NYC Teachers Payed to do Nothing.

[Greed and Death]

40,000 is more then enough to pay for court cost over a wrongful termination.
If I could afford a DUI case when I was making less then 25K a year in the army a teacher making 40k can fight afford a wrongful termination suit.

A civil suit? Have you asked how much the laywers usually charge for those?

http://w3.uchastings.edu/plri/fal95tex/cstslit.html

rarely exceeds 10,000.

So like your retired teachers likely very close to my 6,000 to get out of a DUI.

[SaintB]

NEW YORK (June 23) -- Hundreds of New York City public school teachers accused of offenses ranging from insubordination to sexual misconduct are being paid their full salaries to sit around all day playing Scrabble, surfing the Internet or just staring at the wall, if that's what they want to do.
Because their union contract makes it extremely difficult to fire them, the teachers have been banished by the school system to its "rubber rooms" — off-campus office space where they wait months, even years, for their disciplinary hearings. more

If you're a teacher or plan on getting into teaching you should move to NYC! That way if you do something that could get you fired, you can spend all day relaxing and getting payed your full salary!

I knew this idiocy would come up eventually. Read the article.

Bringing up a huge flaw in the system is idiocy? $65 million a year is being spent on salaries for teachers who aren't working because the city of New York's system is fucked up; blaming the Unions is sort of bullshit, its the fault of the city for not having the proper system in place for dealing with these things because they are afraid of the cost when of course the loss they are currently taking is higher.

[Katganistan]

1. Get teaching degree
2. Get accused of misconduct
3. Sit around for years and get paid to spam on NSG
4. ????
5. Profit.

Explains Katganistan.

Explains Katganistan.

So that's why she is always on here? Mmm, I wonder what she did?

What I did today, you slanderous, ignorant, flamebaiting and defaming children, was work a full day at my school, the same as I have done for the past ten years.

I proctored the English Regents two days last week, and helped to grade it for the rest of the week. This week we've been proctoring other tests, preparing our rooms for summer school, and shelving books. Tomorrow and Friday we're preparing for graduation.

Keep your gratuitous, slanderous bullshit to yourselves.

[Ryadn]

I did say private... I recognize that government employees need a little protection from the changes of government. Unfortunately, extending tenure to public school teachers has exaggerated this protection all out of proportion. Unionization doesn't help, either.

Uh no, teachers need protection from principles with grudges and alliances. Unionization and tenure is the only thing keeping many good teachers employed at all. Without tenure, teachers, even good ones, only have a job from year to year. But with tenure, bad teachers are practically impossible to get rid of. The system has to be reformed, not pointed at while rightwing monkeys jump up and down and screech about the evils of tenure and unions.

This.

Without unions, teachers get paid as much as 'the public' values education--which is not at all.

[Ryadn]

You DO know the difference between average and median, don't you? You DO know why average salary is a very shakey reed to lean on, right?

Are you going to produce those numbers then ???

40,000 is more then enough to pay for court cost over a wrongful termination.
If I could afford a DUI case when I was making less then 25K a year in the army a teacher making 40k can fight afford a wrongful termination suit.

Okay, "facts" about your life, and maybe I should put three sets of quotes around the word, are not equivalent to actual facts concerning the part of the world you don't control in your head.

[Blouman Empire]

What I did today, you slanderous, ignorant, flamebaiting and defaming children, was work a full day at my school, the same as I have done for the past ten years.

I proctored the English Regents two days last week, and helped to grade it for the rest of the week. This week we've been proctoring other tests, preparing our rooms for summer school, and shelving books. Tomorrow and Friday we're preparing for graduation.

Keep your gratuitous, slanderous bullshit to yourselves.

Umm, I hope you didn't take us seriously there it wasn't intended to be saying that you are in these rooms, at least I wasn't intending it.

[Scolopendra]

Barringtonia can spend a week learning how not to slander people.

[The South Islands]

Barringtonia can spend a week learning how not to slander people.

Seriously? He was clearly saying that in Jest. That's plainly obvious, especially considering the history of the poster.

[Ifreann]

Are you going to produce those numbers then ???

Google is your friend. First link gives this: http://www.payscale.com/research/US/All ... ers/Salary

Of course, that does not address a certain issue within the education field, namely the graying teachers. Currently we have loads of teachers who are near retirement, meaning they are at the top end of the pay scale, which is why you're seeing that teachers are averaging 50k a year.

40,000 is more then enough to pay for court cost over a wrongful termination.
If I could afford a DUI case when I was making less then 25K a year in the army a teacher making 40k can fight afford a wrongful termination suit.

You know the difference between a teacher on 40K a year trying to sue for wrongful termination and you on 25K a year fighting a DUI case? The teacher isn't on 40K a year because they've been fired.

Barringtonia can spend a week learning how not to slander people.

Seriously? He was clearly saying that in Jest. That's plainly obvious, especially considering the history of the poster.

Do not meddle in the affairs of mods, for they are subtle and can ban your ass.

[Wunghnu]

I'd expect that they just don't have the man power.

But you'd think it would be more cost-effective to get that manpower.

Maybe in the short term. What are you going to do with that manpower if there is nothing for it to do, your back to square one again. I don't see what the big deal with this is anyway, US economy is in the toilet with a colossal deficit, and your biggest fiscal concern is a few teachers being paid while they are waiting. I'm sure you spend more on politician salaries, cut pork where the real pork is, military and government subsidies of "private" enterprises like healthcare.

[Scolopendra]

Barringtonia can spend a week learning how not to slander people.

Seriously? He was clearly saying that in Jest. That's plainly obvious, especially considering the history of the poster.

Seriously.

Sometimes the jest cuts too deep.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

1. Get teaching degree
2. Get accused of misconduct
3. Sit around for years and get paid to spam on NSG
4. ????
5. Profit.

Explains Katganistan.

Call me crazy ... but I fail to see the humor in that, considering I know how hard Kat works and the sort of teacher she is. Its a bit of a slap in the face. Were it a joke, one might consider including commentary that reflects the supposedly humorous intent, especially considering some of the rest of the comments made in the thread overall, and the tone of the OP.

[Neo Art]

Wait a moment here. While I admit it was an out of line comment, and quite arguably deserving of some sort of moderator action, at what point did refering to posters here, ANY posters, as

slanderous, ignorant, flamebaiting and defaming children

And referring to their posts as:

gratuitous, slanderous bullshit

become acceptable coming from ANYBODY? I understand being upset at the perception that your professionalism is being impugned, but how is this an acceptable response?

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Wait a moment here. While I admit it was an out of line comment, and quite arguably deserving of some sort of moderator action, at what point did refering to posters here, ANY posters, as

slanderous, ignorant, flamebaiting and defaming children

And referring to their posts as:

gratuitous, slanderous bullshit

become acceptable coming from ANYBODY? I understand being upset at the perception that your professionalism is being impugned, but how is this an acceptable response?

Because ... it was gratuitous, slandering bullshit, perhaps, not to mention more than a little childish?

[Neo Art]

Wait a moment here. While I admit it was an out of line comment, and quite arguably deserving of some sort of moderator action, at what point did refering to posters here, ANY posters, as

slanderous, ignorant, flamebaiting and defaming children

And referring to their posts as:

gratuitous, slanderous bullshit

become acceptable coming from ANYBODY? I understand being upset at the perception that your professionalism is being impugned, but how is this an acceptable response?

Because ... it was gratuitous, slandering bullshit, perhaps, not to mention more than a little childish?

Again, I get being upset, I respect being upset. If someone implied, even jokingly, that I was incompetent at my job, I'd be upset too. But, at the same time, since when does "he was mean" justify violating forum rules yourself? I'm sorry, but I can not believe that if that post was made by ANY OTHER POSTER it would not have merited at least some response. Calling posters "slanderous, ignorant, flamebaiting and defaming children" is CLEARLY flaming. Or at least, it would have been, if you or I had said it, regardless of circumstances.

And yet got nary a word.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Again, I get being upset, I respect being upset. If someone implied, even jokingly, that I was incompetent at my job, I'd be upset too. But, at the same time, since when does "he was mean" justify violating forum rules yourself? I'm sorry, but I can not believe that if that post was made by ANY OTHER POSTER it would not have merited at least some response. Calling posters "slanderous, ignorant, flamebaiting and defaming children" is CLEARLY flaming. Or at least, it would have been, if you or I had said it, regardless of circumstances.

And yet got nary a word.

Because the post was addressing the actions more than the players themselves. I think that's clear enough. Unlike the posts that elicited the response in the first place which clearly accused Kat of being a lazyass good-for-nothing mooching off the taxpayers, and did more than likely just 'upset', but cast doubt on her character, her work ethics, and all those qualities that reflect on her reputation.

Her response there did nothing of the sort.

[Neo Art]

Again, I get being upset, I respect being upset. If someone implied, even jokingly, that I was incompetent at my job, I'd be upset too. But, at the same time, since when does "he was mean" justify violating forum rules yourself? I'm sorry, but I can not believe that if that post was made by ANY OTHER POSTER it would not have merited at least some response. Calling posters "slanderous, ignorant, flamebaiting and defaming children" is CLEARLY flaming. Or at least, it would have been, if you or I had said it, regardless of circumstances.

And yet got nary a word.

Because the post was addressing the actions more than the players themselves. I think that's clear enough. Unlike the posts that elicited the response in the first place which clearly accused Kat of being a lazyass good-for-nothing mooching off the taxpayers, and did more than likely just 'upset', but cast doubt on her character, her work ethics, and all those qualities that reflect on her reputation.

Her response there did nothing of the sort.

Sorry, gotta disagree, "slanderous, ignorant, flamebaiting and defaming children" seems to pretty much address the posters dead on. And I think it should have been addressed as such.

Don't get me wrong here. I like the mods here, I think they do a good job. And Kat, if you're reading this, I like you too. You've always been cool with me, even when I probably didn't deserve it.

But I think that when a moderator has an issue with a poster, that moderator needs to deal with it like any other poster would. If a mod feels he or she has been flamed, let them do what EVERY OTHER poster would do. Ignore the flamebait, and post a complaint in moderation, and let impartial, non involved moderator make a ruling.

The fact that no post in moderation was made, and the penalty, a full week's ban for a poster with no negative history, was later cut in more than half, while her own comments which at VERY least would think merit a warning were utterly ignored, creates a strong implication that this was not the case. That it wasn't dealt with like any other poster dispute. And it should be.

It's also 100% off topic, so that's really all I have to say on the matter.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Most of what you've said there is also not exactly the truth - as most often people DO respond, and then things get dealt with accordingly. And another moderator WAS brought in, and as you can see, Kat herself did NOT make any rulings on any of this so ... all things considered, what is the big deal again? Or are you going to outright ignore the points I brought up previously in favor of just letting this die and we all moving on to discuss the OP?

[Conserative Morality]

Most of what you've said there is also not exactly the truth - as most often people DO respond, and then things get dealt with accordingly. And another moderator WAS brought in, and as you can see, Kat herself did NOT make any rulings on any of this so ... all things considered, what is the big deal again? Or are you going to outright ignore the points I brought up previously in favor of just letting this die and we all moving on to discuss the OP?

Actually, the problem is that Kat was not warned for this, at least not publicly. I think that's the point Neo is trying to make.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Actually, the problem is that Kat was not warned for this, at least not publicly. I think that's the point Neo is trying to make.

I'm just not seeing that as a problem, all things considered, what with how the response was worded and what not. The posts that elicited it were rather blatantly rude and pointedly inappropriate to someone (say, myself) not knowing the intricacies of every other poster's histories on here. It looked like an outright accusation of a lack of character, integrity, and work ethic on her part, with no basis to it.

I get his point. I just don't agree with it. I'd have thought that also would be obvious.

[Conserative Morality]

I'm just not seeing that as a problem, all things considered, what with how the response was worded and what not. The posts that elicited it were rather blatantly rude and pointedly inappropriate to someone (say, myself) not knowing the intricacies of every other poster's histories on here. It looked like an outright accusation of a lack of character, integrity, and work ethic on her part, with no basis to it.

I get his point. I just don't agree with it. I'd have thought that also would be obvious.

I don't see where you don't agree with it. Anger does not excuse a violation of the rules. Perhaps modify the punishment, considering the nature of things, but I still hold that a warning should have been issued to Kat. I agree with the ban, but not the lack of warning.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

I don't see where you don't agree with it. Anger does not excuse a violation of the rules. Perhaps modify the punishment, considering the nature of things, but I still hold that a warning should have been issued to Kat. I agree with the ban, but not the lack of warning.

I'm ... not seeing a rules violation. And punishment has been handed out before without a prior warning when it was deemed warranted. Nothing new there. The punishment was modified. I'm sure its all been discussed. And our continued debate over what we feel is the 'right' way to handle it is unlikely to change much of anything. You believe you're right, I believe I am, and further debate isn't likely to change those facts either. As such, carry on if you feel you must, but there you have it.

[Ifreann]

Hey, I know what'd be fun. Lets all pretend that the topic of this thread was whether Kat broke any rules and whether Scolopendra should have made a different decision.

[SaintB]

Hey, I know what'd be fun. Lets all pretend that the topic of this thread was whether Kat broke any rules and whether Scolopendra should have made a different decision.

Or lets pretend its about more government oversight that could and should be easily corrected.

[Barzan]

NEW YORK (June 23) -- Hundreds of New York City public school teachers accused of offenses ranging from insubordination to sexual misconduct are being paid their full salaries to sit around all day playing Scrabble, surfing the Internet or just staring at the wall, if that's what they want to do.
Because their union contract makes it extremely difficult to fire them, the teachers have been banished by the school system to its "rubber rooms" — off-campus office space where they wait months, even years, for their disciplinary hearings. more

If you're a teacher or plan on getting into teaching you should move to NYC! That way if you do something that could get you fired, you can spend all day relaxing and getting payed your full salary!

Hmm...doesn't the same thing happen to police officers, firemen, people in the military, judiciary, and other civil offices? Where's the complaint for that?

It's called suspension, and it's to keep the innocent from being penalised. Otherwise, the truly innocent would suffer financial hardship. You don't penalise someone who hasn't been properly tried, investigated, etc.

As for the speed at which investigations are performed, well, the justice system down there is clogged to the gills with all sorts of horrible violent criminals, you know, kids smoking joints, or 18 year olds banging their 17 year old girlfriends, so there aren't enough resources left for non-criminal investigations.

Must have been a slow news day in New York.