Comments on: “Why reinstate teachers fired for bad performance?”

By: GregS

GregS — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 16:52:27 +0000

What the hell is the point of having a probationary period in employment if employees in probation have similar job security rights as employees out of probation?

The thing is that this sort of decision actually works against the employment prospects of many people because it makes hiring “questionable” people more risky. Employers are often willing to give someone a chance at a job because they know they have the escape hatch of the probationary period to terminiate them if they don’t work out. Without that escape hatch, employers will be more reluctant to hire such people.

By: kat

kat — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 16:33:14 +0000

I’m unclear on the basis for the arbitrator’s decision. The cited editorial indicates the probationary teachers were fired “for cause.” If so, they are entitled to a minimal opportunity for a “name clearing” process to counter the allegation. Usually when firing a public entity probationary employee, you don’t provide any information as to the reason to avoid just that problem.

By: MJS

MJS — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 01:14:03 +0000

Arbitrator decisions consistently have me scratching my head.

Their decisions seem to defy common sense and are anti-employer.

I know there was much hope that these panels would be more efficient but they seem anything but neutral.