Dubious merit of longevity for teachers
Arthur Mark's Dec. 19 letter protesting merit pay for teachers stipulates his credentials as "having worked 57 years in education as a classroom teacher... and finally full professor of education."
May I suggest that such a background is sufficient to disqualify his antediluvian position that we shouldn't pay the best teachers the most money, as virtually every other profession does?
The idea that you should get more pay merely by living longer in the job is, well, Mr. Mark's frame of reference.
Alan Weiss East Greenwich
Americans far more frustrated than Obama
President Obama expressed his "frustration" on Dec. 18 with the notion that his $100 billion overture in Copenhagen was not soundly embraced, and he was subsequently not worshiped as the savior of the summit. Okay, Mr. President, let me help define frustration so even an elitist bureaucrat like you can understand it.
Frustration is having to choose between gas or groceries this week, and heat or rent at the end of the month. Frustration is watching your hard-earned investments ebb and flow like the tide on a full moon. Frustration is being told that your services are no longer needed after 15 years at your job. Frustration is watching the bank auction off your home and belongings. Frustration is telling your 20-year-old that the money you thought you had for her second year of college is no longer there. Frustration is listening to your local politicians tell you they can't pay the municipal bills and they need still more of your money. Frustration is living in one small room in a half-way house with your 4-year-old son and wondering how you will explain that there will be no presents this year.
This is just a short list of the frustrations of real folks I have spoken with recently.
So, Mr. President, as you contemplate how to throw away more of the American taxpayers' money on things like helping some piddling, dictatorial, Third-World nations (that hate our guts anyhow) spew less smog, or maybe how to spend away our grandchildren's future while simultaneously destroying the greatest health-care system on the planet, would you please take a knee, gather your senses, and think of the real problems confronting our country.
We are sinking fast, and all this man and his socialist buddies can do is throw us anchor, after anchor, after anchor.
You're frustrated, Mr. President? No, we are frustrated, sir, and we are looking for some of that hope and change you promised.
Be the leader you were elected to be!
Fred Comella Barrington
Selective denunciation?
Regarding Froma Harrop's Dec. 20 column, "Joe Lieberman's big picture":
It is a shame that Froma Harrop can't find a better argument for health-care reform than a bizarre fantasy about some future job that Joe Lieberman might want to get as a lobbyist for the insurance industry. I can't recall such an ad hominem on someone for something they supposedly might do in the future. It is also highly selective condemnation, which makes it less convincing. What about Sen. Chris Dodd's close ties to the banks and real-estate interests he regulates?
What about those senators ignoring tort reform after trial lawyers have made $1 billion in political contributions? How about a little indignation about the industry payoffs that have actually happened?
Richard E. Ralston Newport Beach, Calif.
The writer is executive director of Americans for Free Choice in Medicine.
Editor's note: Ms Harrop has frequently denounced Senator Dodd for his close ties with the real estate and financial businesses and has frequently strongly supported medical tort reform.
Enough teacher bashing!
During my 20 years as a teacher, I have withstood continuous insult: Teachers are overpaid, under worked, incompetent and the tools of union leaders. This pattern of abuse has become an accepted and expected job hazard, but the editorial "Students over seniority" (Nov. 7) is the last straw.
In a parenthetical aside, the editors graciously allow, "That is not to say that schoolteachers don't want to help young people; of course they do!" as if it pains them to concede that teachers might accidentally help a child. Of course, it is a marvel that teachers have time for even inadvertent education, since the editors, I think, often imply that teachers spend most of their hours in greedy pursuit of a non-productive work day. This parenthetical nod to teachers is not worth the paper it is written on.
The editors then argue along the predictable lines of their anti-union bias, though it comes at the expense of basic legality. They allege that the teachers unions must not prevail in the pending lawsuit which challenges the superintendent's ability to ignore seniority when assigning teaching positions. In the editors' view, a union victory would prove the state's labor laws are "stacked heavily against the public interest" and in dire need of reform. However, the exact opposite is true: If teachers unions prevail, it is a victory for the rule of law.
In this matter, the law is unambiguous. Unions are legal entities (Commonwealth v. Hunt, 1842) and have the right to bargain collectively (National Labor Relation Act, 1935). According to venerated Chief Justice John Marshall, negotiated contracts are "sacred" and "inviolable." The notion that state legislatures cannot interfere with contracts is not merely principle: It is accepted law (Fletcher v. Peck, 1810 and Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 1819).
The public interest would be harmed if the unions lose this challenge. Whatever one's position on the issue of seniority, circumventing the legal system serves no one.
Arthur Rustigian Greene
The writer teaches history at Classical High School. Oh, the humanity! Why do our members of Congress think that working weekends is such a sacrifice on their part that it warrants a press release? Some of us have been doing that our whole lives.