This post is about a third issue that the IEA leadership considers a challenge: Seniority rights.
During the recent wave of teacher layoffs, the most two-faced, disingenuous of the Reformy types cried crocodile tears about the layoff’s impact on young teachers.
Here’s how it worked:
Young = competent, enthusiastic, willing to do anything that was “best for the kids.”
Tenured teachers = lazy, lacking subject or teaching knowledge, just work the hours and go home, willing to put adult needs over…what was…yes, “best for the kids.”
Fred Klonsky’s education rule #1:
When someone says they’re only interested in what is “best for the kids,” watch your wallet. Somebody is running a scam.
Ask any teacher and they know what’s up with the attack on seniority rights.
Money.
Senior teachers make more than newer teachers.
It’s really that simple.
There are absolutely no facts to support the absurd idea that newer, inexperienced teachers are better as a rule than senior, more experienced teachers.
So, when the IEA Board of Directors is directed to discuss Challenging Issue #7, a classroom teacher has to ask, “What?”
“RIF’s (sic) and recall based on something besides seniority.”
Something?
What does the policy of first-hired-last-fired job protection do for teachers and students?
Seniority prevents layoffs, RIFs and recalls based on who is friends with the principal, skin color, gender, age, national origin, accent, style of dress, or preferential or non-arbitrary reasons other than length of service.
That’s why unions have fought for seniority rights. It’s not such a challenging issue at all.
Shame on the IEA leadership for making it one.
Tomorrow: What should rank-and-file IEA members do to protect their retirement, tenure and seniority rights from attacks by the Reformies and from the capitulation of our IEA leadership?
Fred Klonsky 