OT: Being online at work
David M. Nieporent
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/27/AR2005112701179.html
Carter said his boss is easygoing about online shopping,
as employers increasingly are. Several major local companies
said they are fine with employees doing personal errands on
the job as long as they do not abuse the privilege.
"We actually think it's productive if they do it that way
instead of running out to a suburban mall and stretching the
one-hour lunch into two," said Bob Dobkin, a spokesman for Pepco,
which has 2,500 employees in the area. "We do think it promotes
a better employee relationship."
Workplace consultants say employers' attitudes about online
shopping are evolving, generally in favor of giving more leeway
to employees. Where many companies once blocked access to
high-volume shopping sites, for example, they now use threshold
software that simply limits an employee's time on such sites,
said Susan Larson, vice president of global threat analysis
and research for SurfControl, which makes filtering software
for workplaces. Today, she said, companies are more worried
about employees bringing viruses into an office network by
shopping online than they are about reduced productivity.
This approach is good for the company and employees, said John
A. Challenger, chief executive of executive recruiting and
consulting firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas.
"Allowing people to do some of their personal work at work is
just good policy," he said. "That blurring of work and personal
life really has completely changed the way we think about work.
It's no longer true that when you're at your desk from 9 to 5
you're at work, and when you're not at that place you're on
your personal time."
---------------------------------------------
David M. Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
Porter Smith
news:nieporen-57944A...@host170.octanews.net:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/27/AR20051
> 12701179.html
>
> Carter said his boss is easygoing about online shopping,
> as employers increasingly are. Several major local companies
> said they are fine with employees doing personal errands on
> the job as long as they do not abuse the privilege.
>
In my years as a consultant I've worked in about 60 places. Every one of them
had a written policy forbidding the use of company resources for non-company
activities. However I've only seen that policy enforced twice. Once when
they were building a case to fire a individual who was a member of a
protected group and once when a contractor was racking up 5 or 6 hours a day
on the company phone.
Most places don't care unless you are downloading kiddie porn or viruses.
Userb3
Work supercedes everything.
If I see you playing soliutaire or shopping, I don't care. But if I ask you
where the report is, I expect you to either be handing it too me or working
on it.
As long as its work first, play second, then please make full use of my
internet connection.
Pat Farrell
> Most places don't care unless you are downloading kiddie porn or viruses.
Or not doing your job and they are too lazy to fire you for non-performance.
--
Pat
Transition Zone
Userb3 wrote:
> I have one rule for my employees:
>
> Work supercedes everything.
>
> If I see you playing soliutaire or shopping, I don't care. But if I ask you
> where the report is, I expect you to either be handing it too me or working
> on it.
>
> As long as its work first, play second, then please make full use of my
> internet connection.
It's probably impossible even to know where you're employees go online
simply because cell phone and palmtop connections offer full internet
access in and of themselves, so your computer at work isn't even needed
for recreation ;)
Merlin Dorfman
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/27/AR2005112701179.html
...
> "Allowing people to do some of their personal work at work is
> just good policy," he said. "That blurring of work and personal
> life really has completely changed the way we think about work.
> It's no longer true that when you're at your desk from 9 to 5
> you're at work, and when you're not at that place you're on
> your personal time."
Most of us certainly spend more than 40 hours a week at work,
and/or do a lot of work at home, so doing a little personal business
at work doesn't seem out of line.
As one of our vice presidents said, "We are going to make it so
easy for people to work at home that they won't have a life there,
either."
Tess Millay
> David M. Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>
> >
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11
/27/AR2005112701179.html
>
> ...
>
> > "Allowing people to do some of their personal work
Key word being personal /work/, not play whereby the
employee uses the employer's computer to post racist
remarks, lies about others, and inaccurate information about
his "profession" on recreational newsgroups.
> > at work is
> > just good policy," he said. "That blurring of work and
personal
> > life really has completely changed the way we think
about work.
> > It's no longer true that when you're at your desk from
9 to 5
> > you're at work, and when you're not at that place
you're on
> > your personal time."
>
> Most of us certainly spend more than 40 hours a week
at work,
> and/or do a lot of work at home, so doing a little
personal business
> at work doesn't seem out of line.
There is personal business and then there is play.
Plus, surely you don't believe that salaried positions are
oblige the employee to work /only/ 40 hours a week, do you?
BTR1701
"Tess Millay" <elle_n...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Merlin Dorfman" <dor...@green.rahul.net> wrote
> > David M. Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11
> /27/AR2005112701179.html
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > "Allowing people to do some of their personal work
>
> Key word being personal /work/, not play whereby the
> employee uses the employer's computer to post racist
> remarks, lies about others, and inaccurate information about
> his "profession" on recreational newsgroups.
So you're now Tess, are ya?
Just can't stick to one screen name for very long. Wonder why? Afraid
too many people have killfiled you and there's no longer an audience for
your theatrics?
> There is personal business and then there is play.
And of course *you're* going to be the one who defines the difference
for all of society, aren't ya?
> Plus, surely you don't believe that salaried positions are
> oblige the employee to work /only/ 40 hours a week, do you?
My position is salaried and if the government wants me to work more than
40 hours a week, they're nevertheless obligated by law to pay me
overtime.
Tess Millay
> "Tess Millay" <elle_n...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > "Merlin Dorfman" <dor...@green.rahul.net> wrote
> > > David M. Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu>
wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> >
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11
> > /27/AR2005112701179.html
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > "Allowing people to do some of their personal work
> >
> > Key word being personal /work/, not play whereby the
> > employee uses the employer's computer to post racist
> > remarks, lies about others, and inaccurate information
about
> > his "profession" on recreational newsgroups.
>
> So you're now Tess, are ya?
What do you think?
> Just can't stick to one screen name for very long. Wonder
why?
Are you capable of wonder?
> Afraid
> too many people have killfiled you and there's no longer
an audience for > your theatrics?
Since you seem to loathe my posts so much, why can't you
restrain yourself from responding to them?
> > There is personal business and then there is play.
>
> And of course *you're* going to be the one who defines the
difference
> for all of society, aren't ya?
That's impossible, as a matter of epistemology.
> > Plus, surely you don't believe that salaried positions
are
> > oblige the employee to work /only/ 40 hours a week, do
you?
>
> My position is salaried and if the government wants me to
work more than
> 40 hours a week, they're nevertheless obligated by law to
pay me
> overtime.
Uh huh.
David M. Nieporent
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/27/AR2005112701179.html
>...
Exactly. People who don't have any experience in professional environments
don't understand this. They think in terms of "working hours" and
timeclock punching, rather than in terms of projects to get done. Because
they go home at 5 and don't do any work at home, they don't understand that
for professionals, the two mix. Professionals work in the evenings and
weekends, either in the office or at home -- but on the other side of the
ledger, the tradeoff is that we don't get monitored like felons in terms of
the number or length of breaks we take during the day.
Pat Farrell
> Exactly. People who don't have any experience in professional
> environments don't understand this. They think in terms of
> "working hours" and timeclock punching, rather than in terms
> of projects to get done.
Your projects get done? Someone always seems to invent
another one for me. :-)
> Because they go home at 5 and don't
> do any work at home, they don't understand that
> for professionals, the two mix. Professionals work in the evenings and
> weekends, either in the office or at home -- but on the other side of the
> ledger, the tradeoff is that we don't get monitored like felons in terms
> of the number or length of breaks we take during the day.
And things like email, blackberries, cell phones and even faxes
make the whole concept of home and work much
less meaningful. If not obsolete.
--
Pat
George Grapman
>> either."
>
> Exactly. People who don't have any experience in professional environments
> don't understand this. They think in terms of "working hours" and
> timeclock punching, rather than in terms of projects to get done. Because
> they go home at 5 and don't do any work at home, they don't understand that
> for professionals, the two mix. Professionals work in the evenings and
> weekends, either in the office or at home -- but on the other side of the
> ledger, the tradeoff is that we don't get monitored like felons in terms of
> the number or length of breaks we take during the day.
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> David M. Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
I once had a job where the owner told me he was going to start
deducting my personal calls from my check (these were 1 to 3 minute
calls totaling something like a few dollars a month).
When I got my next home phone bill I highlighted the business related
calls. I also typed out a bill pro rating the personal time spent on
business including times he called me on nights and weekends.
He immediately lost interest in the phone calls.
--
To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell
Pat Farrell
> I once had a job where the owner told me he was going to start
> deducting my personal calls from my check (these were 1 to 3 minute
> calls totaling something like a few dollars a month).
> When I got my next home phone bill I highlighted the business related
> calls. I also typed out a bill pro rating the personal time spent on
> business including times he called me on nights and weekends.
> He immediately lost interest in the phone calls.
he was, Did he have pointy hair?
--
Pat
George Grapman
He later followed some other ideas such as supplying coffee. I told
him that the time going downstairs, across the street and back used up
more time than going to the back of the office, pouring a cup and
returning to your desk.
Tess Millay
environments
> don't understand this. They think in terms of "working
hours" and
> timeclock punching, rather than in terms of projects to
get done. Because
> they go home at 5 and don't do any work at home, they
don't understand that
> for professionals, the two mix. Professionals work in the
evenings and
> weekends, either in the office or at home -- but on the
other side of the
> ledger, the tradeoff is that we don't get monitored like
felons in terms of
> the number or length of breaks we take during the day.
Son, if you really believe that your addiction to Usenet
does not disrupt your work productivity--your thought flow,
your attentiveness at meetings and in discussions with
clients, etc.--then you wouldn't have originated this
thread. Rarely do you originate threads here. That you
chose, for once, to do so on this topic, on which I've been
pulverizing you, is just more evidence you're on the ropes.
A person who felt no guilt would have just ignored my
queries. The guilty man, in conversation, tries to defend
himself. (Then too the desperate man tells crazed lies, as
you did about me.)
Lawyers typically bill hours. When you bill 15 minutes, then
disrupt for ten minutes because you can't resist trying to
boost your ego at alt.tv.the-west-wing, then bill another 15
minutes, claiming a half-hour all told, you are ripping off
your client. Unethically at a minimum. Illegally at a
maximum.
You know Ron would not approve of your prolific posting to
Usenet from your workplace. You won't say so here, of
course. You may never say so. But then that's just evidence
mum and dad subsidize you, and you are incapable of making a
living.
If you want to claim you bill by the job, then with all
these breaks you take during the day, you better believe you
could be doing more at the office.
Plus, you're using your firm's computer services, one way or
another, to post.
Professionals--not phonies like you--know this.
You kept raising the stakes, but making one fatal mistake:
Thinking that everyone would tolerate the self-described
obnoxious, little man "attorney" who obviously, and with
abundant documentation, was not working attorney's hours.
My posts are a completely legal journalistic inquiry into
why, David Marc Nieporent, you would be so foolish, and what
sort of "attorney" you could possibly be when you play so
much during the day.
Scott Stevenson
wrote:
Pat, if you've never run into a boss like that, you've been darn
lucky.
I once had a boss that didn't want to pay a $10 parking ticket I got
for being in a parking space about 10 minutes over the allowed time.
It didn't seem to matter that we were wrapping up the details on a
$300,000 sale.
take care,
Scott
"They'd step over a dollar to pick up a dime..."
Brett A. Pasternack
> "David M. Nieporent" <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote
>
>>People who don't have any experience in professional
>
> environments
>
>>don't understand this. They think in terms of "working
>
> hours" and
>
>>timeclock punching, rather than in terms of projects to
>
> get done. Because
>
>>they go home at 5 and don't do any work at home, they
>
> don't understand that
>
>>for professionals, the two mix. Professionals work in the
>
> evenings and
>
>>weekends, either in the office or at home -- but on the
>
> other side of the
>
>>ledger, the tradeoff is that we don't get monitored like
>
> felons in terms of
>
>>the number or length of breaks we take during the day.
>
>
> Son, if you really believe that your addiction to Usenet
> does not disrupt your work productivity--your thought flow,
> your attentiveness at meetings and in discussions with
> clients, etc.--then you wouldn't have originated this
> thread. Rarely do you originate threads here. That you
> chose, for once, to do so on this topic, on which I've been
> pulverizing you, is just more evidence you're on the ropes.
It's merely evidence that he's interested in arguing the point with you.
Are you saying that you only respond to threads where someone's made a
correct point about you?
> A person who felt no guilt would have just ignored my
> queries. The guilty man, in conversation, tries to defend
> himself. (Then too the desperate man tells crazed lies, as
> you did about me.)
Name one.
> Lawyers typically bill hours. When you bill 15 minutes, then
> disrupt for ten minutes because you can't resist trying to
> boost your ego at alt.tv.the-west-wing, then bill another 15
> minutes, claiming a half-hour all told, you are ripping off
> your client.
Ummm...how so? He worked thirty minutes, he billed thirty minutes. He
didn't bill the other ten minutes, so he's free to do what he wants with it.
You seem to be saying that people are incapable of leaving a project and
coming back to it with the same focus--but you certainly haven't
provided any evidence for that. Some people benefit from breaks. For
that matter, you haven't provided any evidence that he doesn't take his
breaks at the time when he's shifting from one project to another,
anyway. What were you saying about crazed lies?
> You know Ron would not approve of your prolific posting to
> Usenet from your workplace.
How do YOU know that? What were you saying about crazed lies?
> You won't say so here, of
> course. You may never say so. But then that's just evidence
> mum and dad subsidize you, and you are incapable of making a
> living.
Ridiculous. If he's working as a lawyer in a law firm, he's making a
living. What were you saying about crazed lies?
> If you want to claim you bill by the job, then with all
> these breaks you take during the day, you better believe you
> could be doing more at the office.
Well, yeah, I suppose anyone who doesn't spend every waking moment doing
work could do more. If he only posted from home, and only after 5PM,
would you point out that if he had spent that time at work, he could
have done more?
In our society, and in most, we don't expect working people to devote
every possible moment to their jobs. It's not a reasonable expectation,
and it's also not healthy. So what's your problem with this?
> Plus, you're using your firm's computer services, one way or
> another, to post.
So? As the article discussed, some businesses not only allow but
encourage this.
> You kept raising the stakes, but making one fatal mistake:
> Thinking that everyone would tolerate the self-described
> obnoxious, little man "attorney" who obviously, and with
> abundant documentation, was not working attorney's hours.
You don't understand what attorney's hours are.
Scott Stevenson
So by your standards, defending yourself against bozo charges is an
admission of guilt?
I'm sure if he'd said nothing, you'd claim his silence was an
admission of guilt--after all, if he could defend himself, why didn't
he?
>
>Lawyers typically bill hours. When you bill 15 minutes, then
>disrupt for ten minutes because you can't resist trying to
>boost your ego at alt.tv.the-west-wing, then bill another 15
>minutes, claiming a half-hour all told, you are ripping off
>your client. Unethically at a minimum. Illegally at a
>maximum.
You still haven't grasped the concept of salaried employee, have
you?
>
>If you want to claim you bill by the job, then with all
>these breaks you take during the day, you better believe you
>could be doing more at the office.
Right--because in law offices, there is normally a big pile of stuff
labeled "work" sitting in the conference room. As soon as you finish
one matter, you go in and grab whatever's on the top of the pile.
>
>Plus, you're using your firm's computer services, one way or
>another, to post.
>
>Professionals--not phonies like you--know this.
>
>You kept raising the stakes, but making one fatal mistake:
>Thinking that everyone would tolerate the self-described
>obnoxious, little man "attorney" who obviously, and with
>abundant documentation, was not working attorney's hours.
Other than you, Jim and maybe TZ are the only people who seem to have
a problem with it. Jim hates everybody, and TZ's got this weird
contrarian thing going, so he's against it because you're against it.
You've got a strange definition of "everyone".
>
>My posts are a completely legal journalistic inquiry into
>why, David Marc Nieporent, you would be so foolish, and what
>sort of "attorney" you could possibly be when you play so
>much during the day.
Woodstein you ain't. Your "journalism" skills barely rise to Earl
Camembert levels.
take care,
Scott
Pat Farrell
I've had them for a short time.
But one of my mottos was "I didn't have a job before I took this one,
if I leave, I'll be no worse off"
This thread is about being a profesisonal, and that includes a
requirement that the boss be one as well. As I've gotten older,
I'm even less toleratant of petty tyrants.
--
Pat
Raymond DiPerna
David M. Nieporent wrote:
> In article <dn2116$lil$1...@blue.rahul.net>,
> Merlin Dorfman <dor...@green.rahul.net> wrote:
> >David M. Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>
> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/27/AR2005112701179.html
>
> >> just good policy," he said. "That blurring of work and personal
> >> life really has completely changed the way we think about work.
> >> It's no longer true that when you're at your desk from 9 to 5
> >> you're at work, and when you're not at that place you're on
> >> your personal time."
>
> > Most of us certainly spend more than 40 hours a week at work,
> >and/or do a lot of work at home, so doing a little personal business
> >at work doesn't seem out of line.
> > As one of our vice presidents said, "We are going to make it so
> >easy for people to work at home that they won't have a life there,
> >either."
>
> Exactly. People who don't have any experience in professional environments
> don't understand this. They think in terms of "working hours" and
> timeclock punching, rather than in terms of projects to get done. Because
> they go home at 5 and don't do any work at home, they don't understand that
> for professionals, the two mix. Professionals work in the evenings and
> weekends, either in the office or at home -- but on the other side of the
> ledger, the tradeoff is that we don't get monitored like felons in terms of
> the number or length of breaks we take during the day.
In fact, it is perfectly acceptable at many places to call in to tell
them you'll be working from home that day. Also, typically, if you
need to leave early from work, you don't need to seek permission; you
just inform your secretary or the receptionist that you're leaving,
give them a cell phone number or what have you, and you're off. Unless
you're working with a partner on a particular matter where he might
need you that afternoon, you don't have to inform anyone superior to
you.
Many people don't have "a boss." Lawyers who practice at a firm, for
example, often work for multiple partners. There's no one person
watching to make sure you're in on time, and leave on time, etc. -- in
fact, there's really no such thing as "on time." Some people get in at
8am. Some people 9:30am. And there's no set time when you leave.
Firms will usually have "office hours," which are simply the hours that
the staff works; but if you're salaried, when you leave is basically
dictated by how much work you have that day, or how much you want to
get done that day. It's very flexible. All they really care about is
whether you get your work done, and how well you do it.
Vacations are peculiar also. Lawyers who practice at a firm (to again
use that example) will typically get, say, four weeks of vacation per
year. But in some respects the concept of "vacation" is meaningless:
by the end of the year, the lawyer has to meet his billable hours
requirements (whatever they may be, and some firms don't have a precise
threshhold). Whether he's taken four weeks that year, or could only
take two weeks, is essentially irrelevant. He still needs to bill his
hours. Nobody looks at vacation days; they look at hours.
And, of course, there is really no "overtime" for professionals. If a
lawyer works more hours, he might get a higher bonus. But there's no
hour-for-dollar correlation, like there is with time-and-a-half. And
working on the weekends or on holidays is the same as working during
the week; an hour is an hour is an hour. (Or, I should say, a
"billable hour" is a billable hour is a billable hour. But that's a
whole different discussion.)
The bottom line is that punching a time clock is just totally different
from being a professional. As the article says, for professionals the
line between work and personal life is very much blurred.
--Ray
BTR1701
"Tess Millay" <elle_n...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> My posts are a completely legal journalistic inquiry
So you're a journalist now?
Christ, the delusions of grandeur know no bounds...
[Most journalists don't write under pseudonyms and/or constantly change
them.]
Transition Zone
Scott Stevenson wrote:
>
> TZ's got this weird contrarian thing going, so he's against it because you're against it.
You care to tell me which it is, now ??
(since your making all this up)
~jim~
Than wh do teachers piss and moan so much about grading papers at home?
David Johnston
<liberalsm...@puke.com> wrote:
>> David M. Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
>
>Than wh do teachers piss and moan so much about grading papers at home?
They don't. They piss and moan about not getting paid enough.
Grading papers at home is just what they bring up when people argue
about that by saying they have a short work day.
Pat Farrell
Or for getting off every Monday at noon, and getting three months
vacation each year;
--
Pat
~jim~
rgo...@block.net (David Johnston) wrote:
Back to that - no matter what they are paid - they know what it is
before they are hired. Don't like the pay, quit.
Besides, 50k average teacher salary for a 185 day work year is more than
damn fair.
~jim~
Pat Farrell <pfar...@nospam.com> wrote:
Its more than 3 months - they only work (by contrcat 185 days a year),
20 of those days are half days.
David Johnston
<liberalsm...@puke.com> wrote:
>In article <4396fe39...@news.telusplanet.net>,
> rgo...@block.net (David Johnston) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 16:23:12 -0500, ~jim~
>> <liberalsm...@puke.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> David M. Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
>> >
>> >Than wh do teachers piss and moan so much about grading papers at home?
>>
>> They don't. They piss and moan about not getting paid enough.
>> Grading papers at home is just what they bring up when people argue
>> about that by saying they have a short work day.
>>
>>
>
>Back to that - no matter what they are paid - they know what it is
>before they are hired.
That's beside the issue. Teachers do not piss and moan about grading
papers at home.
George Grapman
> In article <4396fe39...@news.telusplanet.net>,
> rgo...@block.net (David Johnston) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 16:23:12 -0500, ~jim~
>> <liberalsm...@puke.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> David M. Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
>>> Than wh do teachers piss and moan so much about grading papers at home?
>> They don't. They piss and moan about not getting paid enough.
>> Grading papers at home is just what they bring up when people argue
>> about that by saying they have a short work day.
>>
>>
>
> Back to that - no matter what they are paid - they know what it is
> before they are hired. Don't like the pay, quit.
Feel the same away about the pay raise Congress just gave to itself?
>
> Besides, 50k average teacher salary for a 185 day work year is more than
> damn fair.
BTR1701
<liberalsmakemepuke-5...@news.isp.giganews.com>,
~jim~ <liberalsm...@puke.com> wrote:
You talk like every teacher everywhere in the country works under the
same contract and under the same state employment laws.
Scott Stevenson
wrote:
Not only that, Capt. Calculus never stopped to consider that in nine
months, once you take out Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays,
you're very close to 185 days. Let's just say I'm highly sceptical
that 20 of those are half days.
take care,
Scott
exquisite witch peachy
Heck, in Virginia the KIDS are required to be in school for 180
days. Teachers have other days the kids are off that they are
required to work.
Teachers and referred to as 10-month employees, and though the
kids get 10 halfdays, the teachers do not.
Transition Zone
Those who hate labor laws and unions - and those that they help -
probably do fear such scenarios, hehe.
David M. Nieporent
> BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>~jim~ <liberalsm...@puke.com> wrote:
>>> Pat Farrell <pfar...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>>Than wh do teachers piss and moan so much about grading papers at home?
>>>>>They don't. They piss and moan about not getting paid enough.
>>>>>Grading papers at home is just what they bring up when people argue
>>>>>about that by saying they have a short work day.
>>>>Or for getting off every Monday at noon, and getting three months
>>>>vacation each year;
Getting off every Monday at noon? Huh?
>>>Its more than 3 months - they only work (by contrcat 185 days a year),
>>>20 of those days are half days.
>>You talk like every teacher everywhere in the country works under the
>>same contract and under the same state employment laws.
> Not only that, Capt. Calculus never stopped to consider that in nine
> months, once you take out Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays,
> you're very close to 185 days. Let's just say I'm highly sceptical
> that 20 of those are half days.
In elementary school we had two weeks -- one in fall, one in spring -- of
half days for parent-teacher conferences. But (a) that was only elementary
school, and (b) two weeks is 10 days, not 20. We did not have any other
scheduled half days.
(On the other hand, although we had to make up snow days if there were more
than three school cancellations, we did _not_ have to make up days if the
schools opened late or left early, as they often did.)
--
David Marc Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
Jumping To Conclusions: http://www.oobleck.com/tollbooth
David M. Nieporent
> Scott Stevenson wrote:
>> BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> ~jim~ <liberalsm...@puke.com> wrote:
[...]
>>>> Its more than 3 months - they only work (by contrcat 185 days a
>>>> year), 20 of those days are half days.
>>> You talk like every teacher everywhere in the country works under the
>>> same contract and under the same state employment laws.
>> Not only that, Capt. Calculus never stopped to consider that in nine
>> months, once you take out Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays,
>> you're very close to 185 days. Let's just say I'm highly sceptical
>> that 20 of those are half days.
> Heck, in Virginia the KIDS are required to be in school for 180 days.
> Teachers have other days the kids are off that they are required to work.
> Teachers and referred to as 10-month employees, and though the kids
> get 10 halfdays, the teachers do not.
I don't know how you get close to 10. I'll give them credit for the
so-called "in service days" -- the days when teachers are theoretically
working but school is closed for students -- but there were only a couple of
those. The school year where I grew up (Howard County, Maryland) was
post-labor day to mid-June. That's 9 1/2 calendar months between start and
end. Included in those 9 1/2 months are winter break and spring break, each
a week long. Plus way more legal holidays than any other person gets --
Thanksgiving (2 days, not 1), Veteran's Day, Columbus Day, Election Day, MLK
Day, Presidents' Day (2 days in some places), Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur
(probably not in most states), Memorial Day.
I think Jim's number of 185 actual working days pretty accurately reflects
our school system's teacher contracts: 180 minimum school days, 3 extra days
for snow, plus something like 2 in-service days. (Throw in a couple of days
before school started in September -- I don't believe they were required
under contract to be there even a day early, (or stay a day late), but
practically speaking, a day or two was required to set up the room, if
nothing else.)
Unless my math is wrong, 185 (week)days is 37 weeks. That leaves, of
course, 15 weeks off. 15 weeks is 3+ months. Admittedly, getting 3+ months
consecutive is not the same as getting 2+ months and then a scattered month
here and there, but the latter is still pretty good.
Scott Stevenson
True. My point was that when he said they get more than 3 months
vacation because the contract he quotes says "185 days", if you take 9
months, and knock out weekends, you get very close to 185 days. He's
counting weekends as "vacation".
take care,
Scott
Userb3
news:43986D48...@alumni.princeton.edu:
> I think Jim's number of 185 actual working days pretty accurately
> reflects our school system's teacher contracts: 180 minimum school
> days, 3 extra days for snow, plus something like 2 in-service days.
> (Throw in a couple of days before school started in September -- I
> don't believe they were required under contract to be there even a day
> early, (or stay a day late), but practically speaking, a day or two
> was required to set up the room, if nothing else.)
>
> Unless my math is wrong, 185 (week)days is 37 weeks. That leaves, of
> course, 15 weeks off. 15 weeks is 3+ months. Admittedly, getting 3+
> months consecutive is not the same as getting 2+ months and then a
> scattered month here and there, but the latter is still pretty good.
Of course, you're assuming that teachers require no additional prep time
to work those 185 days, and that districts never "require" aditional days
outside the contract. Maybe the schools I worked at, the schools my
friends have worked at, the local schools, and the schools my wife has
worked at are a remarkably unusual set of examples, or maybe I only know
very concientious teachers, but in my experience, most teachers work an
additional 10-20 hrs a week during the school year and between 10 and 20
vacation days, not counting school activities (ball games, field trips,
conferences, etc.) that teachers are expected, but not necessarily
contractually obligated to attend.
Pat Farrell
> (On the other hand, although we had to make up snow days if there were
> more than three school cancellations, we did _not_ have to make up days if
> the schools opened late or left early, as they often did.)
Which is exactly why the school systems try to open two hours
late rather than closing.
IMHO, unionized teachers are not professionals. I think Sam was
probably right, that they should be professionals, highly recruited
and paid, which of course means that the bad ones are paid less
and the worst weeded out. Kinda like Matt Santos call to end teacher tenure.
Both Sam and Matt's visions are as likely as Alan Alda replacing GWB.
--
Pat
Clell Harmon
There's more to preparing for a class than 'setting up the
room'. Lesson plan prep can take weeks, especially if you have a
school board with stringent review requirements.
Rule of thumb David, anytime Jim takes a position, one should
conclude that the reasoning behind said position is flawed.
--
Fudd's First Law of Opposition: If you push something hard enough, it will fall over.
Pat Farrell
> There's more to preparing for a class than 'setting up the
> room'. Lesson plan prep can take weeks, especially if you have a
> school board with stringent review requirements.
But can we reduce the time billed when they are teaching American History
for the 20th time?
--
Pat
Userb3
news:Hg0mf.35838$_k3.9948@dukeread01:
No. The fact that they can work more efficiently after teaching for 20
years is simply a perk, and one we should gladly offer in return for
seniority and loyalty.
Pat Farrell
>> History for the 20th time?
>
> No. The fact that they can work more efficiently after teaching for 20
> years is simply a perk, and one we should gladly offer in return for
> seniority and loyalty.
If someone can't be more efficient after doing any job for 20 years,
then they probably shouldn't have it.
So it is a perk and they no longer have to work as hard.
Seems to me than says they shouldn't need to be paid more than
someone younger who has to work harder at it.
Rewarding workers for seniority and loyalty is at best foolish.
Reward workers for work accomplished. Anything else
reflects tired old Marxist theories, which were experimented
on for 100 years and belong in the trashcan of history.
GM and Ford have rewarded workers for seniority and loyalty
and the companies are likely to go bankrupt as a result.
The managers who sat on their hands agreeing to this deserve
to be unemployed along with the workers.
--
Pat
David M. Nieporent
> "David M. Nieporent" <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
[...]
>>I think Jim's number of 185 actual working days pretty accurately reflects
>>our school system's teacher contracts: 180 minimum school days, 3 extra days
>>for snow, plus something like 2 in-service days. (Throw in a couple of days
>>before school started in September -- I don't believe they were required
>>under contract to be there even a day early, (or stay a day late), but
>>practically speaking, a day or two was required to set up the room, if
>>nothing else.)
>>Unless my math is wrong, 185 (week)days is 37 weeks. That leaves, of
>>course, 15 weeks off. 15 weeks is 3+ months. Admittedly, getting 3+ months
>>consecutive is not the same as getting 2+ months and then a scattered month
>>here and there, but the latter is still pretty good.
> There's more to preparing for a class than 'setting up the
> room'. Lesson plan prep can take weeks, especially if you have a
> school board with stringent review requirements.
My father is a (part time) college instructor in computer science (data
communications, to be specific). He has a ton of prep time, because what he
teaches gets out-of-date very quickly. He essentially has to develop a new
course every year or two. But most primary and secondary school teachers
teach things like arithmetic, algebra, geometry, calculus, geography,
civics, American and World history, introductory biology, chemistry, and
physics, French, Spanish, grammar, American or European literature... you
know, stuff that's pretty much the same from year to year. The first year
or three of being a teacher is really tough, because you have to develop
your class from scratch, and then revise it when you see what works and what
doesn't. After that, though...
That doesn't mean, of course, that teachers don't need to prepare for class.
But (a) there's a big difference between reviewing old lesson plans to
refresh yourself and starting all new projects, and (b) there's a huge
difference between (on the one hand) getting up to beat the rush hour
traffic, going into the office, working a full day (which, incidentally,
does *not* end at 2:30 or 3:00), and then fighting the rush hour traffic on
your way home, and (on the other hand) sitting in the den. We're comparing
actual required working days, not time one might put in outside the office.
David M. Nieporent
>>>There's more to preparing for a class than 'setting up the
>>>room'. Lesson plan prep can take weeks, especially if you have a
>>>school board with stringent review requirements.
>>Very true.
>>But can we reduce the time billed when they are teaching American
>>History for the 20th time?
> No. The fact that they can work more efficiently after teaching for 20
> years is simply a perk, and one we should gladly offer in return for
> seniority and loyalty.
Well, then, can we not give them raises? I thought that the union-
negotiated pay scales, which give regular annual raises for seniority
regardless of performance quality, was the perk. Oh, that and the obscene
level of job security tenure represents.
In any case, the point here isn't that they're paid more while working less;
the point is that they're working less. Teacher advocates in these
discussions always act as if the worst-case scenario of putting in all that
extra time outside of the workday to develop all new lesson plans is
typical, when actually that's the exception.
I have some problems with the design of the teaching profession, but for the
most part, it's okay; my biggest problem is the griping over their supposed
low pay and lousy working conditions, when for the most part they have it so
much easier than most professionals.
Userb3
@dukeread01:
> Userb3 wrote:
>> Pat Farrell <pfar...@nospam.com> wrote in
>>> But can we reduce the time billed when they are teaching American
>>> History for the 20th time?
>>
>> No. The fact that they can work more efficiently after teaching for 20
>> years is simply a perk, and one we should gladly offer in return for
>> seniority and loyalty.
>
> If someone can't be more efficient after doing any job for 20 years,
> then they probably shouldn't have it.
I agree. But I'm also not going to give them a disincentive for becoming
more efficient over time. I'm also going to recognize that the 20 yr
veteran is probably bringing experiences and perspective to the job that
are worth mnore than the hours he spent the week before preparing the
lesson plan.
> So it is a perk and they no longer have to work as hard.
They don't spend as much time on lesson plans. That doesn't mean they
don't work as hard.
> Seems to me than says they shouldn't need to be paid more than
> someone younger who has to work harder at it.
They're better at it.
> Rewarding workers for seniority and loyalty is at best foolish.
That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read.
> Reward workers for work accomplished.
I do. Having enough experience to know the business and enough loyalty to
be reliable fall under the heading of "work accomplished."
> Anything else
> reflects tired old Marxist theories, which were experimented
> on for 100 years and belong in the trashcan of history.
I wasn't aware that Marx was the first to recognize a principle that has
been a staple of workplace, military, social, and family structure
throughout most, if not al of recorded history.
> GM and Ford have rewarded workers for seniority and loyalty
> and the companies are likely to go bankrupt as a result.
GM and Ford are having problems for a variety of reasons that include,
but are not limited to:
1) High gas prices making their most expensive products less attractive
2) Poor past investments
3) High US labor costs
4) Over-reliance on deep discounts, rebates, and low interest financing
as sales incentives.
However, they are not facing bankruptcy, nor are their probles solely due
to the seniority system.
Pat Farrell
> GM and Ford are having problems for a variety of reasons that include,
> but are not limited to:
>
> 1) High gas prices making their most expensive products less attractive
> 2) Poor past investments
> 3) High US labor costs
> 4) Over-reliance on deep discounts, rebates, and low interest financing
> as sales incentives.
>
> However, they are not facing bankruptcy, nor are their probles solely due
> to the seniority system.
High labor costs is part of too much seniority. And restrictive labor
rules.
High gas prices was so hard to predict. Its shocking. No one in GM or Ford
management or labor could have seen it. No one could see India and China
using explosively more energy. No one could see any downside to
instability in the middle-East.
Most fundamentally, neither makes cars that anyone wants to buy.
Some folks wanted trucks because they were manly or some such bull.
Until the US' artificially low prices ran out. Then people
shockingly decided that using a 6000 truck to drive to work
carrying a briefcase was dumb and wasteful. So they stopped
buying trucks and trucks that look like stationwagons.
People who need trucks to work will keep buying them.
The yuppies will go back to cars. GM and Ford have no cars
that people want to buy, so they give them away. Making it
up on volume, eh?
The poor investment argument is a judgement call.
Not clear that doing anything other than making a hell
of a lot of trucks was feasible. Because of the contracts,
they have to pay workers essentially the same when plants
are closed. No need for robots, won't save any money.
Not agreeing to the idiotic and non-competitive union contracts
is clearly a major reason. Both the management and union leaders
seriously screwed up on this.
While not technically bankrupt today, both Ford and GM's bonds
are rated as junk. Both make zero money off of vehicle sales.
They make money as banks (GMAC, etc.). It is only a matter
of time when their legal status joins their current practical
status: bankrupt.
--
Pat
karl
"Pat Farrell" <pfar...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:DX1mf.52132$sg5.43614@dukeread12...
> Userb3 wrote:
>> GM and Ford are having problems for a variety of reasons that include,
>> but are not limited to:
>>
>> 1) High gas prices making their most expensive products less attractive
>> 2) Poor past investments
>> 3) High US labor costs
>> 4) Over-reliance on deep discounts, rebates, and low interest financing
>> as sales incentives.
>>
>> However, they are not facing bankruptcy, nor are their probles solely due
>> to the seniority system.
>
> High labor costs is part of too much seniority. And restrictive labor
> rules.
And is a myth. Japanese labour costs are comparable and Japanese automakers
wages in North America are comparable. Health care and pension costs are
another matter.
> While not technically bankrupt today, both Ford and GM's bonds
> are rated as junk. Both make zero money off of vehicle sales.
> They make money as banks (GMAC, etc.). It is only a matter
> of time when their legal status joins their current practical
> status: bankrupt.
GM and Ford have a _LOT_ of cash on hand. As for financing, all major auto
corporations, even Toyota, make more money from financing the purchases than
the vehicles themselves. Unlike GM they don't produce the cars at a loss but
it is a truism of the industry the real money is in financing the purchases.
Pat Farrell
> "Pat Farrell" <pfar...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:DX1mf.52132$sg5.43614@dukeread12...
>>> due to the seniority system.
>>
>> High labor costs is part of too much seniority. And restrictive labor
>> rules.
>
> And is a myth. Japanese labour costs are comparable and Japanese
> automakers wages in North America are comparable. Health care
> and pension costs are another matter.
You mean the transplants (Toyota, Honda, etc.) workers
see the same $65 per hour (wages and benefits) that GM and Ford get?
Not likely. The transplants are mostly non-union, have much more
flexibility and younger workers. Co-incidence? not so much.
--
Pat
karl
In my locale which consists of both NA and Asian plants the wages are
comparable.
Userb3
news:4398A12D...@alumni.princeton.edu:
> Userb3 wrote:
>> Pat Farrell <pfar...@nospam.com> wrote in
>>>Clell Harmon wrote:
>
>>>>There's more to preparing for a class than 'setting up the
>>>>room'. Lesson plan prep can take weeks, especially if you have a
>>>>school board with stringent review requirements.
>
>>>Very true.
>>>But can we reduce the time billed when they are teaching American
>>>History for the 20th time?
>
>> No. The fact that they can work more efficiently after teaching for
>> 20 years is simply a perk, and one we should gladly offer in return
>> for seniority and loyalty.
>
> Well, then, can we not give them raises?
So do that also!
> In any case, the point here isn't that they're paid more while working
> less; the point is that they're working less.
In the example given, they're working more efficiently.
> Teacher advocates in
> these discussions always act as if the worst-case scenario of putting
> in all that extra time outside of the workday to develop all new
> lesson plans is typical, when actually that's the exception.
Not in my experience.
> I have some problems with the design of the teaching profession, but
> for the most part, it's okay; my biggest problem is the griping over
> their supposed low pay and lousy working conditions, when for the most
> part they have it so much easier than most professionals.
That's exactly the sort of thing that sets them off. Of course, I suppose
if they had it as easy as, say, an attorney, you might have room to
gripe.
Userb3
> Userb3 wrote:
>> GM and Ford are having problems for a variety of reasons that
>> include, but are not limited to:
>>
>> 1) High gas prices making their most expensive products less
>> attractive 2) Poor past investments
>> 3) High US labor costs
>> 4) Over-reliance on deep discounts, rebates, and low interest
>> financing as sales incentives.
>>
>> However, they are not facing bankruptcy, nor are their probles solely
>> due to the seniority system.
>
> High labor costs is part of too much seniority. And restrictive labor
> rules.
You suggested they were going into bankruptcy for rewarding experience
and loyalty. That isn't the case.
Pat Farrell
>>> GM and Ford are having problems for a variety of reasons that
>>> include, but are not limited to:
>>>
>>> 1) High gas prices making their most expensive products less
>>> attractive 2) Poor past investments
>>> 3) High US labor costs
>>> 4) Over-reliance on deep discounts, rebates, and low interest
>>> financing as sales incentives.
>>>
>>> However, they are not facing bankruptcy, nor are their probles solely
>>> due to the seniority system.
>>
>> High labor costs is part of too much seniority. And restrictive labor
>> rules.
>
> You suggested they were going into bankruptcy for rewarding experience
> and loyalty. That isn't the case.
I predict that they are going into bankruptcy.
Sucking up to the unions is one of the reasons.
Making cars that no one wants to buy is more fundamental, but
symptomatic of the lack of brains in both GM and Ford and
in the UAW and other unions.
The good news is that Toyota will soon be the planet's largest
vehicle manufacturer, and one if not both of GM and Ford
will radically shrink. Laying off tens of thousands, and trashing
the economies and political power structure all accross the midwest.
Cars will be made by non-union workers in the South.
--
Pat
Pat Farrell
>
> "Pat Farrell" <pfar...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:Xt2mf.52137$sg5.40302@dukeread12...
>> karl wrote:
>>> "Pat Farrell" <pfar...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:DX1mf.52132$sg5.43614@dukeread12...
>>>>> However, they are not facing bankruptcy, nor are their probles solely
>>>>> due to the seniority system.
>>>>
>>>> High labor costs is part of too much seniority. And restrictive labor
>>>> rules.
>>>
>>> And is a myth. Japanese labour costs are comparable and Japanese
>>> automakers wages in North America are comparable. Health care
>>> and pension costs are another matter.
>>
>> You mean the transplants (Toyota, Honda, etc.) workers
>> see the same $65 per hour (wages and benefits) that GM and Ford get?
>> Not likely. The transplants are mostly non-union, have much more
>> flexibility and younger workers. Co-incidence? not so much.
>
> In my locale which consists of both NA and Asian plants the wages are
> comparable.
Hourly cash wages are comperable. Total package including benefits are
not close. The fat retirement and health care benefits were
agreed to long ago, when wages were regulated and the car makers
needed to increase compensation. The US government looked the other way.
It is silly to say that pay in the form of retirement benefits and health
insurance is not pay. If the contract didn't require it, workers would need
to pay it themselves, out of their pay. The accounting is different.
The money is not.
--
Pat
David M. Nieporent
[...]
>>In any case, the point here isn't that they're paid more while working
>>less; the point is that they're working less.
> In the example given, they're working more efficiently.
You can call it that, but it's still less. I'm not calling them slackers;
I'm just saying that their jobs take less time. That's a benefit. When I
got good at a particular type of legal activity -- drafting a motion,
propounding discovery, preparing for a deposition, etc. -- it made me more
efficient, but that didn't lighten my workload.
>>Teacher advocates in
>>these discussions always act as if the worst-case scenario of putting
>>in all that extra time outside of the workday to develop all new
>>lesson plans is typical, when actually that's the exception.
> Not in my experience.
What are they doing? The lessons are prepared already. No doubt, as I
said, they have to review them -- but it always takes less time to refresh
yourself on a topic than to prepare it for the first time.
>>I have some problems with the design of the teaching profession, but
>>for the most part, it's okay; my biggest problem is the griping over
>>their supposed low pay and lousy working conditions, when for the most
>>part they have it so much easier than most professionals.
> That's exactly the sort of thing that sets them off. Of course, I suppose
> if they had it as easy as, say, an attorney, you might have room to
> gripe.
I know it sets them off, but the things they cite as reasons why their job
isn't easy -- they have to work at home, for instance -- always show how out
of touch they are. What professional doesn't?
They have a short workday by professional standards. They have a short
workyear by professional standards. They have incredible job security --
both in the sense of having tenure and in the sense of their employers being
a government monopoly. They generally get excellent benefits, and their pay
isn't bad.
Yes, they work at home. So do I, and every other attorney I know. And
that's after a _full_ day, not after a 6 1/2 hour day. Yes, they go to
school events like plays and games. And we go to bar functions, committee
meetings, etc. -- and that's after a full day, not a 6 1/2 hour day. And
yes, they get additional training. So do we. And that's after a full day,
not on a "professional development" day. Etc. And we don't get "planning
periods" during the day, either.
To be sure, we have it better in at least one way: except for court
appearances, we set our own hours, while teachers are pretty much stuck with
the fixed school day no matter what. If I want to work from home tomorrow,
I can (and if it snows as they predict, I will); a teacher doesn't have that
option. (On the other hand, if I need to be in the office to work on a
brief with someone, I might be in the office on Sunday; that doesn't happen
for teachers. And teachers don't get last minute notice that they need to
pull an all-nighter.)
karl
> karl wrote:
>
>>
>> "Pat Farrell" <pfar...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xt2mf.52137$sg5.40302@dukeread12...
>>> karl wrote:
>>>> "Pat Farrell" <pfar...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:DX1mf.52132$sg5.43614@dukeread12...
>>>>>> However, they are not facing bankruptcy, nor are their probles solely
>>>>>> due to the seniority system.
>>>>>
>>>>> High labor costs is part of too much seniority. And restrictive labor
>>>>> rules.
>>>>
>>>> And is a myth. Japanese labour costs are comparable and Japanese
>>>> automakers wages in North America are comparable. Health care
>>>> and pension costs are another matter.
>>>
>>> You mean the transplants (Toyota, Honda, etc.) workers
>>> see the same $65 per hour (wages and benefits) that GM and Ford get?
>>> Not likely. The transplants are mostly non-union, have much more
>>> flexibility and younger workers. Co-incidence? not so much.
>>
>> In my locale which consists of both NA and Asian plants the wages are
>> comparable.
>
> Hourly cash wages are comperable. Total package including benefits are
> not close.
Benefits too.
Pat Farrell
> On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 17:56:34 -0500, Pat Farrell <pfar...@nospam.com>
>>Cars will be made by non-union workers in the South.
>
> such a big deal when Saturn started up is due to be shut down as part
> of the cost cutting.
Was Spring Hill UAW? I know that Saturn was supposed to
have more Japanese model work rules.
Saturn was another of GM's idiotic managment ideas.
They need to kill two or three brands and make one third
of the number of car models, and make them attractive
enough to sell. Not clear that GM can do it.
--
Pat
Pat Farrell
Hmmm, got cite? I could be wrong on this.
--
Pat
Hunter Rose
> Making cars that no one wants to buy is more fundamental, but
> symptomatic of the lack of brains in both GM and Ford and
> in the UAW and other unions.
How are unions to blame for decisions made solely by their
employers? The vehicle design strategy is set by upper management.
HR
Pat Farrell
The union doesn't decide on the design.
But the union rules defined which plants can close which
controls which cars are made. The rules make it cheaper
to run plants making cars rather than shutting them down,
even though they can't sell the cars.
Let me repeat in case it was overlooked in my well deserved
complaints about the unions:
GM and Ford's management has screwed the pooch by making many
dumb decisions, including agreeing to the union terms, designing
bad cars, and whining instead of innovating.
But the unions are not the blameless workers here.
--
Pat
exquisite witch peachy
> I think Jim's number of 185 actual working days pretty accurately
> reflects our school system's teacher contracts: 180 minimum school days,
> 3 extra days for snow, plus something like 2 in-service days. (Throw in
> a couple of days before school started in September -- I don't believe
> they were required under contract to be there even a day early, (or stay
> a day late), but practically speaking, a day or two was required to set
> up the room, if nothing else.)
>
> Unless my math is wrong, 185 (week)days is 37 weeks. That leaves, of
> course, 15 weeks off. 15 weeks is 3+ months. Admittedly, getting 3+
> months consecutive is not the same as getting 2+ months and then a
> scattered month here and there, but the latter is still pretty good.
>
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/Div/Stafford/2005-2006ApprovedCalendar.pdf
Teachers in our district are required to work Aug 29 - June 20
this year.
September to June is 10 months, though certainly there are days
off in the middle.
There are 11 days teachers are required to work and the kids
aren't in school, 10 more that are half days.
exquisite witch peachy
Your theory sounds remarkably like my driver's ed instructor's.
He'd been teaching driving for 12 years already, and he was damn
frustrated that I hadn't learned it yet!
The teacher may well be experienced, the students still have to
learn it.
karl
Not really, Anecdotal;. A friend's wife works at Toyota plant, and I know
some people how work at Ford and Honda plants. That's not to say that the
benefits cost the respective companies the same but the benefits received
are comparable, That GM & Ford can't manage their own benefits packages is
their own fault.
To be fair the union claims that non-union plants only pays what it does to
keep the union out - matching the unionized pay and benefits pretty much
item by item. Funny thing is the Toyota plant is crying for more working
hours - mandatory overtime, while the Ford plant is running basically at
half capacity - one week on one week off..
Pat Farrell
> On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 21:08:19 -0500, Pat Farrell <pfar...@nospam.com>
>>The union doesn't decide on the design.
>>But the union rules defined which plants can close which
>>controls which cars are made. The rules make it cheaper
>>to run plants making cars rather than shutting them down,
>>even though they can't sell the cars.
>
> unions that has them paying the employees salary for two years after
> they close down a plant. Plus they are still stuck with all of the
> current retiree pension and benefit expenses.
Hard as it is, you don't have to believe, its fact.
>>Let me repeat in case it was overlooked in my well deserved
>>complaints about the unions:
>>GM and Ford's management has screwed the pooch by making many
>>dumb decisions, including agreeing to the union terms, designing
>>bad cars, and whining instead of innovating.
>
> It's not clear if they even really understand what they've done wrong.
> Fixing the union issues is going to be hard to do, but they could
> design good cars or at least shamelessly copy the cars that people are
> buying. That way they would have a shot at beginning to win customers
> back from the Japanese manufacturers.
OK, so lets ask, what Ford or GM cars are worth buying?
Several of the Cadilacs are very compelling. The Ford Mustang
seems to be a niche hit. The Corvette, but that is special
and too low volume to count. The new Ford Fusion is reportedly decent.
Probably one or two from each of Ford or GM.
I think it is a long shot for either of them to win back young
customers from Toyota, Nissan and Honda.
Short the stock.
--
Pat
Pat Farrell
We were talking about how hard the teachers prepare out of class time.
Not the teaching. It is hard to believe that the content of
any primary or secondary education changes significantly over 20 years.
The pedagogy changes. Sometimes constantly as the teaching establishment
looks for yet another silver bullet for failing to teach.
I'd think that in the classroom, a teacher with experience would know how
to teach American History to 10 year olds, connect better, make it
more relevant, etc. I sure expect it. Or maybe they shouldn't be teaching
American History at all to ten year olds. It isn't like
they care about the Civil War, or War of Yankee Agression, or French and
Indian War. Maybe we should not bother to try to teach it.
School boards micromanaging the teaching, "standards of learning" and
"no child left behind" are political reflections of the popular opinion
that teachers are not delivering. They may be part of the problem, as
teaching to the test is not teaching anything important IMHO. But
The rules and laws reflect what the citizen units are telling the
politicians.
Of course, the rich don't care, they just send their kids to
private schools.
--
Pat
Pat Farrell
>>>> not close.
>>> Benefits too.
>> Hmmm, got cite? I could be wrong on this.
> Not really,
The Delphi bankrupcy (really the parts makers for GM)
has gotten a lot of coverage in the Wall Street Journal
and other business press. The figure I keep seeing is
about $30 per hour salary and $35 per hour benefits for
UAW workers. Against roughly $30 to $35 total for
the transplants.
> Anecdotal;. A friend's wife works at Toyota plant, and I know
> some people how work at Ford and Honda plants. That's not to say that the
> benefits cost the respective companies the same but the benefits received
> are comparable,
Well, it is a lot easier to offer health insurance when all your
employees are young and healthy. The dollar cost
reflect the demographics of the workers and promises made.
> That GM & Ford can't manage their own benefits packages is
> their own fault.
I don't follow you here. The workers are older and health care costs more.
Defined benefits are unsustainable in all companies and all industries.
Everyone is moving to IRAs and 401(k) and other "definied contribution"
plans. These have radically different cost and economics than the old
school retirement systems. I'm not sure what "management" of the plans
would accomplish.
Of course, doing a clean slate, defined contribution approach
would make the managers look a lot smarter.
> Funny thing is the Toyota plant is crying for more working
> hours - mandatory overtime, while the Ford plant is running basically at
> half capacity - one week on one week off..
Not funny to the laid off workers.
Or surprizing, look at how consumers pay for Toyotas while Ford can't give
away their "equivalent" cars.
The transplants got huge tax benefits because the governors wanted jobs,
because the limited employment drove the locals away. Not a lot of
surprize that you can't hire 100,000 folks in rural Kentucky or Alabama,
there aren't that many people there.
What's keeping the Ford employees from showing up at the Toyota employment
office?
--
Pat
Userb3
>>>In any case, the point here isn't that they're paid more while
>>>working less; the point is that they're working less.
>
>> In the example given, they're working more efficiently.
>
> You can call it that, but it's still less.
Teachers aren't paid to spend hours doing prep. They're paid to teach. If
one teacher can teach just as well on 1 hour of prep as another can on 10
hours of prep, there's no reason to pay him less.
> I'm not calling them
> slackers; I'm just saying that their jobs take less time. That's a
> benefit. When I got good at a particular type of legal activity --
> drafting a motion, propounding discovery, preparing for a deposition,
> etc. -- it made me more efficient, but that didn't lighten my
> workload.
If you had a set number of motions, depositions, etc, becoming more
efficient would lighten your workload.
>>>Teacher advocates in
>>>these discussions always act as if the worst-case scenario of putting
>>>in all that extra time outside of the workday to develop all new
>>>lesson plans is typical, when actually that's the exception.
>
>> Not in my experience.
>
> What are they doing? The lessons are prepared already. No doubt, as
> I said, they have to review them -- but it always takes less time to
> refresh yourself on a topic than to prepare it for the first time.
There's more to do than simply prepare lesson plans. My wife, for
instance, had a snow day today. She spent most of the day installing the
district's new required grading software on her laptop, reviewing several
new videos to see if they would be appropriate for her class, dubbing
relevant news stories from the DVR onto videotape for class use, writing
letter of recomendation for a few of her students, and working on a mural
design teh school asked her to prepare. That was just this afternoon.
>>>I have some problems with the design of the teaching profession, but
>>>for the most part, it's okay; my biggest problem is the griping over
>>>their supposed low pay and lousy working conditions, when for the
>>>most part they have it so much easier than most professionals.
>
>> That's exactly the sort of thing that sets them off. Of course, I
>> suppose if they had it as easy as, say, an attorney, you might have
>> room to gripe.
>
> I know it sets them off, but the things they cite as reasons why their
> job isn't easy -- they have to work at home, for instance -- always
> show how out of touch they are. What professional doesn't?
You mean that they have many of the same demands that other professionals
have, but they shouldn't expect to be treated with the same respect as
other professionals?
> They have a short workday by professional standards. They have a
> short workyear by professional standards. They have incredible job
> security -- both in the sense of having tenure and in the sense of
> their employers being a government monopoly. They generally get
> excellent benefits, and their pay isn't bad.
I will once again note that you seem to be using confusng contractual
obligations with actual working conditions.
> Yes, they work at home. So do I, and every other attorney I know.
> And that's after a _full_ day, not after a 6 1/2 hour day. Yes, they
> go to school events like plays and games. And we go to bar functions,
> committee meetings, etc. -- and that's after a full day, not a 6 1/2
> hour day. And yes, they get additional training. So do we. And
> that's after a full day, not on a "professional development" day.
> Etc. And we don't get "planning periods" during the day, either.
So what's your point? That they share many of the same demands as other
professionals who receive more respect and pay than teachers
> n the other hand, if I need to be
> in the office to work on a brief with someone, I might be in the
> office on Sunday; that doesn't happen for teachers.
It does for most of the teachers I know.
> And teachers
> don't get last minute notice that they need to pull an all-nighter.)
Teachers get short notice for all sorts of things.
Clell Harmon
wrote:
>Clell Harmon wrote:
>> There's more to preparing for a class than 'setting up the
>> room'. Lesson plan prep can take weeks, especially if you have a
>> school board with stringent review requirements.
>
>Very true.
>But can we reduce the time billed when they are teaching American History
>for the 20th time?
That depends on the school board doesn't it?
--
Fudd's First Law of Opposition: If you push something hard enough, it will fall over.
Clell Harmon
<niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>Clell Harmon wrote:
> > "David M. Nieporent" <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>>I think Jim's number of 185 actual working days pretty accurately reflects
>>>our school system's teacher contracts: 180 minimum school days, 3 extra days
>>>for snow, plus something like 2 in-service days. (Throw in a couple of days
>>>before school started in September -- I don't believe they were required
>>>under contract to be there even a day early, (or stay a day late), but
>>>practically speaking, a day or two was required to set up the room, if
>>>nothing else.)
>
>>>Unless my math is wrong, 185 (week)days is 37 weeks. That leaves, of
>>>course, 15 weeks off. 15 weeks is 3+ months. Admittedly, getting 3+ months
>>>consecutive is not the same as getting 2+ months and then a scattered month
>>>here and there, but the latter is still pretty good.
>
>> There's more to preparing for a class than 'setting up the
>> room'. Lesson plan prep can take weeks, especially if you have a
>> school board with stringent review requirements.
>
>My father is a (part time) college instructor in computer science (data
>communications, to be specific). He has a ton of prep time, because what he
>teaches gets out-of-date very quickly. He essentially has to develop a new
>course every year or two. But most primary and secondary school teachers
>teach things like arithmetic, algebra, geometry, calculus, geography,
>civics, American and World history, introductory biology, chemistry, and
>physics, French, Spanish, grammar, American or European literature... you
>know, stuff that's pretty much the same from year to year. The first year
>or three of being a teacher is really tough, because you have to develop
>your class from scratch, and then revise it when you see what works and what
>doesn't. After that, though...
After that you are at the whim of the School board. My sister
in law had to completely redo her Trig lesson plan this year because
the Board changed the forms they wanted it on. Same thing happened
two years ago.
>
>That doesn't mean, of course, that teachers don't need to prepare for class.
> But (a) there's a big difference between reviewing old lesson plans to
>refresh yourself and starting all new projects, and (b) there's a huge
>difference between (on the one hand) getting up to beat the rush hour
>traffic, going into the office, working a full day (which, incidentally,
>does *not* end at 2:30 or 3:00), and then fighting the rush hour traffic on
>your way home, and (on the other hand) sitting in the den. We're comparing
>actual required working days, not time one might put in outside the office.
Have you told your father what a lazy bum he is?
Pat Farrell
> On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 15:00:14 -0500, Pat Farrell <pfar...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>>But can we reduce the time billed when they are teaching American History
>>for the 20th time?
>
> That depends on the school board doesn't it?
I don't know. A lot of school boards don't seem to have any power.
It might depend on the NEA or AFT rep.
--
Pat
Scott Stevenson
wrote:
>We were talking about how hard the teachers prepare out of class time.
>Not the teaching. It is hard to believe that the content of
>any primary or secondary education changes significantly over 20 years.
>The pedagogy changes. Sometimes constantly as the teaching establishment
>looks for yet another silver bullet for failing to teach.
>
>I'd think that in the classroom, a teacher with experience would know how
>to teach American History to 10 year olds, connect better, make it
>more relevant, etc.
One thing I learned from teaching software classes is that every
class is going to be different. A new teacher should have a way to
teach American History. A ten year vet probably has two or three ways
to get the information across.
> I sure expect it. Or maybe they shouldn't be teaching
>American History at all to ten year olds. It isn't like
>they care about the Civil War, or War of Yankee Agression, or French and
>Indian War. Maybe we should not bother to try to teach it.
History when it's just dates can be crushingly dull. The real
interest in history comes about when the teacher is able to get the
students to understand that history is really about people and ideas,
not dates.
(When I was in high school, the history teacher taught a section on
the Constitution by assigning each of us to be a "Founding Father".
To make it tougher, all the liberal kids were assigned to be
Federalists, and all the conservatives were Anti-Federalists, which
meant we had to argue positions opposite to what we would have
normally taken.)
>
>School boards micromanaging the teaching, "standards of learning" and
>"no child left behind" are political reflections of the popular opinion
>that teachers are not delivering. They may be part of the problem, as
>teaching to the test is not teaching anything important IMHO.
Well, if the test is supposed to measure _basic_ math and reading
skills, that's kinda important.
More than that, though, it's a symptom of a bigger problem--in
California, if I understand correctly, the high school test is
supposed to show that you can read at a 7th grade level. It's
borderline criminal that teachers working with high school seniors
have to "teach to the test" that demonstrates the kid can do work six
years behind where he or she should be.
If you've ever tried to buy something that came to $5.85, gave the
cashier $6.10, and had him push the dime back towards you, you've seen
the results of how we're educating kids. When you finally convince
him to go ahead and enter $6.10 in the register, he's baffled by your
Rainman-like ability to do math in your head....
> But
>The rules and laws reflect what the citizen units are telling the
>politicians.
And what they're saying is it's not good enough for an 18-year old
to be stumped by all the big words in a Hardy Boys book. It's not a
problem that you can effectively fix in high school. It's got to
start by not letting the kids get behind in the first place.
>Of course, the rich don't care, they just send their kids to
>private schools.
And how do you think the poor would react if they had the same
chance to send their kids to a good private school?
take care,
Scott
BTR1701
almostf...@UCKSAY.comcast.net (Scott Stevenson) wrote:
> (When I was in high school, the history teacher taught a section on
> the Constitution by assigning each of us to be a "Founding Father".
> To make it tougher, all the liberal kids were assigned to be
> Federalists, and all the conservatives were Anti-Federalists, which
> meant we had to argue positions opposite to what we would have
> normally taken.)
How did your teacher know the political viewpoint of every student. I
know that my teachers wouldn't have known that about me when I was in
high school. Frankly, at that age, I couldn't have cared less about such
things. All I was interested in was Julie Sandusky and how good she
looked in those jeans...
> If you've ever tried to buy something that came to $5.85, gave the
> cashier $6.10, and had him push the dime back towards you, you've seen
> the results of how we're educating kids. When you finally convince
> him to go ahead and enter $6.10 in the register, he's baffled by your
> Rainman-like ability to do math in your head....
I'll go you one better: I was at McDonald's ordering food about a month
ago and the register broke down on the kid and he had no idea how to
make me change from a $10 bill for a charge of $7.12. He had to call the
manager over to do it for him.
karl
> Well, it is a lot easier to offer health insurance when all your
> employees are young and healthy. The dollar cost
> reflect the demographics of the workers and promises made.
I seriously doubt that is the difference. There are many other older
corporations with a legacy of retirees that are not in the troubles GM and
Ford are. GM's problem is that they failed to adequately and competently
manage their pension scheme. It's true that the unions are far from
blameless they obviously bargain for too much and are now receiving that
extra 'bargain'.
>> That GM & Ford can't manage their own benefits packages is
>> their own fault.
>
> I don't follow you here. The workers are older and health care costs more.
Gm & Ford are not unique. They may be a little older than the Toyotas and
Hondas, but think globally. Just because the US plants are newer does not
mean they do not have legacy pension costs comparable to GM&F in their
Japanese plants.
And again there are other older North American corporations who have
managed to meet their pension obligations.
> Defined benefits are unsustainable in all companies and all industries.
That's a bit of an overstatement. There are many that are unsustainable for
the reason stated below.
> Everyone is moving to IRAs and 401(k) and other "definied contribution"
> plans. These have radically different cost and economics than the old
> school retirement systems. I'm not sure what "management" of the plans
> would accomplish.
Throughout the 1990's boom corporations were able to underfund their
pensions because of the gains on pension investments. Of course when the
bubble burst those pensions were in serious deficit.
What the move from DB to DC is remove the management of the pensions system
from the management so that they can't underfund them.
>> Funny thing is the Toyota plant is crying for more working
>> hours - mandatory overtime, while the Ford plant is running basically at
>> half capacity - one week on one week off..
>
> Not funny to the laid off workers.
Some like it some don't. Some are happy with half pay in trade for every
other week off.
> The transplants got huge tax benefits because the governors wanted jobs,
> because the limited employment drove the locals away. Not a lot of
> surprise that you can't hire 100,000 folks in rural Kentucky or Alabama,
> there aren't that many people there.
Again GM and Ford were lined up along with the transplants for government
money for expansions and new plants.
> What's keeping the Ford employees from showing up at the Toyota employment
> office?
Nothing, I guess, except that they are still employed by Ford and that
Toyota has a very long 'contract' period before your are hired full time,
usually 3 years under 6 month temporary contracts before they hire full
time.
Pat Farrell
> Hondas, but think globally. Just because the US plants are newer does not
> mean they do not have legacy pension costs comparable to GM&F in their
> Japanese plants.
But they do have a difference. There are zero Honda and Toyota
retired employees from the 1960s to pay for.
If you think globally, then you have to include
countries that have socialized medicine as part of their
base. British employers pay taxes, and the citizens get
health care. In the US, the big companies started
paying for health care, and the country doesn't have it
as a direct result. But now we are seeing serious
problems as the old line companies are folding,
not just GM and Ford, but AT&T and Pan Am.
> Throughout the 1990's boom corporations were able to underfund their
> pensions because of the gains on pension investments. Of course when the
> bubble burst those pensions were in serious deficit.
The boom covered a long list of sins.
>
>> The transplants got huge tax benefits because the governors wanted jobs,
>> because the limited employment drove the locals away. Not a lot of
>> surprise that you can't hire 100,000 folks in rural Kentucky or Alabama,
>> there aren't that many people there.
>
> Again GM and Ford were lined up along with the transplants for
> government money for expansions and new plants.
SO we take our taxes to subsidise companies to take nice farms
and turn them into industrial sites, with all the ecological problems
that all industrial sites have, rather than building in Detroit or
Toledo where there are square miles that can never be cleaned up.
Makes sense to me.
>> What's keeping the Ford employees from showing up at the Toyota
>> employment office?
>
> Nothing, I guess, except that they are still employed by Ford and that
> Toyota has a very long 'contract' period before your are hired full time,
> usually 3 years under 6 month temporary contracts before they hire full
> time.
Smart for Toyota, no tenure until you've proven to be worth keeping.
As a wise man once told me "there ain't no anchor on your ass" when
I complained that the boss was an idiot and I was underpaid.
He means, vote with your feet.
--
Pat
karl
> karl wrote:
>> "Pat Farrell" <pfar...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> Gm & Ford are not unique. They may be a little older than the Toyotas
>> and
>> Hondas, but think globally. Just because the US plants are newer does not
>> mean they do not have legacy pension costs comparable to GM&F in their
>> Japanese plants.
>
> But they do have a difference. There are zero Honda and Toyota
> retired employees from the 1960s to pay for.
Here in North America. They do have 1960's era retirees to pay for. I can't
cite figures but this complaint by the domestics smacks of "excuse" instead
of a "reason".
> If you think globally, then you have to include
> countries that have socialized medicine as part of their
> base. British employers pay taxes, and the citizens get
> health care. In the US, the big companies started
> paying for health care, and the country doesn't have it
> as a direct result. But now we are seeing serious
> problems as the old line companies are folding,
> not just GM and Ford, but AT&T and Pan Am.
That is a factor but overstated. I often see it described as European and
Canadian units having zero health care costs. That is nonsense. There is a
greater portion of costs covered by public systems but they all do have
benefits costs.
It is amusing to hear this complaint [not you Pat, just a generalization]
from the same people who champion the Lean Mean American model of capitalism
that is so much more efficient and superior for not having bloated hideously
expensive public systems; that allow these same the foreign plants to
outcompete American plants.
The public vs. private health care is almost a non-sequitor. Those public
health care nations do pay for their health care.
To quote Santos and bring this on topic; "I don't care whether you call it
a tax or a co-payment - I just want the one that is cheaper".
The problem with the US healthcare system is not that it champions private
over public schemes, but that it is horribly and grossly inefficient and
bloated - the very same criticisms that champions of the superiority of
private schemes make of public systems. It is almost as if the US tried to
find the worst elements of private and public healthcare and used only those
in their private/public fusion. The only true benefactors are the large
healthcare providers who are able to extract windfall profits [$15 aspirin
anyone? Viagra for sex offenders paid for by the state?] by exploiting that
Byzantine system to it's own benefit, no different than Reagan's famous
Welfare Queen milking the system.
[End of screed. Stepping off the soapbox]
> SO we take our taxes to subsidise companies to take nice farms
> and turn them into industrial sites, with all the ecological problems
> that all industrial sites have, rather than building in Detroit or
> Toledo where there are square miles that can never be cleaned up.
>
> Makes sense to me.
I wasn't defending the practice, merely pointing out that the domestics
were in the same trough line as the transplants.
Pat Farrell
>> retired employees from the 1960s to pay for.
>
> Here in North America. They do have 1960's era retirees to pay for.
Why would they? The plants were not in existance in the 60s.
Most were built in the mid-80s or later.
I'm finding it hard to see why they would have retired factory workers.
> It is amusing to hear this complaint [not you Pat, just a
> generalization]
> from the same people who champion the Lean Mean American model of
> capitalism that is so much more efficient and superior for not having
> bloated hideously expensive public systems; that allow these same the
> foreign plants to outcompete American plants.
That's not my complaint at all, altho what you say is valid.
My complaint is that during WW2 the US Government controlled
wages but not benefits, which pushed benefits to big companies.
Then during the post war booms, they gave huge tax incentives
to push the benefits (see the Kennedy era 90% incremental tax rate
at the high ends).
Up into the 90s, it mostly worked. But small companies never could
offer the benefits packages.
Now, more than ever, and it has always been true, the small companies
are the engine of growth. While the old rust belt companies wither away,
small firms prosper, but they can't afford comperable benefits.
So the big firms crash, and the little guys can't do it.
What a deal.
So we have a government big company conspiracy against growth and
efficiency. This is a very bad thing (tm) IMHO
> The public vs. private health care is almost a non-sequitor. Those public
> health care nations do pay for their health care.
>
> To quote Santos and bring this on topic; "I don't care whether you call
> it a tax or a co-payment - I just want the one that is cheaper".
>
> The problem with the US healthcare system is not that it champions
> private over public schemes, but that it is horribly and
> grossly inefficient and > bloated - the very same criticisms
> that champions of the superiority of
> private schemes make of public systems. It is almost as if the US tried
> to find the worst elements of private and public healthcare and used only
> those in their private/public fusion. The only true benefactors are the
> large healthcare providers who are able to extract windfall profits [$15
> aspirin anyone? Viagra for sex offenders paid for by the state?] by
> exploiting that Byzantine system to it's own benefit, no different than
> Reagan's famous Welfare Queen milking the system.
You are correct in spirit, the US healthcare system is a total mess.
The doctors have no incentive to moderize or use "small" technology
> I wasn't defending the practice, merely pointing out that the domestics
> were in the same trough line as the transplants.
Acknowledged.
Just seems to me that building a plant in Akron or Toledo would
be better for the country and the economy and workforce
than putting them in green fields. All of these folks are bozos.
--
Pat
karl
> karl wrote:
>> "Pat Farrell" <pfar...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> But they do have a difference. There are zero Honda and Toyota
>>> retired employees from the 1960s to pay for.
>>
>> Here in North America. They do have 1960's era retirees to pay for.
>
> Why would they? The plants were not in existance in the 60s.
> Most were built in the mid-80s or later.
>
> I'm finding it hard to see why they would have retired factory workers.
In Japan they would have 1960's era retirees. I'm not trying to say GM's
retiree benefits package was absurdly generous - it was. And yes you can
equally blame the unions for negotiating it and the corporation for
agreeing.
> That's not my complaint at all, altho what you say is valid.
> My complaint is that during WW2 the US Government controlled
> wages but not benefits, which pushed benefits to big companies.
> Then during the post war booms, they gave huge tax incentives
> to push the benefits (see the Kennedy era 90% incremental tax rate
> at the high ends).
Have to look into that. It rings a bell. But as always I wonder how much of
it is the kernel of truth and how much is the convenient excuse.
Pat Farrell
>>>> But they do have a difference. There are zero Honda and Toyota
>>>> retired employees from the 1960s to pay for.
>>>
>>> Here in North America. They do have 1960's era retirees to pay for.
>>
>> Why would they? The plants were not in existance in the 60s.
>> Most were built in the mid-80s or later.
>>
>> I'm finding it hard to see why they would have retired factory workers.
>
> In Japan they would have 1960's era retirees. I'm not trying to say GM's
> retiree benefits package was absurdly generous - it was. And yes you can
> equally blame the unions for negotiating it and the corporation for
> agreeing.
OK, I was confused because earlier you wrote " in North America. They do
have 1960's era retirees" which I don't think is the case. Clearly they
have some 60s retirees, altho I think most of their growth
was after that.
>> My complaint is that during WW2 the US Government controlled
>> wages but not benefits, which pushed benefits to big companies.
>> Then during the post war booms, they gave huge tax incentives
>> to push the benefits (see the Kennedy era 90% incremental tax rate
>> at the high ends).
>
> Have to look into that. It rings a bell. But as always I wonder how much
> of it is the kernel of truth and how much is the convenient excuse.
I'm pretty sure it is a strong truth. Of course there are lots of
contributors.
The plain facts are that GM and Ford have got themselves in a position
where they can't afford to make the cars that they can sell.
--
Pat
Scott Stevenson
wrote:
>In article <43a848b5....@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> almostf...@UCKSAY.comcast.net (Scott Stevenson) wrote:
>
>> (When I was in high school, the history teacher taught a section on
>> the Constitution by assigning each of us to be a "Founding Father".
>> To make it tougher, all the liberal kids were assigned to be
>> Federalists, and all the conservatives were Anti-Federalists, which
>> meant we had to argue positions opposite to what we would have
>> normally taken.)
>
>How did your teacher know the political viewpoint of every student. I
>know that my teachers wouldn't have known that about me when I was in
>high school.
It was the first place I heard the concept of news being the first
rewrite of history. About 20 minutes of class on Friday dealt with
current events. On Thursday, we'd get five topics from the past
week--maybe an international one, a national one or two, one on
statewide issues, and one or two local ones, and you'd need to write a
couple of paragraphs on each one to turn in at the end of class on
Friday.
He might look at you on Friday and say, "Scott, do you think the city
should prohibit growth south of Packwood Creek? Why do you thnk that
way?" (one of our local "hot-button" issues when I was in HS). You'd
take a minute or two to explain why you thought the way you did, and
he'd ask if anybody disagreed. You'd have a mini-debate, and he'd
move on the the next issue. By the end of the 1st quarter, he had a
pretty good grasp on people's philosophy.
Your positions didn't determine your "current events" grade, but the
amount of thought you put into your position did.
>Frankly, at that age, I couldn't have cared less about such
>things. All I was interested in was Julie Sandusky and how good she
>looked in those jeans...
Well, yeah, we had someone like that in class. If you find pretty,
leggy blonds attractive :-) The fact that we disagreed on everything
is one of the great pains in my life...
(on a purely "make a good dog break his leash" level, she had a pair
of jeans where the zipper went all the way down, and then back up in
the back. I can't believe she didn't know the effect they had...)
>
>> If you've ever tried to buy something that came to $5.85, gave the
>> cashier $6.10, and had him push the dime back towards you, you've seen
>> the results of how we're educating kids. When you finally convince
>> him to go ahead and enter $6.10 in the register, he's baffled by your
>> Rainman-like ability to do math in your head....
>
>
>I'll go you one better: I was at McDonald's ordering food about a month
>ago and the register broke down on the kid and he had no idea how to
>make me change from a $10 bill for a charge of $7.12. He had to call the
>manager over to do it for him.
Yeah--the kid's got to be 17 or 18, and can't do basic math (or
baring that, count backwards).
take care,
Scott
David M. Nieporent
almostf...@UCKSAY.comcast.net (Scott Stevenson) wrote:
[...]
> True. My point was that when he said they get more than 3 months
>vacation because the contract he quotes says "185 days", if you take 9
>months, and knock out weekends, you get very close to 185 days. He's
>counting weekends as "vacation".
I wasn't questioning your point -- just Peachy's "10 month" thing.
David M. Nieporent
Pat Farrell <pfar...@nospam.com> wrote:
[...]
>School boards micromanaging the teaching, "standards of learning" and
>"no child left behind" are political reflections of the popular opinion
>that teachers are not delivering. They may be part of the problem, as
>teaching to the test is not teaching anything important IMHO.
It is if the test is well-designed.
David M. Nieporent
exquisite witch peachy <Exquisi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>David M. Nieporent wrote:
[...]
>> I think Jim's number of 185 actual working days pretty accurately
>> reflects our school system's teacher contracts: 180 minimum school days,
>> 3 extra days for snow, plus something like 2 in-service days. (Throw in
>> a couple of days before school started in September -- I don't believe
>> they were required under contract to be there even a day early, (or stay
>> a day late), but practically speaking, a day or two was required to set
>> up the room, if nothing else.)
>> Unless my math is wrong, 185 (week)days is 37 weeks. That leaves, of
>> course, 15 weeks off. 15 weeks is 3+ months. Admittedly, getting 3+
>> months consecutive is not the same as getting 2+ months and then a
>> scattered month here and there, but the latter is still pretty good.
>http://www.pen.k12.va.us/Div/Stafford/2005-2006ApprovedCalendar.pdf
> Teachers in our district are required to work Aug 29 - June 20
>this year.
> September to June is 10 months, though certainly there are days
>off in the middle.
> There are 11 days teachers are required to work and the kids
>aren't in school, 10 more that are half days.
Okay, I count 191, of which 10 are half days. That's 38 weeks, which
leaves 14 weeks off -- 3 months, of which ~2+ are consecutive. So they
work a little bit less than ten months in a row, and then have another
month off in the middle. I wouldn't call that "10-month," but YMMV.
Pat Farrell
> Pat Farrell <pfar...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>School boards micromanaging the teaching, "standards of learning" and
>>"no child left behind" are political reflections of the popular opinion
>>that teachers are not delivering. They may be part of the problem, as
>>teaching to the test is not teaching anything important IMHO.
>
> It is if the test is well-designed.
That is a really, really big "if"
I can't judge the local schoolboards, but so far,
the Virginia Standard of Learning doesn't impress me as
being well designed. And I have even less confidence
in a Federally defined test.
--
Pat
Transition Zone
Pat Farrell wrote:
> David M. Nieporent wrote:
> > more than three school cancellations, we did _not_ have to make up days if
> > the schools opened late or left early, as they often did.)
>
> Which is exactly why the school systems try to open two hours
> late rather than closing.
>
> IMHO, unionized teachers are not professionals.
So IYHO only whim makes one a professional ??
Transition Zone
If you knew what those customers knew after in-depth comparing of US
automakers with foreign corporations like Toyota/Nissan/Honda, then I'm
sure it would be rather hard to win you back, too.
David Johnston
wrote:
Well ordinarily professionals don't have unions.
>
exquisite witch peachy
eh. Fair enough. I wasn't trying to argue a point other than
that the district refers to the teaching staff as 10-month employees.
Pat Farrell
> Pat Farrell wrote:
>> I think it is a long shot for either of them to win back young
>> customers from Toyota, Nissan and Honda.
>
> If you knew what those customers knew after in-depth comparing of US
> automakers with foreign corporations like Toyota/Nissan/Honda, then I'm
> sure it would be rather hard to win you back, too.
I don't agree with this at all.
People buy cars. They don't care about the corporations that make them.
The corporations spend a lot of money building warm and fuzzies
for the brands, see all the money Toyota is spending trying to
convince consumers that Hybrids are useful. But people buy
cars for what they are, how they look, drive and how
reliable they are. They don't care about corporations,
wages and benefits paid, or even slave labor sweatshops, etc.
--
Pat
Pat Farrell
> Pat Farrell wrote:
>
> So IYHO only whim makes one a professional ??
Professionals are rarely if ever in labor unions.
--
Pat
David M. Nieporent
If they can't design tests well, what makes you think they're teaching
well, regardless of what the tests are?
Pat Farrell
> Pat Farrell <pfar...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>That is a really, really big "if"
>>I can't judge the local schoolboards, but so far,
>>the Virginia Standard of Learning doesn't impress me as
>>being well designed. And I have even less confidence
>>in a Federally defined test.
>
> If they can't design tests well, what makes you think they're teaching
> well, regardless of what the tests are?
Well, I assume that different people teach from those who
design the SOL-type tests.
From my time teaching in college, making good tests on a subject is
a lot harder than it looks.
--
Pat
David M. Nieporent
>>> I think it is a long shot for either of them to win back young
>>> customers from Toyota, Nissan and Honda.
>> If you knew what those customers knew after in-depth comparing of US
>> automakers with foreign corporations like Toyota/Nissan/Honda, then I'm
>> sure it would be rather hard to win you back, too.
>I don't agree with this at all.
>People buy cars. They don't care about the corporations that make them.
Well, not quite true. They _do_ care about brands. After all, luxury cars
are _all_ about brands; you don't think a $60,000 car is twice as good as a
$30,000 car, do you?
>The corporations spend a lot of money building warm and fuzzies
>for the brands, see all the money Toyota is spending trying to
>convince consumers that Hybrids are useful. But people buy
>cars for what they are, how they look, drive and how
>reliable they are. They don't care about corporations,
>wages and benefits paid, or even slave labor sweatshops, etc.
I agree about people not caring about that stuff.
Clell Harmon
My high school memory is a blouse that laced up the front, no
bra, right in your face... She HAD to know the effect she had...
>>
>>> If you've ever tried to buy something that came to $5.85, gave the
>>> cashier $6.10, and had him push the dime back towards you, you've seen
>>> the results of how we're educating kids. When you finally convince
>>> him to go ahead and enter $6.10 in the register, he's baffled by your
>>> Rainman-like ability to do math in your head....
>>
>>
>>I'll go you one better: I was at McDonald's ordering food about a month
>>ago and the register broke down on the kid and he had no idea how to
>>make me change from a $10 bill for a charge of $7.12. He had to call the
>>manager over to do it for him.
Next time you're in McDonald's check out the register. They
have PICTURES of the food items on the keys.
>
> Yeah--the kid's got to be 17 or 18, and can't do basic math (or
>baring that, count backwards).
>
> take care,
> Scott
--
Pat Farrell
>>People buy cars. They don't care about the corporations that make them.
>
> Well, not quite true. They _do_ care about brands. After all, luxury
> cars are _all_ about brands; you don't think a $60,000 car is twice as
> good as a $30,000 car, do you?
I believe that a Toyota with a nameplate that says Lexus is worth
about $2000 over the same car with the Toyota brand. They
usually have nicer interiors and wheels, etc.
But the point of expensive cars is to make your neighbors
think you are swell because you can afford to spend an extra
$15,000 for a car with a different grill and logo.
--
Pat
David M. Nieporent
Userb3 <use...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"David M. Nieporent" <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in
>>>>In any case, the point here isn't that they're paid more while
>>>>working less; the point is that they're working less.
>>> In the example given, they're working more efficiently.
>> You can call it that, but it's still less.
>Teachers aren't paid to spend hours doing prep. They're paid to teach. If
>one teacher can teach just as well on 1 hour of prep as another can on 10
>hours of prep, there's no reason to pay him less.
I didn't say that there was; I'm just saying that this is an example of how
their jobs differ from those of professionals.
>> I'm not calling them
>> slackers; I'm just saying that their jobs take less time. That's a
>> benefit. When I got good at a particular type of legal activity --
>> drafting a motion, propounding discovery, preparing for a deposition,
>> etc. -- it made me more efficient, but that didn't lighten my
>> workload.
>If you had a set number of motions, depositions, etc, becoming more
>efficient would lighten your workload.
Again, my point exactly: we don't get to lighten our workload. If we
become more efficient, so that each task takes less time, then we take on
more assignments and do more. Whereas a teacher is able to relax more if
he or she becomes more efficient.
>>>>Teacher advocates in
>>>>these discussions always act as if the worst-case scenario of putting
>>>>in all that extra time outside of the workday to develop all new
>>>>lesson plans is typical, when actually that's the exception.
>>> Not in my experience.
>> What are they doing? The lessons are prepared already. No doubt, as
>> I said, they have to review them -- but it always takes less time to
>> refresh yourself on a topic than to prepare it for the first time.
>There's more to do than simply prepare lesson plans. My wife, for
>instance, had a snow day today. She spent most of the day installing the
>district's new required grading software on her laptop, reviewing several
>new videos to see if they would be appropriate for her class, dubbing
>relevant news stories from the DVR onto videotape for class use, writing
>letter of recomendation for a few of her students, and working on a mural
>design teh school asked her to prepare. That was just this afternoon.
Well, actually, some of that *is* lesson plans, some of that is more than
is required, and some of it, well, we won't even mention that screening
videos for class implies watching videos in class...
>>>>I have some problems with the design of the teaching profession, but
>>>>for the most part, it's okay; my biggest problem is the griping over
>>>>their supposed low pay and lousy working conditions, when for the
>>>>most part they have it so much easier than most professionals.
>>> That's exactly the sort of thing that sets them off. Of course, I
>>> suppose if they had it as easy as, say, an attorney, you might have
>>> room to gripe.
>> I know it sets them off, but the things they cite as reasons why their
>> job isn't easy -- they have to work at home, for instance -- always
>> show how out of touch they are. What professional doesn't?
>You mean that they have many of the same demands that other professionals
>have, but they shouldn't expect to be treated with the same respect as
>other professionals?
I mean that they act like their jobs have many of the same demands that
professionals' jobs have, but they actually have far fewer. And yet they
want to be treated with the same respect as professionals.
>> They have a short workday by professional standards. They have a
>> short workyear by professional standards. They have incredible job
>> security -- both in the sense of having tenure and in the sense of
>> their employers being a government monopoly. They generally get
>> excellent benefits, and their pay isn't bad.
>I will once again note that you seem to be using confusng contractual
>obligations with actual working conditions.
I am not "confusing" any such thing. Most of the things I listed --
tenure, security pay, benefits -- have nothing to do with "contractual
obligations" vs. "actual working conditions." As for that comparison,
sure, if you compare a teacher doing as much as he or she possibly can to
another professional doing as little as he or she can, then you may start
to reach a comparable situation. But teachers can work as little as the
contract allows, and they can't be fired for it. They can work more -- but
they have to work far more than the contract requires just to get up to the
*minimum* that other professionals do. But other professionals go beyond
the minimum, too.
The school year is the school year. The teacher *can* spend time over the
summer reworking lesson plans if he or she chooses, but doesn't have to.
The school day is the school day. The teacher *can* spend hours more in
school on whatever, but doesn't have to.
>> Yes, they work at home. So do I, and every other attorney I know.
>> And that's after a _full_ day, not after a 6 1/2 hour day. Yes, they
>> go to school events like plays and games. And we go to bar functions,
>> committee meetings, etc. -- and that's after a full day, not a 6 1/2
>> hour day. And yes, they get additional training. So do we. And
>> that's after a full day, not on a "professional development" day.
>> Etc. And we don't get "planning periods" during the day, either.
>So what's your point? That they share many of the same demands as other
>professionals who receive more respect and pay than teachers
My point is that they act like their jobs have many of the same demands
that professionals' jobs have, but they actually have far fewer. And yet
they want to be treated with the same respect as professionals.
>> n the other hand, if I need to be
>> in the office to work on a brief with someone, I might be in the
>> office on Sunday; that doesn't happen for teachers.
>It does for most of the teachers I know.
When does a teacher suddenly have to come into school on Sunday? Of
course, there are extracurriculars that a teacher might be involved in --
*if* he or she chooses to be -- but then, teachers generally get paid an
extra stipend for doing those.
And there's no business travel required for a teacher.
My wife's first job out of college was teaching high school; she gave that
up and began working in the IT industry. She works far harder now than she
did then, and that's even factoring in that, as a new teacher, she had to
develop all the lesson plans rather than being able to re-use her old ones.
>> And teachers
>> don't get last minute notice that they need to pull an all-nighter.)
>Teachers get short notice for all sorts of things.
Students get pop quizzes, but I don't think teachers do. Teachers know
what their lesson plans call for long in advance. The school year is fixed
based on the calendar. Any extracurricular that a teacher chooses to do is
scheduled well in advance. What is this "short notice" a teacher gets for
something?
And what about short deadlines, or rather the lack thereof? Sure, teachers
have to get their final quarter/semester/year grades in within a few days
of the end of each quarter/semester/year, but other than that, they
basically set their own schedule. If students turn in their reports and
the teacher doesn't grade them, the teacher isn't on the hook for
malpractice. The teacher doesn't even have to worry about losing a client.
So he or she returns them on Thursday instead of Wednesday. Big deal.
BTR1701
Pat Farrell <pfar...@nospam.com> wrote:
Professional film actors: Screen Actors Guild
Pat Farrell
And what makes them professionals in the sense we are discussing here?
Hookers are professionals in the sex trade, but we're not talking about
them either.
Actors are actually interesting, the SAG figures for average income
from acting for their members is something like $1200 per year.
It includes Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, etc. who make millions
per film and do several per year. Clearly there are
lots of actors who are SAG members who make under $1000 from
their acting.
The extras and bit part folks are essentially much more like
normal union workers, punching in on a factory in Detroit, than
the stars. The stars work and live in a pampered world
unlike anything that mortals see.
None of the SAG members have lives like the professionals
we are discussing: doctors, lawyers, writers, engineers, etc.
--
Pat
Scott Stevenson
wrote:
>BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <YMpmf.52504$sg5.43553@dukeread12>,
>> Pat Farrell <pfar...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Transition Zone wrote:
>>> > Pat Farrell wrote:
>>> >> IMHO, unionized teachers are not professionals.
>>> >
>>> > So IYHO only whim makes one a professional ??
>>>
>>> Professionals are rarely if ever in labor unions.
>> Professional film actors: Screen Actors Guild
>
>And what makes them professionals in the sense we are discussing here?
>Hookers are professionals in the sex trade, but we're not talking about
>them either.
>
>Actors are actually interesting, the SAG figures for average income
>from acting for their members is something like $1200 per year.
>It includes Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, etc. who make millions
>per film and do several per year. Clearly there are
>lots of actors who are SAG members who make under $1000 from
>their acting.
>
>The extras and bit part folks are essentially much more like
>normal union workers, punching in on a factory in Detroit, than
>the stars. The stars work and live in a pampered world
>unlike anything that mortals see.
That's why extras are known as "walking scenery".
take care,
Scott
I'm ready for my closeup, Mr. DeMille!
~jim~
Pat Farrell <pfar...@nospam.com> wrote:
Writers Guild?