I'm not sure how a thread about voters' voices on the rights of collective bargaining units & constitutional rights for fertilized eggs became about the very specific concept of performance-based pay, particularly for teachers. The elections were about SO much more than that.
Teaching is a good example of where it's very difficult to measure performance. I don't think they're saying that you can't tell who's a good teacher, and who's a bad teacher, they're saying what's used to determine this is flawed. If they come up with a way to measure it, the only result will be that students will receive a lesser education. Anyone who actually thinks about many of the positions unions represent, and then think it's easy to measure their performance is kidding themselves.
We've all worked with a lame co-worker who doesn't do a very good job, but they look good in the eyes of the boss. They do this by playing up to the measurement devices the boss is using, but as a co-worker we have a different perspective on what they're not doing in regards to the 'team' aspects of the job.
I would love you as my boss.
ROWE, results only work environment. This is a system of evaluation that works well in the public sector. A supervisor and their employees set out a list of goals and expectations together individually and as a team. At that point the employee is responsible to meet their criteria.
The system is wonderful.
This system is only wonderful in theory. There are way too many ways this system could go wrong.
I'll give you an short example from my own life: The evaluation system where I work is similar to this. I'm supposed to meet with my boss at the beginning of the year to assess what exactly my job is & set goals for the coming year. Then he's supposed to evaluate me at the end of the year on whether I met those goals.
But what happens every year is that, to begin with, we absolutely can't agree on what my job is. This is because he lives in an alternate reality that we call Larryworld. The evaluation system works such that it's my job to write what I do & how much time I spend in each area. But, even though I've been very careful to make sure my assessment is accurate, he doesn't like the looks of it on paper & tells me to change it every time to something he thinks will look better to the department, something that says I spend more time than I do on measurable money-making things.
So then he sets corresponding goals for me that I'm supposed to accomplish throughout the year. I try to change the nature of my job to match what he says it is, but he never lets me. He'll give me goal to complete some huge, lofty, time-consuming, unnecessary project - but then he comes into my office every single day & tells me to do more pressing things that have nothing to do with the project. Next thing you know, the whole year has passed & I've spent it doing my job - running our program - and not accomplished the projects he gave me. There's no possible way for me to do everything he wants unless they get me an assistant, but they won't. So I get a bad evaluation. From a man who has absolutely no idea how to do my job.
This is how this evaluation process frequently plays out for a lot of people. It has the potential to be good - in a perfect world. It sounds good when you hear the idea, looks good on paper. But in reality it's a fucking joke. And everyone knows it. Even though these annual evals are supposedly required, the Chair of our department (my boss's boss) told me to just stop doing them. We don't have time for them anyway; they just put us even further behind in our actual work.
fair enough. A review system and a ROWE system are two different things. I think it is far worse simply rewarding people for years of service and protecting terrible workers than the chance that a supervisor might not "get it".
Well, look at it this way...I routinely get great reviews, but because I have maxed out my job class and there have been no raises for cost of living, I now make less today than I did when I started and have been forced to take on twice as much work because other people(who are still employed and make the EXACT same amount I do) are incompetent but cannot be fired.
Again, academia isn't the only area covered by unions in the public sector...shouldn't firemen who go above and beyond be rewarded for their service rather than paid the same amount as the people they routinely cover for? Policemen, support staff workers, PHNs...I can go on an on...
No system is perfect, however I would much prefer one that rewards good employees rather than protects the bad ones...We just look at it differently.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I'm not sure how a thread about voters' voices on the rights of collective bargaining units & constitutional rights for fertilized eggs became about the very specific concept of performance-based pay, particularly for teachers. The elections were about SO much more than that.
it seems to be the thing people disagree about. I don't know too many people (whether they are pro-choice or not) that think it is a great idea that have legislation that spells out when life begins as the moment of conception.
teachers were just the example that was brought up.
Unions in the public sector are as guilty as any politician in terms of money wasting. And the fact that the voters of Ohio don't see this is disconcerting for me.
If you would like to make a point about any of the other topics feel free, no one will stop you from posting about it, and no one will stop anyone from replying to your point.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Teachers can be measured on a combination of things, such as:
--How their students perform on standardized tests compared to the goals set forth by the school board (which can vary from one school district to another depending on past performance, resources, etc.)
--How the teacher is rated based on classroom evaluations by supervisors throughout the year
--Does the teacher participate in extracurricular activities for the school or otherwise take on additional duties or tasks beyond what is required?
--The teacher's own attendance (more important than it sounds since substitute teachers rarely do more than hand out busy work)
I mentioned all of these earlier and I'm sure there are other things that can be evaluated besides those, but it shows that there are ways to evaluate teachers beyond just how many kids get good grades. Different categories can be weighted differently so that those deemed more important have a greater impact on the overall evaluation and make it more fair for everyone.
ok ... point by point:
- what if the kids are not getting enough to eat at home? ... what if they don't have the homework support other kids have? ... what if they have shitty parents? ... what if the knowledge and skills supposedly learned at an earlier grade were not because of a shitty teach previously? ... is that the teacher's fault?
- evaluations are subjective especially as they ultimately will be random samples based on certain days of the year ... would you be shocked if teachers who were crap most of the time actually tried harder on evaluation days?
- are extracurricular activities mandated by the board and a measure of a good teacher? ... if it isn't mandated as part of the job description - how can you evaluate on it?
- sure, attendance is reasonable but at the end of the day - do they make great teachers?
ultimately that is the question - are any of your evaluation tools going to determine who the the good teachers are? ... i would say no ... not even close ... it's like putting everyone in a race but everyone has different cars and saying whoever gets there first wins ...
I am not an educator. although I did stay and a holiday inn express last night...
It really isn't a black and white attitude. If you think a teacher can be evaluated they should be able to be rewarded for that with merit pay increases. I think there may be a misunderstanding with what I am talking about...if worker A makes 40,000 a year and does an exceptional job he/she would probably receive a step increase that is preset by the contract. if worker B makes 40,000 and does enough to not get fired, they will probably receive a step increase that is preset by the contract. that to me is an unfair situation that rewards mediocrity while giving little incentive to go above and beyond. In fact, good teachers would probably be pretty well paid versus their shitty counterparts if the union wage scale didn't exist.
I think that a teacher can be evaluated on effort, ability, and classroom demeanor, all which have nothing to do with students. Student evaluations can also be tied in, as well as peer evaluation inside a district. Preparation(found through random classroom visits from management), creativity in the classroom(teaching methods of a curriculum could be self reported by the teachers themselves), and results measured through student improvement (which can be found through a simple evaluation of a students knowledge level before the course and after it...not the grades the student receives...but if a student doesn't know 2+2=4 before a math class and knows 2+2 = 4 after it that is an improvement.
ALL jobs have outside factors that affect someones ability to do a job. Teachers aren't alone there. If I get one bad report from any of my clients that probably would affect my review much...but if there are a few, and it is a pattern...well then that is a problem and should affect my review.
there are a lot of ways to evaluate a teacher. Can every single situation always be prepared for...absolutely not...but someone who has their daughter get diagnosed with leukemia would probably perform terrible and all of that will be found out in a review....
anyone who thinks evaluation isn't possible should seriously check into the ROWE work environment. It is pretty awesome.
but again, teachers aren't the only public employees protected by a union.
is the discussion on unions or performance-based compensation? ... they are separate to me ... and i'm not saying one cannot be evaluated in their job and performance just simply it cannot be done through some checklist and that there needs to be a more holistic approach to it ...
i agree that compensation should not be awarded based on some notion of an approved contract (and as you know, i am a socialist) ... all i am saying is that when you go performance-based ... it is very difficult to measure and that it is not necessarily a solution to the problem you see ...
heck, right now compensation is absurd ... unions or no unions ... what we pay some ceo's and executives or athletes is ridiculous ...
--You can evaluate the teachers based on their entire class's average score. Sure, some kids may not be good test-takers, others may not get breakfast, and some might be great test-takers. That's why I'm saying that the schools should have some leeway to look at the past performance of that teacher's students, the school district's past performance, and things like that to come up with a realistic goal for the teachers.
--Yes, a smart teacher would be on their best behavior during an evaluation day. Everyone is on their best behavior when their boss is around. But if evaluations are random an unannounced, the evaluators can get a good idea for how well the teacher prepared for that day's lessons and whether or not the teacher is actually capable of teaching. If you can't teach, it's hard to fake it.
--Most schools don't require teachers to take part in extracurricular activities. What I'm saying is that a teacher who does those things is going above and beyond the job description and that should have some merit when they are evaluated. My job doesn't require me to volunteer for company-sponsored events such as charities it sponsors, but it does get mentioned in my review if I take part in them. I don't get penalized if I don't, but I'm rewarded if I do. The same thing applies here. A teacher who takes extra time to coach a sport, advise the student paper, help the student government, hold after-school tutoring, etc. should be recognized for those efforts more than the teacher that's first in line behind the school buses at the end of every day.
--Having few or no call-outs doesn't make a great teacher in and of itself, but it does help students learn. Sustitute teachers rarely ever teach anything. They're really jsut there to keep the kids from goofing off and that's pretty much a wasted day, so a teacher who shows up every day is limiting those wasted days. Again, most employers will take attendance into consideration to some degree when they review their employees' performance.
When you combine several criteria and weigh them based on how well they reflect the overall job performance you can get an accurate picture of how well a person is doing at any given job. That's my point. YOu can't just look at test scores and you can't just look at classroom evaluations and you can't just look at extracurricular activities but you CAN take all of those things and determine how important each one is and determine which teachers are showing up every day trying to do their jobs well and which ones aren't.
Teachers can be measured on a combination of things, such as:
--How their students perform on standardized tests compared to the goals set forth by the school board (which can vary from one school district to another depending on past performance, resources, etc.)
--How the teacher is rated based on classroom evaluations by supervisors throughout the year
--Does the teacher participate in extracurricular activities for the school or otherwise take on additional duties or tasks beyond what is required?
--The teacher's own attendance (more important than it sounds since substitute teachers rarely do more than hand out busy work)
I mentioned all of these earlier and I'm sure there are other things that can be evaluated besides those, but it shows that there are ways to evaluate teachers beyond just how many kids get good grades. Different categories can be weighted differently so that those deemed more important have a greater impact on the overall evaluation and make it more fair for everyone.
ok ... point by point:
- what if the kids are not getting enough to eat at home? ... what if they don't have the homework support other kids have? ... what if they have shitty parents? ... what if the knowledge and skills supposedly learned at an earlier grade were not because of a shitty teach previously? ... is that the teacher's fault?
- evaluations are subjective especially as they ultimately will be random samples based on certain days of the year ... would you be shocked if teachers who were crap most of the time actually tried harder on evaluation days?
- are extracurricular activities mandated by the board and a measure of a good teacher? ... if it isn't mandated as part of the job description - how can you evaluate on it?
- sure, attendance is reasonable but at the end of the day - do they make great teachers?
ultimately that is the question - are any of your evaluation tools going to determine who the the good teachers are? ... i would say no ... not even close ... it's like putting everyone in a race but everyone has different cars and saying whoever gets there first wins ...
--You can evaluate the teachers based on their entire class's average score. Sure, some kids may not be good test-takers, others may not get breakfast, and some might be great test-takers. That's why I'm saying that the schools should have some leeway to look at the past performance of that teacher's students, the school district's past performance, and things like that to come up with a realistic goal for the teachers.
--Yes, a smart teacher would be on their best behavior during an evaluation day. Everyone is on their best behavior when their boss is around. But if evaluations are random an unannounced, the evaluators can get a good idea for how well the teacher prepared for that day's lessons and whether or not the teacher is actually capable of teaching. If you can't teach, it's hard to fake it.
--Most schools don't require teachers to take part in extracurricular activities. What I'm saying is that a teacher who does those things is going above and beyond the job description and that should have some merit when they are evaluated. My job doesn't require me to volunteer for company-sponsored events such as charities it sponsors, but it does get mentioned in my review if I take part in them. I don't get penalized if I don't, but I'm rewarded if I do. The same thing applies here. A teacher who takes extra time to coach a sport, advise the student paper, help the student government, hold after-school tutoring, etc. should be recognized for those efforts more than the teacher that's first in line behind the school buses at the end of every day.
--Having few or no call-outs doesn't make a great teacher in and of itself, but it does help students learn. Sustitute teachers rarely ever teach anything. They're really jsut there to keep the kids from goofing off and that's pretty much a wasted day, so a teacher who shows up every day is limiting those wasted days. Again, most employers will take attendance into consideration to some degree when they review their employees' performance.
When you combine several criteria and weigh them based on how well they reflect the overall job performance you can get an accurate picture of how well a person is doing at any given job. That's my point. YOu can't just look at test scores and you can't just look at classroom evaluations and you can't just look at extracurricular activities but you CAN take all of those things and determine how important each one is and determine which teachers are showing up every day trying to do their jobs well and which ones aren't.
just on evaluators ... how do you do random evaluations unless you stick cameras in every classroom and evaluate from outside?
either way - what you are essentially proposing is some evaluation approach that allows for the intangibles which is all i am saying ... my point was that some kind of performance-based approach has significant flaws ...
What I mean by random evaluations is that they are unnannounced. The teacher shows up in the morning and there's a supervisor in the classroom waiting with no notice or anything to warn the teacher that it's coming so the evaluator knows that the teacher didn't just focus on that day's lesson plan in order to make a good impression. I'm not sure how well cameras in the classroom would work or if it's even legal to do that in all states. It might be something that works well if that school district can afford the technology that would allow the evaluators to see and hear everything going on, but I think there might be some privacy concerns over what can be seen and heard durign the teachers' prep periods like when an elementary school class has gym class and their teacher is grading tests and 2 teachers have a conversation complaining about an administrator, for example.
--You can evaluate the teachers based on their entire class's average score. Sure, some kids may not be good test-takers, others may not get breakfast, and some might be great test-takers. That's why I'm saying that the schools should have some leeway to look at the past performance of that teacher's students, the school district's past performance, and things like that to come up with a realistic goal for the teachers.
--Yes, a smart teacher would be on their best behavior during an evaluation day. Everyone is on their best behavior when their boss is around. But if evaluations are random an unannounced, the evaluators can get a good idea for how well the teacher prepared for that day's lessons and whether or not the teacher is actually capable of teaching. If you can't teach, it's hard to fake it.
--Most schools don't require teachers to take part in extracurricular activities. What I'm saying is that a teacher who does those things is going above and beyond the job description and that should have some merit when they are evaluated. My job doesn't require me to volunteer for company-sponsored events such as charities it sponsors, but it does get mentioned in my review if I take part in them. I don't get penalized if I don't, but I'm rewarded if I do. The same thing applies here. A teacher who takes extra time to coach a sport, advise the student paper, help the student government, hold after-school tutoring, etc. should be recognized for those efforts more than the teacher that's first in line behind the school buses at the end of every day.
--Having few or no call-outs doesn't make a great teacher in and of itself, but it does help students learn. Sustitute teachers rarely ever teach anything. They're really jsut there to keep the kids from goofing off and that's pretty much a wasted day, so a teacher who shows up every day is limiting those wasted days. Again, most employers will take attendance into consideration to some degree when they review their employees' performance.
When you combine several criteria and weigh them based on how well they reflect the overall job performance you can get an accurate picture of how well a person is doing at any given job. That's my point. YOu can't just look at test scores and you can't just look at classroom evaluations and you can't just look at extracurricular activities but you CAN take all of those things and determine how important each one is and determine which teachers are showing up every day trying to do their jobs well and which ones aren't.
just on evaluators ... how do you do random evaluations unless you stick cameras in every classroom and evaluate from outside?
either way - what you are essentially proposing is some evaluation approach that allows for the intangibles which is all i am saying ... my point was that some kind of performance-based approach has significant flaws ...
I am not an educator. although I did stay and a holiday inn express last night...
It really isn't a black and white attitude. If you think a teacher can be evaluated they should be able to be rewarded for that with merit pay increases. I think there may be a misunderstanding with what I am talking about...if worker A makes 40,000 a year and does an exceptional job he/she would probably receive a step increase that is preset by the contract. if worker B makes 40,000 and does enough to not get fired, they will probably receive a step increase that is preset by the contract. that to me is an unfair situation that rewards mediocrity while giving little incentive to go above and beyond. In fact, good teachers would probably be pretty well paid versus their shitty counterparts if the union wage scale didn't exist.
I think that a teacher can be evaluated on effort, ability, and classroom demeanor, all which have nothing to do with students. Student evaluations can also be tied in, as well as peer evaluation inside a district. Preparation(found through random classroom visits from management), creativity in the classroom(teaching methods of a curriculum could be self reported by the teachers themselves), and results measured through student improvement (which can be found through a simple evaluation of a students knowledge level before the course and after it...not the grades the student receives...but if a student doesn't know 2+2=4 before a math class and knows 2+2 = 4 after it that is an improvement.
ALL jobs have outside factors that affect someones ability to do a job. Teachers aren't alone there. If I get one bad report from any of my clients that probably would affect my review much...but if there are a few, and it is a pattern...well then that is a problem and should affect my review.
there are a lot of ways to evaluate a teacher. Can every single situation always be prepared for...absolutely not...but someone who has their daughter get diagnosed with leukemia would probably perform terrible and all of that will be found out in a review....
anyone who thinks evaluation isn't possible should seriously check into the ROWE work environment. It is pretty awesome.
but again, teachers aren't the only public employees protected by a union.
is the discussion on unions or performance-based compensation? ... they are separate to me ... and i'm not saying one cannot be evaluated in their job and performance just simply it cannot be done through some checklist and that there needs to be a more holistic approach to it ...
i agree that compensation should not be awarded based on some notion of an approved contract (and as you know, i am a socialist) ... all i am saying is that when you go performance-based ... it is very difficult to measure and that it is not necessarily a solution to the problem you see ...
heck, right now compensation is absurd ... unions or no unions ... what we pay some ceo's and executives or athletes is ridiculous ...
both, the focus of my first post was to show that the law that was on the books in OHIO that I believe was overturned by the referendum did not contain totally unreasonable aspects. Collective bargaining rights for public employees is a dangerous thing, it wastes a lot of government and tax payer resources and I think unions have set up a situation in the public sector where performance pay or merit pay is not possible. I cannot get a raise based on being the best at what I do(not saying I am) and that is solely because of the union. These unions have created a situation in the public sector where they are pretty much unstoppable and are probably as much involved with wasting tax payer money as any politician. I am not speaking as an outsider, I work in it everyday.
I think you should read about ROWE as a work place philosophy. It is fantastic and isn't simply performance based pay. I think maybe that is where are biggest problem is here, I am not talking about taking money from someone based on performance, more about the ability to reward those that do a good job and get rid of those who do not based on job performance rather than years of service.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
take mlb for example ... do we pay each players strictly on stats like hits, rbis, runs? ... some players get more rbis cuz the guys in front of him in the lineup get on more ... some players get more runs because guys behind them hit better ... also, how do you judge defense? ... how do you factor in leadership in the clubhouse and willingness to help other players?
That is why it is important to have good leaders making the evaluations. The St. Louis Cardinals picked up Lance Berkman for his clubhouse leadership skills and to improve team chemistry. And his leadership was evident this year and he was rewarded with an extension.
Most shortstops and catchers are chosen based more on their defensive skills then their offensive skills (also, did you ask if there are stats on defense ... this is baseball we're talking about ).
And then there are cases like Milton Bradley who had his skills overshadowed by being an asshole ... he is now riding the pine tar in his backyard.
And then you have teams like the Cubs who have horrible leadership, can't evaluate right, and end up in last place. And what did they do this off-season?
Show me a leader that cannot properly evaluate their subordinates in their chosen field, and I'll show you someone who isn't leading ... and most likely failing.
fair enough. A review system and a ROWE system are two different things. I think it is far worse simply rewarding people for years of service and protecting terrible workers than the chance that a supervisor might not "get it".
Well, look at it this way...I routinely get great reviews, but because I have maxed out my job class and there have been no raises for cost of living, I now make less today than I did when I started and have been forced to take on twice as much work because other people(who are still employed and make the EXACT same amount I do) are incompetent but cannot be fired.
Again, academia isn't the only area covered by unions in the public sector...shouldn't firemen who go above and beyond be rewarded for their service rather than paid the same amount as the people they routinely cover for? Policemen, support staff workers, PHNs...I can go on an on...
No system is perfect, however I would much prefer one that rewards good employees rather than protects the bad ones...We just look at it differently.
I would rather reward both the good & bad employees than fuck over both the good & bad employees. I think systems like you are talking about are more likely to fuck over good employees - and more likely to reward bad employees. And we seem to be forgetting that systems like the ones you oppose were largely put in place to keep people from getting promoted based on favoritism, etc.
I have the same problem you're having, where we haven't gotten any raises and we actually make less each year - but I'm NOT covered by a union. So I don't really think you can blame the unions.
I absolutely think it's a bad idea to get rid of firefighter and police unions. Then they'll just fucked even more that they already are and the public they serve will really be screwed.
I'm not sure how a thread about voters' voices on the rights of collective bargaining units & constitutional rights for fertilized eggs became about the very specific concept of performance-based pay, particularly for teachers. The elections were about SO much more than that.
it seems to be the thing people disagree about. I don't know too many people (whether they are pro-choice or not) that think it is a great idea that have legislation that spells out when life begins as the moment of conception.
teachers were just the example that was brought up.
Unions in the public sector are as guilty as any politician in terms of money wasting. And the fact that the voters of Ohio don't see this is disconcerting for me.
If you would like to make a point about any of the other topics feel free, no one will stop you from posting about it, and no one will stop anyone from replying to your point.
I think we let you frame the debate about unions when you pulled one sentence/concept out of the law and made the conversation about that. But I'm too tired to try to reframe it right now. So carry on, I guess.
fair enough. A review system and a ROWE system are two different things. I think it is far worse simply rewarding people for years of service and protecting terrible workers than the chance that a supervisor might not "get it".
Well, look at it this way...I routinely get great reviews, but because I have maxed out my job class and there have been no raises for cost of living, I now make less today than I did when I started and have been forced to take on twice as much work because other people(who are still employed and make the EXACT same amount I do) are incompetent but cannot be fired.
Again, academia isn't the only area covered by unions in the public sector...shouldn't firemen who go above and beyond be rewarded for their service rather than paid the same amount as the people they routinely cover for? Policemen, support staff workers, PHNs...I can go on an on...
No system is perfect, however I would much prefer one that rewards good employees rather than protects the bad ones...We just look at it differently.
I would rather reward both the good & bad employees than fuck over both the good & bad employees. I think systems like you are talking about are more likely to fuck over good employees - and more likely to reward bad employees. And we seem to be forgetting that systems like the ones you oppose were largely put in place to keep people from getting promoted based on favoritism, etc.
I have the same problem you're having, where we haven't gotten any raises and we actually make less each year - but I'm NOT covered by a union. So I don't really think you can blame the unions.
I absolutely think it's a bad idea to get rid of firefighter and police unions. Then they'll just fucked even more that they already are and the public they serve will really be screwed.
take mlb for example ... do we pay each players strictly on stats like hits, rbis, runs? ... some players get more rbis cuz the guys in front of him in the lineup get on more ... some players get more runs because guys behind them hit better ... also, how do you judge defense? ... how do you factor in leadership in the clubhouse and willingness to help other players?
That is why it is important to have good leaders making the evaluations.
fair enough. A review system and a ROWE system are two different things. I think it is far worse simply rewarding people for years of service and protecting terrible workers than the chance that a supervisor might not "get it".
Well, look at it this way...I routinely get great reviews, but because I have maxed out my job class and there have been no raises for cost of living, I now make less today than I did when I started and have been forced to take on twice as much work because other people(who are still employed and make the EXACT same amount I do) are incompetent but cannot be fired.
Again, academia isn't the only area covered by unions in the public sector...shouldn't firemen who go above and beyond be rewarded for their service rather than paid the same amount as the people they routinely cover for? Policemen, support staff workers, PHNs...I can go on an on...
No system is perfect, however I would much prefer one that rewards good employees rather than protects the bad ones...We just look at it differently.
I would rather reward both the good & bad employees than fuck over both the good & bad employees. I think systems like you are talking about are more likely to fuck over good employees - and more likely to reward bad employees. And we seem to be forgetting that systems like the ones you oppose were largely put in place to keep people from getting promoted based on favoritism, etc.
I have the same problem you're having, where we haven't gotten any raises and we actually make less each year - but I'm NOT covered by a union. So I don't really think you can blame the unions.
I absolutely think it's a bad idea to get rid of firefighter and police unions. Then they'll just fucked even more that they already are and the public they serve will really be screwed.
No one's saying to not evaluate employees at all. And it's not really that difficult to tell if someone needs to be fired. Promotions are more complicated, but I think the systems y'all are talking about would actually prevent good employees from being promoted more than anything.
fair enough. A review system and a ROWE system are two different things. I think it is far worse simply rewarding people for years of service and protecting terrible workers than the chance that a supervisor might not "get it".
Well, look at it this way...I routinely get great reviews, but because I have maxed out my job class and there have been no raises for cost of living, I now make less today than I did when I started and have been forced to take on twice as much work because other people(who are still employed and make the EXACT same amount I do) are incompetent but cannot be fired.
Again, academia isn't the only area covered by unions in the public sector...shouldn't firemen who go above and beyond be rewarded for their service rather than paid the same amount as the people they routinely cover for? Policemen, support staff workers, PHNs...I can go on an on...
No system is perfect, however I would much prefer one that rewards good employees rather than protects the bad ones...We just look at it differently.
I would rather reward both the good & bad employees than fuck over both the good & bad employees. I think systems like you are talking about are more likely to fuck over good employees - and more likely to reward bad employees. And we seem to be forgetting that systems like the ones you oppose were largely put in place to keep people from getting promoted based on favoritism, etc.
I have the same problem you're having, where we haven't gotten any raises and we actually make less each year - but I'm NOT covered by a union. So I don't really think you can blame the unions.
I absolutely think it's a bad idea to get rid of firefighter and police unions. Then they'll just fucked even more that they already are and the public they serve will really be screwed.
I am not advocating for the removal of all aspects of unions, but I do think the things that can be collectively bargained should be limited for public employees... But that is why we are a democracy, the people of Ohio disagree and they made it known. good for them for getting involved. Although I cannot help but think how many of my afscme dues were spent fighting it.
I believe the single largest donor to campaigns in 2010 was AFSCME, 87 million, to fight things like RIGHT TO WORK laws that make it so the union cannot automatically take your money from your check, or force you to pay a fair share if you do not want to be in a union. Why would the union have to do this if what they offer is such a good product?
for all those who defend public employee unions and aren't in them, I sure hope you know all the aspects of what you are defending, because if you think more people would get fucked over by a ROWE environment than what happens now you are sadly mistaken. Come spend a month with me, I know for a fact you will change your tune when you see the same employee call in sick once a week and me not able to do a damn thing about it.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I am not advocating for the removal of all aspects of unions, but I do think the things that can be collectively bargained should be limited for public employees... But that is why we are a democracy, the people of Ohio disagree and they made it known. good for them for getting involved. Although I cannot help but think how many of my afscme dues were spent fighting it.
I believe the single largest donor to campaigns in 2010 was AFSCME, 87 million, to fight things like RIGHT TO WORK laws that make it so the union cannot automatically take your money from your check, or force you to pay a fair share if you do not want to be in a union. Why would the union have to do this if what they offer is such a good product?
for all those who defend public employee unions and aren't in them, I sure hope you know all the aspects of what you are defending, because if you think more people would get fucked over by a ROWE environment than what happens now you are sadly mistaken. Come spend a month with me, I know for a fact you will change your tune when you see the same employee call in sick once a week and me not able to do a damn thing about it.
I'm not ignorant about unions. I've been in unions before, even in this very same job. You sure are confident that your opinion is the only logical opinion if you know for a fact that I would change my tune if I spent a month with you. (I doubt that I would.) Perhaps you should spend a month with people who don't have collective bargaining rights. Maybe you would change your tune. No system is perfect, so you can go ahead a say things aren't perfect under the unions and you'd be right. But I think things are better when people have collective bargaining rights than when they don't.
This reminds me of the abortion debate. Or the debate about vaccines. We have the luxury of saying we don't need abortion rights or vaccines or unions because we've never had to live in a world without those options. There's a reason why people died for our right to have unions. And it's not because life is better without them.
if you like having weekends, child labor laws, sick pay, leave of absence, paid vacation, worker's compensation, and mandated safe working conditions, then you should thank a union. without unions none of us would have any of those things....
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I am not advocating for the removal of all aspects of unions, but I do think the things that can be collectively bargained should be limited for public employees... But that is why we are a democracy, the people of Ohio disagree and they made it known. good for them for getting involved. Although I cannot help but think how many of my afscme dues were spent fighting it.
I believe the single largest donor to campaigns in 2010 was AFSCME, 87 million, to fight things like RIGHT TO WORK laws that make it so the union cannot automatically take your money from your check, or force you to pay a fair share if you do not want to be in a union. Why would the union have to do this if what they offer is such a good product?
for all those who defend public employee unions and aren't in them, I sure hope you know all the aspects of what you are defending, because if you think more people would get fucked over by a ROWE environment than what happens now you are sadly mistaken. Come spend a month with me, I know for a fact you will change your tune when you see the same employee call in sick once a week and me not able to do a damn thing about it.
I'm not ignorant about unions. I've been in unions before, even in this very same job. You sure are confident that your opinion is the only logical opinion if you know for a fact that I would change my tune if I spent a month with you. (I doubt that I would.) Perhaps you should spend a month with people who don't have collective bargaining rights. Maybe you would change your tune. No system is perfect, so you can go ahead a say things aren't perfect under the unions and you'd be right. But I think things are better when people have collective bargaining rights than when they don't.
This reminds me of the abortion debate. Or the debate about vaccines. We have the luxury of saying we don't need abortion rights or vaccines or unions because we've never had to live in a world without those options. There's a reason why people died for our right to have unions. And it's not because life is better without them.
guess we will have to agree to disagree on the issue. I am old enough to have had plenty of jobs that weren't union. Including a trade. I understand their usefulness, and as I said, do not advocate elimination of them from the private sector...I just think unions in public areas are a dangerous thing and a situation where abuse and intimidation on behalf of the union leaders is disgusting. I have found this out from working within one. not from lumping public employee unions of today with the unions from the early 1900's...Things like the DAVIS BACON act have no business existing today.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Comments
fair enough. A review system and a ROWE system are two different things. I think it is far worse simply rewarding people for years of service and protecting terrible workers than the chance that a supervisor might not "get it".
Well, look at it this way...I routinely get great reviews, but because I have maxed out my job class and there have been no raises for cost of living, I now make less today than I did when I started and have been forced to take on twice as much work because other people(who are still employed and make the EXACT same amount I do) are incompetent but cannot be fired.
Again, academia isn't the only area covered by unions in the public sector...shouldn't firemen who go above and beyond be rewarded for their service rather than paid the same amount as the people they routinely cover for? Policemen, support staff workers, PHNs...I can go on an on...
No system is perfect, however I would much prefer one that rewards good employees rather than protects the bad ones...We just look at it differently.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
it seems to be the thing people disagree about. I don't know too many people (whether they are pro-choice or not) that think it is a great idea that have legislation that spells out when life begins as the moment of conception.
teachers were just the example that was brought up.
Unions in the public sector are as guilty as any politician in terms of money wasting. And the fact that the voters of Ohio don't see this is disconcerting for me.
If you would like to make a point about any of the other topics feel free, no one will stop you from posting about it, and no one will stop anyone from replying to your point.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
ok ... point by point:
- what if the kids are not getting enough to eat at home? ... what if they don't have the homework support other kids have? ... what if they have shitty parents? ... what if the knowledge and skills supposedly learned at an earlier grade were not because of a shitty teach previously? ... is that the teacher's fault?
- evaluations are subjective especially as they ultimately will be random samples based on certain days of the year ... would you be shocked if teachers who were crap most of the time actually tried harder on evaluation days?
- are extracurricular activities mandated by the board and a measure of a good teacher? ... if it isn't mandated as part of the job description - how can you evaluate on it?
- sure, attendance is reasonable but at the end of the day - do they make great teachers?
ultimately that is the question - are any of your evaluation tools going to determine who the the good teachers are? ... i would say no ... not even close ... it's like putting everyone in a race but everyone has different cars and saying whoever gets there first wins ...
is the discussion on unions or performance-based compensation? ... they are separate to me ... and i'm not saying one cannot be evaluated in their job and performance just simply it cannot be done through some checklist and that there needs to be a more holistic approach to it ...
i agree that compensation should not be awarded based on some notion of an approved contract (and as you know, i am a socialist) ... all i am saying is that when you go performance-based ... it is very difficult to measure and that it is not necessarily a solution to the problem you see ...
heck, right now compensation is absurd ... unions or no unions ... what we pay some ceo's and executives or athletes is ridiculous ...
--Yes, a smart teacher would be on their best behavior during an evaluation day. Everyone is on their best behavior when their boss is around. But if evaluations are random an unannounced, the evaluators can get a good idea for how well the teacher prepared for that day's lessons and whether or not the teacher is actually capable of teaching. If you can't teach, it's hard to fake it.
--Most schools don't require teachers to take part in extracurricular activities. What I'm saying is that a teacher who does those things is going above and beyond the job description and that should have some merit when they are evaluated. My job doesn't require me to volunteer for company-sponsored events such as charities it sponsors, but it does get mentioned in my review if I take part in them. I don't get penalized if I don't, but I'm rewarded if I do. The same thing applies here. A teacher who takes extra time to coach a sport, advise the student paper, help the student government, hold after-school tutoring, etc. should be recognized for those efforts more than the teacher that's first in line behind the school buses at the end of every day.
--Having few or no call-outs doesn't make a great teacher in and of itself, but it does help students learn. Sustitute teachers rarely ever teach anything. They're really jsut there to keep the kids from goofing off and that's pretty much a wasted day, so a teacher who shows up every day is limiting those wasted days. Again, most employers will take attendance into consideration to some degree when they review their employees' performance.
When you combine several criteria and weigh them based on how well they reflect the overall job performance you can get an accurate picture of how well a person is doing at any given job. That's my point. YOu can't just look at test scores and you can't just look at classroom evaluations and you can't just look at extracurricular activities but you CAN take all of those things and determine how important each one is and determine which teachers are showing up every day trying to do their jobs well and which ones aren't.
just on evaluators ... how do you do random evaluations unless you stick cameras in every classroom and evaluate from outside?
either way - what you are essentially proposing is some evaluation approach that allows for the intangibles which is all i am saying ... my point was that some kind of performance-based approach has significant flaws ...
both, the focus of my first post was to show that the law that was on the books in OHIO that I believe was overturned by the referendum did not contain totally unreasonable aspects. Collective bargaining rights for public employees is a dangerous thing, it wastes a lot of government and tax payer resources and I think unions have set up a situation in the public sector where performance pay or merit pay is not possible. I cannot get a raise based on being the best at what I do(not saying I am) and that is solely because of the union. These unions have created a situation in the public sector where they are pretty much unstoppable and are probably as much involved with wasting tax payer money as any politician. I am not speaking as an outsider, I work in it everyday.
I think you should read about ROWE as a work place philosophy. It is fantastic and isn't simply performance based pay. I think maybe that is where are biggest problem is here, I am not talking about taking money from someone based on performance, more about the ability to reward those that do a good job and get rid of those who do not based on job performance rather than years of service.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Most shortstops and catchers are chosen based more on their defensive skills then their offensive skills (also, did you ask if there are stats on defense ... this is baseball we're talking about
And then there are cases like Milton Bradley who had his skills overshadowed by being an asshole ... he is now riding the pine tar in his backyard.
And then you have teams like the Cubs who have horrible leadership, can't evaluate right, and end up in last place. And what did they do this off-season?
Show me a leader that cannot properly evaluate their subordinates in their chosen field, and I'll show you someone who isn't leading ... and most likely failing.
I would rather reward both the good & bad employees than fuck over both the good & bad employees. I think systems like you are talking about are more likely to fuck over good employees - and more likely to reward bad employees. And we seem to be forgetting that systems like the ones you oppose were largely put in place to keep people from getting promoted based on favoritism, etc.
I have the same problem you're having, where we haven't gotten any raises and we actually make less each year - but I'm NOT covered by a union. So I don't really think you can blame the unions.
I absolutely think it's a bad idea to get rid of firefighter and police unions. Then they'll just fucked even more that they already are and the public they serve will really be screwed.
I think we let you frame the debate about unions when you pulled one sentence/concept out of the law and made the conversation about that. But I'm too tired to try to reframe it right now. So carry on, I guess.
Yeah, but we don't.
No one's saying to not evaluate employees at all. And it's not really that difficult to tell if someone needs to be fired. Promotions are more complicated, but I think the systems y'all are talking about would actually prevent good employees from being promoted more than anything.
I am not advocating for the removal of all aspects of unions, but I do think the things that can be collectively bargained should be limited for public employees... But that is why we are a democracy, the people of Ohio disagree and they made it known. good for them for getting involved. Although I cannot help but think how many of my afscme dues were spent fighting it.
I believe the single largest donor to campaigns in 2010 was AFSCME, 87 million, to fight things like RIGHT TO WORK laws that make it so the union cannot automatically take your money from your check, or force you to pay a fair share if you do not want to be in a union. Why would the union have to do this if what they offer is such a good product?
for all those who defend public employee unions and aren't in them, I sure hope you know all the aspects of what you are defending, because if you think more people would get fucked over by a ROWE environment than what happens now you are sadly mistaken. Come spend a month with me, I know for a fact you will change your tune when you see the same employee call in sick once a week and me not able to do a damn thing about it.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I'm not ignorant about unions. I've been in unions before, even in this very same job. You sure are confident that your opinion is the only logical opinion if you know for a fact that I would change my tune if I spent a month with you. (I doubt that I would.) Perhaps you should spend a month with people who don't have collective bargaining rights. Maybe you would change your tune. No system is perfect, so you can go ahead a say things aren't perfect under the unions and you'd be right. But I think things are better when people have collective bargaining rights than when they don't.
This reminds me of the abortion debate. Or the debate about vaccines. We have the luxury of saying we don't need abortion rights or vaccines or unions because we've never had to live in a world without those options. There's a reason why people died for our right to have unions. And it's not because life is better without them.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
guess we will have to agree to disagree on the issue. I am old enough to have had plenty of jobs that weren't union. Including a trade. I understand their usefulness, and as I said, do not advocate elimination of them from the private sector...I just think unions in public areas are a dangerous thing and a situation where abuse and intimidation on behalf of the union leaders is disgusting. I have found this out from working within one. not from lumping public employee unions of today with the unions from the early 1900's...Things like the DAVIS BACON act have no business existing today.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan