Bueller... Bueller...

Teacher salaries at the high school average $72-78k. Apparently 50% of the students at the school are failing all of their classes, and the graduation rate is also under 50%. In an effort to turn the school around, the superintendent requested some changes be made whereby the school day would be slightly extended, teachers would perform some extra tutoring, etc.

Superintendent did the right thing. What a pathetic bunch of teachers.

Fuck those dumb kids. -The Teachers Union

"each lunch with students..."?

love the irony of grammatical errors in a story condemning education and teachers

something is fishy about this story

If the students need tutoring let the parents pay Sylvan. That is personal responsibility.

Just curious what people's feelings would be if their boss walked in and said you have to work an extra 2.5 hours a week without pay.

douchesquirts...Salaried people do it al of the time, dumbfuck.

I understand in whatever minimum wage job you're struggling with, 2.5 hours of extra work means more customers to wait on, and more tables to bus, but...

Couple of additional things to consider

Teachers already work far more hours than the school day.

The school district could have paid for the additional time, but couldnt come up with the money.

The teachers get paid well BECAUSE they work where other people refuse to work.

Urban schools have a very difficult time finding and keeping qualified teachers, THUS they get paid more than other school districts.

Just curious what people's feelings would be if their boss walked in and said you have to work an extra 2.5 hours a week without pay.

#7 | Posted by truthhurts

If I was getting their benefits and summers off, I wouldn't push my luck by being niggardly about it.

douchesquirts...Salaried people do it al of the time, dumbfuck

not in union situations, and not in what is essentially permanent change in the workweek.

Fine you go work in an urban high school, good luck with that.

not in union situations, and not in what is essentially permanent change in the workweek.

#11 | Posted by truthhurts at 2010-02-16 09:34 AM | Reply

Which has nothing to do with the question you asked, or the response I gave. In other words, you're an idiot.

sure asshole, people just love having their workweeks increased without pay, part of life and all

you are an idiot

oh btw it is more than 25 minutes a day

Six conditions Central Falls High School teachers must accept by Friday to keep their jobs:

Increase length of school day by 25 minutes to provide more instructional time for students.

Formalize tutoring schedule so struggling students have extra help for one hour before and after school.

Agree to eat lunch with students one day a week to build stronger relationships.

Attend two weeks of professional development in the summer at a rate of $30 an hour.

Stay after school for 90 minutes one day each week to work with fellow teachers analyzing student work and test data and discussing ways to improve teaching at a rate of $30 an hour if Gallo can find grant financing.

Accept more rigorous evaluations by a third-party starting March

so you have 25 minutes extra per day, an extra hour every week or two for tutoring, 30 minutes of lunch (eating with students, means SUPERVISING students) and extra 90 minute a week for planning purposes.

so the work week would increase around 4.5 to 5 hours a week for a teacher and they will receive an extra $45.

yep sure no problem where do I sign up.

What solutions would you suggest with 50% failing all of their classes?

What does that say about the teachers performance?

But it's for the kids.

sure asshole, people just love having their workweeks increased without pay, part of life and all

you are an idiot

#15 | Posted by truthhurts at 2010-02-16 09:41 AM | Reply

Look at you all wound up and butt hurt.

Nobody said they had to love it. What part of "You asked a question, I answered it, and you keep responding with things that have nothing to do with the answers" don't you get?

Non sequiturs will not hide the fact you asked a stupid fucking question with an obvious answer. The fact you weren't able to figure out salaried people work extra hours all of the time is typical for some minimum waged tool like you.

I think the problem is a hell of alot more complicated than teachers-destruction of the family, generational poverty, rampant crime and violence to name a few.

you want quality education, you pay for it. I think teachers (and nurses BTW) should be paid like rock stars. They are the backbone of our educational (and healthcare) systems and nickel and diming them and forcing them to work in horrible conditions and expecting miracles from them is ridiculous. If we had a nation that truly appreciated and valued education instead of denigrated knowledge we would be better off.

i would start with free college education for every qualified HS graduate. Give the kids a truly meaningful motivational tool to educate themselves.

What does that say about the teachers performance?

#19 | Posted by mysterytoy

it says teachers have an incredibly difficult and thankless job.

The school district pays them what they pay them because they need teachers. Why would a quality teacher deal with the shit of teaching in a poor urban school when they could make the same money in a suburban middle class school?

go away trollboring

It is ridiculous for there to even be such a thing as a state that is as small as Rhode Island.

" the superintendent requested some changes be made..."

Bullshit. The superintendent unilaterally imposed new working conditions, in violation of a contract already agreed upon by both sides.

He has no right, just as the workers have no right to unilaterally cut their work days by an hour at will.

In case there were any doubt that "the children" have nothing to do with gravy training teachers, here's the proof.

He has no right

The superintendent is a woman.

unilaterally imposed new working conditions, in violation of a contract

Unless you've read the contract, you have no basis for saying that. Hopefully it allows for the lazy teachers, who are apparently more loyal to their union than to their employer, to be legally fired.

gravy training teachers

LOL, too funny

yep all those teachers just gliding by, living the easy life.

hey why not double their hours, make em work weekends, make em work all summer, why the fuck not!

Yeah, those poor teachers. Worked to the bone but at age 50, retire and move to another school district to reap more benefits. Fucking laughable.

How are the kids in the USA doing when compared to the rest of the modern world? What? They're lagging?
Then perhaps the teachers should work double hours and weekends. Clearly they can't do the jobs they signed up for in the time that is allotted to them.
They obviously need to work harder, work smarter, or both.

gee I thought republicans were all about personal responsibility. So it is not the kids fault but the teachers, ok thanks for playing

now go away troll boy

LOL, too funny

yep all those teachers just gliding by, living the easy life.

hey why not double their hours, make em work weekends, make em work all summer, why the fuck not!

Oh please...seriously, stop whining.

You can't have it both ways. If you're about the kids and "building the next generation of leaders", put your money where your mouth is. That's kinda the deal with being holier than thou...you have to walk the walk.

I work on the weekends AND during the summer AND do an unpaid oncall shift 12 weeks of the year. Holy shit...working a job 12 months out of the year. What a fucking concept.

If you're looking for sympathy, whining about working 9 1/2 months a year as though you're stretched to the limit is a joke. (Oh, and grading papers during American Idol...I know, what a travesty.)

gee I thought republicans were all about personal responsibility. So it is not the kids fault but the teachers, ok thanks for playing

Hmm...I wonder if there is a difference between a minor and an adult getting paid to do a job?

I would imagine many teachers would agree to working such schedules based on a contract etc.

unilaterally changing the contract? well that just aint american.

So it is not the kids fault but the teachers, ok thanks for playing

#32 | Posted by truthhurts at 2010-02-16 10:16 AM | Reply |

Right. The adult in the equation (the one paid to do a job they aren't getting done) is the responsible party, not the child.

Did you really need that explained to you? Do you tire of me pointing out your stupidity? If so, there's an easy way for it to end. Simply quit being so fucking stupid.

I would imagine many teachers would agree to working such schedules based on a contract etc.

Yes, Union workers supporting longer work days over a previous contract happens all the time...and this is for the children! So I'm sure they'll be lining up in support of this...

#37 what are you talking about?

teachers and school have a contract.

school unilaterally changes the working conditions, adding 4.5 to 5 hours a week to the workload,

no problemo? bullshit

Notice how douchesquirts makes a stupid comment, gets corrected, and then moves on to the next stupid fucking comment without acknowledging she was corrected?

It's as if she thinks nobody notices.

They have my full support, especially if they're union and they're gay. Did I mention that I'm in threee unions? I occasionally strike against myself.

--Danforth

douchesquirts is getting mauled, so she desperately clings to something, anything.

That "something" and "anything" happens to be the "unilaterally" Danforth threw out in #26.

Down goes douchesquirts, down goes douchesquirts.

They have my full support, as long as they promote an anti-tag agenda.

--Truthy

yes stupid statements like people would not like their workweeks unilaterally increased by 4.5 to 5 hours, yep that is pretty darn stupid of me

you troll

stupid statements like I think that a person who agreed to a contract (ie extra hours) would live by that contract

you are nothing but a troll

teachers and school have a contract.

school unilaterally changes the working conditions, adding 4.5 to 5 hours a week to the workload,

no problemo? bullshit

I hope you aren't a teacher...25minsX5 is less than 2.5 hours.

Did I mention they make 70-78k? ...that's practically Obama rich! And they have a graduation rate of 50%?

I'm trying to dig up a few tears, but it ain't happening...

ohhhh so in other words you are ignorant,

read my post 16

25 minutes per day

30 minute lunch per week

90 minutes of planning a week

1 hour of tutoring (presumably every or every other week)

at least an additional 4.5 to 5 hours per week

I have doubts about the income, I posted a link with the salaries. Doctorates with many years experience get the upper range salaries.

Presuming it is true, urban schools pay HIGHER because they have to to draw teachers. I think the school will have a tough time finding 100 or so replacement teachers

yes stupid statements like...

#43 | Posted by truthhurts

In posts #7, #11, #15, especially #32.

Glad I could help you out, again.

Does calling me a troll make you feel like less of a punching bag? I'd assume it would make you feel like more of a punching bag considering I'm continually pointing out your stupidity and you're constantly responding to me with even more stupidity.

I've got an idea...Log in to Uallsuck and cry to Rogers. It worked last time, remember?

Fucking UNIONS it figues they would do that.

It's convenient to blame the students because then you don't have to fix the problem.

ok troll boy, so you believe people happily accept a unilateral increase in their workweek of 4.5 to 5

gee your dumb, going to stop feeding you though.

Why don't they just hire Phil Jones and he can just throw out all the low test scores.

who says dont fix the problem. In fact additional hours, tutoring etc are all great ideas. Unilaterally changing a contract and then firing people who dont follow along is just plain wrong.

of course some people seem to think that workers should just put up with anything owners, administration etc dole out. I dont agree

gee your dumb...

#49 | Posted by truthhurts at 2010-02-16 10:46 AM | Reply

Damn, you just can't win, can you?

Oh, and like I told you earlier, but you're too fucking dumb to comprehend, is that non-sequiturs aren't helping you.
I never said that people will "happily accept" anything. The fact you have to make up my position should be your second indicator that you're having your ass kicked by a troll. The first should have been the responses you've received.

Clean yourself up woman, I'm done kicking you around.

so you believe people happily accept a unilateral increase in their workweek of 4.5 to 5

No...but that's what should happen when YOU'RE A FUCKING FAILURE AT YOUR JOB! Next thing you're going to tell me is that kids who are failing in class don't like going to summer school.

noone is saying that changes are warranted, but unilaterally changing a contract is wrong firing all your teachers is stupid. You want to make those changes, fine, pay for them

noone is saying that changes are warranted, but unilaterally changing a contract is wrong firing all your teachers is stupid. You want to make those changes, fine, pay for them

This poor district is in a state of emergency. The union was asked to make concessions in this dire situation, and refused. As a result of their poor performance and refusal to change, they were fired. The union called the bluff and lost.

If we can't find 100 unemployed hardworking teachers concerned about children to make 70k in this current economy, we're far more fucked than I ever imagined.

ok troll boy, so you believe people happily accept a unilateral increase in their workweek of 4.5 to 5

Posted by truthhurts

Ever hear of the private sector? And those people aren't close to a 50% failure rate.

Unions always refuse to do anything that appears to be a pay cut. Buh bye.

Unions in California are doing the same thing. SF has a budget shortfall and unions won't take a 5% pay cut. Oh well. Buh bye.

damn...that was more than I made in a rich state and I was a damn good teacher...
just ask me..

now I know why I only joined a smaller union just for the liability insurance...

last year I taught there was discussion about going from 6 period day to 7 period day which wouldn lengthen the day by only about 10 mins and many teachers screamed about it...thier problem was that that district was one of the last ones on the stupid 6 period so the supp..said..,.okay...well quit and go somewhere else that is on 6 period day...there was NO exodus and the new shedule is just fine.

I have to admit...TEACHERS are some of the worst people I know when it comes to change...

NOW eating with them is a different story since most of them are fuckin slobs when it comes to lunch.

of course IF I were at a catholic school and the girls all worse those catholic school dresses.......................
.......

The high failure rate has as much or more to do with bad parents as with the teachers.

"Unless you've read the contract, you have no basis for saying that."

Huh? I've negotiated and signed enough Union contracts in my life to know neither side has the right to unilaterally impose new terms. Did you flunk contract law?

amen bro...

but there are certainly some teachers out there who need to work the concession counters at the local movie too........

"Unions always refuse to do anything that appears to be a pay cut."

Another moron unafraid to parade his stupidity.

Contracts are contracts. When two sides enter into a contractual agreement, neither side has the right to change the terms unilaterally, all whining, bitching and moaning aside. On top of that, generally speaking, these contracts are for 3 years, so it's not that long before these terms can be renegotiated, and quite often there are "re-opener" clauses in contracts, so if conditions radically change, adjustments can be re-negotiated. The problem here is, after signing the contract, the school system wants to renege.

Would anybody here stay silent if they signed a 3 year lease, and two months later their landlord wanted to raise the rent 10%?

#40

Gee, Cookie, I know you're still smarting from our divorce, but don't you think it's time you got over it?

Huh? I've negotiated and signed enough Union contracts in my life to know neither side has the right to unilaterally impose new terms. Did you flunk contract law?

Nobody cares how many contracts you've seen - you haven't seen this one, and you don't know that it didn't allow the superintendent to request another 25 minutes of work every day, or whether it had some other open-ended provision which could be construed as authorizing such an action. Nothing in any of the articles I've read on this story says the union accused the superintendent of breaching the contract, it just says the union refused to acquiesce to her requests.

"That "something" and "anything" happens to be the "unilaterally" Danforth threw out in #26. "

That "something" being that both sides to adhere to the contract they signed.

Tell us, 101...why should the teachers be expected to live up to what they signed, but the other signers of the contract should be able to change and impose conditions at will?

if it is so important to enact these changes, why not pay the teachers for the extra time?

Most contracts have clauses to allow for emergency situations or new duties as assigned. It's unlikely that the contract said you will work 7:30am to 4pm or you will only work x hours.

"Nobody cares how many contracts you've seen - you haven't seen this one"

Of course not. But I've seen hundreds of Union contracts, helped negotiated them, and studied a bit of contract law as well. This was a one-sided demand over and above what the school had already agreed to. And if anyone's really concerned about the budget and the kids, a slew of improper discharge lawsuits aren't going to help the district's bottom line.

"you don't know that it didn't allow the superintendent to request another 25 minutes of work"

Request? Is this going to be another situation where your argument includes ignoring definitions of the words you're using? The superintendent made unilateral demands, and when they weren't met, fired every teacher. That's not a request, in any dictionary except maybe your own.

and again it was more than 25 minutes a week

Six conditions Central Falls High School teachers must accept by Friday to keep their jobs:

Increase length of school day by 25 minutes to provide more instructional time for students.

Formalize tutoring schedule so struggling students have extra help for one hour before and after school.

Agree to eat lunch with students one day a week to build stronger relationships.

Attend two weeks of professional development in the summer at a rate of $30 an hour.

Stay after school for 90 minutes one day each week to work with fellow teachers analyzing student work and test data and discussing ways to improve teaching at a rate of $30 an hour if Gallo can find grant financing.

Accept more rigorous evaluations by a third-party starting March

that is at a minimum 4.5 hours a week additional.

Okay Danforth. I should have said "demands." And you, not having seen this particular contract, have no way of knowing whether it was breached.

You're speculating. Have fun with that.

teacher contracts are almost worthless at least in texas..the district can fire you for any reason the first two years and you sign the contract most of the time before any money figures are there because of legislative action..

after two years you dont have tenure but the district has more stringent rules to follow to get rid of you...
Im sure these union contracts have much more to them

"And you, not having seen this particular contract, have no way of knowing whether it was breached."

If you think there are no provisions in that contract for discharge, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Just say it Danforth. You'll feel better.

"I have no way of knowing whether this particular contract has been breached."

I have no doubt this contract was breached.

Just say it, Joe. You'll look smarter.

You have no doubt?

As someone who claims to have studied the law, you'd think you would know that you can never have "no doubt" as to whether a contract was breached if you haven't even read the contract.

Oh, I know, you've "read and negotiated other union contracts." If they all have the same terms, then why hire a goon like you to negotiate the terms? Just use the "Danforth Form Contract"(c) and everything will be set. Teachers and gay actors all have the same needs and the same contracts - right Danforth?

You guys are getting all worked up over nothing. Soon we'll be outsourcing our teaching jobs to China and India. Kids will be schooled in their own homes over the internet. Unions--solving yesterday's problems.

A cheap and seemingly inexhausable source of labor from developing (and increasingly well-eduacated) nations--solving tomorrow's problems.

"Teachers and gay actors all have the same needs and the same contracts - right Danforth?"

Good God, you're a homophobe.

I've certainly negotiated enough Union contracts to know established ones like this have rules for discharge, rules that don't include refusing to accepting unilateral demands. How many Union contracts have you negotiated, counselor?

My bet: we've returned to "Joe's Rules": if Joe isn't familiar with it, it can't possibly exist.

"You have no doubt?"

I have no doubt there are rules agreed to by both parties on when discharge is allowed. I also have no doubt refusal to accept non-negotiated demands for changes in wages and working conditions isn't one of the allowed reasons for discharge.

Whatever Danforth. You've negotiated contracts, but you didn't negotiate this one. You know that this conduct would cause a breach of the contracts you've negotiated - but not this one.

You don't know anything about this contract, because you haven't seen it.

Go ahead and file a breach of contract action in court, don't attach a copy of the contract to the complaint, then show up at a hearing and tell the judge you've never seen the contract before but that you "have no doubt it was breached." In fact, do it in Cook County so I can watch.

"You don't know anything about this contract, because you haven't seen it."

Too funny. I've been doing this longer than you've been alive. Of course, I realize that doesn't mean anything to a kid with no experience in the field.

Keep up the good work, counselor.

Let me get this straight. You're older than Joe, so you know what is and isn't in a contract you haven't seen?

At what age can I expect to have such magical powers?

Seen one contract, seen 'em all.
-Danforth

Contracts can be unilaterally changed by one party.
-Joe

I've never negotiated a Union contract, but I know what's in them.
-Joe

You may have done this for almost 30 years, but I haven't experienced it, so you can't possibly know what I don't know.
-Joe

"Let me get this straight. You're older than Joe, so you know what is and isn't in a contract you haven't seen?"

No, dumbshit. I know how Union contracts are structured, especially regarding capricious discharge.

So why haven't you answered #67?

No, dumbshit. I know how Union contracts are structured, especially regarding capricious discharge.

So why haven't you answered #67?

#88 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-02-16 02:38 PM | Reply

Calm down Sally, I don't want you to break a nail.

The fact that you keep ignoring is that you have no fucking clue what is and isn't in this contract. It's really that simple.

Where is the other side to this coin? We all know a union can't help but play the victim, where's their response?

As for answering #67...
I imagine "teaching" was something the teachers were expected to do in that contract (I, like you, haven't seen it though). With a 50% graduation rate it seems they aren't living up to their part of the contract.

Tell me Copernicus, what are the winning numbers for the Powerball tonight?

"you have no fucking clue what is and isn't in this contract. It's really that simple."

But I do.

Union contracts like this include passages on discharge, including what steps the administration must take, opportunities for hearings, routes of appeal, etc. If you morons want to pretend a Union contract in a Rhode Island school district is different from other Union contracts across the country in that it allows a unilateral imposition of arbitrary changes in working conditions, and discharge for disagreement, go right ahead with your stupidity. Not much I can do about it.

"...where's their response?"

Take it up in the next round of negotiations, just like the Union would have to do if they wanted a change in working conditions. The Union isn't allowed to cut the work week by 4 hours by fiat. Why should the other signer to the contract be allowed to increase the work week via threat of job loss?

"As for answering #67..."

You didn't.

Keep the Teachers--Fire the Union!

"As for answering #67..."

You didn't.

#90 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-02-16 02:56 PM | Reply

You ask why the teachers should be expected to abide by the contract, and I point out they aren't.
Consider it answered.

And again, it's getting pretty said that I have to say this, but you don't know what's in the contract.

What we know:

50% graduation rate-Epic Fail on teachers
Teachers fired
No response from the teachers or Unions. Now knowing unions the way you claim, you of all people should know they don't ever stop fucking whining. Why the silence? Chances are if they were in the right we'd know it because they'd send their spokesbitches out and cry on every shoulder they could find.

Union contracts like this include passages on discharge, including what steps the administration must take, opportunities for hearings, routes of appeal, etc.

No. The contracts you have read contain these provisions. While it's possible the contract at issue here contains similar provisions, you have no way of knowing without reading it.

My argument is simple: You have no way of knowing what is in a document you have never read. As much as you want to pretend that your experience with said documents allows you to know the terms of this document, we all know you are wrong. The sooner you admit that you do not know what is in this contract, the better off we will all be.

Union refusal to make concessions on wages is only going to force layoffs and eat up surplus cash faster. What are they going to do when the cash runs out?

"it's getting pretty said that I have to say this, but you don't know what's in the contract. "

Yup...pretty said.

Do I know the specific provisions regarding discharge in that contract? No. Do I know there are provisions around discharge? Yes. Do I know that refusing a unilateral order changing wages and working conditions isn't one of the grounds for discharge. Yes. The fact you don't know doesn't negate any of that.

"No response from the teachers or Unions."

Speaking of not knowing for a fact....

"My argument is simple: You have no way of knowing what is in a document you have never read."

Then you're simple, too. I've never read the United Mine Workers' contract either, but I can guarantee you there are no provisions allowing management to make job-threatening demands and then firing workers for not capitulating in that one, too.

"the better off we will all be."

Then I guess you're all just going to have to suffer.

Sorry, morons...back to work.

Poor Danforth. Is your skin really this thin? Is it menopause?

Well at least you're aware that the teachers aren't living up to their side of the contract. It's a start.

Here is the point of the story, you have a job, you are asked to do something else, you have two options, object and face those consequences or quit.

That is it. The employer is the one that sets the contract for the job, if they change the status, you can object all you want, freely, however you are able to be fired all they want, freely.

Unions are taken advantage of far too often. They become more of a hindrance than a help after a while.

SF has a budget shortfall and unions won't take a 5% pay cut. Oh well. Buh bye.

#58 | Posted by mysterytoy at 2010-02-16 11:21 AM | Reply

Are the citizens pitching in an extra 5% in taxes?

Is the mayor taking a 5% pay cut?

Then you're simple, too. I've never read the United Mine Workers' contract either, but I can guarantee you there are no provisions allowing management to make job-threatening demands and then firing workers for not capitulating in that one, too.

Yeah, you can tell me all you want. But you're wrong if you say you have "no doubt" as to what is in the contract. Those provisions could have been negotiated away for all you know. It may not be likely, but there can never be "no doubt" without reading the actual contract.

Have it your way though. Seen one contract, you've seen them all I guess. Which again leads me to ask why they need goons like you to negotiate the terms in the first place - they're always the same, right?

Is the mayor taking a 5% pay cut?

Has the mayor failed at 50% of his tasks?

Is the mayor taking a 5% pay cut?

Has the mayor failed at 50% of his tasks?

#101 | Posted by JOE

so the mayor shouldnt be held accountable for the performance of the schools?

so the mayor shouldnt be held accountable for the performance of the schools?

Academic performance is not usually a part of a mayor's duties in most municipalities. The school board, superintendent and underlings have that responsibility

so the mayor shouldnt be held accountable for the performance of the schools?

Sure he should. But not as directly as teachers, principals and superintendents should be.

Then again, continue with your strawman bullshit, Truthhurts. It's more entertaining that way.

sorry missed the SF reference long day, continue blathering

from the blogs

It's Finally Here
written by leftyrite, February 09, 2010

It's finally here. The busting of the teachers unions of this state begins tonight. If this egregious violation of the rights of the teachers of Central Falls is allowed to stand, the deathknell has been rung for organized labor in the public schools.
Charter schools, which are nothing other than corporate entities in "public/private partnership" clothing, will usher in the new order of the day: low wages, repression, indoctrination, and eventual systemic failure--followed by an even greater takeover from the right.
The federal government of the United States as we know it, and what's left of its principles and ideals, are embodied in the public schools. These besieged remnants of our national commons, these institutions that we share in and depend upon for what's left of our social mobility and advancement, are way too important to be entrusted to a comic book savior like Obama.
Expect him to sell us out. He certainly will, private school snob that he is. Lincoln... nonsense.
For too long, the kids of Central Falls, and their teachers, have been vilified for the failures of our economic order, a rotten edifice that already ruins way too many lives. A predatory apparatus that is now corrupt and which has failed shockingly to reform itself, killing the middle class and everyone beneath it.
Goldman got bailed out. We got sold out.
Goldman got bailed out. Central Falls got sold out.

so the mayor shouldnt be held accountable for the performance of the schools?

#102 | Posted by truthhurts at 2010-02-16 04:05 PM

So it is not the kids fault but the teachers, ok thanks for playing

#32 | Posted by truthhurts at 2010-02-16 10:16 AM | Reply |

troll I said i was wrong, now go away

troll I said i was wrong, now go away

#110 | Posted by truthhurts at 2010-02-16 04:17 PM | Reply |

You also claimed you weren't going to respond to me anymore.
The problem is that you get so worked up over me calling out your stupidity that you can't help but lash out in anger.
Don't worry, you're not alone.

In a letter, union officials said they do not think Gallo has the authority to fire the teachers and she must negotiate the terms of the reforms.

In an interview, Jane M. Sessums, union president, said the union intends to fight the terminations, although she was not ready to say how.

Joe and Danforth, towards your ongoing debate

Sheila Lawless-Burke, an English-as-a-Second Language teacher, said teachers are not opposed to working harder or longer; they simply want the opportunity to negotiate the details of their contract, not have it imposed from above.

"It's all about the politics," she said, "about making Fran Gallo look good. The issue is having the right to negotiate. Once we allow the superintendent to get her foot in the door, where will it stop?"

smells of union busting to me.

that is what we need lower paid, less experienced teachers!!!!!!

March 17, 2007: Frances A. Gallo, veteran educator and former deputy superintendent of Providence schools, is chosen as Central Falls school superintendent.

2008-2009: Test scores remain a problem at Central Falls High School as only 3 percent of 11th graders are proficient in math in 2008 and 7 percent in 2009.

November 2009: Gallo begins talks with teachers on her plans to reform the high school.

Jan. 11, 2010: State Education Commissioner Deborah A. Gist names the high school as one of the state's worst schools and in need of closure or complete overhaul. Gallo says she already has a plan ready to implement in the fall. The plan would include a longer school day, more training, more tutoring.

Feb. 1-5, 2010: Gallo and union leaders are unable to reach an agreement on pay issues for the extra work. She says the failure is forcing her to switch to a reform model that calls for firing all teachers at the high school.

Feb. 9, 2010: During a packed meeting, Gallo gives the teachers' union more time to agree on her original plan.

Feb. 12, 2010 Talks fail; Gallo proceeds with across-the-board firing plan.

by all means less qualified, lower paid teachers is the answer!!!!!!!

by all means less qualified, lower paid teachers is the answer!!!!!!!

Nobody said anything about hiring less qualified, lower paid teachers. In this case they were not trying to lower anyone's pay, just asking them to work longer without an increase. There is a difference, because they are not hourly employees.

and the teachers said fine just pay us.

the supt refused and fired all the teachers, and will hire back less than 50% of the teachers.

Thereby replacing experienced teachers with less experienced teachers.

and apparently this Supt has a history of doing this in RI (in Providence), she comes in whacks the teachers unions and cuts and replaces teachers.

"It may not be likely, but there can never be "no doubt" without reading the actual contract."

Only for morons who don't understand what a Union employment contract is all about.

"just asking them to work longer without an increase."

And again, Joe breaks out the Joe's Dictionary definitions. "Asking", on pain of job loss, isn't "asking" at all.

Carry on, counselor.

Only for morons who don't understand what a Union employment contract is all about.

You've admitted said contracts are "negotiated," and have no way of knowing how the terms you love to speculate on were "negotiated." I won't be saying this to you again: You do not know what this contract said. You can make an educated guess as to what it said based on other contracts you've seen, but you have no way of being 100% sure what it said, or having "no doubt" it was breached without reading its terms.

"Asking", on pain of job loss, isn't "asking" at all

I shouldn't have used that word - but whether she asked or demanded has nothing to do with the fact that she wasn't trying to lower their pay, per truthhurts' post.

But since arguing over trivialities (like the meaning of words that are irrelevant to my point) is your specialty, have at it. Be sure to throw in some "counselor" remarks too, because we all know I treat the drudge retort as seriously as a legal brief.

will replacing more than 50% of the teachers result in better education for the students?

It certainly can't be much worse...besides, we already know that nobody gives a shit about the kids when it comes to a union job, so why start pretending now?

I've always supported unions but I also realize that unionized public employees don't really support the unions of the private sector very well.
I think I've come around to the point of view that public employees shouldn't be immune from the economic problems we face any more than private sector employees should be.

The only thing that seperates the hells angels and most unions is the motorcycles and the fact that the Hell's Angels don't steal as much.

how is it stealing to have a contract and get paid for it.

I thought you couldn't get fired if you are in the union ---- so said the DR "right" at least!

You would think that this Previous position would render all the above WingDingery mute!

But it didn't! They went into elaborate detail the nuance of a condition they had previously denied could exist!

Fucking Priceless!

#121
Riiiiiiight. The guy who's never been in on a single Union contract negotiation wants to tell the guy who's been doing it for decades what is and isn't in the contract. As if grounds for firing teachers and the ensuing processes aren't going to be in the contract. Riiiiiiight.

"Be sure to throw in some "counselor" remarks too"

BWAHAHAHAHA!

Lil Joe is ruffled by "counselor", but has no hesitation throwing out stuff about "gay actors".

Once again, Joe is pissed when he gets treated the same way he treats others.

Carry on.

It is stealing when you get paid for work that you do not do. Companies often times try to push non union guys out, and put union guys in. They tend to do less work, and are only allowed to do what they are specified for. Instead of getting a road construction job done when Joe knows how and is certified to use the backhoe, even though Chris is the backhoe operater but is not there, they will wait for 1. Chris to return to work as they do something else and waste time, or 2. wait for another operator to come out to the work site.

It wastes time, which is money and costs those who paid the companies for the projects more than it should have. I consider that stealing.

exps you dont get out much do you?

companies actually do the opposite of what you say. union people cost more.

they do not tend to do less work.

you have never actually worked on a union construction job, have you?

they do not tend to do less work.

link?

I'm sure you can find a link. I didn't though.

I bailed on public education in Texas when my son was in 3rd grade.

His BS is Magna Cum Laude and his grad school GPA is 4.0.

My daughter is smarter.

There will be survivors if we can avoid massive nuclear suicide.

Yes I have worked on a union construction job. The protocol is to have 10 people present 5 working and only 2 of the 5 working hard.

Seems to be a trend in what I have seem.

Plus my father has worked out of and recently inside the union (He was force to join otherwise they would have worked to make sure he lost his job), and this is what he has seen as well.

When he was not in the union, they complained that he was doing the things that they were supposed to be doing, even though he did them better, and faster and was getting paid less.

When inside the union they complain that he is doing too much work and cause problems becaue he is going to "make them look bad."

That is the union mentality. United in slowing things down.

Expres-
Everything was simpler when you could just get children to do the dangerous or crippling stuff.

Didn't Obama want to unionize the TSA?

The best was when Reagan fired the air traffic controllers.

ChevyChase-
Does your smart box not have Google, chevy?

The best was when Reagan fired the air traffic controllers.

#136 | Posted by ChevyChase at 2010-02-16 11:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

I thought it was even better when Reagan tripled the debt, proving to Cheney that "deficits don't matter", so Bush-cheney could then double the debt again.

Reagan had champagne taste.

At least when Reagan spent money we got something for our buck. All we get for the money Obama spends is votes for the democrats.

At least when Reagan spent money we got something for our buck.

It's clear he overpaid for Iran's missiles and $800 hammers

re: At least when Reagan spent money we got something for our buck

Yeah, we got debt, and a Republican legacy of doubling and tripling the debt, and passing programs without even attempting to pay for them (for a recent example see Medicare Part D, the Iraq war, etc.).

I thought the hammer was only $600. The toilet seat was $800 but it was certified for flight.

AU-
Reagan also allowed us to buy the theocracy in Iran sophisticated weaponry, illegally, of course (see Iran-contra).

I remember it well, BETELG. At least he was man enough to apologize before his mind went bye bye.

Getting caught might have had something to do with it.

I'll give Reagan this, though: He never would have signed on to something like this -

Article 1.
1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2.
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Oh...wait...

Can you sense any suffering here?

Betel, I don't think that the function of unions is there to prevent children from working at this point. It seems to be there to help people get paid more money for less work.

"At least when Reagan spent money we got something for our buck."

Yeah, like Star Wars which still doesn't work.

The toilet seat was $800 but it was certified for flight.

That better be one special toilet seat to cost $760 more than you can buy at Home Depot @ retail price.

Next time one of you wing dingers start crowing about how the GOP forced "paygo" on Clinton, remember that it was also the GOP that failed to renew paygo when lil bush was in office.

The pattern is clear... hamstring a Democratic president with balance budgets and paygo while letting the Republicon president run up massive deficits.

Star Wars?

An amazing media phenomenon.

Setting aside its viability or lack of for a moment...that term was coined by the Soviet Union and the wonderful MSM ran with it.

Useful idiots and all that...

Danforth sure has a lot of sand in his vagina. What's the matter cupcake, are the thethpians getting westless waiting for you to run their taxes over to H&R Block?

Tell us, what will the DOW do next week? What are the winning Powerball numbers?

The fact you think you know what's in the contract is almost as sad and pathetic as your spelling corrections.

Why do you continue to ignore the question about why they'd need to hire a poofter like you to negotiate a contract if they're all the same?

"The fact you think you know what's in the contract"

The fact you don't know employment conditions are in an employment contract simply means you don't have a single clue as to what Union contracts are all about.

But it's fun to see you parade your ignorance.

Carry on, douchesquirt.

Conditions like "Do your job" or "Have more than half the class graduate" or "Don't completely suck at what you do" or "Don't be the worst school in the state"? Actual conditions the teachers have to meet in order to keep their jobs?

Oh, and you didn't answer what they'd need a poofter like you for if the contracts are all the same. It must have been an oversight.

The pattern is clear... hamstring a Democratic president with balance budgets and paygo while letting the Republicon president run up massive deficits.

I'll take the former thank you very much.

At least that is one scenario where partisan politics at least come closer to actually representing my wishes.

But for those of you who didn't like "hamstringing a democratic president with balance budgets and paygo".....continue with your pissing and moaning.

I fucking love it.

this thread is typical..so many offering opinions about teaching simply because they were in school once.
walk in thier shoes some and then come back.

where partisan politics at least come closer to actually representing my wishes

So hypocrisy is your wish? You got it. No surprise to me.

"Oh, and you didn't answer what they'd need a poofter like you for if the contracts are all the same."

Gee, another DR closet case who things calling someone gay is a slur. How lucky can one blog get?

"The best was when Reagan fired the air traffic controllers."

And within a few short years, the Air Traffic Controllers found the need to form a Union.

Unions aren't a choice of first resort. On the contrary, they're usually the choice of last resort. No one ever says...Gee, they treat us great here, let's form a Union! Instead, it's only after a series of unacceptable moves by management or ownership the workers feel they have no other choice but to band together. Teachers are a perfect example. They're beset on all sides, from the students to the administration to the school board to the parents to the public. Without a voice, management could come in a make unilateral changes in wages and working conditions at will, followed by the ultimatum "do it, or be fired". Much like this case. But that's why contracts are there in the first place. The superintendent can no more impose capricious changes than can the workers demand their work day be cut in half for the same pay. And, as usual, the workers are expected to live up to what they signed, but management gets a pass on their word.

And the headline is one-sided bullshit. It could just as easily read Workers Fired For Adhering To Their Signed Contract.

And the headline is one-sided bullshit. It could just as easily read Workers Fired For Adhering To Their Signed Contract.

#161 | Posted by Danforth

That would require having read the contract. I suppose if that was the case as you state the next headline will read "Union Teachers sue to get their jobs back"

"That would require having read the contract. "

I don't have to read the contract to know one side can't unilaterally change the terms of the contract.

Every study contract law? Ever negotiate a Union contract? Ever negotiate any employment contract?

Maybe it never occurred to the Superintendent to read the contract to be sure he was acting legally.

Yes Yes and Yes.

I lost count.

If the positions were salary then they are required to perform the duties of the position. They refused. Buh bye.

I might feel sorry for them if their performance wasn't so terrible. They sucked and refused to make up for their poor performance.

mystery= chevychase and JaySherman

jackass=tosser=towelhead

"If the positions were salary then they are required to perform the duties of the position."

Obviously when you negotiated that Union employment contract you weren't paying very close attention.

If you're right then I suppose the teachers will be re-instated with pay.

Most likely the superintendent of schools has a PHD. He probably cleared his actions through his legal council. I doubt he would have made such a move without first checking with his legal council. But what the hey, dumber things have happened in government.

So hypocrisy is your wish? You got it. No surprise to me.

perfect example of the pissing and moaning I was referring to.

It's all you have 726. You have nothing else to offer obviously. partisan whining with no solutions.

Yes, it's hypocritical and partisan. I thought that was clear in my post. You thought "caught" me.

In the end we get fiscal discipline.

which you don't care about.

fucking moron.

I have no doubt this contract was breached.

Just say it, Joe. You'll look smarter.

#76 | Posted by Danforth

So what you are saying is that school systems have no way of making changes in their operation without breaking their contract?

The school district pays them what they pay them because they need teachers. Why would a quality teacher deal with the shit of teaching in a poor urban school when they could make the same money in a suburban middle class school?

#23 | Posted by truthhurts

They basically don't have much say in what school they are assigned to. If they are in it simply for the money then they deserve to get the axe.

Why not use the market? Fire all the damn teachers, and the unions, and give the parents a voucher.

These parents can then hire the teachers they want, or take their rug-rats to the private or public school / church / satanic-cult of their choice.

Time for the parents to have a little more input into solving the problem.

You're right. These kids deserve a good education just like they get at other schools. Give them vouchers and let them choose.

"So what you are saying is that school systems have no way of making changes in their operation without breaking their contract?"

No, I'm saying wages and working conditions are spelled out in the employment contract, and one side can't unilaterally change the conditions in a contract after they've signed it. The superintendent and others who negotiate the contract are free to do that the next time the contract comes up, but they're not allowed to lengthen the school day, take away lunch breaks that were probably negotiated in the contract, reduce the teacher's summer vacation by an additional two weeks, add tutoring to their workloads, and add another evening's work every week by fiat.

"Give them vouchers and let them choose."

That's a $4000 problem, and you have a $1000 solution.

What's really funny is when someone who has never taught in a classroom thinks they know everything about your job.

I have been teaching for 3 years and I make less than the department manager at a Walmart. Show me a district that pays 70,000 for a Bachelors or Masters degree and I'm there. Normally pay doesn't come up because we do this job because we love it, not because of what we get paid.

Having said that, I work my butt off for my $28,000. Often working 60-70 hours a week to plan for three different subjects, grade papers and do the ridiculous paper work I have to complete to notify parents of unexcused absences, zeros and failing grades (even though they have access to grades and attendance 24 hours a day on the internet). Did I mention I see 200 kids in a week? I teach 168 of them everyday, but I have another 2 remediation classes that I teach two days a week. Plus there are those mandatory events I'm required to attend (all dances, awards ceremonies, freshman orientation night, parent teacher conference nights etc...) which probably add up to another 40 hours that I work outside of my school day. I also am required to do lunch duty for 12 weeks out of the school year, as well as, hall duty in the mornings and afternoons. We also have conferences and meetings scheduled during planning periods, so I only get 3 of those out of a 5 day week. That means that when I have lunch duty and a meeting during planning, I often don't have 5 minutes to pee much less the 30 minute lunch and 2 15 minute breaks an hourly worker would get, regardless of their education and training. As for those breaks you mentioned? I spend time during each break getting caught up on work and planning for the upcoming weeks. During the summer I spend time working on what I teach because I want to make it better for the kids. It's also the only time throughout the year that I have time to clean and organize my house, which doesn't happen during 60+ hour weeks.

Do you think you could get anyone to teach year-round without breaks? Doubtful...good luck with that. Would I be upset if someone asked me to add all that extra work for $30 here and there? Totally. I think it's amazing that the teachers union has said enough is enough! That's what unions are for. Would I walk out for this? Absolutely.

Why is it that when a kid fails it is always the teachers fault? I would never say it's always the students fault either. I have had some students with crappy situations. I've had kids fail after losing a parent to cancer. I've had kids who failed due to a lack of support at home, or a parent that said "it's ok you're failing...I was bad at school too." In one case I had a student fail because he didn't care. When I asked, he said "I'm going to make it to 16 and drop out anyway." If you have a way to fix those situations in a way that is entirely in my hands, I'm all ears. But I'm fairly sure that tutoring and eating lunch with students in the situations above won't fix all the problems. So since some of you seem to have the solutions and know all about my job, why don't you go teach and see if your solutions work. If you succeed in fixing every problem, I'll personally pay to have you come fix the place where I teach.