Whoever came up with the concepts of pensions and tenure - wow, that guy must have been some kind of BS artist

Tenure was a reaction to employers letting long-time employees go for no other reason other than hiring a younger worker for a smaller wage. This happened consistently before the advent of strong labor representation. Review US History, 1900-1950

The pendulum has swung too far in the other direction, where the employee now has too much power. The best system will be where the checks and balances are equal for both the employer and the employee.

Having said that, a teacher/professor can most certainly let go. Tenure makes the employer prove cause rather than just let go due to profit margin.

of course both were probably started with the best of intentions.

pension, as way to both move older workers out of the job yet allow them to continue receiving some cash to live on. also it would be a benefit that would draw employees to your company and keep them from leaving at the first chance.

tenure- a way to try and keep a check on teaching positions being used for politicans to punish and/or reward certain people and to allow teachers to have an open expression of ideas w/o fear of getting sacked.

but yeah, I agree both backfired badly.

Share cropping was a good system, as was serfdom.

You certainly don't want a big chunk of profits going to workers. Keep it for those who really earn it, that is, the guys at the top of the chain. They're the only ones that deserve economic security, as the rest of the people are lowly worker bees, expendable as throw away razors.

They can be handy though in times of war, so give 'em enough to get by on while they're young and healthy.

Thank you- the ignorance of people for assuming. I can't believe how many people think a teacher with tenure can't be fired. My school is firing one as we write.

Learn facts, then complain if you have a case.

Sorry your job at McDonald's doesn't come with a pension or tenure, OP. You act as if a pension is something completely free. I put 7% of every paycheck into my pension. Also, someone else made a good point about tenure and having to prove cause to terminate an employee.

Rick James wrote:

Sorry your job at McDonald's doesn't come with a pension or tenure, OP. You act as if a pension is something completely free. I put 7% of every paycheck into my pension. Also, someone else made a good point about tenure and having to prove cause to terminate an employee.

Bingo. I put 10% now, and that's going up to 12%. Regardless, the pension and benefits are one of reasons why I chose to become a teacher in the 1st place.

Why else would people sign up for that kind of stressful work, public scrutiny, and continuing education requirements ($$), all with a starting salary on par with the local garbage man?

Answer: bene's.

SO, by all means, yank tenure and pensions from the teaching contract. I just hope you're ok with recent college grads with no experience teaching your children K-12, just to save a buck or two.

If you want to really improves schools you need to fire 80% of all teachers w/in their first 2 years. (see article)

yes you can fire a tenured teacher but the cost is prohibitive, so most schools just reassign them or make up a job like teaching study hall, dentention monitor, or some crap like that.

http://www.slate.com/id/2258657/pagenum/1

EZ10Miler wrote:

If you want to really improves schools you need to fire 80% of all teachers w/in their first 2 years. (see article)

yes you can fire a tenured teacher but the cost is prohibitive, so most schools just reassign them or make up a job like teaching study hall, dentention monitor, or some crap like that.

http://www.slate.com/id/2258657/pagenum/1

Just curious: How many of you out there would be comfortable with your bosses videotaping you at your desk, then scrutinizing your choices? Why are teachers such the focus of a Big Brother, lynch mob mentality?

Also, many of these premises are based on the false assumption that you truly can measure success from one teacher to the next. Teachers teach different students, with different abilities, with different support systems at home. Who's the better teacher? The one who teaches gifted kids? Or the special ed teacher? How do you measure gains in choir, art, or physical education? ("Mr. Jones, I see you had 30% of your kids obese in August, and now in June you have 34%. FAIL")

If you think the answer is the new "Value-Added" measure, think again. It's like measuring height with rubber bands - you can stretch them in a million ways, getting whatever result matches your purpose. Expecting students to grow evenly, proportionally, and regularly is simply not how it works. A "year's worth of growth" is such an arbitrary thing. It's like slicing an onion sooo thin, you can't even tell it's onion anymore.

Value-Added is a tool used to tear down public education. The wolf dressed in sheep's clothing.

I can guarantee that the group that espouses firing 80% of public school teachers (based on an "effectiveness model" similar to value-added) is massively conservative, in favor of a voucher system, supportive of charter schools, and anti-public schools across the board.

SO yeah, fire 80% of the teachers if you want public education to come crumbling down. Take the pension and tenure away while you're at it. And videotape it all.

Defined Benefit pensions are a great benefit. If a company sets it up correctly and funds it properly, it is a benefit that is beneficial to both the employee and employer.

Many people don't have a clue on how to invest or ever save for retirement. A DB plan is perfect for those people. Companies have been switching to 401(k) type plans and people are not saving enough for retirement or don't know what they are doing when they have to invest. They either leave too much in a money market account or just select one or two funds when they get set up on the plan and never adjust it no matter their age.

What exactly is the problem with firing people when you can find a cheaper replacement to do the same job? Even if the cheaper worker is slightly less good at their job, that's a cost/benefit analysis an employer should be free to make. What is all this BS about "cause"? How about - we're cutting costs, sorry you need to take a pay cut or find a job somewhere else where they can afford to pay your salary.

In a way - yes. You think your employer owes you your job? You show up to work and do your thing, and your employer pays you for it. If ever the arrangement stops being beneficial (or beneficial enough) to either side, either party should be free to end the arrangement.

Ha! You think McDonald's level jobs are the only ones that don't offer a pension or tenure? Get real, try MOST JOBS.

Sure, I'd be fine with that. Why would a recent college graduate be unqualified to teach K-12?

Somehow this has turned into a teacher attack thread since I threw tenure into the mix, but the point was more that these business practices seem downright crazy.

for reals now wrote:

Sure, I'd be fine with that. Why would a recent college graduate be unqualified to teach K-12?

I didn't say unqualified. I suggested effective.

Would you prefer the fresh out of college surgeon to perform your brain surgery, or the one who has done it 1000 times?

By your thinking, we should fire every high ranking military official - say, above Captain - so that we have "effective business practices" in our armed forces. And take away the veteran's benefits while you're at it: VA hospitals, pension, etc, etc.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

new toys wrote:

I didn't say unqualified. I suggested effective.

Would you prefer the fresh out of college surgeon to perform your brain surgery, or the one who has done it 1000 times?

By your thinking, we should fire every high ranking military official - say, above Captain - so that we have "effective business practices" in our armed forces. And take away the veteran's benefits while you're at it: VA hospitals, pension, etc, etc.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

Not every official, just the ones who can be replaced easily. Don't don't take away all veteran benefits, just the ones we can't afford to pay. Plus, we should be producing far fewer veterans and far more young workers looking to take your job.

new toys wrote:

Would you prefer the fresh out of college surgeon to perform your brain surgery, or the one who has done it 1000 times?

By your thinking, we should fire every high ranking military official - say, above Captain - so that we have "effective business practices" in our armed forces. And take away the veteran's benefits while you're at it: VA hospitals, pension, etc, etc.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

Wait, you think teaching K-12 is analogous to performing brain surgery? Use a little common sense. Good business practices wouldn't have you painting with a broad stroke, saying things like "everyone above captain gets fired" or "every teacher that hits $80k salary gets fired". No, you need to evaluate the situation as it is and weigh the costs and benefits. With inexperienced surgeons, more people will die. Big cost. With little Jimmy learning the alphabet - eh. Yes the 30-year teaching veteran is better, but how much better at teaching the alphabet will he/she really be than the fresh out of school teacher? Who knows, I'll let the professional educators make that decision.

But if those professional educators decide to cut loose some of those big earners - hey, you gotta make that call if all the evidence points that way. No one is owed their job.

Someday I hope you're fired because your job is outsourced or a younger, cheaper worker is brought in to take your spot. Oh I know, you're so important to your company you'd never be let go. Right. And when it happens I'm sure you'll happily leave.

What are these "good business practices" of which you speak?

The guys on Wall Street made solid money - you're all right with them?

As long as the guys on top make money, it's "good business practice"?

10/10

for reals now wrote:

With little Jimmy learning the alphabet - eh. Yes the 30-year teaching veteran is better, but how much better at teaching the alphabet will he/she really be than the fresh out of school teacher?

Thanks for blatantly highlighting your ignornace and simple-minded view of what it means to be an educator to children. Your views are commensurate with much of public opinion however, so I suppose its actually worth responding to you.

Listen, if you have ever spent any time whatsoever in an elementary level classroom, you would understand the wide range of skills a teacher needs to possess in order to be successful/effective at his/her job. To name a few sills, you must be able to manage 30-40 children of varying abilities/personalities/multiple intelligences/etc., must be able to effectively relate to and motivate children, must have strong conflict resolution skills, need to be a good diplomat when dealing with parents, need to be able to plan lessons in a logical/organized sequence, etc etc.

I could go on but you get the picture. Teaching the alphabet?! Seriously how old are you? Ask yourself how would you teach a child to read? To write? Do you think you know how? I'll bet you wouldn't have a clue. And do you not think those are pretty important skills for our? Would like someone who is qualified and has proven him/herself in the classroom? I am a new teacher (2 years experience) and I'll admit I thought I was "the man" when I began teaching until I relaized I didn't know s#$%&t about how to do some of the most basic things I listed above. I have seen and know some special teachers who can take children and teach them how to read/write and resolve disputes/etc. within a school year.....its remarkable. I dont know why everyone assumes they have the ability to do so.

Oh wait, I do know why.....because they don't have any EXPERIENCE

newtoys

So there is no difference between a "good teacher" and a "bad teacher"??

Read the article.. you measure the progress of students and chances are the good teachers produce every year, and the bad slack every year.

Defined benefit plans are pretty bad. It ties the worker to the company (most plans are back loaded) which is bad since it prevents the workers from taking better jobs. It also encourages companies to fire old workers before they qualify for the pension. it is bad for the company since it is really hard to predict future funding requirements. It is too easy to underfund the plan and then get stuck with obligations that cripple the company.401(k) have the flaws you mention. You really need something in between where there is a defined contribution but it is managed "professionally". And of course when companies switch from a DB to a 401(k) most employees get a major compensation cut (instead of something 6k to the DB you are lucky to get a 3k match).

a sidebar wrote:

Defined Benefit pensions are a great benefit. If a company sets it up correctly and funds it properly, it is a benefit that is beneficial to both the employee and employer.

Many people don't have a clue on how to invest or ever save for retirement. A DB plan is perfect for those people. Companies have been switching to 401(k) type plans and people are not saving enough for retirement or don't know what they are doing when they have to invest. They either leave too much in a money market account or just select one or two funds when they get set up on the plan and never adjust it no matter their age.