Teacher suffering breast cancer has to pay for her substitute.

[Lumpenproletariat]

Should teachers on "sick-leave" have to pay the cost for their substitute teacher?


For this news item, click forward to 16:00 minutes into the video:


__________________________________ 16:00 __________________

The solution to this is simple: The sick teacher should simply resign his/her teaching job while s/he's sick or absent for such a long period. Likewise for a "family leave" case.

They should simply resign, and then when they're able to work again they should resume their teaching career, either at the same district or wherever they're needed. If you cannot work for an extended period, you should not pretend that you're still an "employee" there to be paid for all those months or years you can't work.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Should teachers on "sick-leave" have to pay the cost for their substitute teacher?

Man, you have the attention span of a lit firecracker.
The whole point of the situation is that she is NOT on sick leave. She's used up her sick days, but she's still sick.

The solution to this is simple: The sick teacher should simply resign his/her teaching job while s/he's sick or absent for such a long period.

How is this 'a solution?' She doesn't get any pay, and she loses her health care, and if she goes back, she's at the bottom of the list for job seekers?
Tell us what this 'solves,' Lumpy?

They should simply resign, and then when they're able to work again they should resume their teaching career, either at the same district or wherever they're needed. If you cannot work for an extended period, you should not pretend that you're still an "employee" there to be paid for all those months or years you can't work.

I see no one near you has had treatments for breast cancer. They don't go away entirely. They do show up to work often enough to be an employee. Depending on the state of her cancer, she will have to take treatment days off, and the days after treatment will certainly be rough, but it's not an uninterrupted period of absence. it's just that even if she's doing 50% or 70% of her job, she doesn't have the PTO to cover the rest.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

How is this 'a solution'? She doesn't get any pay, and she loses her health care, and if she goes back, she's at the bottom of the list for job seekers? Tell us what this 'solves,' Lumpy?

You're right. But that means there was no problem in the first place. She just pays the cost for the substitute, and any alternative is worse. So, what's the fuss? But if the point is that she should not have to pay that cost, then the solution is for her to resign the job. The solution is NOT for the taxpayers to have to pay extra, both her salary and also for the substitute.

They should simply resign, and then when they're able to work again they should resume their teaching career, either at the same district or wherever they're needed. If you cannot work for an extended period, you should not pretend that you're still an "employee" there to be paid for all those months or years you can't work.

I see no one near you has had treatments for breast cancer. They don't go away entirely. They do show up to work often enough to be an employee.

OK, again you're saying there was no problem in the first place. She just pays for the days when they have to hire a substitute, so the taxpayers don't have to pay extra.

So keep the status quo. It's more than generous, paying her though she doesn't work.

 

[Toni]

Why should a teacher pay the cost of his or her replacement while on vacation or sick leave or family leave? Period. What other job requires this?

People get sick. They have babies or sick family members or deaths in the family. They need to see doctors and dentists for themselves and their children and those medical appointments cannot usually be scheduled outside of regular business hours. People also need vacation days in order to avoid burnout and to remain fit for their job. People who are employees get sick, have babies or sick family members and deaths in the family. People who are employees need medical appointments for themselves and their family members. People who are employees need vacation days in order to avoid burnout and to remain fit for their job.

Employers and any normal person knows this. This is built into the structure of the business if the business is being run by anyone with at least half a functioning brain or heart and any modicum of common sense or concern for their business, not to mention their employees.

- - - Updated - - -

You're right. But that means there was no problem in the first place. She just pays the cost for the substitute, and any alternative is worse. So, what's the fuss? But if the point is that she should not have to pay that cost, then the solution is for her to resign the job. The solution is NOT for the taxpayers to have to pay extra, both her salary and also for the substitute.

I see no one near you has had treatments for breast cancer. They don't go away entirely. They do show up to work often enough to be an employee.

OK, again you're saying there was no problem in the first place. She just pays for the days when they have to hire a substitute, so the taxpayers don't have to pay extra.

So keep the status quo. It's more than generous, paying her though she doesn't work.

Why doesn't paying her work? Do you feel the same about a male employee who has a heart attack? Or breast cancer (men do get breast cancer, you know)? Or prostate cancer (women dont' get prostate cancer)? Or any other serious illness? Why the fuck wouldn't they?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Why should a teacher pay the cost of his or her replacement while on vacation or sick leave or family leave? Period. What other job requires this?

That's kind of an important point. The job teachers have is isolated. They don't pay into social security, so they don't get social security benefits when they retire. They're in a separate system they pay into. The problem mentioned in the article is they don't pay into any other programs that would provide for this sort of emergency.

What's happening here is that the state has budgeted for 10 sick days. She's used those up. So she's not exactly paying for the substitute, she's not cutting a check from her account.
She's getting less pay while she's taking time off in excess of what was expected/planned for
Same thing happened to me when I had a hospital stay after I ran out of vacation hours. But I am covered by Disability, teachers are not.

- - - Updated - - -

Why doesn't paying her work? Do you feel the same about a male employee who has a heart attack?

Yes, he probably does. This is Lumpy. He's all about the job makers, not the performers.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You're right. But that means there was no problem in the first place.

Dude, I still want to know what you think the problem IS, here. What was it that quitting was to 'solve?'

 

[laughing dog]

Should teachers on "sick-leave" have to pay the cost for their substitute teacher?

I seriously doubt there are employers who require the sick employees to pay for their substitutes, so my answer to your question is a resounding no.

 

[ideologyhunter]

I never heard of any such arrangement in public ed. BTW, in many if not most states, resigning a teaching post with a plan to re-enter the profession is near hopeless. If you've built up any seniority, you're on a higher pay scale, and a school district will hire a cheap newbie in your place.

 

[ZiprHead]

This has been a rule since 1976.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

This has been a rule since 1976.

A pool of sick days is the answer, sick days that accumulate because teachers do not use them. Isn't this a union?

In the last 30 years I have taken five days off for sickness. That means I have contributed 295 sick days to the pool.

This pool can only be used for extended sicknesses like this teacher is experiencing, not calling in on Friday with "not feeling well."

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What if the substitute gets sick? Should the employer then have to pay 3 teachers for one job? (the original teacher + the 1st substitute + the 2nd substitute)?

I know, you'll say the substitute doesn't get to be paid in that case. But WHY NOT?

If the employer has to pay the sick teacher who's not working, why not also pay the sick substitute teacher who's not working? You just let that poor substitute starve because s/he got sick? Why is that fair?

There are many teachers who work ONLY as substitutes. Sometimes because they can't get hired in a permanent position. And the school even becomes dependent on such substitutes, so that they're just as important to the school as the permanent teachers, being there to fill in when needed.

So, why shouldn't these hard-working underpaid substitutes get some consideration if they get sick? Aren't they human? Don't they have rights? Why is it fair to exploit them but then toss them out on the trash heap when they get sick?

So, it's just as logical to pay the substitute teacher when s/he gets sick as it is to pay the permanent teacher.

So your answer has to be: Yes, pay salaries to 3 teachers for one job. And if the 2nd substitute gets sick, then hire another and pay 4 teachers for the same job. And so on.

 

[Toni]

What if the substitute gets sick? Should the employer then have to pay 3 teachers for one job? (the original teacher + the 1st substitute + the 2nd substitute)?

I know, you'll say the substitute doesn't get to be paid in that case. But WHY NOT?

If the employer has to pay the sick teacher who's not working, why not also pay the sick substitute teacher who's not working? You just let that poor substitute starve because s/he got sick? Why is that fair?

There are many teachers who work ONLY as substitutes. Sometimes because they can't get hired in a permanent position. And the school even becomes dependent on such substitutes, so that they're just as important to the school as the permanent teachers, being there to fill in when needed.

So, why shouldn't these hard-working underpaid substitutes get some consideration if they get sick? Aren't they human? Don't they have rights? Why is it fair to exploit them but then toss them out on the trash heap when they get sick?

So, it's just as logical to pay the substitute teacher when s/he gets sick as it is to pay the permanent teacher.

So your answer has to be: Yes, pay salaries to 3 teachers for one job. And if the 2nd substitute gets sick, then hire another and pay 4 teachers for the same job. And so on.

Usually, substitutes are temporary employees, with no benefits such as sick days accruing. If a substitute doesn't show up for a day, regardless of the reason, the sub generally does not get paid.

I have a friend who works as a substitute for a school district and he accrues no benefits. I've had other friends who were substitutes for various periods of time and for various reasons, two of whom became permanent teachers. While substituting on the casual/occasional basis, no benefits accrue. For the substitute who works, say for an entire semester or a good portion of a semester or year, I believe there is some kind of contract between the substitute and employer covering this circumstance.

 

[Politesse]

This has been a rule since 1976.

A pool of sick days is the answer, sick days that accumulate because teachers do not use them. Isn't this a union?

In the last 30 years I have taken five days off for sickness. That means I have contributed 295 sick days to the pool.

This pool can only be used for extended sicknesses like this teacher is experiencing, not calling in on Friday with "not feeling well."

Here there are rules in place to prevent people from accruing very many sick days; they just disappear if you don't use them.

When a colleague of mine caught West Nile last year and was out for an extended period, my district did allow us to donate some of our unused sick days on her behalf.

 

[Toni]

This has been a rule since 1976.

A pool of sick days is the answer, sick days that accumulate because teachers do not use them. Isn't this a union?

In the last 30 years I have taken five days off for sickness. That means I have contributed 295 sick days to the pool.

This pool can only be used for extended sicknesses like this teacher is experiencing, not calling in on Friday with "not feeling well."

Here there are rules in place to prevent people from accruing very many sick days; they just disappear if you don't use them.

When a colleague of mine caught West Nile last year and was out for an extended period, my district did allow us to donate some of our unused sick days on her behalf.

It really does depend on the union/contract. My husband teaches at a university and has donated sick days to help a seriously ill colleague. My own workplace (not a university and not teaching) did not allow that, which was a shame as a co-worker was in some pretty dire circumstances. For my husband, one may accumulate a certain number of sick days, a portion of which are then turned into a fund that one can use for health care--a change from the previous circumstances, I believe. One of his colleague's wives teaches at a different university/different system and she will get 100% of her sick days as paid. There is some different formula for accumulated personal days, etc.

 

[Worldtraveller]

This has been a rule since 1976.

A pool of sick days is the answer, sick days that accumulate because teachers do not use them. Isn't this a union?

In the last 30 years I have taken five days off for sickness. That means I have contributed 295 sick days to the pool.

This pool can only be used for extended sicknesses like this teacher is experiencing, not calling in on Friday with "not feeling well."

Here there are rules in place to prevent people from accruing very many sick days; they just disappear if you don't use them.

When a colleague of mine caught West Nile last year and was out for an extended period, my district did allow us to donate some of our unused sick days on her behalf.

Yeah. I get 'sick' ten days a year whether I need to or not, simply because it goes away if I don't use it. It's a stupid rule that only benefits the employers.

WTF is wrong with someone that they think getting sick is a reason to lose one's job and medical insurance? Fucking hell.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

This underlines the basic problem with linking medical insurance to employment. There is no good reason for that link. It is unfair to the employer. It should be universal single payer. We should all be chipping in (via taxes) and pooling resources to cover medical issues.

 

[Politesse]

This underlines the basic problem with linking medical insurance to employment. There is no good reason for that link. It is unfair to the employer. It should be universal single payer. We should all be chipping in (via taxes) and pooling resources to cover medical issues.

My friend died of her illness, and would never have been able to go back to work in any case. But yeah, it speaks volumes that after 30 years of service, the last communication of her colleagues was one of generosity and respect, and from the administration, a stab in the back. I'm certain her condition was worsened by the refusal of our cut-rate insurance plan to pay for the necessary tests and interventions when she first started showing flu symptoms.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Insiders vs outsiders

What if the substitute gets sick? Should the employer then have to pay 3 teachers for one job? (the original teacher + the 1st substitute + the 2nd substitute)?

I know, you'll say the substitute doesn't get to be paid in that case. But WHY NOT?

If the employer has to pay the sick teacher who's not working, why not also pay the sick substitute teacher who's not working? You just let that poor substitute starve because s/he got sick? Why is that fair?

There are many teachers who work ONLY as substitutes. Sometimes because they can't get hired in a permanent position. And the school even becomes dependent on such substitutes, so that they're just as important to the school as the permanent teachers, being there to fill in when needed.

So, why shouldn't these hard-working underpaid substitutes get some consideration if they get sick? Aren't they human? Don't they have rights? Why is it fair to exploit them but then toss them out on the trash heap when they get sick?

So, it's just as logical to pay the substitute teacher when s/he gets sick as it is to pay the permanent teacher.

So your answer has to be: Yes, pay salaries to 3 teachers for one job. And if the 2nd substitute gets sick, then hire another and pay 4 teachers for the same job. And so on.

Usually, substitutes are temporary employees, with no benefits such as sick days accruing. If a substitute doesn't show up for a day, regardless of the reason, the sub generally does not get paid.

OK, that explains it, pretty much. The substitutes are 2nd-class citizens. Not in "the club" -- so they can shove it.

So, it all boils down to basically 2 points:

point 1. Always screw the taxpayers, as far as possible, to feed "the club." But since that source has its limit, there's

point 2. Keep "the club" as small as possible, so those in it are secure against the outsiders

It's always those in "the club" vs. those excluded. And that's just life. That's the history of earth, even of all life, for a few billion years.

OK. Got it.

But so we have the facts straight: the permanent teachers are not any more valuable to society than the substitutes. It's not because of their merit or performance or benefit they provide, or anything they earned, that they're allowed into "the club," but only because they knew the ropes and had the aggressiveness and connections to get into "the club," whereas the substitutes, who want in and are just as smart and capable, did not have the aggressiveness or connections to be able to break through the artificial hurdles. The vast majority of them seek a permanent position, but those in "the club" keep it closed off from the outsiders, making sure especially that there's no accountability for their performance, or any test of their merit or competence, or any other way their position in "the club" could ever be threatened or made conditional upon their performance.

bottom line: absolute security for those in "the club" -- at all cost, no matter who else gets screwed.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Meanwhile in an alternate universe, Lumpy is complaining about overstaffing of schools to deal with occasional sick teachers... and how part time teachers should be used in order to reduce costs so schools are gouging the taxpayer.

 

[ZiprHead]

You noticed that too, eh?