply part of the compensation package for employment.

If a teacher makes $60k per year, and we think they deserve $40k, do we say they get $20k in their salary for free? So why do we think of part of the non-wage compensation as such, and not as compensation, i.e., as a wage?[/QUOTE]

An excellent point and definitely the way to look at it from the teacher's perspective. My issue is where does the money come from that is above and beyond what is contributed to the pension plan or for the free healthcare? It must be nice for the union to negotiate these contracts with other people's money.

[quote name='Msut77']Does teaching in NJ require a Master degree?[/QUOTE]

I think so nowadays but I'm not 100% sure. My sister and all of my teacher friends have their Master's degrees (partially paid for by the school system). I don't think you need one if you began your career before a certain date though (you are grandfathered in).
 
[quote name='willardhaven']This is the wrong battle, plain and simple. We are talking about peanuts compared to what is being spent on corporate welfare and wars to prop up the weapons and mercenary industries.

The teacher union battle divides poor ass people against each other when we should be focusing on those who have a surplus of money...[/QUOTE]


For sure. But I do agree with conservatives that all aspects of government should be operating at a surplus and not breaking even.

I disagree that the way to get there is through massive cuts to social services. Cuts should be focused in wasteful spending and defense (no military intervention unless there's a direct threat to US security and interests) etc. The major way to balance the budget is to raise taxes back to (or near) the pre-Reagan cuts level, get rid of corporate tax loopholes, bring back the estate tax on the wealthy etc.

Cut wasteful spending, raise taxes and keep social services like social security, medicare etc. running in the black.

Pensions/retirement is just a different matter. People shouldn't be entitled to more than what was paid in while they were working (their contribution and employer matches) and interest it made or lost over the years--just like private retirement plans. Social security is the safety net for win that fails, and if not keep working unless disabled (in which case disability payments should be an option). There's no human right to be able to retire at a certain age. It's a luxury for people who made decent money and were frugal and smart with saving and investing.
 
The point is, faulting a union for fighting for its workers is ridiculous. Where is the outrage at lobbyists who are fighting for their companies' right to pollute, take more taxpayer money, etc?

My point is that even if you think teachers are overpaid, lazy, etc. (they are not), there are bigger ideological and fiscal fish to fry.
 
Agree with all that. I'm not up in arms over teachers unions. And my main objections aren't so much the pay and pension issues as it is our education system sucks and part (and emphasis on part as it's a complex and multifaceted problem) of the problem is that unions make it near impossible to hold teachers accountable for performance in many states. I have utmost respect for teachers being in higher ed myself, and like the notion of unions protecting workers rights, but it can't be done at the expense of undermining the quality of education by making it hard to hold employees accountable for their performance.

As a professor I have to deal with that crap by getting a lot of shitty students who got through high school with 3.0's and above and are thus on full or partial scholarship in this state (though they did just raise the gpa requirement etc. starting next year) who just aren't college ready at all.

But you're right that even that's small fish compared to other issues. It's just one that annoys me as it directly affects me a lot more than things like wasting money bombing people on the other side of the world etc.
 
My aunt and uncle both have their masters, though I don't think they had to to actually teach, at least not at the time. They probably make around $60k a year, but then they've been teaching for $30+ years.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Posting this here seems about appropriate: http://www.usatoday.com/money/compa....htm?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4d9cc27a1d861398,1[/QUOTE]

Some snippets:
Still, part of the massive increase in CEO pay is a distortion, Johnson says. Because CEO pay fell the past two years, the recovery looks more dramatic. “If you drop a lot, when you come back, it’s a big percentage.”
And even though CEO pay is increasing, it’s still below 2007 levels. “Given the years of pay decreasing, there’s a certain amount of catch-up to get pay back to where it was in 2007,” says Paul Hodgson of GovernanceMetrics.
Click to expand...

But when will they get back to, proportionately, 1920's levels?

Yet the fact that CEOs’ pay is rising along with stock prices underscores the disconnect between pay and companies’ true underlying performance, Lazonick says. While companies in the S&P 500 boosted profit 47% last year, much of that was due to cost-cutting and layoffs, not from the creation of businesses and growth, Lazonick says. Revenue, a gauge of the money flowing into businesses for selling goods and services, grew at a much slower pace than profit — and ended the year up just 7%.
Click to expand...

Disgusting.
 
Best way to keep your head above water is on the back of someone else.:roll:

I swear I couldn't sleep at night if I knew I was getting a bonus while the company was shedding jobs left and right.
 
Much of the hubris of CEOs is not that they believe what they are doing is right, but they will do what they do because there are currently opportunities to get away with it - even if it fucks the entire economy up.

That's the whole reason that derivatives trading exists (as well as why it remains unregulated). It's a fragile system that will eventually fail and take everything in the economy with it. But if someone can escape that $1 richer by having gotten their licks in - well, isn't that the American Dream?

As long as our government lets bankers write the rules to the game they're playing and adjust them on the fly so that they're constantly winning at this game of Calvinball, we should expect nothing less. It's not a matter of ethics, as those don't exist here. It's a matter of ensuring our elected politicians will nail these motherfuckers to the wall. But, outside of Bernie Sanders, every major politician is an unapologetic corporatist - so it won't happen in our lifetime. But a wholly catastrophic financial collapse? That will happen in our lifetime. Possibly with the need to respond to the catastrophe by vilifying teachers for their luxurious lifestyles.
 
Myke to be fair even Bernie Sanders sold out. He refused to impeach Bush, that speaks miles about him.

Kucinich sold out on Healthcare and went for Obama's Insurance Bailout Bill.

The only one, to my knowledge, who hasn't sold out is Ron Paul.
 
[quote name='Javery']Because I disagree with the majority of people (teachers) in this thread? I stated my point of view and the reasons why I think the NJ teachers' union needs to be taken down a bit (free healthcare for life, tenure, last-in first-out policy, pension plan, insulation from outside economic factors, relatively high pay for less working hours, etc.). If you don't agree that's OK. [/QUOTE]

Out of curiosity, what's your issue with tenure? Are you for employers being able to fire someone at will without just cause?
 
[quote name='onetrackmind']Out of curiosity, what's your issue with tenure? Are you for employers being able to fire someone at will without just cause?[/QUOTE]

Yes, of course! Every other job in this country is an at-will relationship. Even if you have an employment agreement for a set number of years you can still be fired any time and for any reason (although there are typically severance payments and other penalties built into an employment agreement for a termination without "cause"). A person can't be forced to work (you can quit any job at any time) so why should an employer be forced to employ someone they don't want?
 
I've been let go twice just for saving up my vacation and using it all at once. They won't admit that's the reason, but it's the reason. When I contacted the Dept of Labor, I was told that unless I'm gay, a woman, or a minority, there is nothing they can do, and they don't have to have a reason for letting me go (yes, they actually said that).
 
[quote name='Javery']Yes, of course! Every other job in this country is an at-will relationship. Even if you have an employment agreement for a set number of years you can still be fired any time and for any reason (although there are typically severance payments and other penalties built into an employment agreement for a termination without "cause"). A person can't be forced to work (you can quit any job at any time) so why should an employer be forced to employ someone they don't want?[/QUOTE]

[quote name='thrustbucket']I've been let go twice just for saving up my vacation and using it all at once. They won't admit that's the reason, but it's the reason. When I contacted the Dept of Labor, I was told that unless I'm gay, a woman, or a minority, there is nothing they can do, and they don't have to have a reason for letting me go (yes, they actually said that).[/QUOTE]
Job security used to exist in this country you know. Now what usually happens is that you shitcanned for making "too much" money and they hire someone, younger, cheaper, and less motivated to make changes ie subservient.
 
[quote name='Javery']Yes, of course! Every other job in this country is an at-will relationship. Even if you have an employment agreement for a set number of years you can still be fired any time and for any reason (although there are typically severance payments and other penalties built into an employment agreement for a termination without "cause"). A person can't be forced to work (you can quit any job at any time) so why should an employer be forced to employ someone they don't want?[/QUOTE]

Javery, you're seriously fucking with me right? Why would anyone advocate for a system where regardless of whether you're a good worker or not, you can be fired at will for person reasons. If i'm going to get fired i expect it to be because of something i did to deserve it; not because the owner disagrees with my political stance or because of some other trivial thing.
 
[quote name='onetrackmind']Javery, you're seriously fucking with me right? Why would anyone advocate for a system where regardless of whether you're a good worker or not, you can be fired at will for person reasons. If i'm going to get fired i expect it to be because of something i did to deserve it; not because the owner disagrees with my political stance or because of some other trivial thing.[/QUOTE]
Obviously in the free market, no employer would dare fire their bestest/smartest employee over something personal because we live in a meritocracy. :roll:
 
[quote name='onetrackmind']Javery, you're seriously fucking with me right? Why would anyone advocate for a system where regardless of whether you're a good worker or not, you can be fired at will for person reasons. If i'm going to get fired i expect it to be because of something i did to deserve it; not because the owner disagrees with my political stance or because of some other trivial thing.[/QUOTE]

Yep. The tenure and union system is flawed because it makes it to hard to fire people who are crappy employees, but that it makes it near impossible to fire good employees is it's strength.

And in higher education the last point is the key reason for tenure--it protects our academic freedom to do whatever research we want in our field etc. and not be able to be fired because it challenges someone in a position of authority. i.e. that it offends their politics, or it refutes theories that higher up spent their career promoting in their own research before moving into administration in the university etc.

The tenure system just needs tweaked so people have incentive to keep busting ass after getting all the way to full professor. People shouldn't be able to get fired without cause, or for personal reasons etc. if they're being productive. But the system has to allow for putting pressure on people slacking off. Plenty of full professors love their work and keep doing a good job, but many others slack off at that point and hardly publish any research etc. and thus are getting paid big bucks in the department and doing very little to promote the departments reputation as they aren't publishing or chasing grant money, are doing the bare minimum in the class room etc.

So it's matter of the tenure system, unions etc. being tweaked to protect good employees from being fired without cause while still allowing for firing those who do a crappy job--even those who have tenure. And of course there's always things built in to layoff people, furlough people etc. during hard economic times. For instant every public university in my state got 8 furlough days in the 09-10 academic year including tenured faculty, non-tenured faculty, university presidents (they took more days actually) etc. Some states some tenured faculty got let go, but not very many. There were (and still are as state budgets are still hurting) a lot of pressured early retirement buyouts for older profs though.


I get the ire of people in the private sector who aren't unionized and don't have much job security, as I hate that many industries don't have the same kind of job security unionized fields do. But at the same time, it's a choice over salary or job security most of the time. I considered an offer at a private research place that recruited me last summer that would have paid me $15k more than I'm making a year right now in academia. But I didn't consider it long as it wouldn't be very good job security as it's a grant funded places so the money can dry up, and I prefer the flexibility of working in academia in terms of being able to research what I'm interested in rather than whatever the research firm gets money to research.

So it's just a trade off most of the time. There's almost always more money to be made in the private sector. But usually less job security and less in some fields less flexibility and other perks.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']When I contacted the Dept of Labor, I was told that unless I'm gay, a woman, or a minority, there is nothing they can do, and they don't have to have a reason for letting me go (yes, they actually said that).[/QUOTE]

Well damn, that explains where all dat hate be comin' from.
 
[quote name='Javery']Yes, of course! Every other job in this country is an at-will relationship. Even if you have an employment agreement for a set number of years you can still be fired any time and for any reason (although there are typically severance payments and other penalties built into an employment agreement for a termination without "cause"). A person can't be forced to work (you can quit any job at any time) so why should an employer be forced to employ someone they don't want?[/QUOTE]
I'm not going to jump on this yet because I get the feeling you don't feel that extreme about this. Surely you can see the problem in someone getting fired for something ridiculous that doesn't even relate to their work.
 
[quote name='onetrackmind']Javery, you're seriously fucking with me right? Why would anyone advocate for a system where regardless of whether you're a good worker or not, you can be fired at will for person reasons. If i'm going to get fired i expect it to be because of something i did to deserve it; not because the owner disagrees with my political stance or because of some other trivial thing.[/QUOTE]

Should you be able to quit your job - that is otherwise awesome - because you disagree with the owner's political stance?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Should you be able to quit your job - that is otherwise awesome - because you disagree with the owner's political stance?[/QUOTE]

Goddamn Bob, why is it when someone makes a point about something you have to pipe in with some ridiculous off the wall hypothetical question that isn't even relevant to the topic? You know you don't always have to play the devil's advocate role on the board, i really think you need a new gimmick. But anyways who in their right mind is going to quit an "awesome" job because of the owner's political stance? Your question doesn't even make sense. I don't see why you and your employer should be discussing politics in the work place anyways. People either quit jobs because their employer sucks or is a complete asshole, better pay and benefits somewhere else, or because they are moving.
 
1. Propose something people can already do
2. This suggests you are against people having that option
3. Claim you are not a troll or advocating fascism

It's too early in the morning for this kind of massive dumbshittery.
 
[quote name='Clak']I'm not going to jump on this yet because I get the feeling you don't feel that extreme about this. Surely you can see the problem in someone getting fired for something ridiculous that doesn't even relate to their work.[/QUOTE]

That's pretty accurate. I'm constantly worried about getting fired because I'm getting "too expensive" even though I seem to be well liked in the office and I get really good reviews every year regarding my performance. I obviously hope it doesn't happen and I definitely wouldn't think it is "fair" based on my track record here. Certainly making me "fire proof" (tenure) isn't the answer though - I'm very responsible and I work long hours but I know if I couldn't be fired my performance would drop off big time.

What reason would be good enough to justify firing someone who is performing competently? You just do the minimum and you have guaranteed employment for life? I don't think that makes much sense either. What if is the entire company is going to go out of business if they don't cut costs? This doesn't relate to an individual's work per se but it would be a shitty reason to get laid off - any factor out of your control would be. There are already some rules in place making it difficult to fire someone for stupid reasons (race, sexual orientation, gender, etc.) but there's no way to cover them all.

Maybe the problem lies in the structure of companies themselves - the ONLY goal of every company is to increase value to become more profitable and put money in the shareholders' pockets. There are all these fiduciary duties that govern boards and their actions but none of them relate to the general work environment or "taking care of" the company's employees. Times have definitely changed - our parents and grandparents most likely worked one or two jobs for their entire careers. Many of my peers can't stay at a place more than 2 years. I don't know where the loyalty broke down (company firings or employee job hopping?) but it is gone - it is every man for himself now. I don't know how to fix it (or even if it needs fixing) but the concept of tenure is no where near the right solution, IMO.
 
[quote name='Javery'] I'm very responsible and I work long hours but I know if I couldn't be fired my performance would drop off big time.[/quote]

That's a big issue in the business world etc. as many like you seem to get into jobs you don't really love because it pays well.

I'll keep working hard after I get tenure as I like teaching well enough, and love research and want to make an impact on my field over my career regardless of financial motivations.

Some of the hardest working people I know in my field are full professors in their 50s. Granted their not the norm and are some of the top dogs in my field. And there are for sure people who slack off and don't work as hard after getting tenure or becoming a full professor after that. But most people, at least in good research universities, are still working hard after tenure and promotion as they love their jobs with the deadweight being the exception to the rule at such places. I'm sure there's more slacking at lower tier universities for sure--definitely a lot more of that where I work now than where I went to grad school.

What reason would be good enough to justify firing someone who is performing competently? You just do the minimum and you have guaranteed employment for life? I don't think that makes much sense either. What if is the entire company is going to go out of business if they don't cut costs? This doesn't relate to an individual's work per se but it would be a shitty reason to get laid off - any factor out of your control would be. There are already some rules in place making it difficult to fire someone for stupid reasons (race, sexual orientation, gender, etc.) but there's no way to cover them all.
Click to expand...

Layoffs when the company is going under etc. suck, but are understandable. What needs to be protected against are things not related to company performance or job performance. Not firing a professor because of political work he does on his own time. Not firing a professor who's research is controversial. And so on. That's a big reason for tenure in higher education.

It's also a way to keep people in academia vs. leaving for higher paying, but less secure, private sector jobs. I imagine that's a main reason for it in public K-12 education as well.


Maybe the problem lies in the structure of companies themselves - the ONLY goal of every company is to increase value to become more profitable and put money in the shareholders' pockets.
Click to expand...

And of course that's another difference between public education and businesses. There goal is to provide quality education, not make money. Higher education is revenue driven (tuition, research grants etc.) but not to the extent of private business. The goal is education and generation of new knowledge (at research universities anyway), making money is a means to those ends rather than the ends in and of themselves. Bring in more money and you can higher big time research faculty, expand departments, have the latest equipment in the classroom and research labs etc. Where private business is all about maximizing profits so the execs make as big of salaries and bonuses as possible.
 
[quote name='onetrackmind']Goddamn Bob, why is it when someone makes a point about something you have to pipe in with some ridiculous off the wall hypothetical question that isn't even relevant to the topic? You know you don't always have to play the devil's advocate role on the board, i really think you need a new gimmick. But anyways who in their right mind is going to quit an "awesome" job because of the owner's political stance? Your question doesn't even make sense. I don't see why you and your employer should be discussing politics in the work place anyways. People either quit jobs because their employer sucks or is a complete asshole, better pay and benefits somewhere else, or because they are moving.[/QUOTE]

What I posted was virtually the same thing you posted.

In both examples, there's a party ending an employment agreement based on the other party's political stance.

You asked/I asked
"Should the employer/e be able to terminate the employment agreement based on the employee/r's political stance?"
 
The difference is one person having authority over the other in the distinct capacity of whether or not they can keep the job. An employer CAN terminate someone and not give a reason, and the employee will be fully denied ever knowing it while still losing something important. An employee, meanwhile, can grow the fuck up and learn that bosses 99.9% of the time are soulless jackasses who don't know shit.

You are ignoring a massive fundamental difference on purpose in order to make a bad argument.

giganticmassivetrollface.jpeg
 
[quote name='Javery']That's pretty accurate. I'm constantly worried about getting fired because I'm getting "too expensive" even though I seem to be well liked in the office and I get really good reviews every year regarding my performance. I obviously hope it doesn't happen and I definitely wouldn't think it is "fair" based on my track record here. Certainly making me "fire proof" (tenure) isn't the answer though - I'm very responsible and I work long hours but I know if I couldn't be fired my performance would drop off big time.

What reason would be good enough to justify firing someone who is performing competently? You just do the minimum and you have guaranteed employment for life? I don't think that makes much sense either. What if is the entire company is going to go out of business if they don't cut costs? This doesn't relate to an individual's work per se but it would be a shitty reason to get laid off - any factor out of your control would be. There are already some rules in place making it difficult to fire someone for stupid reasons (race, sexual orientation, gender, etc.) but there's no way to cover them all.

Maybe the problem lies in the structure of companies themselves - the ONLY goal of every company is to increase value to become more profitable and put money in the shareholders' pockets. There are all these fiduciary duties that govern boards and their actions but none of them relate to the general work environment or "taking care of" the company's employees. Times have definitely changed - our parents and grandparents most likely worked one or two jobs for their entire careers. Many of my peers can't stay at a place more than 2 years. I don't know where the loyalty broke down (company firings or employee job hopping?) but it is gone - it is every man for himself now. I don't know how to fix it (or even if it needs fixing) but the concept of tenure is no where near the right solution, IMO.[/QUOTE]
Because there's little incentive to stay at any job for too long. It used to be that companies rewarded employee loyalty and encouraged people to stay for the long haul, not anymore.

As far as justification for firing goes, there are of course good reasons, but there are far more bad reasons I suspect. For example, you can't fire someone for being gay, but if you can find some other BS reason to put on paper, they're gone. And if they could prove it was really because they were gay the company could be in real trouble, but good luck proving it.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']That's a big issue in the business world etc. as many like you seem to get into jobs you don't really love because it pays well.[/quote]

If it didn't pay well no one would do it! ;)

[quote name='dmaul1114']Layoffs when the company is going under etc. suck, but are understandable. What needs to be protected against are things not related to company performance or job performance. Not firing a professor because of political work he does on his own time. Not firing a professor who's research is controversial. And so on. That's a big reason for tenure in higher education.[/quote]

I agree sort of - I fully agree that you shouldn't be fired generally because of things you do in your private life (as long as they aren't detrimental to your company) but like Clak said - good luck proving it. Also, where do you draw the line? If the CEO is making $500K per year but the company starts to go under should he be forced to take a salary cut in order to save jobs? It might be the honorable thing to do but is that realistic? What if you can replace a person with a piece of technology? Is that not a good enough reason? There's too much to consider to just give 100% job security to someone without taking into consideration the outside factors.

[quote name='dmaul1114']It's also a way to keep people in academia vs. leaving for higher paying, but less secure, private sector jobs. I imagine that's a main reason for it in public K-12 education as well.[/quote]

As far as I can tell there are WAY more people who want to become teachers than teaching positions available. At least in NJ, I know the public schools would be thrilled if people started leaving (probably for budgetary reasons mostly - they wouldn't be replaced - but from what I understand there is a VERY long line of people who are trying to break into the public schools as teachers who just can't).
 
Varies by area. High paying states and suburban districts within them with safe schools etc. are very hard jobs to get.

Poor inner city areas with lots of problems in schools, and lower salaries due to lower tax base, are hard jobs to keep staffed.

And all places have to compete with private schools which is where most of the best teachers want to go as the pay is better and the quality of students is better (as their parents care enough about their education to pay for private school and are thus more likely to be doing their part at home etc.).
 
[quote name='Javery']As far as I can tell there are WAY more people who want to become teachers than teaching positions available. At least in NJ, I know the public schools would be thrilled if people started leaving (probably for budgetary reasons mostly - they wouldn't be replaced - but from what I understand there is a VERY long line of people who are trying to break into the public schools as teachers who just can't).[/QUOTE]

The same could be said for Lawyers.

Again, you have what 1 more year of education than an average teacher?
 
[quote name='Msut77']The same could be said for Lawyers.

Again, you have what 1 more year of education than an average teacher?[/QUOTE]

Come onnnn don't get personal just because he disagrees with you.
 
[quote name='Msut77']The same could be said for Lawyers.

Again, you have what 1 more year of education than an average teacher?[/QUOTE]

I guess the same could be said for any profession but what does education have to do with anything?

P.S. I probably have 2 extra years of education since I went to college for 5 years. :cool:
 
[quote name='Javery']I guess the same could be said for any profession[/quote]

Kind of, but in many cases school districts need teachers. They just can't afford to hire new ones.

For Lawyers it is more of just a general glut, except for the equivalent of dmauls inner city school teacher example, the public defender.

but what does education have to do with anything?
Click to expand...

Because you are hardly even pretending there is any rational basis to your "positions", I honestly believe it is nothing more than a class thing to you.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Kind of, but in many cases school districts need teachers. They just can't afford to hire new ones.[/QUOTE]

Here's a crazy idea - why not change the rules? How about making teachers contribute just a little tiny bit to their healthcare? The state could use the extra money to hire the teachers they desperately need - if every teacher contributed just 1.5% per year (still, insanely low) to their healthcare do you have any idea how much more money there would be to hire new teachers and make improvements? We could also do away with (or just modify - lets not get crazy here) the pension plan or maybe just do a salary freeze for one year - either of those would save a ton of money! Sadly, the union will never let it happen.

[quote name='Msut77']Because you are hardly even pretending there is any rational basis to your "positions", I honestly believe it is nothing more than a class thing to you.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. How is it not rational to think that:

An employee (i) should have to pay at least something for full coverage healthcare that they get for their entire family for LIFE; (ii) should not be guaranteed their job no matter the quality of work; (iii) should not be able to receive money to spend during retirement above and beyond what is contributed over the course of their career; and (iv) should not be guaranteed a raise every year no matter what is going on with the economy/rest of the world? There is no other job I can think of with these insanely awesome benefits - especially one paid for by the public! This is irrational thinking? It may not be a popular viewpoint (especially in this thread!) but irrational?

I also don't understand what you mean by "a class thing" - are we treating teachers as the class? Then I guess it would be a class thing. If we are referring to economic standing then I don't see how this factors into my position at all. I would think this way no matter what job was being discussed.
 
I'd agree with you on insurance as well. In higher education we have to pay monthly premiums toward our health insurance. No reason public teachers should be any different and get more benefits there than professors in state universities who have more education than them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top