5 ms·

With respect to NYC teachers thank the union for that. The rubber rooms are because of contracts and processes which make teachers extremely difficult to fire.

by JackFr 4y ago

With respect to NYC teachers thank the union for that. The rubber rooms are because of contracts and processes which make teachers extremely difficult to fire. The issue that happens is that teachers who might be unsafe to have in the classroom with children, will have a years long arbitration and appeal process before they can be fired.

yourapostasy 4y ago
> ...will have a years long arbitration and appeal process before they can be fired. For the US, I read that as "it will be so expensive in attorney time to secure a litigation-proof post-firing outcome it is cheaper to simply pay them to sit and do nothing for the remainder of their contract". Above some amount of money thrown at these arrangements, it might come with consequences: future teachers unions might find long-term contracts or contracts at all rather problematic to negotiate. I wonder what the union side of the picture looks like for these allegedly problematic teachers?
- cool_dude85 4y ago
  >For the US, I read that as "it will be so expensive in attorney time to secure a litigation-proof post-firing outcome it is cheaper to simply pay them to sit and do nothing for the remainder of their contract" It's all done through arbitration, so much lower cost than the regular US court system. >I wonder what the union side of the picture looks like for these allegedly problematic teachers? I'll bite: why should management just be able to fire people unilaterally? All the union is asking is for the case for firing be proven in arbitration. It's management's choice to take these teachers out of the classroom while the case against them is pending and pay them to do nothing. Just look at some of the cases cited in the actual article: a lady they spoke to got bad perf reviews for two years from a new principal after 20 years of good ones. The writer spoke to 5 unnamed parents from the teacher's school who said that the new principal was good. Is it so obvious that the lady needs to be fired from her job?
  - SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
    It depends on who you see as the key stakeholders. If my kid were put in an incompetent teacher's class, and the school told me "she's only been incompetent for 2 years so she doesn't deserve to be fired" or "she'll be fired in 6 months or so", I'd be pretty peeved.
    - cool_dude85 4y ago
      What if they put your kid in an incompetent teacher's class and the school told you "sorry, we are paying the competent teacher who used to teach this class to sit in a room somewhere, she didn't kiss the principal's ass enough"?
      - SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
        Then I'd still be peeved? I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here. I agree that schools should retain good teachers rather than firing them or freezing them out.
        cool_dude85 4y ago
        Well, which case was it here? There's a neutral third-party ready to make that decision, having been presented with the facts of the case by both sides.
  - JackFr 4y ago
    > I'll bite: why should management just be able to fire people unilaterally? Well because employment is an agreement to which both sides agree voluntarily. Workers can quit unilaterally, why shouldn't management have the same right? Don't get me wrong -- I'm not opposed to workers protections in general, but I think of them as a pragmatic benefit to the broader society. In general, I don't see it as immoral or unethical for either side to terminate an ongoing voluntary commercial relationship.
    - cool_dude85 4y ago
ydlr 4y ago
This sounds like the inverse of "Work to Rule." Instead of employees doing exactly what they are told in the dumbest way possible to sabotage production, you have employers technically upholding a contract in the dumbest way possible to make workers miserable and outrage the public.
- JackFr 4y ago
  What do you do with a teacher who has been credibly accused of child abuse? They deserve a right to be heard certainly, but at the same time it would be the height of irresponsibility to put them back in a classroom.
  - ydlr 4y ago
    Suspension with pay.
- woooooo 4y ago
  If there's a liability issue, and they can't fire, then this sounds like the only choice?
lesuorac 4y ago
A bit unsure of how it's solely the unions fault that it takes 4 years for an arbitrator to hear the case.
- SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
  As the article discusses, a lot of the time stems from the procedures in the union contract rather than arbitrary delays. Mohamed's case takes 45 days to hear, and only 5 of those days can be scheduled per month, so that's 3/4 of a year just spent conducting the actual hearing. (Perhaps the hearings are excessively long, but it's hard to imagine that the school system is pushing for that.)
  - lesuorac 4y ago
    Does only the union have input into the contract? Also (as you pointed out) 45 days at 5 days / non-summer month isn't 4 years which seems to be how long the case is taking (3 years of rubber room, 1 year of case).

by JackFr 4y ago

yourapostasy 4y ago

> ...will have a years long arbitration and appeal process before they can be fired. For the US, I read that as "it will be so expensive in attorney time to secure a litigation-proof post-firing outcome it is cheaper to simply pay them to sit and do nothing for the remainder of their contract". Above some amount of money thrown at these arrangements, it might come with consequences: future teachers unions might find long-term contracts or contracts at all rather problematic to negotiate. I wonder what the union side of the picture looks like for these allegedly problematic teachers?

cool_dude85 4y ago
>For the US, I read that as "it will be so expensive in attorney time to secure a litigation-proof post-firing outcome it is cheaper to simply pay them to sit and do nothing for the remainder of their contract" It's all done through arbitration, so much lower cost than the regular US court system. >I wonder what the union side of the picture looks like for these allegedly problematic teachers? I'll bite: why should management just be able to fire people unilaterally? All the union is asking is for the case for firing be proven in arbitration. It's management's choice to take these teachers out of the classroom while the case against them is pending and pay them to do nothing. Just look at some of the cases cited in the actual article: a lady they spoke to got bad perf reviews for two years from a new principal after 20 years of good ones. The writer spoke to 5 unnamed parents from the teacher's school who said that the new principal was good. Is it so obvious that the lady needs to be fired from her job?
- SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
  It depends on who you see as the key stakeholders. If my kid were put in an incompetent teacher's class, and the school told me "she's only been incompetent for 2 years so she doesn't deserve to be fired" or "she'll be fired in 6 months or so", I'd be pretty peeved.
  - cool_dude85 4y ago
    What if they put your kid in an incompetent teacher's class and the school told you "sorry, we are paying the competent teacher who used to teach this class to sit in a room somewhere, she didn't kiss the principal's ass enough"?
    - SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
      Then I'd still be peeved? I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here. I agree that schools should retain good teachers rather than firing them or freezing them out.
      - cool_dude85 4y ago
        Well, which case was it here? There's a neutral third-party ready to make that decision, having been presented with the facts of the case by both sides.
- JackFr 4y ago
  > I'll bite: why should management just be able to fire people unilaterally? Well because employment is an agreement to which both sides agree voluntarily. Workers can quit unilaterally, why shouldn't management have the same right? Don't get me wrong -- I'm not opposed to workers protections in general, but I think of them as a pragmatic benefit to the broader society. In general, I don't see it as immoral or unethical for either side to terminate an ongoing voluntary commercial relationship.
  - cool_dude85 4y ago

ydlr 4y ago

This sounds like the inverse of "Work to Rule." Instead of employees doing exactly what they are told in the dumbest way possible to sabotage production, you have employers technically upholding a contract in the dumbest way possible to make workers miserable and outrage the public.

JackFr 4y ago
What do you do with a teacher who has been credibly accused of child abuse? They deserve a right to be heard certainly, but at the same time it would be the height of irresponsibility to put them back in a classroom.
- ydlr 4y ago
  Suspension with pay.
woooooo 4y ago
If there's a liability issue, and they can't fire, then this sounds like the only choice?

lesuorac 4y ago

A bit unsure of how it's solely the unions fault that it takes 4 years for an arbitrator to hear the case.

SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
As the article discusses, a lot of the time stems from the procedures in the union contract rather than arbitrary delays. Mohamed's case takes 45 days to hear, and only 5 of those days can be scheduled per month, so that's 3/4 of a year just spent conducting the actual hearing. (Perhaps the hearings are excessively long, but it's hard to imagine that the school system is pushing for that.)
- lesuorac 4y ago
  Does only the union have input into the contract? Also (as you pointed out) 45 days at 5 days / non-summer month isn't 4 years which seems to be how long the case is taking (3 years of rubber room, 1 year of case).