Re: This board seems to be about LV but I have a question ab
Posted by: anon on 10/20/09
What I have said in my lengthy post was the truth; no way could I
have made it up. I have written to lawyers of two of the three law
firms mentioned in the previous post my truthful allegations,
which run at a minimum of 25 pages, single-spaced.
The sad thing is my case is NOT unusual in school district
terminations of teachers. More and more teachers are being canned
on trumped-up charges and being done to save money on the bottom
line. I suspect the true reason I was canned was not over the FMLA
form being filled out wrong or my having "problems" with the
previous unethical principal--no, H.R. wanted my retirement,
vesting of which I had just received two months prior. I will get
only about a fourth what I would have received had I worked until
I was 65. I am 54 now, with utterly NO job prospects. It wasn't
the 2K in sick leave H.R. was upset about; it was the upwards of a
million dollars in future earnings, full retirement, and health
insurance benefits they wanted to save on the back of my career.
(I was "replaced" by a "retiree" who never retired, so she is
double-dipping for the district.) A@@holes and crooks, as I
describe every last one of those administrators in the green house
who I dealt with. The union was no better.
If you are too old or too expensive or too much of a whistleblower,
you are a marked person. All it takes to wreck your career is one
unscrupulous, sociopathic, or negligent principal and it's over.
All he or she needs to do is create a paper trail and know they
will never be held accountable for their actions, as the district
will defend them using taxpayer money. Teachers on the other hand
have the union, which in WEA's case is totally in bed with WCSD,
despite the fact teachers are paying dues to this organization.
WEA ends up siding with the administrators almost every time,
unless, of course, the teacher is a nepotism hire.
On 10/20/09, To Patrick wrote:
> Patrick -
>
> On 10/18 you told someone to ignore the negative advice and
> implied anon must've invited trouble. Therefore in your small
> mind anon deserved what anon got.
>
> On 10/19 you said anon is the exception. That's a lie.
>
> Now you're saying "our different perspective on things are
> based on our own personal experiences". Oh really? Then, why
> so set on making anon's opinion wrong?
>
> "Whatever"? Is that the best you can do?
> Who cares if you share ownership or not? You could use some
> opening of the mind though...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 10/19/09, Patrick (RNO) wrote:
>> You're right. I do think schools exist for kids. For me,
>> that's a no-brainer.
>>
>> As for your problems, if you have a legitimate case, more
>> power to you, and I hope you win. Never have I said I was
>> in support of teachers being trashed, but I believe I did
>> say that I agree that there are some bad administrators.
>> On the other hand, I don't think they're all bad, and
>> personally, I've had the pleasure of having had some
>> really good administrators who've demonstrated that they
>> care about both kids and teachers. Just because you've
>> had a nasty experience doesn't mean we all have. Our
>> different perspectives on things are based on our own
>> personal experiences. That my experiences have been
>> positive and yours negative does not make my opinion of
>> the WCSD wrong, but of course you are entitled to believe
>> whatever you wish. Just please don't expect me to share
>> ownership of your problems and get angry at the school
>> district just because you are.
>>
>> On 10/19/09, anon wrote:
>>> The thing is, Patrick is like so many other teachers
>>> (and the public) who
>>> believe public schools are there for the children, and
>>> that the needs of the children come first,
