[...]Florida High School Teacher Fired Over Internet Pictures and Part-Time Work « JONATHAN TURLEY[...]…

……

The only way that I can see possible for people to be making part time income would be through the Internet.

I know six first steps to make part time income.

I’m glad you feel you’re making good money and that you feel that you have decent benefits. I’m assuming that you also have decent union representation. I’m also assuming that you have no family, or a small one, or a spouse that works. Perhaps you also have a home with a mortgage, so you have deductions . . . because after taxes, in our current economy, 56k is not that much – especially for a teacher educating our new citizens and especially when we stop to think about the hedge fund managers that only pay 15% tax rate on their annual bonuses.

From this story, it appears that this teacher was subject to an annual contract. We are not told what benefits she had, nor what her salary was under the annual contract. We do know that she was a single Mom with three kids. Gosh, I think we’re all hoping that her children were covered under the health benefits provided under her contract (Were health benefits provided under the contract? We don’t know that yet.)

Anyone that knows teachers, knows that they work 10-12 hour days (between class time and class prep), that they often supplement meager school supplies out of their own meager salary (I’m thinking of the starting wages here – while you say you’ve been a elementary school teacher for seven years in PA, we don’t know how long before that you may have taught in other schools – or how much time you may have taken off to get additional teaching credentials – at your own expense – in order to bump up your salary). And a lot of folks know that many teachers don’t have their summers “free” – they are often required to take remedial courses or training to maintain their certification; other teachers, on their own initiative, take additional classes over the summer to be better teachers.

I guess what I’m saying Frank is that I doubt very much that you’re a teacher, or that you actually know any teachers. And no, I’m not a teacher myself but I do know a few and I’m always thankful for the sacrifices they make in their lives (even if ditto-bots will never appreciate it). But Frank, if you actually are a teacher, thanks (but please, learn to be a little less judgmental – or at least learn to get all the facts before jumping to conclusions, you’re a teacher for gosh sakes and you’re supposed to be teaching children to think rationally!).

Cheers

Thanks for looking that up. Is she covered by FMLA? Did she provide the documentation of illness? I don’t know and wish the paper would report more thoroughly on this case. Many people with chronic illness really can’t show up to work as others can but given proper accomodation, do excellent work.

I haven’t made any decision on this as I don’t have the proper information to make a good judgement. If I can, I will try to find out more info. I’m hoping Raysa will be able to find things out as she is local and probably has the best chance of getting all the facts.

Jill

Based on Hugh Gilpatric’s comments, I did minimal research on the topic. Here’s the Palm Beach Post’s reporting on the job action. You can decide for yourself if the official rationale given was substantive or mere pretext. While I too condemn irrational decisions, I am not sure that is the case here. The story reads:

“Shepherd received two written reprimands for absences and missed more than 30 days this year, said Susan Ranew, the district’s assistant superintendent of human resources.

Evaluations in her personnel file give her average to above-average marks, praising her as “pleasant to work with” and “intelligent.”

The file also shows that she had exhausted her sick leave by Sept. 20 and missed 20 days of work by January. Those absences earned her stern letters and a directive to provide documentation for any missed days.

Shepherd said she has frequent migraines and that one of her three young sons was seriously ill this year. She also said many of her colleagues missed work regularly this year and were reappointed.”

Like most people, you are conservative in the abstract, but when you are met with real people and real situations, you let your intellect take over, and judge the case on its merits free from ideology. Congratulations, you are becoming a liberal in the best sense of that word, or more properly, an ethical rationalist.

As you are on the scene, would you be able to do some reporting on this? Above in his post, J.T. pointed out that the initial job action refered to the pictures. He also asked the question of how the school board has dealt was other teachers who had records of absenteeism. Would you be able to research the answer to these questions and link the answers to this site?

Without knowing the answer to these facts it does seem this woman is being punished for engaging in legal behavior that occurred off her teaching job.

I would appreciate your willingness to look into these questions in a factual, objective manner and would like to know what you find out.

Thank you,

Jill

Gail from Cape Coral, FL

I agree, if it’s legal then it’s not your employer’s concern. I was happy congress actually passed the genetic discrimination bill.

I notice employers often don’t seem interested in people’s actions on the job such as sexual, racial, homophobic discrimination but they sure are worried about this other stuff.

(Just had some coffee–OH NO!) Hope you are well.

Jill

Mine too! Also, I wonder HOW the school officials became aware of this second job to begin with. In any event, there was no good cause to fire her. Unless someone on the school board made a new “rule” that wearing bikinis is now immoral and is grounds for termination? The word “imbeciles” springs to mind.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/04/19/doctors_group_bristles_at_proposed_regulations/

Doctors’ group bristles at proposed regulations
Discipline, moral character at issue
By Alice Dembner
Globe Staff / April 19, 2008

Proposed new rules governing the disciplining of Massachusetts doctors drew strong criticism yesterday from the state’s largest
physician organization.

more stories like this

Speaking at a public hearing, Dr. Bruce Auerbach, president-elect of the Massachusetts Medical Society, said some of the rules would give the state board of medicine too much power over licensing and disciplining, according to his written testimony.

In addition, he said the board should not even be holding the hearing because it currently lacks two public members.

The Board of Registration in Medicine has proposed the regulations to reflect changes in medical practice and to make the rules clearer for doctors and the public, Nancy Achin Audesse, the executive director, said in an interview. She said the changes are supported by state law or court rulings.

Audesse, who announced this week that she plans to retire from the board’s staff this year, said the medical board is operating with a quorum – five physician members. The governor has not filled two seats for public representatives that have been vacant for about a year. She said there was no need to hold up review of the regulations, which will include a second public hearing next Friday, followed by revisions and a vote of the board in May or June.

Of the proposed regulations, the Massachusetts Medical Society objects to an expansion of the listed grounds for disciplinary action, including a provision that defines “lack of good moral character” based on behavior within or outside of medical practice.

“Board disciplinary action should be based upon concerns relevant to the practice of medicine,” said Auerbach.

Audesse said state law makes moral character a requirement for licensure.

“This is not a new requirement,” she said. “The privilege of holding a medical license requires not only technical skills, but high levels of ethics and morals.”

The doctors’ association, which includes 20,000 physicians and trainees, objected to a proposed rule that would give the board “sole discretion” to limit a physician’s practice based on problems with his or her experience, qualifications, or professional training. Audesse said the rule merely spells out the board’s mission. “To protect healthcare quality, patients and doctors rely on us to ensure that doctors who practice here are qualified and competent.”

http://12.46.127.86/images/dbtext/webref/images/a89-22.jpg

Happy repressive days are here again!

http://12.46.127.86/images/dbtext/webref/images/a11-18.jpg