3 ms·

> What else would you do, allow anyone to just be fired on the principal's say-so? Yes. Why shouldn't the head of a school have the authority to fire the schoo

by wtbob 12y ago

> What else would you do, allow anyone to just be fired on the principal's say-so? Yes. Why shouldn't the head of a school have the authority to fire the school's employees? If he misuses his authority, fire him.

lmm 12y ago
As a teacher joining the school, how can you know whether the principal is a power-tripper? Sure, maybe the district would catch it eventually, but that's no good if he fires you in the meantime. So why would you ever take a job where you can be fired just like that? It's not going to be easy to get another job when your CV says you were fired for misconduct from your last one. (That goes for any profession - I don't see why anyone would work under "at-will employment" laws, particularly in the US where you can choose to work in a state that doesn't have those laws)
- wtbob 12y ago
  I would rather work in an at-will state than elsewhere because I prefer to work with colleagues who pursue excellence rather than mediocrity, and because I have faith in my abilities. There are two types of people in the world: those who see themselves as perpetual victims, passively experiencing the actions of others; and those who see themselves as protagonists. The former want things like work councils, unions, arbitration boards and so forth, because they believe in conspiracies and cabals &c.; the latter prefer freedom, because they have faith in their ability to succeed in a free environment.
  - vizeroth 12y ago
    There are no states in the U.S. that are not at-will states. When people make a differentiation between states based on some at-will status, it's usually based on the number of exceptions a state recognizes, none of which are based on work councils, unions, or arbitration. In most cases, these are protections like: - you can't be fired for refusing to break the law - you have an implied contract (good luck proving that) - you can't be fired in bad faith or with malicious intent The last of those is considered the most broad exception, and is the least common. You want to work in a state with none of these exceptions? You're looking at Georgia and Florida. The longest period of time I spent in Florida was in a union shop. The largest exception to at-will employment in the U.S. is civil service workers, the second largest is non-unionized private sector workers with contractual exceptions. Whether working in a union or without a union, I've found that there are always people that work, and people that work the system. I received better wages and better job security as a non-union worker, but that may not be the case for others. I receive better benefits as a union worker (eventually the job security would come, but I have yet to see a union in which anything other than seniority improves job security). The only place I've ever seen freedom come into it is in how the law limits your ability to defend your professional reputation if you encounter a malicious or incompetent manager. Thankfully, I've never needed to test that.

by wtbob 12y ago

lmm 12y ago

As a teacher joining the school, how can you know whether the principal is a power-tripper? Sure, maybe the district would catch it eventually, but that's no good if he fires you in the meantime. So why would you ever take a job where you can be fired just like that? It's not going to be easy to get another job when your CV says you were fired for misconduct from your last one. (That goes for any profession - I don't see why anyone would work under "at-will employment" laws, particularly in the US where you can choose to work in a state that doesn't have those laws)

wtbob 12y ago
I would rather work in an at-will state than elsewhere because I prefer to work with colleagues who pursue excellence rather than mediocrity, and because I have faith in my abilities. There are two types of people in the world: those who see themselves as perpetual victims, passively experiencing the actions of others; and those who see themselves as protagonists. The former want things like work councils, unions, arbitration boards and so forth, because they believe in conspiracies and cabals &c.; the latter prefer freedom, because they have faith in their ability to succeed in a free environment.
- vizeroth 12y ago
  There are no states in the U.S. that are not at-will states. When people make a differentiation between states based on some at-will status, it's usually based on the number of exceptions a state recognizes, none of which are based on work councils, unions, or arbitration. In most cases, these are protections like: - you can't be fired for refusing to break the law - you have an implied contract (good luck proving that) - you can't be fired in bad faith or with malicious intent The last of those is considered the most broad exception, and is the least common. You want to work in a state with none of these exceptions? You're looking at Georgia and Florida. The longest period of time I spent in Florida was in a union shop. The largest exception to at-will employment in the U.S. is civil service workers, the second largest is non-unionized private sector workers with contractual exceptions. Whether working in a union or without a union, I've found that there are always people that work, and people that work the system. I received better wages and better job security as a non-union worker, but that may not be the case for others. I receive better benefits as a union worker (eventually the job security would come, but I have yet to see a union in which anything other than seniority improves job security). The only place I've ever seen freedom come into it is in how the law limits your ability to defend your professional reputation if you encounter a malicious or incompetent manager. Thankfully, I've never needed to test that.