Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Bromsy wrote:
Spoilered for language; a good representation of my view on unions -

Spoiler:

So your views are best summed up by a poorly written and acted YouTube skit that reinforces exaggerated and unrealistic stereotypes of unions?

You're nuanced insights are very intriguing, please tell me more.

As an engineer that's working in manufacturing for 15 years, I've worked with "good" unions and "bad" unions.

Good: want good pay for their workers, are very active in accident investigations in order to fix the problem rather than blame "the man" or cover a union member's ass, bridge the gap between management and hourly guys.

Bad: Defends lazy feth-ups to the nth degree, blames the man for any accident (injury or no), threatens strike every 4 years when the contract is ready to renew, makes work a hostile environment.

It's a two-way street, of course, and I'll never be allowed into any union as a professional, but I've never treated anyone (nor seen a manager treat anyone) the way that I've seen Union "bosses" treat managers, engineers out of college, and non-union hourly guys.

Just my experience, YMMV, etc.

I'm in a federal employees union, and I'm conflicted about it.

On the one hand, they have done a good job negotiating our contracts to allow for a lot of good perks, like work at home. As a single employee, I can't begin to negotiate on things like that. Collective bargaining is simply the only way to negotiate for thousands of people in a rigid beurocracy.

On the other hand, they seem to spend most of their energy protecting worthless employees. So, my union dues are mostly spent making it so that I need to work harder.

 kronk wrote:
As an engineer that's working in manufacturing for 15 years, I've worked with "good" unions and "bad" unions.

Good: want good pay for their workers, are very active in accident investigations in order to fix the problem rather than blame "the man" or cover a union member's ass, bridge the gap between management and hourly guys.

Bad: Defends lazy feth-ups to the nth degree, blames the man for any accident (injury or no), threatens strike every 4 years when the contract is ready to renew, makes work a hostile environment.

It's a two-way street, of course, and I'll never be allowed into any union as a professional, but I've never treated anyone (nor seen a manager treat anyone) the way that I've seen Union "bosses" treat managers, engineers out of college, and non-union hourly guys.

Just my experience, YMMV, etc.

Treating managers and engineers like turds is common place, union or not. I know I've been guilty of it in the construction industry; frankly it's hard not to. For instance, I've been a union steamfitter for 13 years, I went through an apprenticeship program (while working 40+ a week in the trade) for 5 years to learn my trade. Yet the contractor I work for will hire some kid fresh out of college that has never built anything, let alone set foot on a construction, and he's going to tell me how to do my job? It isn't easy, I can tell you that. Imagine if I was some old-timer that had been doing it for 30 years. Right or wrong, most of the time it boils down to pride and immaturity.

 Polonius wrote:
I'm in a federal employees union, and I'm conflicted about it.

On the one hand, they have done a good job negotiating our contracts to allow for a lot of good perks, like work at home. As a single employee, I can't begin to negotiate on things like that. Collective bargaining is simply the only way to negotiate for thousands of people in a rigid beurocracy.

On the other hand, they seem to spend most of their energy protecting worthless employees. So, my union dues are mostly spent making it so that I need to work harder.

Worthless employees will be protected whether they're union or not. I worked for the largest mechanical contractor in the DC Metro area and all the of office employees (short of the trade superintendents and a handful of project managers) were are college guys that didn't belong to any unions. Some of the most useless sycophants I have ever seen not only kept their job, but would get promoted because they went to the right college and played golf with the right people. Going to their boss did nothing because they were his buddies.

Unions have their problems, make no mistake about it. I'm often at odds with the direction my union is heading and the steps we're taking to get there. The non-union has all the same issues, it's just the people that are against unions tend to turn a blind eye too it.

 Polonius wrote:
I'm in a federal employees union, and I'm conflicted about it.

On the one hand, they have done a good job negotiating our contracts to allow for a lot of good perks, like work at home. As a single employee, I can't begin to negotiate on things like that. Collective bargaining is simply the only way to negotiate for thousands of people in a rigid beurocracy.

On the other hand, they seem to spend most of their energy protecting worthless employees. So, my union dues are mostly spent making it so that I need to work harder.

Don't work as hard?

But, the reason idiots don't get fired in non-union is because somebody is protecting them. A single person can be worked around most of the time. When an idiot has it in writing that they cannot be fired though makes it impossible to fire them regardless of who wants to. It also encourages them to be feth-ups.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I'm in a federal employees union, and I'm conflicted about it.

On the one hand, they have done a good job negotiating our contracts to allow for a lot of good perks, like work at home. As a single employee, I can't begin to negotiate on things like that. Collective bargaining is simply the only way to negotiate for thousands of people in a rigid beurocracy.

On the other hand, they seem to spend most of their energy protecting worthless employees. So, my union dues are mostly spent making it so that I need to work harder.

Don't work as hard?

My numbers look good for when I want to move into managment. I tend to be about 109% of goal.

But yeah, if I make a career in a bargaining unit position, at some point you shift into giving what they ask, and not much more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

On the other hand, they seem to spend most of their energy protecting worthless employees. So, my union dues are mostly spent making it so that I need to work harder.

Worthless employees will be protected whether they're union or not. I worked for the largest mechanical contractor in the DC Metro area and all the of office employees (short of the trade superintendents and a handful of project managers) were are college guys that didn't belong to any unions. Some of the most useless sycophants I have ever seen not only kept their job, but would get promoted because they went to the right college and played golf with the right people. Going to their boss did nothing because they were his buddies.

Unions have their problems, make no mistake about it. I'm often at odds with the direction my union is heading and the steps we're taking to get there. The non-union has all the same issues, it's just the people that are against unions tend to turn a blind eye too it.

I'm not anti-union. I'm just noting how I feel about my union. And I know that worthless people get protected, its just different when they 1) make my job harder and 2) are being protected with my dues money.

On the whole, I think unions, even public sector unions, fill an important role. I've seen enough offices where decent workers needed union protection against harassment and abuse from managment. I just wish it were a little easier to correct or fire crappy employees.

If you have lazy incompetent employees that "just can't get fired" it is usually a sign that you have a good and effective union combined with incompetent and lazy management and coworkers.

It should be hard to fire anybody. The laziest most incompetent employee should be just as protected as the employee that works the hardest. There should be a process in place that makes it clear that the employee has been caught doing stupid stuff, has been educated on it, has been given the opportunity to fix it, has repeatedly refused to fix it, and then has been let go. Management should never be able to walk up to the biggest useless fethhead in the company and tell them "hey, you're a useless fethhead, you're fired". Because if that is all it takes (management saying "he's a lazy fethhead, it's okay to fire him" then there is nothing stopping them from walking up to the guy that takes up the most money on the payroll and claim he is a lazy fethhead, or to the guy that looked at your wife wrong, or the guy you think is gay and wants to give you the d.

That's the sign of a good union. That's a place where the good workers will be dedicated and work hard because they know that they are in it for the long term and can't just be fired tomorrow.

I'm in a union and I hear the "union just protects useless people all the time" spiel all the time. But every useless person in my department that has been "protected by the union" has only had a job for multiple years because my coworkers are to lazy to do anything about it and because our old managers were stupid. They would constantly follow these workers and find medications that were not given, treatments that were not done, orders that were not carried out. They would bitch and moan about it and talk about how useless they were and how they should get fired but "the stupid union just protects them". I always asked them "so when you followed her, did you write up what she didn't do? Did you do a report of contact? Did you do an incident report? Did you write a signed email to our manager?" and the answer was always the same "no, I don't want to stir the pot".

So when the manager tries to fire that person what do you expect the union to do? Go "well, we are pretty sure you wouldn't fire anybody for no good reason so I guess she is gone" or "well, sounds like those are some serious accusations. Can you show us on what days she didn't do these things, which patients didn't receive their medications, what treatments were not done, and show us where she has been counseled on this before? Oh, you don't have a single piece of proof, not a single write-up, not a single note? Well, sorry, no can do, she keeps on working here."

The reason it is so hard to fire bad employees is the same reason it is so hard to fire good employees. You have to actually show that people are bad employees. But (at least in my place) because people like to bitch and moan without actually doing what needs to be done and refuse to write a three sentence letter these people get to keep on working. That's not the fault of the union, that's the fault of coworkers and management that is to stupid to create a simple paper trail.

That may not be how it is with every single union, but that is how it works in mine.

A lot of industries seem to suffer symptoms of "can't fire the deadbeat" regardless of if they are in a union or not. The problem seems to stem more often than not from an inability to properly collect and present evidence of the issues with a worker than anything else. Have an issue with someone constantly playing off sickbut dont have back to work interviews and proper sick minitoring? You might find it hard to justify getting rid of them or leave yourself open to come back if you do fire them.

Edit - ninjad

 SilverMK2 wrote:
A lot of industries seem to suffer symptoms of "can't fire the deadbeat" regardless of if they are in a union or not. The problem seems to stem more often than not from an inability to properly collect and present evidence of the issues with a worker than anything else. Have an issue with someone constantly playing off sickbut dont have back to work interviews and proper sick minitoring? You might find it hard to justify getting rid of them or leave yourself open to come back if you do fire them.

Edit - ninjad

So true. I hear businesses and managers in the UK complain again and again about employee rights. "We can't fire people" and "The lazy are protected" when the real problem is that they just can't be bothered to correctly put together the information and follow the process. It's easy to sack someone for not doing their job if you do it the right way, but most of the time the reason people are not working is not laziness/incompetence but because the same companies that are to lazy/incompetent to follow the correct process are also too lazy/incompetent to ensure employees have good direction, know what they are supposed to be doing and have proper training.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I'm sure you have your stories why just as most of here have our stories why we don't. At one time unions were good, but that time is long past.

Outside of anecdotal stories, what has a union done to you specifically that has turned your opinion on them?

You should've spent some time in New York City about 10 years ago, hell, even 5 years ago. "Union thugs" isn't just a stereotype used by wealthy 1%ers to besmirch the name of union workers.

I'm sorry you find my principles "silly."

It is pretty silly, actually. In effect, you're punishing an employer that is actually pro-union (or at least union friendly) because their employees chose not to unionize, arguably because their employer (who again, pro-union) strives to provide a standard of living to its employees that is on-par with (or in excess of) the quality of living that unions seek to provide for their members at companies that otherwise don't share VW's (and others) values. If you can't see why thats problematic, ironic, and counter-productive, then I have no other words for you.

It is odd because VW are a good company. Surely unions are like armies. We have them out of necessity and anyone pro worker should be supporting a company who's workers are treated well enough that they don't feel the need for a union?

The issue is, I think, that too many unions (and to an extent union members) have adopted the 'mob mentality' where its "us against them". It's not about quality of life and providing fair compensation to an employee anymore, its about being part of an exclusive group, 'if you ain't union, you ain't gak' and all that.

That is a little bit of false equivalency there. Because I won't buy a Volkswagen made in a non-union plant doesn't mean I don't "support American workers" especially considering the fact that I buy American-made automobiles that are made by Americans, who also happen to be organized.

Yeah, the issue is you're prioritizing 'Union' over 'quality employer' and 'American employees'. See above about the mob mentality/us against them attitude.

Not only is Senator Corker's statement worker intimidation, it is inconsistent with what executives at Volkswagen had been saying. He is also a Senator trying to discourage collective bargaining, which runs in contrary to the Nation Labor Relations Act:

Problem: None of that really impacts VW employees. A guy working the line at an assembly plant won't care if the plant is going to be expanded or not, likewise he won't care if there is more product to build. VW, for all intents and purposes, is in really good financial standing, forecasting increased profits, etc. etc. etc. Unlike for workers at the Big 3, VW employees aren't constantly under threat of being laid off. The biggest problem however, is Corker is a politician, and politicians lie.

Heres a better article from a source that is typically biased towards the left end of the spectrum which basically shoots down what you're claiming (and reports much better than a no-name local newspaper): http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/will-a-new-new-south-emerge-from-the-showdown-in-chattanooga/2014/02/14/9a1d4bd6-9362-11e3-83b9-1f024193bb84_story.html

If you think Detroit is the way it is today solely because of "parasitic" unions, you need to get your economic news from an accurate source.

I don't think he meant the city of Detroit, rather he was referring to the automobile industry (though the two kind of go hand in hand, the failure of the auto industry there was a big reason as to why the city failed as well, financial mismanagement aside). As to the argument about unions having something to do with that failure, I don't think that was the case, more like the auto companies were providing gakky product after years of being the only real dog in town (it helps when most of the rest of automobile producing countries had their industry virtually bombed out of existence during a major global war...), and the rest of the developed world finally caught up and then surpassed them.

Treating managers and engineers like turds is common place, union or not. I know I've been guilty of it in the construction industry; frankly it's hard not to. For instance, I've been a union steamfitter for 13 years, I went through an apprenticeship program (while working 40+ a week in the trade) for 5 years to learn my trade. Yet the contractor I work for will hire some kid fresh out of college that has never built anything, let alone set foot on a construction, and he's going to tell me how to do my job?

I'm one of those college engineers that has never built anything or set foot on a site telling you how to do your job. Here's a bit of a hint to you from someone who gets along extremely well with my (non-union) field crews (or at least I like to think so, I think the fact that they invite me out to the bars with them on weekends and call me when they are having issues is a pretty good indicator): 1. We're not all self-absorbed douchebags, some of us are humble and understand that your knowledge is better than ours and that we can utilize your knowledge as a resource to make everyones lives easier, if you treat us with respect we'll treat you with respect and vice versa. 2. Our job (as project managers/estimators, etc.) isn't REALLY to tell you how to do your job, its to organize you and make sure you are doing the job on schedule, in accordance with the project guidelines/specifications handed down for the project architects/engineers. Our role is not to enforce how, its to enforce what. I won't deny that some project managers definitely do feel that way though, my supervisor at my previous employer certainly seemed to think so, I think he ended up costing the company more money than he actually earned with some of the moronic things he did... but wouldn't you know it he grew up in the business and started out as a laborer and never went to college, so go figure.

Yeah, that comment from Scooty made it sound more like he has a problem with "dem college boys" as much as anything else.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Johnnytorrance wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I'm sure you have your stories why just as most of here have our stories why we don't. At one time unions were good, but that time is long past.

Outside of anecdotal stories, what has a union done to you specifically that has turned your opinion on them?

In reality, you don't have a right to work in thi country. If I start a business I don't have to hire anyone.
What unions believe and then in turn convert you into believing is that a businesses number one priority is to provide employment.

In reality, an individual starts a business to make money. If making money is not your priority, then your business will most likely fail.

Unions don't care about workers. They only care about the dues they receive. It's simple, take profits from the company and hire more people. Take profits from the company and give workers better pay, take profits from the company and give workers a pension.

Eventually the company runs out of money or has to restructure and those pensions that were promised, those jobs disappear. The Tyranid hive then moves on to another world and sucks them dry.

Why do you think Detroit is in shambles? Why do you think every major inner city community is in terrible disarray?

Unions are a parasite.

If you think Detroit is the way it is today solely because of "parasitic" unions, you need to get your economic news from an accurate source.

It's a long read, enjoy it: http://www.freep.com/interactive/article/20130915/NEWS01/130801004/Detroit-Bankruptcy-history-1950-debt-pension-revenue

Hate to break it to you, but you have plenty to thank unions for.

Detroit is in disarray due to progressive liberal politicians, who have controlled the city for decades. When you start to tax the wealthy to find the needy, people will leave. Once they ran out of rich people's money it went downhill. Why did car company's start to make cars in Canada and Mexico? Over paid union workers. Period. GM is in the business to make money. Period. Having a job is a privilege. Not a right. If a business has shady employment standards, you find a new job. Unions are a cancer. They e ruined cities, school districts, American car companies. Tell me? What good have unions done?

chaos0xomega wrote:
You should've spent some time in New York City about 10 years ago, hell, even 5 years ago. "Union thugs" isn't just a stereotype used by wealthy 1%ers to besmirch the name of union workers.

Your failure to read anything I wrote is evident. I didn't say that those things don't happen. Quite the contrary, unions are guilty of plenty of wrong doing and I'm well aware of the old school "union thug" tactics, they happen in Washington, DC as well... and I disagree with them 100%. That kind of behavior has no place in the 21st century; it doesn't help anybody.

It is pretty silly, actually. In effect, you're punishing an employer that is actually pro-union (or at least union friendly) because their employees chose not to unionize, arguably because their employer (who again, pro-union) strives to provide a standard of living to its employees that is on-par with (or in excess of) the quality of living that unions seek to provide for their members at companies that otherwise don't share VW's (and others) values. If you can't see why thats problematic, ironic, and counter-productive, then I have no other words for you.

No it isn't silly nor ironic. I do more than just pay organized labor lip service, I actively support them when I can any chance I get. I'm sure lots of other automobile manufactures pay well, offer decent benefits, are are all around nice places to work. So should we all go buy one car from every manufacturer to show our support for all the American workers?

The issue is, I think, that too many unions (and to an extent union members) have adopted the 'mob mentality' where its "us against them". It's not about quality of life and providing fair compensation to an employee anymore, its about being part of an exclusive group, 'if you ain't union, you ain't gak' and all that.

Sorry, it is still very much about providing a fair days work for a fair days pay.

Yeah, the issue is you're prioritizing 'Union' over 'quality employer' and 'American employees'. See above about the mob mentality/us against them attitude.

I don't shop in Wal-Mart either because I disagree with their business tactics and the way they treat employees, is that because of my "mob mentality" as well?

Problem: None of that really impacts VW employees. A guy working the line at an assembly plant won't care if the plant is going to be expanded or not, likewise he won't care if there is more product to build. VW, for all intents and purposes, is in really good financial standing, forecasting increased profits, etc. etc. etc. Unlike for workers at the Big 3, VW employees aren't constantly under threat of being laid off. The biggest problem however, is Corker is a politician, and politicians lie.

It doesn't matter if he was lying or not, it was an inappropriate remark to make for a US Senator.

I don't think he meant the city of Detroit, rather he was referring to the automobile industry (though the two kind of go hand in hand, the failure of the auto industry there was a big reason as to why the city failed as well, financial mismanagement aside). As to the argument about unions having something to do with that failure, I don't think that was the case, more like the auto companies were providing gakky product after years of being the only real dog in town (it helps when most of the rest of automobile producing countries had their industry virtually bombed out of existence during a major global war...), and the rest of the developed world finally caught up and then surpassed them.

Unions did have a very negative effect on the the financial situation in Detroit, but they weren't the only problem. That entire city was the perfect example of everything not do when running a city.

I'm one of those college engineers that has never built anything or set foot on a site telling you how to do your job. Here's a bit of a hint to you from someone who gets along extremely well with my (non-union) field crews (or at least I like to think so, I think the fact that they invite me out to the bars with them on weekends and call me when they are having issues is a pretty good indicator): 1. We're not all self-absorbed douchebags, some of us are humble and understand that your knowledge is better than ours and that we can utilize your knowledge as a resource to make everyones lives easier, if you treat us with respect we'll treat you with respect and vice versa. 2. Our job (as project managers/estimators, etc.) isn't REALLY to tell you how to do your job, its to organize you and make sure you are doing the job on schedule, in accordance with the project guidelines/specifications handed down for the project architects/engineers. Our role is not to enforce how, its to enforce what. I won't deny that some project managers definitely do feel that way though, my supervisor at my previous employer certainly seemed to think so, I think he ended up costing the company more money than he actually earned with some of the moronic things he did... but wouldn't you know it he grew up in the business and started out as a laborer and never went to college, so go figure.

Thank you for the lesson, but I was a general foreman for the last contractor I worked for and plenty of PMs and engineers were perfectly good people that I loved working with and spending time with outside of work, so you didn't tell me anything I didn't already know. Although I am a tradesman, I spent time in office working on the "other side." I have seen more than my fair share of PMs and engineers who are self-absorbed douchbags for no other reason than they have a diploma framed on their wall.

 cincydooley wrote:
Yeah, that comment from Scooty made it sound more like he has a problem with "dem college boys" as much as anything else.

I had a problem with someone telling me how to do my job when they clearly did not. Whether or not that person went to college was irrelevant.

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
But they should be punished for acting in poor judgement.

Teachers should also be held to excruciating standards. They have immense power and responsibility in their position after all.

Do you also want to pay them more?

If, and only if, they are held to these high standards and aren't basically immune to being fired like they are now.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
But they should be punished for acting in poor judgement.

Teachers should also be held to excruciating standards. They have immense power and responsibility in their position after all.

Do you also want to pay them more?

If, and only if, they are held to these high standards and aren't basically immune to being fired like they are now.

You really misunderstand how this works.

Many teachers that have under 10 years experience aren't afforded tenure. In my wife's district, they only grant it on RARE cirsumstances to teachers that have proved excellent. Every other teacher in her district is on a 1 year contract that has to be renewed on a yearly basis based on performance. This is only for the new(er) teachers. Teachers that have more than 10 years under their belt are typically protected by tenure. These are most often the ones that don't take continuing education and are most often the ones simply "collecting paychecks".

And if you think teachers aren't already held to excrutiating standards, you're a bit daft....

See, I have a basic problem with Tenure in that it sets this double standard.

High standards is also relative. Teachers in my experience are a mixed bag. And the tenured ones are far worse.

I don't get the 10 year tenure thing. 10 years on a job gets you relative immunity? Where else does that happen at?

Certainly not in the military. Certainly not in many other jobs I've seen.

 Grey Templar wrote:
See, I have a basic problem with Tenure in that it sets this double standard.

Won't see me disagree here. I think it is more important at the univeristy level than the k-12 level. I know in Ohio performance metrics are being changed so that if you're Graded as a "excellent" teacher the number of required times you have to be observed goes down. My wife has had whatever is the highest two years in a row, so she's no longer required to be observed for the next two years, or something like that (sorry, I don't know all the details). She's fine with this.

High standards is also relative. Teachers in my experience are a mixed bag. And the tenured ones are far worse.

Standards for teachers are so high now that teaching is literally one of the only professions on the planet where your job effectiveness is measured on a single day and is completely out of your control.

I keep saying that a group of gifted 5th graders needs to band together and fail the tests on purpose to prove a point. Sadly it'll never happen.

 djones520 wrote:
I don't get the 10 year tenure thing. 10 years on a job gets you relative immunity? Where else does that happen at?

Certainly not in the military. Certainly not in many other jobs I've seen.

After ten years you have probably proven yourself to be a good teacher, and they don't want you to be able to fire teacher for teaching stuff that you don't believe in such as eveolution or that all people are equal. They also want smart people to become teacher and what better way then job security.


(I'm using "you" as a loose term here, as in not specifically)

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I don't get the 10 year tenure thing. 10 years on a job gets you relative immunity? Where else does that happen at?

Certainly not in the military. Certainly not in many other jobs I've seen.

After ten years you have probably proven yourself to be a good teacher, and they don't want you to be able to fire teacher for teaching stuff that you don't believe in such as eveolution or that all people are equal. They also want smart people to become teacher and what better way then job security.


(I'm using "you" as a loose term here, as in not specifically)

And it's like that in many other career fields as well. By 10 years you generally have a deep pool of experience and knowledge, and are generally reliable at what you do. But you're still capable of being a feth up, and should be able to be held accountable for it.

 djones520 wrote:
I don't get the 10 year tenure thing. 10 years on a job gets you relative immunity? Where else does that happen at?

Certainly not in the military. Certainly not in many other jobs I've seen.

Honestly, it's completely union based. Thats what it comes from.

Again, this is all anecdotal, but in my wifes union (the one I also belonged to when I taught) they gave up those "continuing contracts" in 2008-09 in order to save jobs when tons of other districts were laying people off in droves. The concessions made by the union were no more continue contracts except on exceptional basis, and all teachers and administrators (who are not teachers, and therefore not in the union) took a pay freeze. Again, this was all to save jobs. My wife JUST got done with their freeze last year. Let me tell you how much having her pay frozen for 5 years has sucked.

Coincidentally, because of the union supported "teacher salary schedule," she's in her 9th year and is still getting paid like a 3rd year teacher, with no immediate hopes of getting her steps back.

 djones520 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I don't get the 10 year tenure thing. 10 years on a job gets you relative immunity? Where else does that happen at?

Certainly not in the military. Certainly not in many other jobs I've seen.

After ten years you have probably proven yourself to be a good teacher, and they don't want you to be able to fire teacher for teaching stuff that you don't believe in such as eveolution or that all people are equal. They also want smart people to become teacher and what better way then job security.


(I'm using "you" as a loose term here, as in not specifically)

And it's like that in many other career fields as well. By 10 years you generally have a deep pool of experience and knowledge, and are generally reliable at what you do. But you're still capable of being a feth up, and should be able to be held accountable for it.

I'm pretty sure that the tenure just protects you from being fired for no just reason. You can still be fired for not doing your job, ect.

Where did this myth of un-firable teachers come from? You must re-certify every five years, which requires over 160 credit hours of training. Most counties have phased out anything like tenure- the best case scenario is a 3, or maybe even 5 year contract. Each year, regardless of which contract you are on, a teacher is subject to evaluations, both scheduled and random. Failing these evaluations, and refusing to correct the errors, is an offense which can result in termination.

So, for the average teacher, their job is in peril at least twice a year (on the scheduled evaluations) and they have the easy option of not renewing the 1 year contract to dispose of any unproven teachers.

And, of course, if your students do not perform on the standardized test you may also be removed for being an ineffective teacher.

I've never felt it was an especially safe profession- oh sure, I could find another job somewhere, but there is no guarantee I'll be back the next year at this school.

It may be different for college professors, but public school teachers are eminently able to be fired. Why, just a few years back Chemistry was added to the state's required courses for science, and any science teacher unable to certify for chemistry was let go the next year.

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Where did this myth of un-firable teachers come from? You must re-certify every five years, which requires over 160 credit hours of training. Most counties have phased out anything like tenure- the best case scenario is a 3, or maybe even 5 year contract. Each year, regardless of which contract you are on, a teacher is subject to evaluations, both scheduled and random. Failing these evaluations, and refusing to correct the errors, is an offense which can result in termination.

So, for the average teacher, their job is in peril at least twice a year (on the scheduled evaluations) and they have the easy option of not renewing the 1 year contract to dispose of any unproven teachers.

And, of course, if your students do not perform on the standardized test you may also be removed for being an ineffective teacher.

I've never felt it was an especially safe profession- oh sure, I could find another job somewhere, but there is no guarantee I'll be back the next year at this school.

It may be different for college professors, but public school teachers are eminently able to be fired. Why, just a few years back Chemistry was added to the state's required courses for science, and any science teacher unable to certify for chemistry was let go the next year.

Thank you for the info, I knew I must be missing something.

Not a problem. All that only applies to Florida- standards for certificates vary by state.

I *think* the ten-year unfireable tenure myth actually comes from college/university level professers and academia, as I understand it it is to protect professors from politics (as in administration being opposed to a professors controversial research, etc.) and allow them to pursue academic/intellectual pursuits without fear of repurcussions.

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Not a problem. All that only applies to Florida- standards for certificates vary by state.

I'm in NY and I think it's a bit more lax, but you will still be fired for not doing your job.

All those stipulations are definitely limited to Florida.

In Ohio, districts have the option of a time-limited contract or a continuing contract (which is honestly, more similar to the standard contract you'd have at any business). The continuing contract is effectively "tenure." These are the teachers that the unions fight very hard to protect, and who are very hard to remove once they have those continuing contract.

Even if you receive poor evaluations from your administrator, if you're 'tenured' its really hard to get people out.

State testing has changed this quite a bit. It actually does hold gakky teachers at the grade 3-8 level more accountable. However, that doesn't affect all teachers at all levels. It only affects teachers that teach subjects that are tested, and doesn't really affect high school teachers at all. Its in the high schools you see a lot more of your lazy, paycheck collecting teachers in Ohio.

The testing has done a lot to get some "bad" teachers out of the system, but they presently account for 50% of a teacher's overall evaluation (again, in Ohio). It's created an enviroment for my wife (4th grade language arts) thats killed a lot of her creativity and has her actively looking to become a college professor. It makes me sad.

 cincydooley wrote:
Yeah, that comment from Scooty made it sound more like he has a problem with "dem college boys" as much as anything else.

Agreed. A lot of "dem college boys" busted their ass working a job, raising a family, and going to school while getting by on 4 hours of sleep a night. I know plenty of non college workers that are just there to punch a clock and go party after work. Just because someone went to college doesn't mean they had a glide.