Which tax payer funded employee should go through a "trial de nova" when fired?

Which tax payer funded employee should go through a "trial de nova" when fired? In other words which tax payer funded employees should go through judges to make sure proper procedures were followed when the individual was fired?


Teachers
Firemen
policemen
janitors
dog catcher/animal control officer
meter maids
receptionist/secretaries
other tax payer funded employees
All tax payer funded employees should be allowed to go through "trial de nova"
No tax payer funded employees should be allowed to go through "trial de nova"




It looks like some elected officals in my state are using common sense
Senate approves bill easing teacher firings | Tulsa World





I say no tax payer funded employee should go through a judge to determine if proper procedures were followed when they were fired. It is some silly **** for tax payers to spend 80-100 thousand dollars just to fire a teacher.

What has any of them done to deserve special proceedings, to avoid being fired?

None. But they should obviously be able to bring discrimination claims or whathaveyou in court just like anybody else.

Harry Guerrilla said:

What has any of them done to deserve special proceedings, to avoid being fired?

Click to expand...

Why...

...

...they joined a union and the union has bought them politicians to play with, including judges.

Krhazy said:

None. But they should obviously be able to bring discrimination claims or whathaveyou in court just like anybody else.

Click to expand...

And they should be required to pay court costs for the defendant if their lawsuit is rejected, plus restitution for harm and suffering their false accusation caused.

Otherwise, the only people who won't file automatic discrimination and harassment lawsuits against former government employers will be the straight white males who are excluded from every such discrimination category.

jamesrage said:

Which tax payer funded employee should go through a "trial de nova" when fired? In other words which tax payer funded employees should go through judges to make sure proper procedures were followed when the individual was fired?

Teachers
Firemen
policemen
janitors
dog catcher/animal control officer
meter maids
receptionist/secretaries
other tax payer funded employees
All tax payer funded employees should be allowed to go through "trial de nova"
No tax payer funded employees should be allowed to go through "trial de nova"

It looks like some elected officals in my state are using common sense
Senate approves bill easing teacher firings | Tulsa World

I say no tax payer funded employee should go through a judge to determine if proper procedures were followed when they were fired. It is some silly **** for tax payers to spend 80-100 thousand dollars just to fire a teacher.

Click to expand...

Good for Oklahoma. Hope it passes on through.

Why should teachers be a special class of people with more rights than you and I? We have all kinds of protections in place against firing unjustly. The courts have held that even an employee handbook represents a contract between employers/employees. You can't be fired because of race, religion sex, family status and a variety of other reasons.

And, of course, anyone is entitled to sue their employer if they believe they've been unjustly dismissed. The only thing this legislation does is take away a teacher's "right" to spend $80K-$100K of taxpayer money and none of their own to bring suit.

Poor lil' teachers. Soon they'll have to stand on their own two feet like everyone else in the USA.

I said teachers, police officers and firemen since they seem more likely to have the most grey area in the firings. Drunk teachers, abusive police officers and lazy firemen are easy to spot...but all three groups seem particularly vulnerable to political firings if they criticize their administrators. Even further, all three groups work in a grey area where the amount of responsibility they have for negative results is questionable in some cases - for that reason, it seems reasonable that their firing should be given more examination.

theplaydrive said:

I said teachers, police officers and firemen since they seem more likely to have the most grey area in the firings. Drunk teachers, abusive police officers and lazy firemen are easy to spot...but all three groups seem particularly vulnerable to political firings if they criticize their administrators. Even further, all three groups work in a grey area where the amount of responsibility they have for negative results is questionable in some cases - for that reason, it seems reasonable that their firing should be given more examination.

Click to expand...

In the real world, sans unions, I think you'll find that every employee will find themselves in hot water if they criticize their superiors. What are "political firings?"

MaggieD said:

In the real world, sans unions, I think you'll find that every employee will find themselves in hot water if they criticize their superiors. What are "political firings?"

Click to expand...

1. The real world includes unions. Your ideal world is the place that doesn't.
2. No ****.
3. Political firings - Person X comes out either against an administrator or policy, person X is fired.

It would be a shame to lose great teachers, policemen and firemen to B.S. firings and due process makes it easier to prevent them.

theplaydrive said:

1. The real world includes unions. Your ideal world is the place that doesn't.
2. No ****.
3. Political firings - Person X comes out either against an administrator or policy, person X is fired.

Click to expand...

As I said, every employee, not just police/fire/teachers/whatever, is going to be fired for "political reasons" just exactly like that. That's my point. An employee risks being fired any time they come out in an appropriate way against their superiors -- or company policy. What makes these groups different?

MaggieD said:

As I said, every employee, not just police/fire/teachers/whatever, is going to be fired for "political reasons" just exactly like that. That's my point. An employee risks being fired any time they come out in an appropriate way against their superiors -- or company policy. What makes these groups different?

Click to expand...

As I said, no ****. No **** = that's obvious.

In any case, your question is invalid because it assumes that I believe people in the private sector shouldn't have due process. Unfortunately, I believe that certain professions should (and they might, I'm not sure). In other words, "these groups" aren't different because I believe due process for certain professions in both the private sector and public sector could benefit employees and the public as a whole.

theplaydrive said:

As I said, no ****. No **** = that's obvious.

In any case, your question is invalid because it assumes that I believe people in the private sector shouldn't have due process. Unfortunately, I believe that certain professions should (and they might, I'm not sure). In other words, "these groups" aren't different because I believe due process for certain professions in both the private sector and public sector could benefit employees and the public as a whole.

Click to expand...

Can't employees sue if they have been fired for merely speaking out against a supervisor, company policy or upper management? Why should these professions have extra rights over other professions? Should a Janitor,cashier, grocery stalker or tire changer at walmart be able to go to a judge a with Walmat footing the bill to see if proper procedures were followed in their firing? because who knows that cashier, Janitor, grocery stalker or tire changer may have criticized Walmart policy and was unjustly fired because of it.

Drunk teachers, abusive police officers and lazy firemen are easy to spot.

Click to expand...

Its not a matter of spotting them, its a matter of actually firing them instead of passing them on to another school or district.

LAUSD's Dance of the Lemons - Page 1 - News - Los Angeles - LA Weekly

The Matt Lang story: The Dance of the Dirty Lemon

The Dance of the Lemons | Hoover Institution

jamesrage said:

Can't employees sue if they have been fired for merely speaking out against a supervisor, company policy or upper management? Why should these professions have extra rights over other professions? Should a Janitor,cashier, grocery stalker or tire changer at walmart be able to go to a judge a with Walmat footing the bill to see if proper procedures were followed in their firing? because who knows that cashier, Janitor, grocery stalker or tire changer may have criticized Walmart policy and was unjustly fired because of it.



Its not a matter of spotting them, its a matter of actually firing them instead of passing them on to another school or district.

LAUSD's Dance of the Lemons - Page 1 - News - Los Angeles - LA Weekly

The Matt Lang story: The Dance of the Dirty Lemon

The Dance of the Lemons | Hoover Institution

Click to expand...

I never said anything about janitors and cashiers. I gave very specific people: teachers, police officers and firefighters. For the private sector, I would say doctors, lawyers and probably others that I can't think of.

As far as your question "Why should these professions have extra rights over other professions?" I evaluate the professions who I believe could benefit from due process based on 1. The grey area surrounding the responsibility they have for negative results (i.e. is a teacher responsible for poor scores of students particularly when that teacher is given all the worst performing students or the neighborhood is low-performing in general). 2. The effect an inappropriate firing would have on the public (i.e. good police officers fired - community less safe).

Sure they can sue and people (teachers, police officers, etc.) have done that in the past, but it's better from my perspective to not let it get to point where a good officer or doctor is stopped from doing their job and has to file a lawsuit. We might as well stop it before it happens. Moreover, the fact that reasons for firings will be evaluated is a good deterrent for firing people based on arbitrary reasons.

From my perspective, the grey area and effects are great enough in the professions I have specified to warrant due process.

theplaydrive said:

I never said anything about janitors and cashiers. I gave very specific people: teachers, police officers and firefighters. For the private sector, I would say doctors, lawyers and probably others that I can't think of.

As far as your question "Why should these professions have extra rights over other professions?" I evaluate the professions who I believe could benefit from due process based on 1. The grey area surrounding the responsibility they have for negative results (i.e. is a teacher responsible for poor scores of students particularly when that teacher is given all the worst performing students or the neighborhood is low-performing in general). 2. The effect an inappropriate firing would have on the public (i.e. good police officers fired - community less safe).

Sure they can sue and people (teachers, police officers, etc.) have done that in the past, but it's better from my perspective to not let it get to point where a good officer or doctor is stopped from doing their job and has to file a lawsuit. We might as well stop it before it happens. Moreover, the fact that reasons for firings will be evaluated is a good deterrent for firing people based on arbitrary reasons.

From my perspective, the grey area and effects are great enough in the professions I have specified to warrant due process.

Click to expand...

And you're missing the point that a job is a position held open at the whim, the sheerest whim, of the employer. A job is not a human right.

theplaydrive said:

3. Political firings - Person X comes out either against an administrator or policy, person X is fired.

Click to expand...

Not a political firing. People who can't keep their mouths shut and respect their employer should have the decency to leave their position before they shoot their mouths off. Under no circumstances should an employer, public or private, be required to keep on the payroll anyone who publicly disagrees with policy.

Here's a hint, if you're missing it:

A teacher is paid to teach, their opinions are not value added.

A cop is paid to arrest criminals. If he has a problem with that, then he can be replaced.

A fireman is a guy that holds a hose. That's pretty much it, except for the truck driver and the guy paid to flip the switch on the siren. Again, if they can't stay focused on their job, their opinions are not value added and, again, they have no right to a job, all jobs exist at the whim of the people writing the checks.

It would be a shame to lose great teachers, policemen and firemen to B.S. firings and due process makes it easier to prevent them.

Click to expand...

What is a real shame is that crappy public employees can't be fired. For example, every single Wisconsin teacher that turned in a bogus sick note collected on the street while engaged in political action should be fired, summarily, immediately, and without any form of separation package. Ditto that for the cops and firemen doing the same thing.

They may or may not be 'good' teachers. They're bad employees.

Mayor Snorkum said:

And you're missing the point that a job is a position held open at the whim, the sheerest whim, of the employer. A job is not a human right.

Click to expand...

I agree. Which is why I'm not arguing that people should never be fired.

Mayor Snorkum said:

Not a political firing. People who can't keep their mouths shut and respect their employer should have the decency to leave their position before they shoot their mouths off.

Click to expand...

If by respect, you mean watch students go to school in unsafe environments and watch policymakers implement policies that obviously hurt education without saying anything, then we have nothing to talk about. Maybe that's how you were raised, but I wasn't raised to keep my mouth shut around bull****.

MaggieD said:

You can't be fired because of race, religion sex, family status and a variety of other reasons.

Click to expand...

This is rather naive. I've fired people for every one of those reasons, multiple times. It's quite easy to avoid ever being sued for it.

ashurbanipal said:

This is rather naive. I've fired people for every one of those reasons, multiple times. It's quite easy to avoid ever being sued for it.

Click to expand...

interesting-I have handled a couple hundred Title VII or ADEA cases. its rather hard to get away with that.

theplaydrive said:

If by respect, you mean watch students go to school in unsafe environments and watch policymakers implement policies that obviously hurt education without saying anything, then we have nothing to talk about. Maybe that's how you were raised, but I wasn't raised to keep my mouth shut around bull****.

Click to expand...

If by respect I mean that when you have to cite violations of law to make your point you didn't understand mine. Also, there are laws in government to protect whistleblowers.

Finally, anyone who wishes to work at places you describe doesn't have any self-respect, so why expect them to respect anything? If they don't call out their employer for safety violations out of fear of losing their job, they certainlly don't deserve special consideration.

The policies all policy makers make these days that are harmful to the education of the young are all biased in favor of the teachers unions and the management.

Protecting bad teachers from dismissal...harmful policy.
Tenure...harmful policy.
Keeping the child with his age-based peer group...harmful policy.
Not expelling criminal students....harmful policy.
"Mainstreaming" those with learning disabilities...harmful policy.

It certainly is funny how the socialist mantra about sacrificing to create the greatest good for the greatest number is applied in reverse when it comes to public education. Everyone of the above policies harms far more students than it benefits.

You want to fix education? I mean really really fix it?

Start using the letter "F" on report cards.

Start telling children who get "F"s that they're not passing to the next grade until they've mastered this one.

Start telling children who won't stop disrupting class that a special class has been set up, just for them, so all the thugs can victimize each other and the students can start learning.

Literacy requires reading and writing. In ENGLISH, not "Language Arts". In other words, since the basics work, go back to the basics. The BS doesn't work, require that all teachers wanting to teach the BS do it to their own kids, instead.

Math requires pencil, paper. That's it. No fingers (teachers teach first and second graders how to count on their fingers. Mayor Snorkum taught his kids how to count on their fingers too. But the Mayor's girls can count to 4095 on their fingers, if they remember to count one fist as 2^10 and the other as 2^11). DEFINITELY NO CALCULATORS. Only ignorant people show kids how to use calculators to solve algebra problems. They never learn how to factor, and they come out stupid, like their teachers.

Start telling teachers who can't teach that the greater good of the school requires them to be transferred to the custodial staff, with, naturally, a commensurate cut in wages .

Start requiring teachers to spend more time in the class room. They can stop pretending it's hard work and they can start spending nine hours a day at work, just like the parents paying their salaries.

Make school administrators represent the school district, not the teachers unions.

jamesrage said:

Which tax payer funded employee should go through a "trial de nova" when fired? In other words which tax payer funded employees should go through judges to make sure proper procedures were followed when the individual was fired?


Teachers
Firemen
policemen
janitors
dog catcher/animal control officer
meter maids
receptionist/secretaries
other tax payer funded employees
All tax payer funded employees should be allowed to go through "trial de nova"
No tax payer funded employees should be allowed to go through "trial de nova"




It looks like some elected officals in my state are using common sense
Senate approves bill easing teacher firings | Tulsa World





I say no tax payer funded employee should go through a judge to determine if proper procedures were followed when they were fired. It is some silly **** for tax payers to spend 80-100 thousand dollars just to fire a teacher.

Click to expand...

I would say the one that provide a significant public service and require special training. That would be teachers, police, and fire fighters.

Mayor Snorkum said:

Finally, anyone who wishes to work at places you describe doesn't have any self-respect, so why expect them to respect anything?

Click to expand...

You lost me here.

turtledude said:

interesting-I have handled a couple hundred Title VII or ADEA cases. its rather hard to get away with that.

Click to expand...

We always found it quite easy to get away with. The keys are control of information and lying about the reason for termination--sometimes also the date. Of the 20-some-odd people I've fired for religion, race, political affiliation, or major illness, IIRC 4 sued, zero ever went to court or got a settlement of any kind. In fact, we never lost a suit; given that I was one of five guys brought to bear on delicate terminations, my guess would be that we had somewhere around 80-100 such instances over the decade I was in that line. I left because I found myself no longer in agreement with the ethics of my employer.

You need to have a new trial to show those involved in the first trial that public employees cannot be fired.