2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

What - specifically - would this look like?

posted 2 years, 2 months ago
view in context

It's true that in a perfect world, seniority as a system for orderly layoff and recall would not be necessary. But this is not a perfect world. We have flawed and inadequate tools for evaluating performance (assuming good faith exists), favoritism, and arbitrary decisionmaking. Despite its flaws, seniority provides for an objective standard that acknowledges the general correrlation between experience and effectiveness.

posted 2 years, 2 months ago
view in context

There are a few fallacies that seem to be repeated so often that people assume them to be true. The 'permanent teacher' is one of those.

I can tell you that teachers, like any other union member CAN be fired. What you describe as iron-clad job security is actually just a limitation on the employer's right to fire "at-will." This restricts firing or other disciplinary action based on who looks better in a short skirt, who belongs to the same church as the boss, who is the best butt-kisser, who has not reported safety violations, filed a workers' comp claim, and so on. If the employer has reasonable grounds for discipline and it acts fairly, reasonable disciplinary action will and does stand.

It escapes me why all manner of associations, clubs, and advocacy groups (e.g. the Chamber of Commerce) that also engage in concerted action and collective negotiation are not villified like unions. Only when working men and women get together to protect their interests are we told "it is just wrong."

posted 2 years, 2 months ago
view in context

Sporadic unpaid days off, particularly when they are slected at management's whim, are the worst possible scenario for employees, short of layoff.  Everyone enjoys extra time away from work, but it is virtually impossible to do any remunerative work or draw public assistance for one or two scattered days each month.  For example, if the Governor were to lay off employees for 24 consecutive work days, employees could qualify for unemployment.  Obviously that undercuts the savings to the state, but intermittent unpaid days off impose too heavy a burden on employees.

posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context