Showing posts with label right-to-work-for-less. Show all posts
Showing posts with label right-to-work-for-less. Show all posts

Monday, March 26, 2012

Haley ignores education questions, promotes book

A huge thank-you to Paul Bowers of the Charleston City Paper for catching Governor Nikki Haley's book-promotion gimmick on Facebook yesterday and documenting the interaction. If such things happen again, we should share the word as quickly as possible, to get as many interested South Carolinians as possible involved in asking questions.

That is, the ones who are Haley's Facebook friends.

Here are some highlights from Bowers's report:

Gov. Nikki Haley opened the floodgates on her Facebook page Sunday afternoon, announcing that she would be riding in the car for a while and would be available to answer people's questions and comments.

Predictably, some of the questions were rhetorical in nature, and there was a rush of back-patting from her fans.

This is reportedly the only sort of interaction allowed by Haley on her Facebook page. Offer critique, and you're unfriended.

Haley also worked in a pitch for her upcoming memoir, Can't Is Not an Option, which is set for release April 3 (and by the way, if you're interested, she will be signing copies of the book on April 9 at 6 p.m. at Blue Bicycle Books).

Great head's-up to all those in the Charleston area who may want to organize themselves for the purpose of exercising free speech rights and communicating some messages to the state's chief executive. That's Blue Bicycle Books, April 9, 6 p.m.

But some of the legitimate questions got illuminating answers. Here are a few of the questions, followed by Haley's responses:

Do you have interest to become a GOP senator in the future? I have no desire right now to run for US Senate. I am perfectly happy being Governor of the best state in the country!

Notice the qualifier "right now." Ugh. Guess that means Lindsey's terms are numbered.

But also notice the generic "best state in the country." Not the "state where children are treated best, and domestic violence is non-existent, and rural communities thrive, and public education is best supported," because, unfortunately, none of those qualifiers would be true. Good that she went with "best state in the country."

Carolina or Clemson? Go Tigers!

It seems almost daily here in SC where a parent or person is being arrested for child abuse. What can be done to make longer sentences for child abusers? Contact your legislators to push for tougher standards on child abuse.

Ah, the old "contact your legislators" dodge.

I'm the governor, here. Passing laws against child abuse is not part of governor-ing. And why bring up child abuse in a Facebook chat anyway? Don't be such a downer. Geez. I'm trying to sell a book, for Pete's sake.

How's the SC tax reform coming along? The House did not include our tax reform in their budget. Please contact the Senate and remind them that it is your money.

Ooh, good one. Beat up on the House for not kowtowing to the Queen, and the Senate for not acting fast enough. Classy.

Governor Haley, serious question: How do you think other states should improve to be more competitive for jobs? Right to work state's [sic] and fair and balanced tax structures are the key to job growth and retention.

Anytime [sic] has to appear in text, it's not a good sign. But look at her, selling the old "right-to-work-for-less" ideology like its ice cream: Poor people, be happy with the meager pittances you get for your hard work; ignore your hunger by imagining the taste of ripe strawberries in your mouth!

What can we do to bring good clean prosperous industry to Williamsburg Co? The way we help Winnsboro is the way we help every other part of our state, we have to seriously reform our tax code, increase educational options, strengthen our workforce training so that we match those unemployed with companies that need jobs, and continue to reduce regulations on businesses. all of the things we work on everyday [sic]. thanks!

Did Haley really mean to suggest that Winnsboro is in Williamsburg County? I just re-read the question, and the question definitely asked how industry could be brought to Williamsburg County, yet Haley's response was about Winnsboro, in Fairfield County, a full 111 miles northwest of Williamsburg's county seat.

It must be a right-wing-governor thing. Alaska Governor Sarah Palin didn't know that the head of government in Great Britain is the prime minister, either, or that "the Fed" refers to the Federal Reserve System, which regulates American monetary policy. Here in South Carolina, our governor doesn't know Winnsboro from Williamsburg County.

That's our governor!

Just want to know...have you and the kids seen The Hunger Games??? We have not seen The Hunger Games but can't wait!

I haven't seen the film either, but according to the synopses readily available on the internet, the Haley family needn't wait to see "The Hunger Games," or even go to a theater to see it. They can see the film's basic themes played out just by taking a leisurely drive through their city and state.

I live in NC and am very impressed with your jobs creation. Do you have any plans to meet with Pat McCrory when he is the new NC governor to discuss how SC is bringing jobs to the Southeast? I have already been campaigning some with Pat McCrory and look forward to partnering with him to better the Carolinas.

So in addition to flitting about various northeastern states to campaign for her favored presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, and in addition to meeting Georgia's governor in secret in Augusta to discuss their plans for the port at Savannah, Haley has also found time to cross our northern border and meddle in the affairs of North Carolina.

Hopefully, while she's in North Carolina, she might ask questions about how that state achieved and has maintained a respectable education budget during the past forty years, even paying its teachers at the national average -- way better than the tired old "$300 above the Southeastern average."

What are your thoughts on open carry? I believe SC is one of 6 states that doesnt allow it. As a CWP holder myself, I have and would support open carry laws in SC.

Why is unemployment so broken, I have had people steal from us and then get benefits. Why can't SC at least drug test people that want or need assistance? I support drug testing FTP receive unemployment benefits.

Saints be praised. I wonder how long our governor has been packing heat?

This is why the rest of Western civilization stares at us with their mouths open. It's not awe, it's disbelief.

The questions that Haley chose not to answer were also noteworthy. Here are a few of the queries she left hanging:

• You're doing a great job Nikki! One comment though: our son has special needs (verbal apraxia) and we've recently set up our education plan with our Greenville County School District. They could not provide a special ed classroom for him because of the high criteria, even though he is non-verbal and cannot communicate with the students and staff at his private preschool. There is a gap for children with only communication needs that needs to be filled, and soon!

• What can you do to help the FIRST robotics teams of the state...existing and up and coming...fund their season. Nick Zais actually did show up at our competition this weekend and got to see what we do with our kids first hand. The problem is teams are struggling from lack of funding. This is too good of a program to let slip away.

• Are you a supporter of TFA [Teach For America] and other programs like it, seeking to get the best teachers/leaders in front of ALL classrooms, no matter the ZIP code?

• Why does your budget call for more cuts in spending for education? I'm an educator and with all these cuts on top of local and federal bureaucracy it is making it harder and harder to want to stay teaching.

• Do you have any plans to be more supportive of the teachers and the law enforcement in our state? The retirement bill that is being passed doesn't appear to be showing any support. Taking more money, lowering the benefits and extending the time to work. We haven't gotten any pay raises in a quite a while and the government is talking about taking more from us. The pay raises that were talked about a month ago won't amount to anything if this retirement bill passes. What is your explanation for this?

Crickets.

So let's review the highlights.

Talking about her upcoming book? Great.

Leaving the state to campaign for wingnuts elsewhere? Great.

Supporting Clemson? Great.

Promoting a new film about killing the children of the 99 percent for the entertainment of the one percent? Great.

Burnishing her chick-with-a-gun credentials? Great.

Denigrating poor people who rely on our social safety net for subsistence? Great.

Tightening penalties for child abuse? Ugh: Pass the buck to lawmakers.

Tax relief? Great AND pass the buck to lawmakers -- a two-fer!

South Carolina geography? Ugh: Pivot to the talking points. Who cares that Winnsboro isn't near Williamsburg County? Both start with Dubya!

But anything having to do with addressing parents' concerns about public education, and service for their children, and protecting innovative school programs, and supporting teachers and other public employees?

Next.

Which is precisely what many of us are saying about Haley's place in the line of South Carolina's governors.

Friday, March 23, 2012

"At-will" and "right-to-work-for-less," illustrated

There are states in America where employees -- public and private -- have rights, thanks to the centuries-old concept of collective bargaining. South Carolina and Florida are not among them.

In these two states, and 20-plus more, employees have no rights under the law; we can be hired or fired "at will," which is where the happy label "at-will" comes from.

If you work for me, and you're sitting in a job that you've held for 15 years but I want to put my unqualified nephew in that job -- the sorry sap who still lives in his mother's basement and doesn't contribute to the household budget, which is why she asks me for a loan several times a year -- then I can fire you "at will" and hire the boy wonder without any experience "at will."

See how "at will" employment works?

And if you ask why I'm firing you -- for what reason? -- I don't have to tell you, because I don't have to have a reason. You're fired; good-bye; end of conversation.

"At will" employment has a malignant twin sibling called "right-to-work-for-less." Decades ago, when employees in many northern, midwestern and western states fought for and won collective bargaining rights, the corporate owners of most Southern states erected an ideological barrier -- generally around the states of the old Confederacy but with some outliers -- that they called "right to work." South Carolina's legislature adopted our "right to work" statute in 1954.

Like a lot of lies told by our corporate owners, "right to work" is, in fact, a "right to work for less." Like "at will," it means that you and I have a right to accept an employer's offer of a job, and a right to quit that job whenever we want. In turn, employers have a right to pay us any little pittance that we'll accept, and a right to fire us when we stop pleasing them.

And yes, that last little bit can be interpreted broadly. Women working in textile mills in the 1920's, 30's and 40's could tell stories of pleasing their mill supervisors in order to keep their jobs; watch "The Uprising of '34."

Last week, in Florida, an employer exercised its rights to fire some employees "at will," and they offered a stupid reason for doing it.

From reporter Doreen Hemlock of the Sun Sentinel:

Were they wearing orange shirts on Friday to protest management? Or to get psyched for happy hour?

Either way, orange-shirted workers no longer have jobs at the Deerfield Beach law firm of Elizabeth R. Wellborn P.A.

A spokeswoman said the law firm had "no comment at this time."

Four workers tell the story this way: For the past few months, some employees have worn orange shirts on pay-day Fridays so they'd look like a group when they went out for happy hour.

This Friday, 14 workers wearing orange shirts were called into a conference room, where an executive said he understood there was a protest involving orange, the employees were wearing orange, and they all were fired.

The executive said anyone wearing orange for an innocent reason should speak up. One employee immediately denied involvement with a protest and explained the happy-hour color.

The executives conferred outside the room, returned and upheld the decision: all fired, said Lou Erik Ambert, 31, of Coconut Creek, a litigation para-legal who said he was terminated.

"There is no office policy against wearing orange shirts. We had no warning. We got no severance, no package, no nothing," said Ambert. "I feel so violated."

Meloney McLeod, 39, of North Lauderdale, said her choice of shirt puts her in a tough spot: "I'm a single mom with four kids, and I'm out of a job just because I wore orange today."

Janice Doble, 50, of Sunrise,said she wore orange Friday because she was looking forward to happy hour with colleagues after a busy work week.

"Orange happens to be my favorite color. My patio is orange," said Doble. "My lipstick was orange today." She said she supervised 12 people who scanned, copied and mailed documents for the firm.

Now she's worried for relatives employed at the law firm. "I have four kids who work there," said Doble. "I don't want them to retaliate and fire my kids."

Yadel Fong, 21, of Miami, wonders where he'll find work after losing his job in the mail room. He was not aware of anyone in the group involved in a protest.

"To my mind, protesting is where you put your foot down, and you're not working. There was none of that today," said Fong, who said he was working and looking forward to happy hour.

Florida is an "at-will" state for employment. That means unless there's a contract, an employer can fire a worker "for a good reason, for a bad reason or even for the wrong reason, as long as it's not an unlawful reason," said Eric K. Gabrielle, a labor and employment lawyer at Stearns Weaver in Fort Lauderdale.

"No violation of the law jumps out" in this case, Gabrielle said.

No violation, because what this unethical employer did is completely legal in Florida, as it is in South Carolina.

Better get back to work, now. Our corporate owners may be having a bad day.

Thursday, March 1, 2012

Uh-oh, "the help" are gettin' ideas; time to crack down again

If there's one thing that frightens lawmakers and their corporate sponsors, it's the idea that hundreds of thousands -- even millions -- of low-paid workers might one day realize that millions of low-paid workers have greater electoral power than a few hundred corporate sugar daddies.

It's what led South Carolina's electeds in 1954 to make our state a "right-to-work-for-less" state, meaning that we all have the right to work for the lowest bidder and get fired for any ol' reason.

But every so often, when the social tide seems to move toward the empowerment of the proletariat, our lawmakers step up to the plate again and crack the legislative whip, just to remind us field hands of our place.

I reckon the recent attention paid to the Occupy Wall Street movement, and all the Oscar nominations for "The Help," has spooked some lawmakers, so now is another one of those times. Hence, the opinion-editorial in today's The State.

Every South Carolinian should have the right to make a living for his or her family without being forced to join a union or pay dues.

O, we have that right. What we don't have is any degree of influence or control over our wages, benefits or working conditions because South Carolina is a "right-to-work-for-less" state and prohibits workers from engaging in collective bargaining. That means either we accept what our corporate masters offer us, or we go hungry and homeless, because there's always someone hungry and homeless willing to accept what our corporate masters are offering.

Yay, South Carolina.

We must continue to safeguard this important individual freedom.

Well, how do you kill a mule that's been dead since 1954? Dig it up and shoot it again?

In the House, we recently passed the Right to Work Act of 2012 to strengthen our state’s right-to-work laws. This legislation, which I introduced earlier in the session, garnered bipartisan support and now has headed to the Senate.

Is that the legislation that simply repeats what's been on the books since 1954?

This bill is critical because it updates our laws to make South Carolina the strongest right-to-work state in the nation. While some might characterize it as anti-union, nothing could be further from the truth.

Wait a second: If a piece of legislation isn't anti-union, it's pro-union. Is this a pro-union bill we're talking about? Are we now overturning the old "right-to-work-for-less" statute?

No, that's not what this bill does. So it must be anti-union.

For a moment there, I felt lightheaded and dizzy. Now I realize that when a lawmaker says his bill isn't anti-union, a big load of bovine rhetoric is about to follow.

The purposes of the legislation are to ensure freedom of choice and to level the playing field so that all sides — employees, employers and unions — are protected and armed with knowledge about their rights.

This is very, very funny, because I suspect the folks who are most knowledgeable about their rights are union members. Which is precisely the problem for our lawmakers!

The bill has several important provisions that shore up our existing right-to-work laws.

First and foremost, it gives workers the right to protect their hard-earned paychecks. Under South Carolina’s current right-to-work law, if you join a union and sign up for a payroll deduction, the draft is often irrevocable for a year, even if you resign union membership. The bill lets workers stop payroll deductions any time.

If we applied this logic to cable television service and our utility companies, we could all recoup a nice chunk of change every time the power went out or the cable company took two days getting to our houses. So why not apply this principle to them?

Oh, that's right: Utility companies and the corporate cable giants contribute a lot of money to political campaigns. So they're safe, no matter how expensive it gets when everything in the freezer goes bad after a storm, or when we miss two days of cable service because our managers won't let us take a half-day to wait at home for the cable guy. Boy, it pays to be a powerful corporate entity; you can buy the laws you want.

Workers in a "right-to-work-for-less" state, not so much.

Second, it lets employees hang a poster in their workplaces outlining the fundamental principles of South Carolina’s right-to-work laws.

Hey, can employees hang their own posters outlining the benefits of collective bargaining, or union membership, or just basic run-of-the-mill (pardon the pun) organizing? Mm, I don't see that spelled out here in the op-ed.

And here's another question: Does this mean workers can bring their own handmade, hand-lettered posters to work for this purpose -- you know, to express their creativity? Or must they use a poster produced by their corporate masters for this purpose?

The posters would be available electronically or in hard-copy from the S.C. Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation.

Oh, so no creativity. Must use corporate master's poster or none at all. Aren't these already posted prominently right beside the signs saying, "Don't like minimum wage? Quit!" and "There's a sucker born every day. If you don't know anyone else born on your birthday, it might be you! Now get back to work." And my personal favorite: "Big Brother is watching."

So I thought employers already hung "right-to-work-for-less" posters in their workplaces.

Employers already can hang right-to-work posters, but employees do not have the statutory right to do so. This would give employees and employers equal rights to display a poster if they choose.

Oh, I get it. So if Bertram Wormley, the guy who details all the managers' cars as a side job, wants to post one of these "I love to work for low wages and no benefits" posters, he can do it now, without the boss's approval. Man, that's power.

The bill also seeks to level the playing field for all S.C. businesses that compete for government contracts. Recently, there has been a push at the federal level and in neighboring states to require project-labor agreements, meaning that union-worker quotas are involved when awarding public contracts. Under the new legislation, state and local governments would not be able to require or prohibit project-labor agreements as part of awarding a contract, incentive or tax credit.

So a project-labor agreement is one that requires employers to abide by federal labor laws, and we don't like them, because federal labor laws grant workers more rights than we want workers to have. It's that doggone federal government, intruding again in our mistreatment of poor people. When will it learn to let us run our slave-labor system as we want?

The bill further protects South Carolinians by increasing fines for right-to-work violations, which have not been indexed to inflation, bringing them up to a level that is punitive.

I have to say, I am so glad that we're now getting around to indexing things to inflation, because public employee wages have lagged way behind inflation for generations.

Could we amend that section of the bill to index public employee wages to inflation then, so that every time inflation creeps up, public employees get an automatic bump to keep pace?

Passing the Right to Work Act this year is a critical next step in protecting freedom of association in South Carolina, one of our basic constitutional rights.

Another critical step in protecting freedom of association might be to set aside time every week for workers to receive information about the wages, benefits and working conditions enjoyed by their counterparts in other states. Hey, networking South Carolina's workers with other states' workers is the epitome of freedom of association, isn't it?

Forcing workers to pay union dues to get or keep a job is simply wrong,

and it hasn't been done since 1954, right?

and we must make it a priority as a state to have the strongest right-to-work laws in the country.

Don't we already? I mean, we prohibit collective bargaining so the proles can't negotiate for their own wages, benefits and working condition. We prohibit payroll deduction of dues so the proles have to write their own checks each month. We shoot and kill people who want workers to have the ability to organize themselves -- that was the Honea Path Massacre at Chiquola Mill on September 7, 1934. And we close down plants where workers dare to vote to organize themselves -- that was the Darlington Manufacturing Company, owned by Roger Milliken, in October 1956.

If that doesn't make us the most anti-union, strongest "right-to-work-for-less" state in the union -- oops, the Union -- then I don't know what will.

As the Obama administration is promoting union activity, now is the time for us to send a strong message that South Carolina is a right-to-work state.

I can't think of a single thing the Obama administration has done to promote union activity... and I think everyone, I mean everyone, from Key West to Puget Sound, knows all about what sort of state we have here in South Carolina.

The Senate will be taking up the bill in the coming days and weeks, and I am encouraged that many senators were involved in developing it or have expressed support. Gov. Nikki Haley also has been a vocal advocate.

It gladdens my soul that Haley was able to tear herself away from her service to Mitt Romney's campaign, and from her busy schedule of snubbing the President and First Lady of the United States and attending out-of-state fundraisers at the public expense, to lend her voice to this important issue.

As it moves through the General Assembly, I ask my fellow legislators to make strengthening right to work a top priority this session. In addition, I ask employees and employers to contact your senators to express support for this important bill, which protects freedom of choice in South Carolina.

So it's a pro-choice bill?

Now that's utterly reprehensible.

Saturday, February 11, 2012

The SCEA releases Sumter public forum summary

For the past two weeks, I've been waiting diligently for the Sumter Item to publish its coverage of the Sumter parents' and educators' public forum. Feedback from ones who attended the event said that the Item covered the event, but that its reporter left halfway through, after conversation turned toward a critique of the Item's coverage.

Specifically, it seems that the Item covers abundantly the administration's perspective but offers slim pickings for those straining to hear parents' and educators' points of view. I'm no expert on the Item's coverage, but its regular readers commented heavily here and here and here and here and here and here.

Perhaps to prove the point of its critics, although it reprinted the administration's written responses to individuals who spoke at the January 23 board meeting, the Item hasn't published anything about the public forum. Which is sad for several reasons, the greatest of which is that reportedly a good number of Sumter parents and educators spoke up and shared a lot of pertinent information, aired some searing and painful grievances, and pleaded for answers. One would expect that a hometown newspaper would cover such a meeting with gusto.

But one would be wrong. For the past couple of weeks, it has been as if that conversation never occurred.

Until today, that is -- and the news has come not from the Item, but from the South Carolina Education Association, which sponsored the event. A summary of the conversation has been posted at the association's website, and it reflects in great detail many of the notes sent here after that evening.

Parts of the summary are long and dense. But its introduction quotes SCEA President Jackie Hicks saying, "Goal 1 is to listen to you, to collect information, and to summarize that information. Goal 2 is to hear from you what actions you want to see taken during the coming months and years."

During the next two hours, a number of important issues and concerns surfaced, were clarified in detail, and were documented for future action. Out of this dialogue came the following digest of questions and comments, as voiced by parents and educators alike. The particular sources of these were not necessarily identified during the forum and are not identified here, as some of the attendees remain fearful of retribution in their workplaces. Instead, as president of the state's largest association of education professionals, which includes superintendents and other administrators, certified school district employees and education support personnel, Jackie Hicks presents these questions and concerns on behalf of those attending educators and in collaboration with those attending parents.

Which likely means that, under the rules governing the Sumter board's meetings, no response will be offered unless parents and educators raise specific issues and questions from it, then wait for the administration's responses in writing -- which, obviously, will now be published online by the Item, since the Item has established that precedent.

I'll keep watching for that.

So here it is:

COLLABORATIVE BALANCE
Sumter School District is in a period of significant transition. Hiring a new superintendent alone would have required a period of transition. Consolidating two school systems alone would have required a period of transition. But the combination of a consolidation and a brand-new administration demands that the entire community take special care to participate in a collaborative balance throughout this transitional period.

Parents and educators want Sumter School District to succeed and to see their community thrive. They want to participate in a collaborative balance through this period of transition, but their participation is being impeded. While School Improvement Councils appear to be functioning, Teacher Advisory Councils have been diminished during this school year. Only one teacher representative per school is allowed to participate at TAC meetings, speaking for only three minutes, with a requirement to submit questions and responses for prior approval. Parents and educators believe this does not allow for an open dialogue and exchange of information and ideas, and it does not represent a collaborative balance with the district.

Good point. In a balance, no one voice has an outsized influence, and no voice is minimized. Everyone has a role to play -- including parents, educators, administrators and elected leaders.

CONSOLIDATION
Consolidation of the Sumter School District is an accepted fact, but its impacts have not yet been fully realized and a period of transition continues for both parents and educators. One of the advertised benefits of consolidation was to be an elimination of duplicative positions, facilities and work, ultimately resulting in a reduction in personnel positions and associated facility costs, and a savings to Sumter County taxpayers. Yet there is no sign that duplicative positions, facilities or work have been merged. Instead, costly new administrative positions have been added at the district office.

Questions:
(1) Can the board demonstrate that it has merged positions, facilities and work, to save taxpayers revenues as promised?
(2) If so, what is the total savings from consolidated positions, facilities and work?
(3) What is the total cost of new positions created since the effective date of consolidation?
(4) As the superintendent's contract is a public document, can it be made public?

The Sumter School District's website doesn't offer information of this sort, so far as I can tell.

PARENT SUPPORT FOR EDUCATORS
Parents of students enrolled in the Sumter School District support their public schools and support the education professionals who serve their students in those schools. Parents have declared that Sumter's public school teachers inspire them and their children daily with optimism and a drive to reach and serve every child, regardless of their circumstances. They agree that public education is the most critical element for healthy communities. They understood that consolidation would be a period of transition, and that the transition would include "bumps" or missteps. But they assert that the condition of their school community has not improved through the period of transition, but has instead worsened.

As a result of their concern, interested parents organized themselves and continue to meet and communicate under the name of "Sumter Education Task Force." These parents are conducting their own outreach throughout the community, which included outreach to educators, and outreach for aid from, and collaboration with, The SCEA. These parents are making themselves aware of what educators are experiencing professionally and economically. They are aware that educators in Sumter have had no increase in compensation in recent years and, in fact, are losing income without a cost of living adjustment. They know that restricted supply funds force instructors to supply classrooms from their own resources. They know that salary stipends for coaches, club advisors and others at the school level have been cut, and teachers advised to take a percentage of organizational accounts to make up the difference, while they believe stipends at the district office continue to be paid.

Parents want public education to be at the forefront of Sumter County's priorities, and they want more to be done to preserve the professionalism of Sumter's classroom instructors and education support personnel. They recognize that anxiety throughout the education community has reached a fever pitch, and those who attended the January 23 board of trustees meeting observed the tension and anxiety apparent at that event.

I've never heard of asking educators to take part of the salaries out of student organization accounts, but that's what some correspondents reported after the Monday night conversation. One characterized it as "stealing from students" and chose to forego the stipend.

The next segment, titled "Discipline and School Safety" clearly engendered some angst.

To educators outside Sumter: Do these described conditions sound familiar to you, in your own school districts?

Discipline and school safety have surfaced as major issues of concern to parents and educators. Parents and educators agree that no one should have to enter classrooms, hallways, gymnasiums, locker rooms, bus stops, common areas or any other spaces on school property in fear of what may happen to them there. Parents state that their desire to know their children are safe is their primary reason for considering to remove their children from the Sumter School District.

Many parents are hearing reports from their children, across grade levels, that published discipline policies are purposefully being ignored. Among other things, they report that unruly students are being allowed to verbally assault teachers and menace other students without fear of discipline or expulsion. Unruly students are heard to describe the discipline policies and referral forms as just "a piece of paper."

Parents have learned that administrators are instructed not to intervene to stop student fights, and they are "mortified" that children can be attacked and not protected by adults.

Parents and educators agree that sufficient monitoring of student behavior is not the issue, as professionals are posted throughout schools during school hours. Rather, the issue is full implementation of published student discipline policies. Rules and policies are stated in a student handbook. A discipline test was administered at the beginning of the school year, and students were required to earn a perfect score on these tests to demonstrate knowledge of the published policies.

There is a general awareness among students and educators that some students attending their schools engage in violent criminal activity and in drug trafficking, and have been charged and convicted of these offenses, of which some school resource officers and others are aware.

There is likewise a general awareness among students that school administrators have been ordered not to discipline, and especially not to expel, some students or groups of students defined by race, gender or other descriptors, and that the rationale for this order is to reduce the district's discipline rates. A specific rumor has circulated that the district office has ordered school administrators to reduce discipline cases by 15 percent across the district.

The argument that disciplinary actions have been curtailed in order to reduce the district's discipline rate is being taken seriously because the superintendent's previous employer, the Atlanta Public Schools, widely publicized its success at reducing its reported discipline cases in recent years.

Parents and educators want to know that students and professionals who work in Sumter School District are safe from harm, and that no professional should be intimidated, pressured, or fear losing their employment for reporting violations of published discipline policies by students and by administrators. Signs posted in the schools advise students to report incidents of bullying and other misbehaviors to educators, but both parents and educators feel that the adults have nowhere to turn when the bullying occurs to them, either by misbehaving students or by district administrators who refuse to address these issues. Educators are concerned that principals can no longer defend them.

Questions:
(1) How has the administration addressed discipline during this school year?
(2) Is it true or false that the district leadership has ordered school administrators not to expel any particular students or group of students, defined by race, gender or any other descriptor?
(3) What specific communications or instructions, written or verbal, regarding student discipline have been issued by the district office to school administrators?
(4) Will the district superintendent and board chairman state unequivocally that there has been no order, nor is there any expectation, that discipline cases will be ignored in order to reduce such cases by 15 percent, or by any other specific percentage?
(5) Will the Sumter Board of Trustees consider adopting a "whistleblower" policy that protects school district employees from punitive action when they report violations of published board policies regarding student discipline? If so, will the board allow an independent committee of parents and educators to draft the policy, with input from the board attorney?
(6) Will the Board of Trustees state publicly its support for the professionalism of its teaching workforce, and its respect for school district employees at the school level?

After reading this, I can think of some more questions of my own.

Is there no state law to protect education professionals from convicted criminals in their workplaces?

What is a district's obligation to notify educators that violent criminals are enrolled in a school?

If it's a matter of weighing a minor student's right to attend school against everyone's else right to safety, don't we have alternative schools for this very purpose?

Does Sumter not have an alternative school?

And does not South Carolina provide educational opportunities for juveniles in its penal system? I believe it does; there are certainly teachers who teach incarcerated minors.

What liability does the district bear if a student or educators is assaulted, or worse, by a student who has already been convicted of a violent crime? Could not the district face liability as an accomplice? Has this happened anywhere?


I am especially gratified to see it suggested that an independent commission be allowed by the board to draft a "whistleblower" policy. If one doesn't exist in other districts already, Sumter can be the leader in this case.

In fact, without regard to a school board's decision, what stops parents and educators from drafting their own policy and lobbying to have it codified by the legislature? Who in their right mind would oppose protecting individuals who expose misbehavior?

The next two segments, "Restricted Communication" and "Threats and Intimidation," reflect a large portion of the commentary left by correspondents to earlier notes about Sumter.

RESTRICTED COMMUNICATION
Communication, and the restriction of it, represents a fundamental issue of concern for Sumter parents and educators.

Educators say they have been told unequivocally not to contact or speak to district office staff, district board members or the district superintendent. They've been told not to contact the state department of education unless the matter concerns their own re-certification.

It may still be true that teacher salary schedules posted online do not accurately represent compensation, and ones seeking clarification cannot find clear answers. At least one instance of miscommunication, or lack of communication, caused financial challenges for school district employees, when the new paycheck schedule of the merged district was not clearly communicated to everyone.

THREATS AND INTIMIDATION
Parents and educators believe that threats and intimidation against professionals, whether initiated or tolerated by the district administrators, have no place in Sumter School District. They observe a growing atmosphere of fear among educators, including school-based administrators, in their school system.

It is alleged that at least one educator's employment has been threatened for emailing the district office for information about the payroll schedule.

It is alleged that educators have been warned not to approach district administrators or elected officials.

It is alleged that at least one educator has been warned about having "a target on my back" for speaking out about educators' concerns.

Parents and educators do not want their school district to engage in or support negative behaviors, including intimidation and threats, toward school district employees. School district employees have suffered several consecutive years without pay increases, and have been subject to furloughs, and have been forced to purchase school supplies out of personal funds, and have had restrictions placed on their instructional supplies, including copying, at school.

Educators are fearful of losing their employment, or of having effective departments and teams divided, in retaliation for raising these important issues. Parents and educators agree that these professionals do not deserve to be treated as if they have no value to the school district.

Why should a professional educator not be allowed to communicate with his or her employer, for whatever reason? Are we not adults? And professionals? With credentials that qualify us for the work we do? Have we no rights?

This is, I must repeat, reflective of the underlying ideology in South Carolina's right-to-work-for-less and related laws. Workers, regardless of their professional credentials, continue to be treated in our state as second-class citizens. If what is described by these speakers is accurate -- and I'm curious to learn if these described orders were actually issued in writing -- it suggests we haven't learned much in the past three centuries about recognizing and honoring humanity in one another.

If my paycheck isn't delivered on time and I suffer economic consequences as a result, do I not have a right to understand when the district will deliver my paychecks in the future, so I can avoid future economic consequences? Should I be fired for asking simple questions of the administrators who have the answers? How absurd.

And do we all not, as a matter of basic American civil rights, have a freedom to speak without having our employment status dangled precariously before us?

Professional educators across South Carolina have suffered quite enough at the hands of a miserly legislative majority, predisposed against public education and educators for ideological reasons. They don't need additional dangers, toils and snares to threaten their well-being and livelihoods from their district office. Thankfully, there are a good many school districts, and administrators, who treat professionals professionally.

Now, although "Sweet 16" once looked like the major issue among folks in the district, it apparently was just one side of an iceberg -- still significant, but not the whole magilla.

SWEET 16
Classroom instructors are subject to mandatory evaluation under ADEPT. Implementation of the new evaluation model, Sweet 16, has inspired tremendous anxiety among Sumter's educators, who see the model as redundant and unnecessarily stressful. Some of the stress stems from knowing that anyone can walk into a classroom at any time to conduct the detailed new "audit" or evaluation; under the best of circumstances, unannounced visits cause disruption to a class, no matter how unobtrusive visitors may attempt to be. In addition, documents used to introduce the model contained numerous errors, which didn't inspire confidence in educators who are subject to the new "audits."

Comments made by presenters and widely reported among educators ("We will coach you up or coach you out") were interpreted as unnecessarily antagonistic and threatening, rather than collaborative or constructive. A rubric associated with the model wasn't delivered to some educators for weeks after its introduction, though they sought and requested the document from their direct administrators.

Underscoring this anxiety is the awareness that Sweet 16, in its present form and as presented to Sumter's educators, does not exist and has never existed elsewhere in the United States. While research may exist to support various pieces of the model, and while the component parts of the model may sound appealing and represent best practices generally, the model in its packaged form has never been implemented, tested or studied.

As many parents and educators have conducted their own research, and have asked for aid from state and national agencies to understand the model's origins, they have concluded that the model is not a legal mandate representing state or federal law, and that it may represent an experiment whose purpose they cannot determine.

Further, district office representatives have stated in media reports that Sweet 16 will not be used for the purpose of evaluating instructors, yet the structure of the new "audits" purposefully evaluates instructors.

Finally, although Sweet 16 was promoted as costing nothing to the district, the staffing for Sweet 16's required "audits" represents a substantial cost. Many staff members who were not originally hired to conduct "audits" and evaluations under the new Sweet 16 model are now doing this work, which leads to several questions.

Questions:
(1) When staff members are redirected to conduct "audits" or evaluations under the Sweet 16 model, is their previous work no longer being done?
(2) If their previous work is still being done, who is doing that work?
(3) Is "auditing" the best use of these staff members' time, given the skills for which they were originally hired?
(4) Are all of these staff members qualified to "audit" or evaluate classroom instructors?
(5) Can all documents related to Sweet 16, from "audit" or evaluation forms, to rubrics, PowerPoint presentations and other materials, be posted online for review by educators and parents, as soon as possible?
(6) Can all research supporting the Sweet 16 model in its present form, as introduced to Sumter educators and to which they are now subject, be posted online for review by educators and parents, as soon as possible?

"We will coach you up or we will coach you out."

In order to become an educator in South Carolina's public schools -- unless one slips in through Teach for America or another side door, directly from the private sector -- a body must have graduated high school, graduated from an accredited college or university, and earned a teaching certification. In order to continue teaching in our schools, this professional must suffer through a torturous first few years, then maintain his or her certification through regular coursework, seminars, trainings and other educational opportunities every several years.

And that's without pursuing advanced degrees; if a body chooses to improve his or her credentials and career earning potential, they must earn a masters degree, and perhaps a terminal degree in their field, from accredited colleges and universities.

None of which is a cakewalk.

So I understand perfectly the offense taken by educators who are told, "We will coach you up or coach you out."

How about, instead, helping educators and parents to organize behind a movement to demand sufficient funds from the legislature to guarantee every child access to a great education? And how about addressing the root problems that stymie a family's ability to support a child's education: unemployment, poverty, poor nutrition, domestic violence, lack of access to books and other literacy resources, and lack of access to early childhood education?

How about, instead of threatening educators with, "We will coach you up or coach you out," you say to educators, "We will support your work, come hell or high water, and demand that those in positions of power treat you with the respect you deserve." It's only speculation, but I bet that would guarantee you a workforce that would follow you to the ends of the earth.

But there's more:

TRANSPARENCY AND RESPONSIVENESS
Parents and educators alike believe their community and school district are strong and have tremendous potential that can be realized through collaboration. But they are frustrated at what they interpret, in their words, as a lack of transparency and responsiveness, an attitude of condescension and superiority, equivocation, secrecy and restricted communication. They say that district leaders are not listening to them. They say that district leaders have not given them straightforward answers to direct questions, especially but not exclusively around the new teacher evaluation model.

(For example, they have asked for research, not jargon that supports the Sweet 16 package in the form that it was presented to Sumter County instructors. From so many existing models of instructional evaluation, why was this model developed and chosen? And is it truly useful to give students the option of choosing serious writing or drawing a picture?)

The recent decision to invest sole authority to negotiate and finalize deals regarding property sales on behalf of the board and district was cited as one example of a "power grab" that doesn't reflect the will of the community and which illustrates a "code of secrecy, a veiling of the district office." All of these examples leave parents and educators interpreting that district leaders "do not care" what others think and feel.

FINANCIAL PRIORITIES
As Sumter County taxpayers, parents and educators are asking for clarity regarding the district's financial priorities and policies. There is a perception that in a time of financial strain, the only members of the community suffering cuts to resources are educators and their students. While perception may vary, it is reality that the board of trustees approved a budget granting the district's highest-ranking administrators lucrative salaries and benefits. As one parent noted, "The superintendent is driving a new Jaguar. How am I not supposed to be offended?"

Questions:
How do these reflect a consistent set of priorities and policies?
(1) Educators were delivered a 40-page document to introduce and begin implementation of Sweet 16, yet copying for their classroom instructional needs has been curtailed.
(2) Supply funds to educators were taken, then reduced amounts were given, while district administrators have negotiated large salaries, taken well-publicized travel and used district funds to buy food and other goods for district office purposes.
(3) Educator positions were threatened with reduction without implementation of a furlough; yet new district administrators were added to oversee implementation of a new teacher evaluation model.

The superintendent has stated to school-based educators his opposition to stipends for coaches, band directors and club advisors.
(1) Are stipends still being paid to coaches, band directors and club advisors?
(2) Is it true that coaches, band directors and club advisors were told to take a percentage of their stipends for this year from student organization accounts?
(3) Are stipends being paid to district office staff members and/or to board members?

Is that true? A Jaguar?

I acknowledge that choices are choices, but it's hard to ignore a Jaguar.

Here's what Wikipedia says about the economic landscape of Sumter:

The median income for a household in the county was $44,167, and the median income for a family was $48,970. Males had a median income of $41,083 versus $37,162 for females. The per capita income for the county was $45,657. About 13.10% of families and 16.20% of the population were below the poverty line, including 23.60% of those under age 18 and 16.40% of those age 65 or over.

Just sayin'.

INFLUENCE OF BROAD FOUNDATION IDEOLOGY EVIDENT
During the process of researching the new teacher evaluation model and the superintendent's unqualified support for it, parents and educators have made themselves more aware of the Eli Broad Foundation, the Broad Institute, the Broad Superintendents Academy and its graduates. Parents in Sumter have been in contact with leaders of parent groups in other cities and school districts where Broad graduates now lead, or temporarily led, their districts.

Additionally, they benefited from reading Diane Ravitch's "The Death and Life of the Great American School System." They agree among themselves and with Ravitch that they oppose the Broad philosophy of dividing teachers and communities, and of instituting top-down, management-oriented school administration.
Parents and educators are concerned about the change in their community's culture since the introduction of this mode of thinking. Thanks to media coverage of Broad graduates and their records in other cities and school districts, they recognize that the cultural changes they observe occurring in Sumter have occurred in those other places too.

From their research, dialogues and observations, they conclude that the new teacher evaluation model, the perceived effort to reduce reported discipline cases, the restrictions in communication and the consolidation of power at the district office are reflections of the top-down, command-and-control tactics advocated by the Broad Institute. They question whether these tactics and this philosophy of school administration is the best and most appropriate one for Sumter School District.

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Heroic Mick Zais benefits from "politically weak" educators

When Superintendent Mick Zais appeared before a legislative committee to press his agenda to starve public education, he seemed out-of-place and fumbled for words to answer lawmakers' questions. But in a puff piece published by a right-wing organization online, Zais is absolutely eloquent, even accusatory of "weak-willed Republicans" who support public education and educators.

What distinguishes the Palmetto State’s K-12 reform debate from all the others is that it’s being led by an outspoken, retired Army brigadier general and former college president who is eager to take on the “liberal education establishment.”

State Superintendent of Education Mick Zais, a Republican, won election in 2010 by a huge margin of 108,000 votes. He has been in office for just over a year, but he has rankled lawmakers of both political parties by refusing to accept federal education dollars from President Obama’s Race to the Top initiative that gives states money in exchange for approved school reforms.

While other states are eager for the federal assistance, Zais argues that the one-time handouts come with strings attached and quickly turn into unfunded mandates, ultimately driving up education costs and stripping local communities of control over their schools.

“We don’t have a shortage of dollars in South Carolina’s schools, we have a shortage of accountability, competition and incentives,” Zais told EAG.

It's unclear when Zais took time to talk with EAG, a right-wing political organization, but perhaps it was on his own time rather than on state's clock. Taxpayers want to be sure that their dollars aren't being used to subsidize political activity.

Zais has told EAG that "South Carolina spends $11,700 per student, slightly above the national average," when he, better than anyone, knows that South Carolina spends less than $2,000. He knows it because he said so to the legislative budget committee on education:

Zais asked a Ways and Means panel Wednesday not to cut a key funding stream for classrooms, but he did not ask for an increase. The so-called base student cost primarily pays teacher salaries. The current per-student allocation is about $1,900 because of recession budget cuts. A state funding formula calls for it to be nearly $2,800 this year.

Had Zais accepted the offer of federal dollars from the Obama administration, that figure might have been a bit higher. But he didn't, and in his profile interview with EAG, he ridiculed the offer:

“If South Carolina had accepted its slice of the Race to the Top pie, it would equal $2.22 per student per year, for four years,” Zais said. “The idea that $2.22 would make a big difference is just nonsense. That’s not even a rounding error.”

Then, after delivering a sound smack to the federal government that afforded him a career-long military salary, and that will afford him a tasty retirement package, Zais turned his guns to professional educators.

Such views have drawn the ire of the “education industrial complex,” Zais’ term for those who place the interests of adult school employees ahead of the needs of students, and who claim failing public schools can be fixed with a checkbook.

“Traditional proposals for improving education – more money, better facilities, improved curriculum and smaller classes – will not work. We’ve tried that. We’ve tried that for 40 years,” Zais recently told an audience, according to the IndependentMail.com.

Here again, Zais tells out-of-state interviewers a tale that he knows is untrue. South Carolina's pre-eminent historian, Walter Edgar, could undercut this argument in only a couple of minutes, with an answer spanning three hundred years, and cap it with a "bless your heart" at the end.

See, educators have told lawmakers for generations how much it would cost to provide quality public education to all the state's children. But that figure has always been too high for South Carolina's corporate overlords, and it included too many children -- especially poor ones, and minority ones -- so the legislature has funded what it has chosen to fund, and told educators to make do.

Since the Education Finance Act was adopted in 1977, establishing the base student cost to be appropriated by the legislature annually, that figure has been fully-funded fewer than 10 times. It's all a matter of fact and history. Had Zais lived in South Carolina before coming to take the presidency of a small private college, he might have a better grasp on our state's education history.

And Zais himself has trotted out the old canard "I don't know if the money will be available" when it has suited his agenda to do so.

So to say that spending more money, building better facilities, improving curriculum and reducing class sizes won't work because "We’ve tried that. We’ve tried that for 40 years" is not merely a lie, but what we Southerners like to call a damn lie. That's the opposite of a little white lie.

Know your culture.

No matter. After telling that lie, Zais moved on to a lesser target: Moderate members of his own party.

Zais told EAG that while the nation’s teachers unions – the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers – comprise the heart of the “education industrial complex,” they are enabled by weak-willed Republicans.

“The education industrial complex is bipartisan,” Zais said. “We have RINOs – Republicans in Name Only – who are intimidated by the lobbying groups that get the public and the teachers all excited that we’re trying to destroy public education. In reality, we want to make it better and more accountable.”

Surely he didn't have this conversation from his office in the Rutledge Building, on a state telephone. Such blatant political conversation has no place in our state agencies.

Perhaps Sen. Phil Leventis will file another Freedom of Information Act request and find that out for us.

Then Zais described how he defies his oath of office, the one that made him the chief advocate for South Carolina's 700,000 public schoolchildren.

“Our traditional schools have a monopoly,” Zais said. “And monopolies have little incentive for improving or controlling costs. Accountability, competition and incentives have the power to transform the system.”

Zais’ education reform proposals are designed to break that monopoly.

See, those "traditional schools," the ones that Zais calls a "monopoly," are the ones that the state Constitution creates a state superintendent of education to support. It's plain as the nose on one's face.

ARTICLE XI.
PUBLIC EDUCATION

SECTION 1. State Board of Education.
There shall be a State Board of Education composed of one member from each of the judicial circuits of the State. The members shall be elected by the legislative delegations of the several counties within each circuit for terms and with such powers and duties as may be provided by law and shall be rotated among the several counties. One additional member shall be appointed by the Governor. The members of the Board shall serve such terms and the Board shall have such powers and duties as the General Assembly shall specify by law. (1972 (57) 3193; 1973 (58) 44.)

SECTION 2. State Superintendent of Education.
There shall be a State Superintendent of Education who shall be the chief administrative officer of the public education system of the State and shall have such qualifications as may be prescribed by law. (1972 (57) 3193; 1973 (58) 44.)

SECTION 3. System of free public schools and other public institutions of learning.
The General Assembly shall provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free public schools open to all children in the State and shall establish, organize and support such other public institutions of learning, as may be desirable. (1972 (57) 3193; 1973 (58) 44.)

SECTION 4. Direct aid to religious or other private educational institutions prohibited.
No money shall be paid from public funds nor shall the credit of the State or any of its political subdivisions be used for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution. (1972 (57) 3193; 1973 (58) 44.)

See the words in Section 2: "who shall be the chief administrative officer of the public education system of the State"? That means, if there IS a traditional-schools monopoly in South Carolina, the superintendent is the person who leads the monopoly. The superintendent isn't authorized under the Constitution to lead the state's private schools, or parochial schools, or home schools, or unschools. It's in plain English. Which we still teach in South Carolina, right? Isn't it one of the subjects that's tested eight times a week?

If Zais didn't want to do that job, maybe he shouldn't have run for office.

Nevertheless, EAG swallowed Zais's line whole, then cast Zais as a one-man conservative army against a tide of "politically weak" educators and local leaders.

While state superintendents such as Zais have the power to advocate for education reforms, the decision-making power rests with the state legislators. South Carolina is a politically conservative state, but that doesn’t mean Zais’ reforms will be warmly embraced.

His strongest opposition will likely come from local school officials, who wield a surprising amount of political power in the state.

South Carolina is a “right-to-work” state, which means teachers are not required to join their local union. That renders the South Carolina Education Association and the Palmetto State Teachers Association politically weak.

However, the state’s superintendents all belong to the South Carolina Association of School Administrators, and every school board member belongs to the South Carolina School Boards Association. The SCASA and the SCSBA fill the left-wing power vacuum created by the anemic teacher unions.
...
Given the groups’ unique role in South Carolina’s education system, school districts pay for their school board officials and superintendents to become members of these organizations.

As a result, the two associations have multi-million dollar budgets, which allow them to hire a number of lawyers and lobbyists to represent their interests.

In the end, writes EAG, there's Zais the heroic warrior, blocking these "politically weak" educators from dominating the state as they have... er, from dominating... um, well, actually, from not dominating anything.

But after building him up as a conquering avenger, and making the case that he really doesn't have any strong opponents to conquer, EAG is left to offer a summary that's as weak as Zais's own testimony before legislative committees: "He is popular with the people," and "for the first time, the state superintendent office doesn’t serve as the de facto headquarters of the SCSBA or the SCASA.”

That's funny, I don't recall that Superintendents Jim Rex, Inez Tenenbaum or Barbara Nielsen took their marching orders from SCSBA or SCASA, either.

Zais will likely have this article framed for hanging in the office. It's better than anything The State will do for him.

Monday, January 16, 2012

King: 'Right to work' laws a 'fraud' on workers

South Carolina has been a so-called right-to-work -- otherwise known as a right-to-work-for-less -- state since adopting its anti-worker law in 1954.

Seven years later, Martin Luther King Jr. commented on so-called right-to-work laws:

In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, such as ‘right to work.’ It is a law to rob us of our civil rights and job rights. . . Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining by which unions have improved wages and working conditions of everyone. Wherever these laws have been passed, wages are lower, job opportunities are fewer and there are no civil rights. We do not intend to let them do this to us. We demand this fraud be stopped. Our weapon is our vote.

Indeed. King was right then, and he's been proven right in the half-century since then.

According to independent studies conducted by the Economic Policy Institute and the University of Notre Dame, wages in “right-to-work” states are significantly less than in states without “right-to-work” laws. These studies show that the “right-to-work” laws lead to lower wages and drive down the overall living standards in communities.

Wonder why today's educator salaries are so consistently low? King told us why in 1961.

Hooray for our South Carolina, where the poor work hard and wealthy hardly work.

Monday, July 25, 2011

Other states' retirees are welcome, but not our own, in Horry

We've all heard that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

That's what came to mind after reading an item in the Myrtle Beach Sun-News about a new policy to purge the Horry County School District's central office of its at-will employees. Maybe the intention is noble -- the superintendent says the move will open up advancement opportunities for others -- but something smells very bad about the policy's fine print.

To be clear, this only affects the Horry central office, according to the news report. And it only affects those at-will employees who have retired and returned to work.

At-will employees are those who are drawing retirement in South Carolina and have returned to work without the legal entitlement a contract gives for guaranteed employment. Most at the district office fall under the Teacher and Employee Retention Incentive, or TERI program.

Some see this as a way to prevent "double-dipping" -- in fact, the Sun-News said so in its headline.

Others say it's about saving money. Apparently, secretaries who have worked for 30 years at the central office make a ton of money.

Board Chairman Will Garland said most board members see the move as a cost savings, which could be 40 to 50 percent - paying someone substantially less than $100,000 a year. "It did not apply to at-will teachers or custodians or bus drivers - that's not the people we're concerned about," Garland said. "It's the ones at or approaching six-figure salaries, where we have some fairly high-paid executives."

Elsberry contends that cost savings would be minimal because at the district level, salaries have to be competitive to attract the talent needed to run the state's third-largest school district, as opposed to teacher salaries, which are set by the state.

"I want somebody who is a proven entity, who can get the job done without a lot of training," Elsberry said of hires in administration.

So, either it is about saving money, or it isn't about saving money; this isn't very clear because Horry's leaders seem not to be speaking from the same talking points.

What is perfectly clear is that the policy is inherently unfair in one really glaring way: Employees who retired from North Carolina or some other state, moved to Horry County and have been hired at the central office are completely unaffected. In fact, once those employees have served in their position through the probationary period, they get a continuing contract and can negotiate a pretty hefty wage.

The district has hired employees who have retired from school districts in other states; after successfully completing one year of employment, S.C. law allows for those employees to be put on a continuing contract and given credit for their previous experience.

So let's play this out in two scenarios.

In scenario one, I retired in 2005 after working 30 years for the district office of Brunswick County, North Carolina, just across the border from Horry County. In fact, I still live in Brunswick County -- in a pretty little condo community in Carolina Shores -- and drive 45 minutes to work every day at the Horry County district office. After my first year of working here, Horry County gave me full credit for my 30 years in North Carolina, so I was able to collect a salary based on my three decades-plus experience. Truly, I live in the catbird's seat, drawing a very healthy retirement check from North Carolina -- because North Carolina's state lawmakers have always honored their commitment to keep a healthy retirement system -- and earning a nice salary in South Carolina while earning credit in its retirement system, too. This new policy adopted by the Horry school board doesn't affect me at all, and I get to continue working here for as long as I want.

In scenario two, I retired in 2005 after 30 years of working for the district office in Horry County. Then, I came right back to work as an at-will employee -- meaning that I have no contract and no rights because South Carolina has been a right-to-work-for-less state since 1954 -- and I've been toiling away, doing my part for the children of Horry County. As a result of the new policy adopted by the Horry school board, I'm now out of a job -- so much for loyalty and dedication -- and am dependent solely on my state retirement benefits, which are stingy and meager because South Carolina's lawmakers fight tooth-and-nail to avoid strengthening that system and, in fact, do all they can to weaken it.

The moral of the policy seems to be that if you retired elsewhere and came to work in Horry, you're a very valuable employee; but if you retired in South Carolina and wanted to continue working, you're a drag on the system and you're blocking others from climbing their career ladder.

Does this sound fair to you?