Give and Take, Credit Edition

As we wait for the Republicans and PEOTUS DJ Trump to come up with their replacement for the Affordable Care Act, and while I listen to announcements on the closing of schools for weather (I still get a charge out of hearing my schools mentioned), I am reminded of the contract negotiations about the calendar and the issue of snow days at Hancock, back in the ‘70s.

Calendar negotiation was a minefield for both the union and administration, because one thing was guaranteed: no matter what you agreed to about the start of school, the end of school, the breaks, both length and placement, a significant number of people would be pissed off and loudly unhappy.

Snow day scheduling was also a challenge for a while. Hancock teachers, being on the bottom as far as competitive salaries were concerned compared to most other county districts, were not inclined to work more days than was required by law. The district, on the other hand, wanted a set calendar and thus insisted on a certain number of snow days to make sure we met state requirements. If we didn’t use them, well, BONUS! (Bonus for the district. anyway.) This was before snow days were as common and state aid was tied to attendance for districts like the Place.

Our proposal, for several years running, had called for scheduling the minimum number of required days (no snow days), with the proviso that whatever days necessary to meet state standards in the event of a run of bad weather would be tacked on to the end of the year. Every year that proposal was rejected and the fight went on. Compromise wasn’t a dirty word back then and we always managed to reach agreement.

Knowing that our usual proposal was destined for rejection, we offered a variation – scheduling several extra days (we didn’t care how many) but removing any extras at the end of the year. The administrative negotiating team responded that they couldn’t possibly do that, but would come return with a counter-proposal.

And they did. Their proposal: schedule no snow days, but add any needed extra days on to the end of the school year. After we rubbed our sore jaws, removed them from the table, stopped the bleeding from our tongues, and composed ourselves after stifling our incredulous laughter, we caucused and came back to accept their proposal. Once the proposal wasn’t ours, but theirs, it became acceptable. 

The ACA (aka Obamacare, née RomneyCare, spawn of the conservative Heritage Foundation) seems doomed, but Speaker Ryan and PEOTUS DJ Trump both claim to have (secret?) plans to replace it. Mr. Trump even says his plan will cover everyone. Given that I have both a daughter and now a granddaughter with auto-immune diseases that would, pre-ACA, have eliminated them from  insurance coverage due to their pre-existing conditions  (a known problem before the ACA {I’m choosing to use that acronym to minimize the frothing that seems to result in some corners every time President Obama’s name gets mentioned}), that piece is crucial to me and my family.

I admit that it will irk me if the vilified Obamacare morphs into superfantastic Trumpcare or Ryancare or GOPcare (modifications that could have begun 6 years ago had the goal been to actually do something for the citizens and not just deny credit to the president), but, like the snow day policy of so many years ago, I’ll just take the win and move on. 

Oh, and just like you paid for the treatment of those who did not have insurance when they showed up at an ER before the ACA, or got “free” care from a hospital, you’ll also pay for the new and improved health care plan that is coming soon to a neighborhood near you. It just won’t be called Obamacare. And if that somehow makes you feel better about it, well, okay. Health care is all about feeling better.

Also on the Hancock Place, Hancock Place Blog

Unfriended

I was recently “unfriended” by a former student, probably because I called her out on the use of what I consider to be an offensive, even hateful, divisive term, “libtard,” even though it was NOT personally directed at me. I wonder if she refers to mentally challenged people as “retards”? 

She was not the first to take this action (but please note, it was SHE who severed the relationship, such as it was, although I certainly implied an invitation for her to do so), perhaps won’t be the last. However, I have had numerous conversations with my right-tilting friends, and pride myself (and compliment them) on keeping the civil lines of communication open, making whatever points we want considered in a respectful manner. That is democratic thought and communication, a foundation of our country.

I’m not losing any sleep over this loss, but I have obviously given it some thought on my almost daily walks through the ‘hood. As a casual student of human nature, I now think about her and the decision she made with a combination of curiosity and sadness. My memory of this woman as a student is nothing but fond (and I knew her better than many, because she was a former softball player); I remember her with a perpetual smile on her face, friendly, kind, giggly, just a “nice kid” from a solid family.

Everyone’s life path is different and everyone faces different challenges and obstacles. But I wonder what happened to turn this seemingly cheerful optimist into such a (again, seemingly, judging solely on the torrent of FB posts and shares) bitter, angry person, almost filled with hate? It seems unlikely I will ever get an answer to this question (although I am still friends with her sister), but I hope she finds her own answers that will bring her peace. I doubt the outcome of this election or the political arena will do it for her, though.

Annual Labor Day Post

Who will advocate for workers? The bigger the business, the less connected to the workers management becomes. And let’s recognize that the goal of a business is not to take care of workers but the investors (whether public or private); if that goal comes at the expense of workers, well, there are more workers out there, right? 

On my way out the door at Hancock, I was informed by the (then) superintendent, “I’ve got people who can do what you do.” I believe that was shortsighted and, in fact, inaccurate on more than one level. But then he didn’t really know what I brought to the party (honestly, it was a lot more than chips and dip, if I do say so myself) and building management only pretended to stand up for me while actually throwing me under the proverbial bus. But that seems the attitude of modern management in all fields.

(Note, as disappointing and hurtful as this was, it turns out they did me a favor, if perhaps not those students and teachers I might have benefitted by staying. But I landed in a great place to end (most of) my career, my four fantastic final years at Schechter/Mirowitz.)

So, in honor of Labor Day, I’m going to share a few paragraphs from previous articles on the topic:

From 2011:

• Child labor laws

• 40-hour work week

• Overtime

• Workmen's Compensation

• Non-discriminatory hiring practices

• Workplace safety laws

• Unemployment compensation

• Paid vacations

• Retirement pensions

This is just a partial list of gains for workers granted voluntarily through the generosity of businesses concerned for their employees. Oh, wait, no, these things that we now define as givens for a good job came as the result of decades of struggle by organized groups of workers known as unions.

From 2013:

I’ve previously written about the debt that most Americans, with the possible exception of those few whose families have always enjoyed prosperity, owe to labor unions. The growth of the middle class in the United States clearly parallels the growth of labor unions. The shrinking number of middle class households of the last couple decades follows that same trend of declining union households. While I understand the dangers of equating causation with correlation, I find the trend disturbing. I also find the charges of class warfare disingenuous, at best. I find it ironic that those concerns were nowhere to be found as the middle class shrank and income disparity grew, as unions were assaulted and vilified while CEOs saw their pay and prestige grow explosively.

I think our founding fathers were on the right track when they incorporated a system of checks and balances into our governance, trying to establish a system whereby no one person, group or branch was able to accumulate too much power. I further believe that checks and balances must also apply to our economic system, and that unions are a key check to the unbridled power of corporations (people though they may be). Government also has a role, both as a defender of the checkers (both unions and businesses) and as an enforcer/check itself.

The Mix of Politics and Teaching

I just received notice from the National Education Association (you know, that monolithic union/bastion of power bent on having its teacher members corrupt the youth of our nation with liberal ideas) that they are considering revoking my life membership. My crime? Apparently I have too many former students who have come out on Facebook as conservative in their politics.

Okay, there’s not one bit of the above paragraph that is true (and if you’ve ever seen the “herding cats” exercise that passes for a national NEA convention you already know it), although from what I’ve read over the years that misconception is seemingly widespread. I’m proud of my service in and to that organization during the first two-thirds (or so) of my career; the NEA (and AFT) advocated and fought for teachers at a time when no one else did. Teacher unions still represent the only organized voice for the teaching profession.

But that’s not the point of this piece. I would be interested in feedback from any of my formers who’d like to chime in, no matter their political leanings. I’m not sure it will matter in terms of how I will answer the question I’m posing, but I’m curious as to your thoughts. I hope that you always felt like I respected students’ opinions, no matter how wrong you were and still are.

Okay, seriously, here’s the question I’m presenting in my own meandering fashion. I will be doing a maternity leave sub job this spring (6 weeks, sophomores, mostly just regular classes, but one Advanced Placement). The subject? U.S. Government. Starting to see where I’m going here?

Government by definition has to veer into politics, especially in an election year, which 2016 finally is, even though it feels like we’ve been in an election year for over a year already. (Style note: the repetition of “year” is deliberate if questionably effective.)

I’ve never made any secret that I lean left politically. The question (“Finally!” you say) is do I tell students up front where I stand and (try to) assure them that I don’t care about their politics, only their ability to logically and rationally defend their positions? Or do I teach (as best I can) from a position of neutrality, knowing that my biases and beliefs will inevitably leak into the discussion.

I have always (well, at least since I got a clue about my craft) believed a teacher must teach who (s)he is, her/his personality and beliefs. Anything less is, again by definition, inauthentic and kids spot phonies and wishy-washies right away. My experience is that they WANT to know where you stand and don’t have a lot of tolerance for disingenuous fence-sitters.

Clearly I didn’t turn all my students into raving lunatic liberal socialists (I feel like such a failure!) even though they might think I’m in that camp. (I did have one student, very early in my career, tell me that her father thought I was a Communist; she made it clear she agreed with him. Pretty sure she didn’t become one, though.) Neither, as far as I know, did the few conservative Neanderthals/counter-revolutionaries who somehow snuck into the teaching profession turn students into wild-eyed fascists. I don’t really think it works that way.

    But I AM interested in what you think about the approach I will almost certainly take, which is to be totally upfront. I frequently tell kids, “I will never lie to you, but I may try to find a way to tell the truth that avoids bluntness or cruelty.” (“Johnny, have you considered Speed Bump as a career?” – see, I never said that, although I did create a list of “Careers for the Otherwise Useless” that I kept locked away in a drawer during my finale as Hancock’s guidance counselor, but that’s a topic for another day [if ever].)