It's a dramatic move to highlight the issues that are going on in the state, which are exactly equivalent to what's going on in Texas: The schools know that their budget is going to be cut, maybe *dramatically* cut, but they have know way of knowing yet by how much or in which categories, because the Legislature hasn't yet made those determinations.
It's very likely that some teachers are going to need to be fired. It's also true that the teacher's union dictates a prescribed notice, a date by which fired teachers need to be officially notified before losing their jobs.
So Rhode Island is firing everyone, and when it's decided just exactly how ugly the budget cuts are going to be, they'll contact the (majority of the) teachers they don't plan to fire and say "takeback!"
I approve of this move as an attention-getting procedure, but that's all it is.
Well, yes. By firing them all now, they eliminate all the trouble that firing them later can cause, and instead are in the position of OFFERING jobs to the ones they most need - or who want it most.
As I understand it (and maybe things are different in America), you can't just hire someone back into a state school because they've worked there before. They have to partake in the interview process (regardless of whether you're probably going to pick them anyway). The interview process costs money. Re-interviewing for EVERY SINGLE TEACHING ROLE is going to cost an absolute fortune.
Why is that cheaper than simply sacking teacher as and when you have to? What kind of slave wage are they going to re-hire these guys on to make this cost effective?
On a more practical level: There are very few things that are true "in America"; most things vary on a state-by-state, or sometimes, county-by-bounty basis, and based on their actions, I'd say that it's cheaper for RI to hire teachers than to fire them.
I realized after I wrote that that the rules regarding who has to be notified when of when they're losing their job may very tremendously; this may not be intuitively obvious to everyone.
Austin did this this year (well, they didn't fire *everyone* but they sent out a lot of layoff notices that were later rescinded), but almost no other school district in Texas did because few counties have such stringent contracts with the teacher's unions.
It probably also allows them to reset the clock on seniority, getting rid of union-mandated automatic raises, and by firing everyone they avoid charges of discrimination.
No, that's not true in the EU or the UK. There are EU employment directives that all of the member states have to implement as law, so that almost all of the employment law is the same no matter which country you're in.
There are specific laws for firing people for economic reasons, called being made redundant, that require the employer to have gone through a formal process to look for other work within the company for the employee, and to give a lump sum of money on dismissal. Also, The company is at risk of being sued for unfair dismissal if they then try to rehire people for the same job.
In short, this mass firing of teachers would be extremely expensive in the EU.
A comment explained this in a way that doesn't sound quite so insane. I realize it's more outrageous to say "they are firing all the teachers!" and that's why they'd write it that way, but that just doesn't make sense. Usually there are reasons for everything, even if we STILL don't agree...
"Andrew said:
Oh, for crying out loud. Here's how this works (and shame on the OP for not explaining it).
According to the teacher's contract, any teacher not being offered a job for the next year is entitled to a RIF (reduction in force) notice by a certain date, in this case March 1. Clearly, with a projected $40million deficit, the school department is going to have to make some cuts, so the options are either rush to make the cuts by march 1, and then be stuck with that list, or RIF everyone, and buy some time to figure out a better plan, at which point the vast majority of teachers will be hired back. Just because they RIF them now, doesn't mean they're gone, but if they don't RIF them now, they can't cut them later without union reprisals.
Also, by RIFing the entire staff, it sends a pretty powerful message to the city abou how badly the cuts are going to hurt the schools, so that hopefully more money can be found."
Notification of termination in the future isn't the same as termination, is it? I mean, they could easily send another mailing out afterwards saying that the termination will not now occur.
This just gives them the option of firing anyone at any time.
This isn't the ACTUAL firing, which would require interviewing, etc. This is simply the "you are going to be fired" notice required by their contracts. It fulfills the advance notice criteria for everyone, but the process will only continue for the appropriate number of cuts they require to fix their budget.
It is absolutely an attention getting measure as someone else sad. Sadly, however, the attention it will get and the action that people will take is going to be misguided. Instead of saying, "Wow! This is a wake-up call that we are seriously underfunding education - the cornerstone of our future growth." they will say something like, "We pay teachers too much." or "Unions prevent us from making badly needed cuts."
Notification of termination in the future isn't the same as termination, is it?
Well one inevitably comes before the other. I don't know precisely what the legal issues would go with incorrectly informing someone that they were going to lose their job, but I can't imagine that it's acceptable practice for an employer.
I mean, they could easily send another mailing out afterwards saying that the termination will not now occur.
That sounds ridiculously unprofessional of them. Notifying someone that they are about to lose their job is not a joke. Employers cannot do it on a whim.
the action that people will take is going to be misguided
How about the action of going into anything other than teaching because it's a role that is insecure and undervalued? Is that misguided? Based on the news in the OP, I'm really not sure...
No.... I was responding to your point. It is not misguided for people to be wary of going into education given that we've established how little value people place on it. (Until it is too late... It amazes me that with all the discussion about "job creation" we're simultaneously slashing education funding. I guess all those jobs will be digging ditches. )
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-23 08:37 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-23 09:06 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-23 09:12 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-23 09:30 pm (UTC)It's a dramatic move to highlight the issues that are going on in the state, which are exactly equivalent to what's going on in Texas: The schools know that their budget is going to be cut, maybe *dramatically* cut, but they have know way of knowing yet by how much or in which categories, because the Legislature hasn't yet made those determinations.
It's very likely that some teachers are going to need to be fired. It's also true that the teacher's union dictates a prescribed notice, a date by which fired teachers need to be officially notified before losing their jobs.
So Rhode Island is firing everyone, and when it's decided just exactly how ugly the budget cuts are going to be, they'll contact the (majority of the) teachers they don't plan to fire and say "takeback!"
I approve of this move as an attention-getting procedure, but that's all it is.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-23 09:41 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-23 09:49 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-23 10:56 pm (UTC)Why is that cheaper than simply sacking teacher as and when you have to? What kind of slave wage are they going to re-hire these guys on to make this cost effective?
(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-23 10:59 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-23 11:03 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-24 01:26 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-24 01:54 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-24 02:17 am (UTC)I am horrified that this makes sense.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-24 02:19 am (UTC)I would love America to return to the days when being smart and educated was considered a definite positive.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-24 02:20 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-24 02:42 am (UTC)Also, frankly, it works out pretty well for us, mostly, except sometimes there's culture shock when someone from Kentucky visits, say, Maine.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-24 02:45 am (UTC)Austin did this this year (well, they didn't fire *everyone* but they sent out a lot of layoff notices that were later rescinded), but almost no other school district in Texas did because few counties have such stringent contracts with the teacher's unions.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-24 03:07 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-24 04:39 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-24 05:53 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-24 07:29 am (UTC)No, that's not true in the EU or the UK. There are EU employment directives that all of the member states have to implement as law, so that almost all of the employment law is the same no matter which country you're in.
There are specific laws for firing people for economic reasons, called being made redundant, that require the employer to have gone through a formal process to look for other work within the company for the employee, and to give a lump sum of money on dismissal. Also, The company is at risk of being sued for unfair dismissal if they then try to rehire people for the same job.
In short, this mass firing of teachers would be extremely expensive in the EU.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-24 09:56 am (UTC)(sorry about the source, it's the only one I could find in a hurry on Google)
(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-24 11:30 am (UTC)"Andrew said:
Oh, for crying out loud. Here's how this works (and shame on the OP for not explaining it).
According to the teacher's contract, any teacher not being offered a job for the next year is entitled to a RIF (reduction in force) notice by a certain date, in this case March 1. Clearly, with a projected $40million deficit, the school department is going to have to make some cuts, so the options are either rush to make the cuts by march 1, and then be stuck with that list, or RIF everyone, and buy some time to figure out a better plan, at which point the vast majority of teachers will be hired back. Just because they RIF them now, doesn't mean they're gone, but if they don't RIF them now, they can't cut them later without union reprisals.
Also, by RIFing the entire staff, it sends a pretty powerful message to the city abou how badly the cuts are going to hurt the schools, so that hopefully more money can be found."
Sooo....
Date: 2011-02-24 02:34 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-24 03:20 pm (UTC)This just gives them the option of firing anyone at any time.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-24 03:23 pm (UTC)It is absolutely an attention getting measure as someone else sad. Sadly, however, the attention it will get and the action that people will take is going to be misguided. Instead of saying, "Wow! This is a wake-up call that we are seriously underfunding education - the cornerstone of our future growth." they will say something like, "We pay teachers too much." or "Unions prevent us from making badly needed cuts."
(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-24 03:54 pm (UTC)Well one inevitably comes before the other. I don't know precisely what the legal issues would go with incorrectly informing someone that they were going to lose their job, but I can't imagine that it's acceptable practice for an employer.
I mean, they could easily send another mailing out afterwards saying that the termination will not now occur.
That sounds ridiculously unprofessional of them. Notifying someone that they are about to lose their job is not a joke. Employers cannot do it on a whim.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-24 04:43 pm (UTC)How about the action of going into anything other than teaching because it's a role that is insecure and undervalued? Is that misguided? Based on the news in the OP, I'm really not sure...
(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-24 06:41 pm (UTC)Depending on the state, they totally can, and it really sucks.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-24 11:23 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-25 03:45 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-02-25 04:33 pm (UTC)Devaluing education isn't misguided?
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-03 03:16 am (UTC)