Eliminate tenure for teachers

I think it's about time that we eliminate tenure for teachers. Under the current system of tenure, after a limited number of years of service, you're pretty much guaranteed a contract each year. This only serves to protect teachers that aren't putting in an honest day's work. After they get tenure, they don't have to produce results any longer, because there's no fear of losing their job. If we eliminate tenure, teachers are asked to put in an honest day's work throughout their entire career.

I say eliminate tenure for teachers. It will eliminate lazy teachers.

[mmm]

however it may just eliminate teachers, period. while i agree with your sentiments about teachers who do not perform; such a plan, if implemented regionally, could backfire. -M

Originally Posted by mmm

however it may just eliminate teachers, period. while i agree with your sentiments about teachers who do not perform; such a plan, if implemented regionally, could backfire. -M

The only teachers it would eliminate are the lazy ones who hide behind tenure.

[NE Oasis]

Originally Posted by Patrick

The only teachers it would eliminate are the lazy ones who hide behind tenure.

It's hard to improve on such a simple and true comment. There are still teachers who enjoy teaching and more in the pipeline

Originally Posted by NE Oasis

It's hard to improve on such a simple and true comment. There are still teachers who enjoy teaching and more in the pipeline

And those that enjoy teaching are the ones that wouldn't have anything to worry about. Eliminating tenure would only rid the district of those teachers that are only there to get a pay check, and nothing else.

[mmm]

Originally Posted by patrick

the only teachers it would eliminate are the lazy ones who hide behind tenure.

actively, yes. however, tenure is going to be a desirable job benefit. if one region protects teachers with tenure and another doesn't, then given the choice a person desiring a teaching job is more likely to go to the region that supports tenure. just something to keep in mind. -M

Originally Posted by mmm

actively, yes. however, tenure is going to be a desirable job benefit. if one region protects teachers with tenure and another doesn't, then given the choice a person desiring a teaching job is more likely to go to the region that supports tenure. just something to keep in mind. -M

I'm in favor of eliminating it on a national level.

[mmm]

Originally Posted by patrick

i'm in favor of eliminating it on a national level.

i do agree, but on a practical level it would likely end up being a state-to-state decision. -M

This is just discussion. I'm thinking hypothetically, in the best of all worlds.

[bandnerd]

As a teacher who works in a school that as far as I know does not endorse tenure, I don't really care. However, I worry that if a school doesn't have tenure, then the administration may make decisions to hire teachers who are young and cheap and let go the experienced teachers who may cost a little more.

Originally Posted by bandnerd

As a teacher who works in a school that as far as I know does not endorse tenure, I don't really care. However, I worry that if a school doesn't have tenure, then the administration may make decisions to hire teachers who are young and cheap and let go the experienced teachers who may cost a little more.

I see your point, bandnerd. But, eliminating tenure would make it no different from the rest of corporate America.

[Midtowner]

Originally Posted by Patrick

I see your point, bandnerd. But, eliminating tenure would make it no different from the rest of corporate America.

Corporate America doesn't give stepped scale increases in pay for tenure. Corporate America can't fire old and experienced employees to hire younger ones, then see a cost savings in the six figure range at each facility.

Originally Posted by Midtowner

Corporate America doesn't give stepped scale increases in pay for tenure. Corporate America can't fire old and experienced employees to hire younger ones, then see a cost savings in the six figure range at each facility.

Isn't that exacty what corporate America does though? Fire people right before they can collect retirement. Then hire someone younger who they can pay less money to?

[NE Oasis]

Originally Posted by bandnerd

As a teacher who works in a school that as far as I know does not endorse tenure, I don't really care. However, I worry that if a school doesn't have tenure, then the administration may make decisions to hire teachers who are young and cheap and let go the experienced teachers who may cost a little more.

Valid point, pointing to another important concept, PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT Involved parents would not let a superior educator be let go for an inferior, albiet cheaper, replacement

That's why most of the time, the school board is made up of parents, so diring experienced teachers wouldn't happen anyways.

I just think tenure needs to be overhauled.

Maybe offer teachers contracts, but have easy out clauses if the teachers don't meet certain expectations.

[bandnerd]

Yes, NE_Oasis...but how many schools actually have parents that are completely objective and can look past the "well, MY child said..." factor? And how many schools actually parents that are that involved? We have parents involved, but I would hate to think that my job hinged on their impression of me!

Our board is made up of city leaders, lawyers, and a few parents. They don't really have anything to do with hiring/firing, though. Our principal does all that himself. However, as a charter school, we run things a little differently.

[sweetdaisy]

Originally Posted by Patrick

Isn't that exacty what corporate America does though? Fire people right before they can collect retirement. Then hire someone younger who they can pay less money to?

Generally speaking, no, that's not what corporate America does. I'm sure it happens in some companies, but unless they're willing to risk a massive lawsuit, most places steer clear of behavior such as what you're suggesting.

Originally Posted by sweetdaisy

Generally speaking, no, that's not what corporate America does. I'm sure it happens in some companies, but unless they're willing to risk a massive lawsuit, most places steer clear of behavior such as what you're suggesting.

It actually happens in more than you think. There is no lawsuit.......most big companies have in your contract that they can release you at anytime for any reason. Many folks just don't read the fine print.

[sweetdaisy]

Actually, most states, if not all, have "at will" employment. Meaning, any employee can be terminated at any time for no reason (and any employee may leave the company at any time they choose). However, it is a very delicate process any time an employee is terminated. And it's a very good idea for employers to record employee errors, etc. to justify that termination in case of a lawsuit.

I have actually worked for several companies and have done a great deal of studying on this...where is your information coming from, Patrick?

Incidentally, most companies don't have "contracts" for their employees to sign, so I'm not sure what fine print you'd be referring to.

And to address another angle, many times people are laid off, (if it's not due to poor performance, etc.) it's due to elimination of their position within the company...that's when a corporation would not bear any burden of proof of failing to perform. And they would be unable to hire someone to fill that position.

Y'know, I'm now officially curious as to where this idea of "isn't that what Corporate America does" came from. You apparently have something to back up this claim, so please share, Patrick.

Originally Posted by sweetdaisy

I have actually worked for several companies and have done a great deal of studying on this...where is your information coming from, Patrick?

Ummm, you answered your own question in your description of "at will" employment, which applies to practically every non-union job in corporate America.

Originally Posted by sweetdaisy

Incidentally, most companies don't have "contracts" for their employees to sign, so I'm not sure what fine print you'd be referring to.

Contract is an out-dated word. I should've used the modern term. Most big corporations have what's called an Employment Agreement, that you have to sign when you take a job for them. I had to sign one when I took employement with Presbyterian Hospital, Devon Energy, and OU health Sciences Center, when I worked for them during undergrad.

Employment Agreements

The clearest example of the power of paper is the employment agreement. As an enforceable contract, it dictates the rules of the game. Employment Agreements can give you RIGHTS to job security, to severance after termination, and to specified benefits. Employment agreements can also take away important rights, such as the right to have disputes heard by a jury. Because of the importance and technical nature of the terminology in these agreements, an employee should NEVER sign an employment agreement without first consulting an attorney.

Traditionally, only key employees or employees in a very tight job market have sufficient clout to get good employment agreements. Sometimes executives also get very favorable contract provisions in the event of a “change of control” as part of a company’s attempt to dissuade outside corporations from a hostile takeover of the company.

Unfortunately, Employment Agreements are often used to TAKE AWAY rights for employees rather than to confer rights. This is for obvious reasons: employers do not want employees to have extra rights. Common rights which employment agreements may take away include: the right to work for a competitor immediately following termination, the right to enforce verbal promises of job security, and the right to litigate (as opposed to arbitrate) employment disputes.

The key language to look out for in employment agreements and other employer documents is language that says that you are an “at will” employee who can be terminated at any time for any reason. While it is true that generally throughout the United States almost all non-union non-government employees are employed “at will”, in many states promises of job security or job guarantees are enforceable unless the employee directly or indirectly consents to being an “at will” employee.

Although the "at will" language often appears in handbooks to pretend to give you something (the right to terminate yourself!), this language is designed to do one thing ­ take away many legal rights. Remember, if you agree to this language, you may be giving up all rights to job security or fairness you might otherwise have, regardless of future promises to the contrary and regardless of other language in the agreement. Be careful.

Originally Posted by sweetdaisy

And to address another angle, many times people are laid off, (if it's not due to poor performance, etc.) it's due to elimination of their position within the company...that's when a corporation would not bear any burden of proof of failing to perform. And they would be unable to hire someone to fill that position.

True. Most of the time lay offs are due to downsizing of the corporation. Take GM for instance.

Originally Posted by sweetdaisy

Y'know, I'm now officially curious as to where this idea of "isn't that what Corporate America does" came from. You apparently have something to back up this claim, so please share, Patrick.

Look at what many the major corporations have done the past 6 years during the recession. It's true...when corporate America downsizes or outsources, they lay off employees.

Here are some headlines over the last 6 years. This is what Corporate America does:

AOL To Lay Off 5,000...

GM to lay off Oklahoma City workforce

BenQ Mobile to lay off 10 percent

Procter & Gamble May Lay Off 22,000

CA to lay off about 1,700

Winn-Dixie to shutter over 300 stores, lay off 22,000 - Jun. 21, 2005

Job cuts soar in June

TVA prepares employees for layoffs

The Wall Street Journal Friday reported on its Web site that IBM will cut as many as 8,000 workers, or about 2.5% of its 320,000-strong work force, during the current quarter.

Ford to cut up to 30,000 jobs
No. 2 automaker to close 14 North American manufacturing plants in effort to stem losses.

JOB CUT ANNOUNCEMENTS IN 2001 January: 142,208
February: 101,731
March: 162,867
April: 165,564
May: 80,140
June: 124,852

[sweetdaisy]

Your original question was in reference to companies laying off older employees so they won't have to pay retirement. I'm asking for data to back that up.

Downsizing is downsizing...where are you getting the info about most companies laying people off so they don't have to pay retirement?

[sweetdaisy]

Originally Posted by Patrick

Here are some headlines over the last 6 years. This is what Corporate America does:

AOL To Lay Off 5,000...

GM to lay off Oklahoma City workforce

BenQ Mobile to lay off 10 percent

Procter & Gamble May Lay Off 22,000

CA to lay off about 1,700

Winn-Dixie to shutter over 300 stores, lay off 22,000 - Jun. 21, 2005

Job cuts soar in June

TVA prepares employees for layoffs

The Wall Street Journal Friday reported on its Web site that IBM will cut as many as 8,000 workers, or about 2.5% of its 320,000-strong work force, during the current quarter.

Ford to cut up to 30,000 jobs
No. 2 automaker to close 14 North American manufacturing plants in effort to stem losses.

JOB CUT ANNOUNCEMENTS IN 2001 January: 142,208
February: 101,731
March: 162,867
April: 165,564
May: 80,140
June: 124,852

And again, your headlines are doing nothing to address my questions which are based on:

Originally Posted by Patrick

Isn't that exacty what corporate America does though? Fire people right before they can collect retirement. Then hire someone younger who they can pay less money to?

I am very well aware that Americans have been laid off...are you trying to say all these people are laid off because they're approaching retirement age?

It's an illegal practice called age discrimination, but all one has to do is google it and see the many older employees released so the company can reduce high-paid employees.

Here's an example from IBM's recent lay offs

IBMers Accuse Big Blue of Targeting
Older Workers in Layoffs

by Jill R. Aitoro
Industry Reporter, iSeries Network.com

September 17, 2002 - A band of laid-off IBM workers in Vermont is pointing fingers at Big Blue for what they claim to be some fishy practices. Findings from a study of the June 2002 layoff at the Vermont Microelectronics division spurred some former employees to file complaints against IBM for age discrimination. Another study of the November 2001 layoff at the same IBM locale revealed nearly identical results.

Along with pink slips, Big Blue handed its laid-off employees documents titled, "Microelectronics Division Resource Action (MDRA) Employee Information Package," which listed the ages of those selected for layoff as well as the ages of those not selected. From the June data, one laid-off employee, Dan Oakland - who refused to comment for this article, saying it could jeopardize any pending lawsuits - analyzed a sample of a couple hundred employees and found that the percentage of people let go rapidly increased for employees ages 45 and older.

Specifically, about 20 percent of employees younger than 46 were laid off, according to the employee's findings, but after that, an employee's risk of being laid off increased with his or her age. For example, 25 percent of employees between the ages of 45 and 50 were laid off, and the percentage gradually increased to 67 percent of employees between the ages of 60 and 65. Put another way, everyone in the division under the age of 46 had a 19 percent chance of losing their jobs, while everyone above the age 46 had a 31 percent chance.

"The findings of the study clearly show age discrimination taking place at IBM," says James Leas, an IBM employee who encourages laid-off employees from the division to file complaints with the Vermont Attorney General. "This is just the sort of thing that needs to be brought before a judge. There's a clear pattern, and that shifts the burden over to IBM to explain."

With the findings from the first study still smoldering, another former employee from the Vermont Microelectronics Division decided to conduct a study of his own for the November layoff - including the whole population rather than just a sample.

Bill Kane analyzed the more than 18,000 employees eligible for the November layoff, from which about 1,300 were selected. The percentage laid off from each age group younger than 50 remained flat - in this case at about 5 percent. That doubled to about 10 percent of those between the ages of 50 and 54, then gradually increased to 40 percent of those 65 and older.
The ultimate question becomes why - what benefit would come to IBM from laying off more workers from the older population? "The issue is not age per se, but age as a prerequisite for the pension plan," Kane hypothesizes. "It really becomes a length-of-service issue, and age is the determinant for length of service."

After revamping its retirement package a few years ago, IBM offered employees 40 years old with 15 years of service a choice between the company's old pension plan and its new cash balance plan. Many chose the old pension plan, arguing that it provided a larger payback in the end. In the case of the recent layoffs, Kane says, IBM gave employees the choice to take their pensions immediately or wait until retirement age.
And Kane says that might explain why Big Blue is taking the biggest bite percentage-wise from the older population. "IBM may be targeting the people in the old pension plan," Kane says. People now below the age of 44 did not have the option to stick with the old plan, he says, making the increased percentage of layoffs above that age all the more alluring.
"There's linear growth in employees' pension for the most part until 25 years of service - then it goes vertical," Kane says. "The last five years is where employees make the most in the pension plan. IBM wants to target people either in that vertical growth or just approaching it." Kane plans to conduct further studies into that theory. He himself was laid off last November after 20 years with IBM, just as he was reaching the age when his pension gains would start to reach that vertical growth area.

Leas believes further studies will only bolster the theory that the pension fund drives layoff decisions. "IBM seems to be removing as many people that are eligible to collect from the old pension plan as it can," he says. "The old pension plan rewarded longer service and loyalty to IBM. The idea was to encourage employees to spend their careers at IBM, by making the last years at the company the most influential on pension." By laying off people close to but not yet ready to retire, Leas says, IBM saves the pension plan quite a bit of money.

By reducing the obligation of the pension fund, the profit of the company increases in accordance with a somewhat controversial accounting rule. That helps top executives reach their predetermined profit targets, Leas says, which awards them with generous incentive compensation.
IBM adamantly denies age played any role in layoff decisions. "IBM has a strict policy against discrimination with respect to employee-selection decisions," says Kendra R. Collins, IBM's director of corporate media relations. "Age is never a factor in making selections for resource actions. Always, tough decisions concerning resource actions are based either on an assessment of skills and performance or [on] the elimination of certain categories of work. We extensively review every selection decision to ensure it's being done in a fair, appropriate, and lawful manner."
But now Big Blue might not be the only one reviewing those decisions. With more than 30 complaints already filed, Vermont's attorney general is asking for an explanation. "The attorney general is conducting an investigation," says Leas, who recently spoke with a representative from the office. "[The office] submitted many of the complaints to IBM, and IBM is now coming up with answers." Should the attorney general agree that age discrimination played a role, Leas says, IBM may be required to hire back employees and provide back pay, benefits, and years of services as if those employees never left.

Further studies of layoff statistics would help bolster or undermine the findings from these two preliminary studies. "We've just analyzed one division of IBM, but there were layoffs all over the country," Leas says. He believes more studies would reveal more of the same. "I believe that if this were looked at in other divisions, a similar pattern would be found. This was absolutely a corporate-directed, intentional strategy."

Is Age Discrimination [Baby] Booming?

As aging Boomers bear the brunt of employer cost-cutting and "right-sizing," they are not uncommonly asked to waive their rights under the ADEA

By Paul Igasaki, IMDiversity.com Featured EEO Columnist

Those born in the couple decades after World War II are the Baby Boom, a significant bulge in America’s demographic that has altered educational, employment, commercial and health policy as they have aged. I myself am a Boomer, recently contacted by the American Association of Retired People as they recruit my generation to membership. Certainly this has already affected marketing and commercial targeting. The eldest Boomers are entering senior status, with their generational successors close behind. With the impact that Boomers have had on our society and the protections of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), one might suspect that discrimination against them would decrease as seniors become a growing proportion of the society.
Unfortunately, the reverse has been true. Coupled with changes in employment practices and economic shrinkage there has been an increase in workplace challenges facing older workers. This is due to several factors. First, older workers tend to be more expensive. Although on the average more experienced, they also generally have more health care costs and are nearing the point in many companies where they will be obtaining retirement and pension plan benefits. In addition, with the increase in the number of jobs requiring up-to-date training in fast-changing technology, there is a preference for those whose training is fresh. Finally, there is the prejudice -- the very reason for the ADEA -- that assumes older workers are less flexible and less energetic.
The ADEA added discrimination protection in employment to workers over the age of 40. It is not illegal to discriminate against someone for being “too young.” Neither is there protection for someone under age 40 who is passed over for someone younger. For those over 40, however, the bottom line of the ADEA is that an employer cannot discriminate against a person due to their age with respect to any term, condition or privilege of employment, including hiring, firing, promotion, layoff, compensation, benefits, job assignments or training.

As with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the ADEA has been more complicated than some other civil rights employment laws given the complexity of the court rulings on benefits, waivers, jurisdiction and allowable explanations for actions affecting older workers

Age discrimination can occur in a variety of ways. It occurs in hiring, with older job applicants finding the doors harder to crack open. Hiring discrimination is hard to prove. Most employers who consider age in hiring know better than to indicate this explicitly. Certain comments might help one establish age discrimination, such as questions about potential retirement. Some positions are more dominated by the young, such as computer programming or website development. For many positions, the experience that typically comes with age may overcome some of these factors. But consider the case that the EEOC recently brought against a law firm for letting a senior partner go. While the legal issue focuses upon whether a partner is an employee per se, the fact that firms are relieving those who have long been the elite of the profession -- the most senior partners -- says a lot about our times and economic pressures.
When I traveled to Japan to teach about our laws, my trip was spurred by a major sexual harassment case. Yet, I was interested to find substantial change underway there in relation to age discrimination. They had traditionally allowed ads that would specify both the gender and the age of the worker sought. New laws banned sexual harassment and gender-specific ads, but age was still allowed -- it is not uncommon to have jobs in which precise age ranges are listed. As technology is changing the balance in favor of younger workers, age discrimination laws are being discussed.
In the U.S., neither age- nor gender-specific ads are allowed except in those rare circumstances when the age is reasonably necessary for a non-discriminatory purpose. Strength or physical standards can be explicitly required without using age as a proxy. A dramatic role requiring an older actor, however, is an example of a position where use of age as a hiring criterion may be allowable. Consider, though, how many world-class actors or actresses have portrayed people much older or younger than themselves.
With disability, employers are barred from inquiring about such conditions except in circumstances where the applicant raises it. With age, employers are generally allowed to ask about age so long as it is not for discriminatory purposes. And if the information is collected, that could have a bearing later in determining whether discrimination was involved.

In Fiscal Year 2004, the U.S. EEOC received 17,837 charges of age discrimination.

It reports that it resolved 15,792 age discrimination charges in FY 2004 and recovered $60.0 million in monetary benefits for charging parties and other aggrieved individuals (not including monetary benefits obtained through litigation).

Apprenticeship or training programs are traditionally focused on younger workers, but the ADEA generally prohibits age discrimination in such programs. The same can be applied to training, internship or mentorship programs. Experience, current position and education are relevant, but age itself is not.
Perhaps the biggest area involving age discrimination has to do with layoffs and benefits. In 1990, the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA) prohibited companies from denying benefits to older employees. The law also gives some limited options to employers to provide lower benefits based on age so long as the cost of providing those benefits is at least the same as the cost for younger workers.
Today’s economy has resulted in companies adjusting their staff size and changing their workforce frequently. Since this is usually done in response to economic setbacks and the most expensive employees are generally older workers, more money can be saved by releasing staff with seniority that might be making higher wages, costing more in health benefits and, ultimately, closer to collecting pensions. In the wake of 9-11, I met with a manager who happened to be Arab American and feared that a recent layoff was due to his ethnicity. While it might have been, initial discussions in his case indicate it could also have been due to the fact that his pension in the company would vest in the coming months.
This is the fault line in age discrimination. Cutbacks for financial reasons are generally allowed. But isn’t an age defined layoff a violation on the ADEA? For a long time, courts have held that if a layoff or benefit cutback is done for financial reasons and age is not the motivation, it would be acceptable. Where a layoff affects older workers disproportionately, the company should be able to show that the motivation was economic. Evidence in cases such as these would be the criteria used for the decisions, as well as discussions by management about what their motivations were and whether there are examples indicating that the stated reasons for action were not borne out in individual cases. For example, there may be cases where an older employee would actually cost the company less than others not laid off, but was nevertheless included in the layoff.

Know Your Rights

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA)

The ADEA protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older from employment discrimination based on age. Its protections apply to both employees and job applicants. Under the ADEA, it is unlawful to discriminate against a person because of his/her age with respect to any term, condition, or privilege of employment, including hiring, firing, promotion, layoff, compensation, benefits, job assignments, and training.
It is also unlawful to retaliate against an individual for opposing employment practices that discriminate based on age or for filing an age discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under the ADEA.
The ADEA applies to employers with 20 or more employees, including state and local governments. It also applies to employment agencies and labor organizations, as well as to the federal government.

More Age Discrimination Information Resources @ the EEOC

It is not uncommon for companies now to ask employees to sign waivers of their rights under the ADEA. In other words, older workers may be asked to agree in advance not to assert their rights through the courts or administrative agencies, in exchange for an exit incentive program. The law will allow such waivers if they are “knowing and voluntary,” which is currently defined as: (1) Being in writing and understandable; (2) Specifically referring to rights under the ADEA; (3) Not waiving any rights or claims that may arise in the future; (4) Being made for valuable consideration, in other words, that the worker gets something for what they’re giving up; (5) Advising the worker to consult an attorney before signing the waiver; and (6) Providing at least 21 days to consider the agreement and seven days to revoke it even after signing.
The protections provided under the ADEA will continue to face definition from both federal and some state courts. As with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the ADEA has been more complicated than some other civil rights employment laws given the complexity of the court rulings on benefits, waivers, jurisdiction and allowable explanations for actions affecting older workers. But with the growing number of older workers and increasing, very large employment actions by companies, this will remain a very heavily litigated area.
As in other areas of diversity, we should try to remember the great resources that experienced workers can bring to bear on the jobs that they do. Some costs are indeed higher, but without that experience, the benefits of employment history will be lost and companies will be condemned to repeating past mistakes and losing potential opportunities. When I served as Vice Chair and Chair of the EEOC, my staff included both younger and older workers. As a Presidential appointee, however, I relied heavily on the experiences of past administrations of both parties to give our team a jump start that many new to the agency would not have had. Clearly, there is value to having new ideas, but without knowing what hasn’t worked in the past could be devastating. Discrimination rarely serves any institution well.