3 ms·

> ...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 se

> ...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
    As is often the case with these types of things, there are serious power asymmetries that need to be considered. My threat to terminate this voluntary relationship is that my employer will have some small amount of trouble, probably offloaded onto my ex coworkers. My employer's threat to terminate this voluntary relationship is that I may be kicked out of where I live, made homeless, unable to support my family, etc. Can we really call this a voluntary relationship where both sides have meaningfully agreed?
    - JackFr 4y ago
      Yes, it is voluntary. Your employer has likely made consequential financial plans on the assumption of your continued employment. He might have entered into contracts, invested in equipment, etc. and yet you can quit and trash those and happily be at work the following day for someone else. At will employment is truly a voluntary exchange. (That is why many people have contracts.) Again, however I agree some level of worker protections are reasonable for a pragmatic reasons at a societal level, but not because of a power asymmetry at the employer employee level.

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
  As is often the case with these types of things, there are serious power asymmetries that need to be considered. My threat to terminate this voluntary relationship is that my employer will have some small amount of trouble, probably offloaded onto my ex coworkers. My employer's threat to terminate this voluntary relationship is that I may be kicked out of where I live, made homeless, unable to support my family, etc. Can we really call this a voluntary relationship where both sides have meaningfully agreed?
  - JackFr 4y ago
    Yes, it is voluntary. Your employer has likely made consequential financial plans on the assumption of your continued employment. He might have entered into contracts, invested in equipment, etc. and yet you can quit and trash those and happily be at work the following day for someone else. At will employment is truly a voluntary exchange. (That is why many people have contracts.) Again, however I agree some level of worker protections are reasonable for a pragmatic reasons at a societal level, but not because of a power asymmetry at the employer employee level.