Do Two Wongs Make A Right Or Not?
- Thread starter Dafydd
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
America was founded on the principle that people have the *right* to do the wrong thing.
I.E. The right to throw off the shackles of an oppressive government when that government refuses to change.
What is that old quote;
"The reasonable man adapts to his suroundings. The unreasonable man adapts his suroundings to himself. Therefore all progress is done by unreasonable men."
I.E. The right to throw off the shackles of an oppressive government when that government refuses to change.
What is that old quote;
"The reasonable man adapts to his suroundings. The unreasonable man adapts his suroundings to himself. Therefore all progress is done by unreasonable men."
Kane(adian)
Contributor
Where to start: how about here....
1. religion=politics
2. statistics are 99% of the time skewed - to serve a purpose and "prove" a point
3. I don't see the difference between using sick leave as you get it, or banking it and using it in one shot. If your friend is entitiled to that much, then it should have been budgeted for over the years. 180 days, that is nearly a full school year isn't it? I'm surprised you didn't see him teaching for the first and last weeks and being "sick" the rest of the time.
Large families.... I'm not touching that one with a 10 foot (3.x m) pole
1. religion=politics
2. statistics are 99% of the time skewed - to serve a purpose and "prove" a point
3. I don't see the difference between using sick leave as you get it, or banking it and using it in one shot. If your friend is entitiled to that much, then it should have been budgeted for over the years. 180 days, that is nearly a full school year isn't it? I'm surprised you didn't see him teaching for the first and last weeks and being "sick" the rest of the time.
Large families.... I'm not touching that one with a 10 foot (3.x m) pole
** Edited for content **
From my point of view, I would be very disheartened as a fellow teacher or as a student to see a teacher be so selfish as to think of him or herself before others, IF they were in good health and did not need to take the days off. After all, he/she is one the eve of their retirement. As was stated in an earlier post, if the future retiree is in poor health and a doctor states that he/she needs rest, then by all means, take the rest there is no harm in using your time accrued for the purpose in which it is intended.
From my point of view, I would be very disheartened as a fellow teacher or as a student to see a teacher be so selfish as to think of him or herself before others, IF they were in good health and did not need to take the days off. After all, he/she is one the eve of their retirement. As was stated in an earlier post, if the future retiree is in poor health and a doctor states that he/she needs rest, then by all means, take the rest there is no harm in using your time accrued for the purpose in which it is intended.
landlocked
Contributor
I vote no. I'm with AllenG.
As you have said often the only way to correct a "wrong" is to oppose it. If, for instance it is an unconstitutional law, the only way that law can be challenged is for someone to break it and have it end up in court. That is one of the great freedoms in our country.
I also challenge what constitutes the first wrong. Benefits can be granted and they can be taken away. Do the teachers not take the sick time with the intent of banking it to retirement or is it because no one is capable of offering "their students" the quality education they are capable of offering. ie a substitute teacher. If its the latter then that is trule noble and the teacher should be commended for the dedication. The teacher could also be scolded for exposing co-workers to what ever ailment he suffers from and potentially increasing the spread of disease. (Spoken from a public health stand point. If you are sick you should stay home.)
If its the former then in my opinion that still shows poor planning. If the time weren't banked and it was use it by the end of the year or lose it would things be different? Do you really think more teachers would take sick time?
I have a great admiration for educators. What you all do is difficult at best, and you are constantly asked to do it for less with less. Texas ranks right down there with you in teacher pay. I do feel it is truly sad we pay professional athletes so much and the people who mold our future so little.
Tom
I also challenge what constitutes the first wrong. Benefits can be granted and they can be taken away. Do the teachers not take the sick time with the intent of banking it to retirement or is it because no one is capable of offering "their students" the quality education they are capable of offering. ie a substitute teacher. If its the latter then that is trule noble and the teacher should be commended for the dedication. The teacher could also be scolded for exposing co-workers to what ever ailment he suffers from and potentially increasing the spread of disease. (Spoken from a public health stand point. If you are sick you should stay home.)
If its the former then in my opinion that still shows poor planning. If the time weren't banked and it was use it by the end of the year or lose it would things be different? Do you really think more teachers would take sick time?
I have a great admiration for educators. What you all do is difficult at best, and you are constantly asked to do it for less with less. Texas ranks right down there with you in teacher pay. I do feel it is truly sad we pay professional athletes so much and the people who mold our future so little.
Tom
Thanks Tom and everyone who contributed here. You have all given me much to think about, yet only made it harder to form a solid personal opinion on this matter. Tom, you hit my point right in the middle, opposission is sometime the only way to force change. Others have asked about union representation and colletive barganing. This is a valid point and if my union was worth anything at all this would be the way to go. The last case that we (the educators) took through the bargening prosses was first abitraited 100% in favor for the educators. The district simple said they would not abide the abitration. So we went to court and the case was tossed out for "Gross incompatence" (missed filing deadlines) on the part of the union lawer who said he was realy sorry... He still works for the union! I don't see the union as a valid direction.
Thanks Again.
D.
Thanks Again.
D.
AllenG
Contributor
Dafydd - Tom has held out the laudable value of "standing by the strength of one's convictions" when he suggests that "the only way that law can be challenged is for someone to break it and have it end up in court. That is one of the great freedoms in our country." It takes integrity to publically hold oneself out in defiance of what is felt to be an unfair or unconstitutional law, because such individual must be prepared to fully bear the consequences of his/her actions if the courts are not persuaded to see the law in question as unfair or unconstitutional.
Now let's consider the act of using the sick leave because you believe you were not treated fairly. Do you say to your principal, "The no-buy-back rule is unfair to individuals who have made a career commitment to the children of our community. Our contract, although negotiated through the union and duly ratified by its members, unfairly benefits one party over the other and as such is unenforceable. So now, in the grand tradition of our Colonial American forefathers (and foremothers, if there indeed is such a word), Mathatma Ghandi, Rosa Parks, and so many others who have, at great personal cost, challenged unust laws, I say to you that your rule is an offense to justice. I am herewith notifying you that, although not in any way ill, I shall be out on sick leave tomorrow and the next day and the next day. And if you, blind to the injustice you are perpetrating, have to take action against me, so be it, because my inaction would otherwise signal acceptance of the injustice and I am prepared to bear the consequences to ensure that future generations will not be saddled with this affront to a civilized way of life" (or something like that)? Or do you just quietly call in sick, cash the paycheck, and privately assure yourself that it fair? If the former approach is employed, I applaud you. But just calling in sick only promotes your personal gain, without ever raising the noble calling that was the putative genesis of this issue.
Now let's consider the act of using the sick leave because you believe you were not treated fairly. Do you say to your principal, "The no-buy-back rule is unfair to individuals who have made a career commitment to the children of our community. Our contract, although negotiated through the union and duly ratified by its members, unfairly benefits one party over the other and as such is unenforceable. So now, in the grand tradition of our Colonial American forefathers (and foremothers, if there indeed is such a word), Mathatma Ghandi, Rosa Parks, and so many others who have, at great personal cost, challenged unust laws, I say to you that your rule is an offense to justice. I am herewith notifying you that, although not in any way ill, I shall be out on sick leave tomorrow and the next day and the next day. And if you, blind to the injustice you are perpetrating, have to take action against me, so be it, because my inaction would otherwise signal acceptance of the injustice and I am prepared to bear the consequences to ensure that future generations will not be saddled with this affront to a civilized way of life" (or something like that)? Or do you just quietly call in sick, cash the paycheck, and privately assure yourself that it fair? If the former approach is employed, I applaud you. But just calling in sick only promotes your personal gain, without ever raising the noble calling that was the putative genesis of this issue.
And Again Alen brings it home....
What brought this up was a friend that retired this year and decied to use his sick leave for ""Cronic"" pain. I don't know how ill he was, I don't know if he was ill at all. I know that he had come many time over the ten years I worked with him that he realy should have called in sick. Most teachers do this. As I have seen this going on it has been a source of discussion with my fellow teachers. One teacher said what he was doing was "imoral", and used the motto "two wrongs don't make a write" to back up his point. I thought hard about this and the evidence seems counter to the motto. Sometimes it takes what others think is wrong to oppose a wrong. You even pointed to some cases. Now in the matter of using sick days before retireing because it is peceived that the bussiness is wrong to not give compensation for not using them... Well I still don't know. Yes, teaching is a business, and though teachers do teach because we feel it importent to take an active roll in guiding the children of our society, that is not a reason for teachers to be treated as "lesser empoyees" than people that work in factories. I teach because it is good for the world I leave in, I teach for all the noble reasons that so many people love spout when taking something away from education. But I teach for my pay check too. Ansel Adams said there are two ways to make a photograph, external motivation, or internal motivation. He used this idea to move away from commercial photograph and make a living creating great works of art. Anne Leibavitzs (not sure on the spelling) struggled with this concept as she fell in love with her "commercial" work. According to Ansel she was not being true to the artist within herself when she let external forces dictate how she photographed. Anne decided that Ansel was wrong, you can be true to your ideals and still work for external forces (the pay check). I am true to my ideals, and I work for a pay check. Take the check away and I have to find other work. My pay check will go down this year by about 25%. The government is blaiming 9-11 and the ecconomic aftermath. Last year I tought a full load pluss two extra classes. This year I will teach the same number of students that I tought last year but they will be crammed into six classes. Doing this the school district will cut my pay and save money. As you can see, I can get off track pritty quick. My point, I guess is that I have no intention of being one of those teachers that have 180+ days of sick leave when they retire. If I feel sick, I call it in. I think my approach is better than my friend's approach of use it the last year. If other teachers would follow my lead it would become an issue for the dictrict, and then maybe the buy back policy would be applied to teachers. I of course will lose out, becuase I am making the "noble" stand, and using my sick leave the way it was intended, to recover from illness.
OK Nuff Said. It's summer and I don't want to think too much about school for a while. Just a few lesson plans and some new matreial to incorporate and make some multi media presentations and leave the rest until fall. Yep, they gunna get some free work out of evry teacher duing the summer, but I like this kind of work so it aint so bad.
What brought this up was a friend that retired this year and decied to use his sick leave for ""Cronic"" pain. I don't know how ill he was, I don't know if he was ill at all. I know that he had come many time over the ten years I worked with him that he realy should have called in sick. Most teachers do this. As I have seen this going on it has been a source of discussion with my fellow teachers. One teacher said what he was doing was "imoral", and used the motto "two wrongs don't make a write" to back up his point. I thought hard about this and the evidence seems counter to the motto. Sometimes it takes what others think is wrong to oppose a wrong. You even pointed to some cases. Now in the matter of using sick days before retireing because it is peceived that the bussiness is wrong to not give compensation for not using them... Well I still don't know. Yes, teaching is a business, and though teachers do teach because we feel it importent to take an active roll in guiding the children of our society, that is not a reason for teachers to be treated as "lesser empoyees" than people that work in factories. I teach because it is good for the world I leave in, I teach for all the noble reasons that so many people love spout when taking something away from education. But I teach for my pay check too. Ansel Adams said there are two ways to make a photograph, external motivation, or internal motivation. He used this idea to move away from commercial photograph and make a living creating great works of art. Anne Leibavitzs (not sure on the spelling) struggled with this concept as she fell in love with her "commercial" work. According to Ansel she was not being true to the artist within herself when she let external forces dictate how she photographed. Anne decided that Ansel was wrong, you can be true to your ideals and still work for external forces (the pay check). I am true to my ideals, and I work for a pay check. Take the check away and I have to find other work. My pay check will go down this year by about 25%. The government is blaiming 9-11 and the ecconomic aftermath. Last year I tought a full load pluss two extra classes. This year I will teach the same number of students that I tought last year but they will be crammed into six classes. Doing this the school district will cut my pay and save money. As you can see, I can get off track pritty quick. My point, I guess is that I have no intention of being one of those teachers that have 180+ days of sick leave when they retire. If I feel sick, I call it in. I think my approach is better than my friend's approach of use it the last year. If other teachers would follow my lead it would become an issue for the dictrict, and then maybe the buy back policy would be applied to teachers. I of course will lose out, becuase I am making the "noble" stand, and using my sick leave the way it was intended, to recover from illness.
OK Nuff Said. It's summer and I don't want to think too much about school for a while. Just a few lesson plans and some new matreial to incorporate and make some multi media presentations and leave the rest until fall. Yep, they gunna get some free work out of evry teacher duing the summer, but I like this kind of work so it aint so bad.
Similar threads
