What do you think about calling in sick to attend a protest?

[FBaggins]

Apparently, more than 40% of the teachers in Madison, WI district called in sick (forcing the schools to close for the day) so that they could attend the protest.

Note... I'm not asking whether the protest is worthwhile (it obviously is)... just what you think about lying in order to attend it.

For extra credit... what do you think about the district reportedly requiring teachers to show proof of a medical reason for the absence (presumably disciplining those who can't)?

[polichick]

1. It's not a lie - our democracy is sick. nt

[Xenotime]

52. Thank you. Well said.

I support anyone who would take a stand to do this.

[rosesaylavee]

2. My impression is that they weren't lying... they said why they were not coming in

How else would we know they were attending the protest?

[FBaggins]

3. The reporting says that they called in sick

I obviously have listened to no such calls... that's just the report. But it makes sense since the district is asking them to prove that they are sick.

How else would we know they were attending the protest?

What's the alternative? That ten (+) times the normal absenteeism is just a freak coincidence?

[rosesaylavee]

11. Your concern is duly noted. n/t

[Whoa_Nelly]

4. Teachers, per contract, are afforded a certain number of sick days

Those days may be used as personal days as well. There is nothing wrong with them ddoing this, and kudos to them to stand for what they believe is right.

re: Proof-It's usually only those teachers who have used up their medical/sick days or have extended leave of absence that must show cause and proof. If teachers must prove, even per their allowance of contractual sick days, then that is something their union negotiated with the district. So, even of those who "lied" to go protest must show proof, more kudos to them to get better represntation form their union as they fight to keep it alive.

on edit:
If the district is calling for proof because the schools had to be shut down due to lack of teachers and ability of the district to provide enough substitute teachers to be able to keep the schools open, but it is not in the contract as requirement for any teacher to use a sick day as a personal day, then the district needs to STFU.
More info is needed about all this to make a more definitive opinion or statement re: your OP.

[FBaggins]

7. Not all contracts are the same.

And in many cases, personal days must be preapproved.

In Madison, personal days cannot be taken without three days notice.

Proof-It's usually only those teachers who have used up their medical/sick days or have extended leave of absence that must show cause and proof.

True... unless the administration lets you know in advance or has a reason to doubt your honesty.

So, even of those who "lied"

No quotation makes are needed. The question is what do you think of calling in sick when you aren't sick.

[proud2BlibKansan]

58. There is also likely an emergency provision in that policy

You don't always know 3 days in advance that you need to take a day off.

[FBaggins]

61. I don't know whether there's one here or not

They were told ahead of time that it couldn't be used... but of course that could just be the administration trying to force behavior that they wanted.

Either way... that then opens the question of whether or not this would be an "emergency". I'm sure it isn't what's intended by that language... but a loophole is a loophole.

If it were the case here, however, they wouldn't be calling in sick at all. They would be exercising that provision.

There's apparently another debate (that I don't intend to start another thread for - given the unusualy heated responses). Does the event constitute a "strike" (which would be illegal under WI law)? My first inclination would be to say "yes... and that's one of the rights they're fighting to defend", but they make a really good point. They aren't marching against their employer... they're staging a political protest. While it looks the same, that's an entirely different animal.

[proud2BlibKansan]

67. It's not a strike unless they vote to strike.

I don't believe they did.

[FBaggins]

73. "Words only mean what we say they mean"?

In WI, according to the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission (which rules on their collective bargaining laws) "a strike includes any concerted work stoppage by municipal employees, any concerted interruption of operation of services, or any concerted refusal to work or perform normal duties for the purpose of enforcing demands on a municipal employer."

But as I said earlier... this isn't a work stoppage. They aren't fighting their employer over work conditions... they're citizens exercising their constitutional right to petition their government for a redress of grievances. You can't have a state law that restricts that right.

[TBF]

5. I think it would be great if we could shut down the entire country for a day -

how else are we going to get the attention of capital? Furthermore, as for "lies" - what do you think Capitalism is?

The right-wing slant of posts on here some days makes me absolutely ill.

[HillbillyBob]

6. A day would just piss off TPTB, but several days would get their attention

and perhaps accommodations but I doubt it. It would be a start though, they are sure they have us too cowed, divided and distracted with inconsequential bs.

[FBaggins]

12. Happens all the time in Europe.

And they're nice enough to schedule them in advance. :)

As for "right wing slant"... give me a break. All I did was ask a question. This does represent thousands of people calling their boss and lying that they're sick. That's not spin... it's what is happening. If you think there's nothing wrong with that... that's fine. I just thought it was interesting and wanted to see what others thought.

[TBF]

24. Yeah, sure, just a question.

:eyes:

no intent whatsoever ...

:puke:

[FBaggins]

27. It was.

Sorry if you read into it something that isn't there... that's your problem.

It's obviously the "lies" part that set you off... which is part of what I find interesting. This is lying (which differentiates it from the european model I mentioned)... but lots of people don't seem to want to think of it that way.

I'm really not sure why.

[TBF]

30. Your entire post is revolting - not just a word or two.

Way to defend the status quo.

[FBaggins]

33. And yours is full of it.

I've done nothing of the sort.

I never once implied that (nor do I think that) the teachers should have stayed at their desks... or shouldn't protest... or that I agree with what the state or administration is doing. In fact, I've said just the opposite.

You've let your imagination run away with you. My #20 makes clear that I'm not supporting the status quo.

[TBF]

37. Talk about lying - now you're doing it about your own post.

If you supported the protesters at all you wouldn't be questioning their methods, you'd be joining in. Instead you're trying to "cleverly" undermine. Not so clever - in fact blatantly opposite. Such crap.

[FBaggins]

39. Lol! So you don't have a problem saying that someone's lying...

...it just matters which side of the debate you think they're on?

If you supported the protesters at all you wouldn't be questioning their methods

When did progressives join the "ends justify the means" crowd? It doesn't matter what they do... I have to support their decision if I oppose the state's actions? What a crock.

I guess if a few teachers decide to lock the school doors and hold a few kids hostage... refusing to feed them until their demands are met... I need to support that too?

And once again for the record... I have not opposed the teachers' decision. I just have no personal experience "calling in sick" when I wasn't actually sick. I wanted other DUer's perspective.

[TBF]

40. They are "sick" of the crap - sorry it doesn't meet your definition of an illness. nt

[FBaggins]

43. Lol. "MY" Definition?

I'm pretty sure that doesn't fly anywhere. Nor would "sick and tired" :)

Despite your claims... you really can't get past that "lie" line, can you? It's an interesting philosophical blind spot. Surely you would be willing to say something that wasn't technically true in order to advance a signficant cause? Especially when the person you said it to knew that it wasn't true and knew why you were doing it?

[TBF]

50. Yes, YOUR definition, you are the one making a federal case out of it.

And you did it to discredit the protesters plain and simple. You can talk around it all you want, but your objectives are very clear.

[FBaggins]

55. I haven't made a case of it... nor do I intend to "discredit" the protestors

How you can read post after post where I clearly say that I support what they're doing... yet still make up your own reality to fit your argument... is beyond me.

Try this one. Would you be willing to sacrifice a day's pay to stand up for something you believe in?

[proud2BlibKansan]

60. Now you have leaped from accusing teachers of lying about being sick to holding kids hostage

Good grief.

[FBaggins]

62. Never heard of hyperbole P2B?

It was in response to the ridiculous claim that if you support a position... you'll support whatever methods are taken to fight for that position.

Cut me some slack. Those guys aren't regulars on the education forum... but you know me better than that.

Nor... while I'm at it... did I accuse teachers of "lying"... it's what you do when you call in sick but aren't sick. (which is entirely different from using "sick leave" for contractually allowable purposes). It's not an accusation... it's one of the reported facts of the case.

[proud2BlibKansan]

64. You are stretching your luck here.

You most certainly did IMPLY that teachers are lying when they call in sick and are not sick. I'm not the only one who sees that either.

[FBaggins]

66. Once again... it isn't an "implication"

It's what has been reported. If the reporting is wrong... that's one thing. If it isn't... how do you define "lie"?

This whole thing would be humorous if it weren't so ridiculous. It's like the football fan who won't accept a call of unsportsmanlike conduct because the player is on his favorite team. It wasn't really a late hit... he wasn't all that far out of bounds... the guy's a jerk and deserved it anyway so it shouldn't be a penalty.. I get that... I've been a fan.

But the accusation that you must be rooting for the other team if you don't see it the same way? That makes no sense to me. You see... the player he hit probably IS a jerk... and our guy IS a nice guy... but it's still a late hit. A better example would be a baseball pitcher intentionally throwing at a batter. It happens and everyone knows that it happens. And most baseball fans will tell you that sometimes it's the right thing to do. I feel like I posted a thread asking whether this was one of those times and everyone's jumping on me for assuming that he DID throw it at the batter intentionally. I mean... come on... everyone can tell it's intentional. It doesn't make him a bad guy or ineligible for the hall of fame. It is what it is.

You make a statement that isn't true... that you know isn't true. You have a good reason for doing so and there's a "higher calling" that requires your presense... but what is that if it isn't a lie? It's like you're telling me that I'm "implying" that they wore a blue shirt. The shirt is blue... I'm not making a character judgement about it... it just IS.

The surprising thing for me is that all this energy is focused on that one piece of it. I just assumed that was a given. I didn't think there was any question re: "do you think they're lying?" - it was "what do you think of it in this case?"

I'm surprised that there aren't more people who just called in and said "I'm not going to be there tomorrow and we both know why"

[proud2BlibKansan]

69. You are implying teachers lied.

And seriously, unless you were there to receive the calls, how the hell do you know what they said when they called in??

We log in to a computer and report our absences. I would imagine a lot of teachers do that as well. So there probably weren't many of these phone calls where you imply teachers lied.

[FBaggins]

71. Lol... you're playing semantic games

It's beyone "imply"... if the report is true... they lied.

And seriously, unless you were there to receive the calls, how the hell do you know what they said when they called in??

I said that I was just going with what was reported. If the reporting is wrong, let me know.


We log in to a computer and report our absences. I would imagine a lot of teachers do that as well. So there probably weren't many of these phone calls where you imply teachers lied.

And if you log into a computer and key in "sick leave" when you aren't sick... how is that any less of a lie?

[proud2BlibKansan]

72. Again. I am allowed to take a day off whenever I want.

I believe this is standard not only for teachers but also for many professions.

So when I report that I am sick I do so only because my employer requires me to report being absent as a sick day.

You're the one playing silly semantic games here.

[FBaggins]

74. You aren't in WI.

Their contract most certainly does not allow "a day off whenever I want".

More importantly... can you use your SICK leave to receive PAY for that day?

So when I report that I am sick I do so only because my employer requires me to report being absent as a sick day.

There is no such requirement in the WI contract. They have personal days for non-sick-leave absences.

[proud2BlibKansan]

75. How do you know what is in their contract?

Yes I am paid for sick days. I even get to keep the ones I don't use and get paid for them when I retire.

Now please explain how you seem to know so much about the WI contract. I've never heard of a state contract. Contracts vary from district to district - I am sure this is true in WI as well.

[FBaggins]

76. Like others here... I make it up as I go along of course.

But seriously...It isn't exactly classified information. It's one of the first questions that a reporter is going to ask and is thus part of the reporting.

Yes I am paid for sick days. I even get to keep the ones I don't use and get paid for them when I retire.

I refered to that earlier in the thread. That's something WI teachers have been pushing for. I agree that that kind of a setup can definitely foster the notion that these are your days to do with as you will. It's part of the negotiation.

Now please explain how you seem to know so much about the WI contract.

I watched some of the local WI news and that's what they've been reporting.

Here's one article:

"Madison teachers cannot take personal days off with less than three days’ notice." (FB's note: Since I think the vote is tomorrow... this would not be possible).

http://www.piercecountyherald.com/event/article/id/33216/

[proud2BlibKansan]

59. +1

[RaleighNCDUer]

48. No, it is you positing that they are lying.

You don't know what they are saying. Besides, for most people "sick" days can be used as personal days, as "mental health" days, and require no documentation whatsoever. All they have to do is say "I'm not going to be in today".

The only lie is coming from you.

Teacher bashing.

[xchrom]

51. +1

[FBaggins]

54. Sigh.

Besides, for most people "sick" days can be used as personal days

For "some" people that may be true. It isn't true in this case.

The only lie is coming from you.

Says the one who makes the facts up to fit his argument? Yeah... that carries lots of weight with me.

[mzteris]

83. There has been an issue made of this here

it's been on the radio stations, polls, etc..

it's one of the "arguments" being made by the repugs that teachers are "lying" by calling in sick. That they're setting a bad example. That ... well those ignorant assholes will say anything to discredit what's going on in Madison right now.

I haven't read all of this portion of the thread so I'm not sure who said what to whom about what...

just wanted to make this point - that the whole "lying thing" is an issue here. A stupid bs issue, but one nonetheless.

[mzteris]

82. +1000!

:thumbsup:

[Curmudgeoness]

8. If they have personal days and sick days, I would have taken

a personal day instead, therefore, I would not have had to lie. If the days you call off are used either way, it is no one's business why you called off.

As to whether you should be required to have a doctor's excuse, that is horseshit. I don't know about you, but when I am close to death, I have to wait to get an appointment with my doctor. And I certainly do not intend to tie up his office for something minor or an illness he can do nothing to help me with---like a 24-hour flu. I think it is past time that doctors stand up and protest this behavior by any employers, since it takes them away from patients who are in real need and fills up their waiting rooms with overbookings.

[mzteris]

81. you have to give three days notice for a "personal day"

(or something like that) AND it has to be APPROVED. the ONLY option was "sick"...

[murielm99]

9. ONLY 40%?

That's not nearly enough. It is time for the whole country to call in sick.

[tomg]

10. Also known as a mental health day.

Actually, I'm surprised only 40% called in.

As to your questions: "lying in order to attend it" - no problem
" proof of medical reason" - same

It is time to admit it: it is class warfare and both sides are going to do what they have to do. I am with the teachers and all public employees who are having their collective bargaining rights taken away. My wife is a building rep. I teach at a college where I cannot unionize ( Yeshiva Decision).

[Brickbat]

13. Who says they're lying?

They could be sick of the governor pounding his chest. I know I am.

A sickout is an excellent tool for unions to use.

Asking for "proof of a medical reason" is intimidation, pure and simple.

[FBaggins]

15. Oh come on.

We all know what calling in sick means and we know that they aren't sick.

I agree that they have an awfully good reason for it. Others in labor history have sacrificed far more over the years... but let's not pretend that "sick of how you're treating me" qualifies as "sick".

Frankly... it might be a good thing to have it be an intentional day without pay. It shows that you're serious. That you're sacrificing something to stand up for what you believe in.

[Brickbat]

21. Knowing what goes on in many contract negotiations, management retreats, HR hearings and so on,

I'm just fine if someone wants to take a sick day when they're not really sick.

[Guilded Lilly]

14. Per each individual teacher's contract...

each individual teacher has a right to call in sick.

Asking for a Dr.'s excuse is insulting not to mention taxing the administration offices with even more unneccessary filing work.

[FBaggins]

16. When they're actually sick, of course.

You don't have a right to "call in sick" when you aren't... you know... sick?

[RaleighNCDUer]

49. You do if you're a grownup.

Do you raise your hand and ask you go to the bathroom when you're at work?

[FBaggins]

56. Thanks for being the first one with the guts to admit their position.

You're not claiming that that isn't what they're doing... you're saying yes... you think it's ok to claim something that isn't true if you think you've earned the priviledge. You think that "sick days" are really the same thing as "personal days". You have a right to that many days off during the year at your discretion and it's nobody's business what you elect to do with them.

Was that all that hard?

That's not my position... but it may be common enough. It's certainly implied in some contract negotiations.

Do you raise your hand and ask you go to the bathroom when you're at work?

Of course not. Do you really think that it's the same thing?

[handmade34]

17. have done it and will do it again!

[Karia]

18. On Wisconsin!

On, Wisconsin! On, Wisconsin!
Grand old Badger State!
We, your loyal sons and daughters,
Hail thee, good and great.

[EC]

19. Most of the students support the strikes too

so who's left to teach if the students are at the protests? I'm sure the teachers would take the day without pay anyway.

[FBaggins]

20. I agree.

And I think that taking the day without pay would send a stronger message.

"You're trying to take away a right I hold dear... so I'm not going to work for you today. Consider yourself lucky if it's just one day!"

[proud2BlibKansan]

63. Ok. You first. Take a day off without pay for a cause.

If I did that, I'd have serious problems paying my bills.

Perhaps you don't realize that a day without pay is a LOT of money. You take the yearly pay and divide the number of school days into that and that is the pay they take from a teacher when they dock us a day. So if a teacher is earning $40,000 a year (that's about average) and the school year is 180 days (again, fairly average) a days's pay is $222.

I have consistently - for 30+ years - taken home about 55-60% of what I earn, depending on insurance rates and other deductions. Let's go with 60%. That would give a $40,000 a year teacher who is paid twice a month for 12 months a paycheck of approximately $1000. A day's pay is 22% of that.

So you first. Give up 22% of YOUR take home pay and then you can come here and tell the rest of us to take a day off without pay.

[FBaggins]

65. I've done it loads of times.

Or, more accurately, used up vacation days.

If I did that, I'd have serious problems paying my bills.

Can you expand on that? Not your personal business... but what you think the next step of the justification is? Would calling in sick otherwise not be justified... but is because you need the money?


Perhaps you don't realize that a day without pay is a LOT of money.

There's a sad punch line in there (it isn't all that much... and that's a shame). But I get what you mean.

So you first. Give up 22% of YOUR take home pay

Don't you think that's sad? We once were willing to risk "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" and now there's some question re: whether we believe in something enough to go one day without pay?

then you can come here and tell the rest of us to take a day off without pay.

I'm not "telling" anyone that. I'm saying that I would prefer it (myself) before I would call my boss and tell him something that wasn't true.

[proud2BlibKansan]

68. You are officially the only person I know who claims you have never called in sick when you aren't s

Congratulations.

[FBaggins]

70. Really?

That's the kind of response that I was wondering whether I would get.

I confess that I don't "get" that. I have known people who have done so (and I don't think that they're "dishonest" people or can't be trusted... nor do I think that they would skip work in the middle of a critical project or if it would place an unreasonable burden on others)... but I'm shocked that you think it's so common.

I did pretend to be sick once in school. Does that count? Of course... were it discovered I can't imagine pretending that it wasn't a lie.

I know I'm not the only one. It's an assumption that my parents and grandparents put into me I guess. I figured I would get about half and half people saying "it's no big deal... happens all the time" and "I would never do that. I would take the day off and pay the penalty if it were necessary".

Thanks.

On edit: I don't remember what grade you teach, but assuming it's a level with papers and exams... what do you do if a student is "sick" on a "convenient" schedule?

[LiberalEsto]

22. I've seen both teachers and police stage sickouts

as protests. Police sickouts used to be called the "blue fly."

[xchrom]

23. I would lie to save my job, my pension, my friends jobs

And pensions from an assault.

I think it's weird of you to frame this the way you have.

Unrec.

[FBaggins]

26. I don't understand the "framing" part of your comment.

You're the second or third one to make essentially the same point. I'm not saying that I disagree with the protests (I don't) or that I think they should have stayed in school.

I definitely don't like the way the administration seems to be handling it.

I've just never called in sick when I wasn't sick. It's an entirely foreign concept to me. My #20 seems like the better option to me, but I was looking for input on what others thought.

[xchrom]

29. In a dog fight there there is no moral high ground.

Why would you frame this in a way like you have?

Liars and non-liars.

Pretty awful.

[FBaggins]

32. But I didn't frame it as "liars vs non-liars"

The administration's response appears to be pre-empting the option of taking personal days AND dropping the hammer by requiring doctor's notes while threatening to dock pay. I also asked what people thought of that.

There was no "good guy/bad guy" implied in the question. You're reading into the post something that isn't there.

[xchrom]

35. you wouldn't have used the word 'lie' then. nt

[FBaggins]

36. ??? That doesn't make sense to me.

The purpose of my post was to find out what people think about calling in sick when you aren't sick. Does the importance of the cause outweigh a "little white lie"? Or would the respondent prefer that the teacher just say "I'm not coming in and here's why... dock me if you dare!" ?

I'm not sure how else to "frame" the question. You call in sick when you aren't sick... you're saying something that isn't true. Maybe there's a good reason for it... but what else can you call it?

Let me give you an example:

I'm surprising my wife a couple weeks from now by sending her off on a special weekend while I watch the kids. I have a very elaborate cover story that's keeping her from finding out what's really going on. I'm lying to her. It isn't with bad motives... I don't think that it makes me dishonest or a "bad person" and when all is said and done, I'm positive that she'll think it's for the best. But that doesn't mean that I'm not lying when I give her the cover story.

On edit - Nor does the fact that you're telling an untruth imply that the person you're telling it to has clean hands. A perfectly reasonable response (that at least a few people essentially made) was "they don't deserve the truth".

[xchrom]

38. that lie -- doesn't involve her paycheck or job status.

in this case it can.

are you over looking this difference on purpose?

[FBaggins]

41. Nor is her weekend as important as what they're fighting for.

That makes a difference too.

As for "involving her paycheck"... shouldn't the protestors be willing to risk that? Are you only willing to oppose improper government action if your employer pays you to do so?

[xchrom]

42. really? -- dude -- people are trying to survive here.

are that heartless -- that technical?

[FBaggins]

44. And I'm not arguing their actions.

I must have said half a dozen times that I am NOT saying that they should not have protested. I'm just trying to gauge what people think of one specific part of it (and of the schools' reaction). If maybe there was a more effective option. I thought it was also possible that people would just correct my personal impression and tell me that calling in sick (but really for other reasons) was quite common and that most employers expect/understand it. That it really isn't a big deal.

How on earth is that being heartless?

[xchrom]

45. you're tryin to put some weird moral high ground on the phone call

that says
'i'm not comimg in today'.

x is groovy -- y is not groovy.

both x and y are out on the picket lines.

it's a way of dividing solidarity.

[FBaggins]

46. I really wasn't

I was trying to get others' perspective on what was "groovy" or not. (Including the response of the administration).

I really have no additional interest in arguing whether or not I stand with the teachers. You clearly have a great big blind spot that makes you assume that I'm don't... and frankly I just don't care enough to try and convince you otherwise. I do appreciate you taking the time to reply though. Thanks.

[xchrom]

47. please -- you wouldn't use the word 'lie' if you weren't.

then what was was that other weird question you post down thread?

dude, please...

[FBaggins]

53. What's your word for it?

My bet says you can't answer that question directly.

then what was was that other weird question you post down thread?

Now this I've got to hear. What's your problem with THAT one? This isn't just a teacher calling in sick... the schools were closed. My assumption (which could certainly be wrong and I'm open to correction) is that if the schools are closed for the day, that day will probably be made up later in the year. So the school system shouldn't be able to dock anyone's pay because they're going to work on that day).

Now... please tell me how you spin a statement that the school system can't hurt the teachers because of it's own decisions... as somehow being anti-teacher.

I have no doubt that you can do it... but I don't expect it to make sense.

[pacalo]

25. I wouldn't blame them for doing it. It would make me sick, too, if I were being

undervalued. Teachers deserve much more than they're getting. Go for it!

[FBaggins]

28. Second Question - If the schools are closed, will be made up?

If so... the administration shouldn't be able to dock a teacher's pay since they're just adding a day during the summer, right?

[Blue Owl]

31. Scott Walker has spread his diseases upon the state

And nothing but THE PEOPLE can cure this dastardly plague.

[FBaggins]

34. Him and a bunch of new legislators.

Have there been any public opinion polls yet?

There was a big flip-flop in WI politics last November (after a really blue 2008). It'll be interesting to see how quickly the bloom comes off that rose.

I'm thinking that Kohl doesn't have as much to worry about as he probably assumed three months ago. Maybe he won't retire?

[proud2BlibKansan]

57. It wouldn't be a lie in most districts

We are allowed to take sick time for whatever the reason. I wouldn't have to provide a medical reason. Not until I'm gone 5 days.

It's called being professionals and having professional perks.

There are a few things that haven't been taken away from us yet.

[FBaggins]

77. My apologies to the education forum

I had no idea what I was getting myself into.

I meant to ask "given a set of circumstances... what do you think?" and never imagined that 90% of the posts would boil down to "How dare you claim that those are the circumstances!"

I don't think I even got a response re: what the district was doing. Just a pile-on of claims that I must be opposing the teachers' position that their right to bargain collectively should be defended.

That was never my intent.

[RaleighNCDUer]

78. Well, that's what happens when you start out by calling the teachers liars. nt

[FBaggins]

79. I didn't "call" anyone anything... I asked what you thought of the lie.

There really was no question that it was a lie. But for some reason you've elected to focus on that. It's like I asked you what you thought of this morning's sunrise and, rather than reply, you ask "how dare you accuse the sun of rising!?"

Here's an experiment. I bet I can predict your response:

Thousands of kids were unable to attend school that day. A day of school is not without value. What these teachers are fighting for boils down to the simple fact that those kids in that school each day has real value (and that should be respected and appropriately compensated). Those kids have lost that value for a couple days because of the teachers' decision.

If I ask the question "what do you think of this?" I would expect plenty of solid answers saying that it's definitely worth it. That the kids ARE learning something that day... something quite valuable about standing up for what you believe. I'd expect reminders that the hundreds of kids who attended the protests learned more that day than anyone does in a day at school. I'd expect a simple defense that, yes, some kids lose out a bit, but the greater societal good that the teachers are fighting for easily outweighs that.

What I wouldn't expect (until now) is a bunch of replies claiming that it's outrageous to accuse teachers of costing students a day of school. I wouldn't expect that debate because it is what happened.

A teacher interviewed yesterday gave the kind of reply I was looking for. She said (paraphrased) "it could cost us a day of pay, but if this goes through than the next protest costs us our jobs". She didn't say "well... cough... cough... I actually am ill today. The protest in on the way to my doctor's office"

[RaleighNCDUer]

84. For one thing, the sun did not rise.

The earth rotated.

You are lying when you say the sun rose.

It is a matter of perspective. Taking a sick day is not the same as calling in sick. Your insisting that it is a lie is a broad brush defamation of the teachers, trying to spin them as being liars, therefore not worth listening to.

Union buster.

[proud2BlibKansan]

85. +1

[FBaggins]

91. Oh please. Are we not above such word games?

We know what is meant by "sunrise" and we know what it meant by "illness".

Pretending that words mean what we need them to mean to support our own actions... is beneath us.

It isn't a "matter of perspective".

The mistaken perspective here is the number of people who don't realize that they can justify almost any action as long as the actor is on our team.

I just got back a couple hours ago from a college basketball game. On successive plays just before the half, there were three-point fouls called (first one team and then the other). Both looked like penalities to me... but the crowd cheered the first call (as it allowed the home team to pull ahead by three just before the half), and then (.6 game seconds later) exploded in anger at the same ref for the same call when it went against them. The anger was palpable.

Reality is not a matter of perspective, but your perspective can taint your impression of reality. The problem is that it then ceases to be reality.

[mzteris]

80. They ARE sick....

sick of WALKER!!

[LWolf]

86. What do I think?

I think using sick days to stage a protest is fine. If nobody ever takes a risk, stands up, and fights back, unions are impotent and labor is screwed. Using sick days can prolong the action, making it more powerful. I'm behind it all the way.

Lying? It's not lying to take a sick day for those purposes. Stress creates illness, and threat creates stress. The working environment that many teachers work in can be highly stressful anyway, without adding threats to their livelihood from the governor, and the constant attacks and disrespect, the de-valuing, from politicians, privatizers, propagandists, and those who listen to them, as well. Often, at work, when a meeting is announced, I feel my heart rate speed up and my breath get shorter, as the stress of trying to serve my students while my non-student time for preparing lessons, reading student work, etc. is constantly eroded by meetings of every type. It happens in those meetings, too, when admins tell us we aren't doing enough, or that all the extra work they had us do last year on some administrative pet project is now defunct, and they have a new project for us to spend all kinds of extra, unpaid time on while our students suffer. Or when they talk about more budget cuts after we've already endured lay offs, cut salaries, cut programs, cut days (which is another kind of salary cut,) increased class sizes...what else are we going to endure? Who else will lose their job, who will lose their home when the pay cut becomes more than their budget can sustain?

Fighting back is an appropriate way to treat those stress symptoms, imo.

Extra credit? I think districts should adhere to contractual language about sick days. If that includes requiring teachers to show proof, then teachers should show proof. That might, of course, cause local emergency rooms and urgent care clinics to be drowned in teachers at the door, since most of their regular doctors don't make same day appointments. It's possible that a flood of requests for appointments from teachers would have physical and mental health practitioners issuing statements to districts ahead of those appointments, to be confirmed when the examinations were actually done.

It's possible that some teachers might make an appointment with a practitioner every day, since medical appointments are covered under sick days in our contracts. Emergency room visits are, as well.

So, districts whose contracts allow them to could certainly require proof. I don't know that it would really be effective, though.

What I really think is that every Democrat, every citizen's, first obligation in this situation is to support LABOR and the associations that represent them.

[YvonneCa]

87. You should post this in GD as a ...

...OP. Excellent.

[FBaggins]

89. Don't worry about drowning the clinics.

There are now doctors at the protest handing out notes to anyone who asks. :)

What I really think is that every Democrat, every citizen's, first obligation in this situation is to support LABOR and the associations that represent them.

Of course. But sometimes support requires personal sacrifice. Not asking/forcing others to sacrifice for you.

nobody ever takes a risk, stands up, and fights back, unions are impotent and labor is screwed.

I agree. They DO need to take a stand. They just don't have to be paid to do it if their time off isn't covered by a benefit. Their contract (Madison anyway) allows for a few personal days if they give appropriate notice. But they also agreed that no more than 2/3/4 teachers per school (depending on school level) could be out at once using personal leave.

As for the "extra credit". I don't like the district's response. Everyone knows where the teachers are and what they're doing. Playing this game (and the related "sick of Walker") is just childish. It's possible (as I speculated earlier) that the solution is caught up in the fact that the schools were forced to close. If they make up the days later in the year (and the teachers have to work), then there's not reason to dock their pay (possibly no ability to).

[Smarmie Doofus]

88. I think I do not care. I think this misses the point. n/t

[FBaggins]

90. Interesting.

I think "I do not care" was part of the point.

But that was all drowned out in the insistence that the question itself is anti-teacher and anti-union.