|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The mess at GTS
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingbird:
It seems increasingly possible that the board hired the dean with the intention that he would antagonize the faculty into resigning so that they could hire younger, cheaper replacements.
Do you have any evidence for this?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Augustine, the rule of law isn't about following rules, it's about right defeating might. Laws are merely a tool to that end, and sometimes, spirit trumps letter. If it didn't, then what Beeswax Altar describes must prevail, and the bossmen triumph 'cause the faculty didn't fill out the correct form before it went on strike. God save us from the kingdom of the bureaucrats.
Mockingbird, I suspect you value justice a great deal more when you have need of it.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
You can't haphazardly set up a union and call a strike. I don't think labor law works that way at all. Both sides were wrong to treat the fiasco like a labor dispute in the first place.
As I understand it, you have to get authorisation cards signed by the majority of effected employees and then ballot. I don't think that would be hard to organise with only 10 people and some legal advice. It is entirely possible that they followed the process laid down in federal law.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Augustine, the rule of law isn't about following rules, it's about right defeating might. Laws are merely a tool to that end, and sometimes, spirit trumps letter. If it didn't, then what Beeswax Altar describes must prevail, and the bossmen triumph 'cause the faculty didn't fill out the correct form before it went on strike. God save us from the kingdom of the bureaucrats.
Mockingbird, I suspect you value justice a great deal more when you have need of it.
Byron-- our experiences clearly vary. I found over the years that close attention to procedure was one of the really powerful defences afforded to the weak against the mighty. Time after time, I saw that this proved to be an essential tool against abuse by the powerful. In my experience, it was the bosses who, so convinced of the rightness of their cause and relying on the power of their status, ignored the paperwork.
A bottle of decent rioja will facilitate the description of about 4 or 5 cases which would substantiate this.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
If the NY courts are anything like the courts I have ever had dealings with (I used to be a regulator, not a lawyer), then they will look at things in chronological order, and they will consider what is reasonable. Part of that reasonableness is what efforts have been made to avoid or resolve a dispute. Though of course there is a big difference between a court of law and a tribunal. That's as well as the strictly legal considerations.
Back to the issue of resignation vs. dismissal. It is very regrettable that the faculty's original letter never said they were going on strike. They really should have said so explicitly. What they did say was "either he goes or we go". We now know that they never intended to resign, but that only came out later.
Most people have heard of "constructive dismissal". If your employer or your co-workers make life impossible for you, you feel forced to resign. But the courts will look to see if both sides have been honouring the contract of employment. If the situation under the employer's control was such that the employee was no longer able to deliver their side of the bargain, then they will be deemed to have fired you, and anything that flows from that will be treated accordingly, even though you said you resigned.
There is another side to that coin though. If you as an employee make it impossible for the employer to do their job, then you as employee can sometimes be deemed to have resigned, even though you never handed over any resignation.
Quite where this case stands in all this, I don't know. As I said way back at the beginning of the thread, I suspect it depends on legal precedent in that state. Finding that out sounds expensive to me.
Finally - why on earth did the faculty not join a proper professional association (which I guess passes for a trade union in NY)? There must surely be one or more that cover teaching staff in HE. There would have been two obvious benefits. Firstly, the substantial costs would have been borne by the association, not them. Secondly, they would have been advised properly on how to conduct and resolve a dispute. I still suspect that they have been poorly advised so far, though I may be wrong.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Byron wrote: quote:
...the rule of law isn't about following rules, it's about right defeating might.
That probably describes most criminal law and a lot of stuff like judicial reviews. It doesn't adequately cover most civil law, which is about resolving disputes between contracting parties. If this ever gets to court, it will surely be a civil dispute.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Byron:
the rule of law isn't about following rules, it's about right defeating might.
That's absurd on so many levels. One, it assumes that might is always wrong. The seminary has more might than the faculty. Hence, faculty is right and the seminary is wrong. So, let's suppose the NLRB brings a lawsuit against the seminary. The might of a small indebted seminary pales in comparison to the federal government which hires lawyers by the boatload and prints the money to do it. Now, the law of might makes wrong calls for the rule of law to protect the seminary against the government.
Two, your premise essentially assumes that the right side is not required to follow any rules at all. However, right is essentially being defined by you. Problem is the wrong side also think its right. Being right, the wrong side can then do whatever it takes to triumph. Unfortunately, both sides assuming that they were right and could do whatever it took to triumph is what got us in this mess in the first place. Indeed, as I previously said, TEC has been operating this way for sometime and it isn't the least bit Christian. I roll my eyes whenever I read the phrase "respect the dignity of every human being" because I know the person typing it really means by it.
Three, there was no reason the faculty couldn't fill out the paperwork.
quote:
originally posted by Doublethink:
As I understand it, you have to get authorisation cards signed by the majority of effected employees and then ballot. I don't think that would be hard to organise with only 10 people and some legal advice. It is entirely possible that they followed the process laid down in federal law.
It's a lot more complicated than that. 30% of the employees have to fill out cards requesting a union. These names are then sent to the National Labor Relations Board with the request that an election be held. The NLRB then contacts the employer and asks for the names of all its employees. The purpose of this is to both verify the names on the cards match actual employees of the company and to establish which employees are entitled to vote. After that, the NLRB sets the date for an election which the NLRB administers. If a majority of workers vote for a union, then the union is certified. Only then is the employer legally required to bargain with you.
quote:
originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
There is another side to that coin though. If you as an employee make it impossible for the employer to do their job, then you as employee can sometimes be deemed to have resigned, even though you never handed over any resignation.
Should this fiasco be adjudicated in court, something like this will probably be the issue. Otherwise, the faculty could just say the Board fired tenured faculty without following the protocols to do so. Maybe not. I don't know.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
That's absurd on so many levels. One, it assumes that might is always wrong. The seminary has more might than the faculty. Hence, faculty is right and the seminary is wrong. So, let's suppose the NLRB brings a lawsuit against the seminary. The might of a small indebted seminary pales in comparison to the federal government which hires lawyers by the boatload and prints the money to do it. Now, the law of might makes wrong calls for the rule of law to protect the seminary against the government.
Two, your premise essentially assumes that the right side is not required to follow any rules at all. However, right is essentially being defined by you. Problem is the wrong side also think its right. Being right, the wrong side can then do whatever it takes to triumph. Unfortunately, both sides assuming that they were right and could do whatever it took to triumph is what got us in this mess in the first place. Indeed, as I previously said, TEC has been operating this way for sometime and it isn't the least bit Christian. I roll my eyes whenever I read the phrase "respect the dignity of every human being" because I know the person typing it really means by it.
Three, there was no reason the faculty couldn't fill out the paperwork.
By "right defeating might," I didn't mean we should default to David against Goliath, but that might and right should align. The rule of law is about decisions being made on the basis of reason, not power. If mom & pop sue megacorp, and their action is baseless, megacorp should win.
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Byron wrote: quote:
...the rule of law isn't about following rules, it's about right defeating might.
That probably describes most criminal law and a lot of stuff like judicial reviews. It doesn't adequately cover most civil law, which is about resolving disputes between contracting parties. If this ever gets to court, it will surely be a civil dispute.
Depending on the venue, Schori and the other bishops may well have been allowed to argue that Lawrence's antics were equivalent to notice in writing.
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Byron-- our experiences clearly vary. I found over the years that close attention to procedure was one of the really powerful defences afforded to the weak against the mighty. Time after time, I saw that this proved to be an essential tool against abuse by the powerful. In my experience, it was the bosses who, so convinced of the rightness of their cause and relying on the power of their status, ignored the paperwork.
A bottle of decent rioja will facilitate the description of about 4 or 5 cases which would substantiate this.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
You're right, playing by the rules can be a powerful tool in the arsenal of David, but Goliath (with his divisions of attorneys) is no slouch at that game, so it cuts both ways. If checking the right boxes gets a justified win, great, but the if it always decides things, justice takes a back seat to legalism.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Depending on the venue, Schori and the other bishops may well have been allowed to argue that Lawrence's antics were equivalent to notice in writing.
That's quite possibly so, Byron (though it's not a dispute I've been following in any detail).
However it does presuppose an administrative model of church, which I am increasingly uncomfortable with in relation to my own church's structures.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
Faculty going back to work. Year of reconciliation with outside assistance.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Here is the faculty's letter accepting an apparent invitation to return to work.
At this time, I would like to offer my services as ombudsman for the GTS community.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
Chast, there seemed to be some hesitance to post links in this thread which I do not understand but was abiding by. Beeswax Altar has now posted the link where I found the news.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Here is the faculty's letter accepting an apparent invitation to return to work.
At this time, I would like to offer my services as ombudsman for the GTS community.
You'd probably end up firing the Dean,the Professors and the Board.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingbird
Mimus polyglottos navis
# 5818
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingbird:
It seems increasingly possible that the board hired the dean with the intention that he would antagonize the faculty into resigning so that they could hire younger, cheaper replacements.
Do you have any evidence for this?
The only evidence one needs to assert that something is possible is a lack of evidence that it is impossible.
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Mockingbird, I suspect you value justice a great deal more when you have need of it.
This is profoundly irrelevant to what I wrote.
--------------------
Foržon we sealon efestan žas Easterlican žing to asmeagenne and to gehealdanne, žaet we magon cuman to žam Easterlican daege, že aa byš, mid fullum glaedscipe and wynsumnysse and ecere blisse.
Posts: 1443 | From: Between Broken Bow and Black Mesa | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
You asserted it was increasingly possible, which is different from asserting it is possible. It implies a measure of levels of possibility. Why does that measure seem to you to be increasing?
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingbird:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingbird:
It seems increasingly possible that the board hired the dean with the intention that he would antagonize the faculty into resigning so that they could hire younger, cheaper replacements.
Do you have any evidence for this?
The only evidence one needs to assert that something is possible is a lack of evidence that it is impossible.
Then how are you measuring the increase of this possibility?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Lawrence's trial would not have destroyed TEC. That's just silly. If the evidence he intended to leave TEC was that obvious, the thing to do was to follow the canons. However, one thing I've learned about politics in TEC is that only those who disagree with you are required to obey the constitution and canons.
True that. And the current PB seems only to care about enforcing canons relating to real estate.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
