Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Wed 03/03/2004 View Tue 03/02/2004 View Mon 03/01/2004 View Sun 02/29/2004 View Sat 02/28/2004 View Fri 02/27/2004 View Thu 02/26/2004
1
2004-03-03 
OUTRAGE: Michigan teacher must cover cost of substitute while on military duty
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Dragon Fly 2004-03-03 6:42:11 PM|| || Front Page|| [11138 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Time for a fresh American Revolution. It's self-apparent that subversive idiots have taken over the education system. This ranks as one of the most offensive and egregious examples I've ever seen. Perhaps he should've said he was attending an socialism ashram in SF - they probably would've covered his (non-existent) RT airfare.
Posted by .com 2004-3-3 6:57:40 PM||   2004-3-3 6:57:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Outrageous. Absolutely outrageous. The superintendant of schools should be publically caned, and the entire school board force to wear dunce caps, everywhere, for a year.

Bastards.
Posted by Dave D.  2004-3-3 7:02:45 PM||   2004-3-3 7:02:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 That Supe is one major league @$$h@t. I don't know what the signal was, but across the country, the socialists are in full and open revolt. This needs to get ugly and quick.
Posted by Rex Mundi 2004-3-3 7:16:17 PM||   2004-3-3 7:16:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 WTF! Is this Supe on another planet? Can you say recall?
Posted by Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter)  2004-3-3 7:25:19 PM||   2004-3-3 7:25:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 I wonder if the Superintendant of Schools is a Democrat.
Posted by Dave D.  2004-3-3 7:36:11 PM||   2004-3-3 7:36:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 I become angry just reading this article. This is an example of thinly veiled contempt for the military.
Posted by Mark  2004-3-3 7:46:14 PM||   2004-3-3 7:46:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 This is an example of thinly veiled contempt for the military.

Thinly?
Posted by Anonymous 2004-3-3 7:59:53 PM||   2004-3-3 7:59:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 The first thing to do is to see what State and Federal laws are regarding military service vis a vis the employer and his responsibility. If the school dist is violating it, then get the meanest lawyer, or DA, whichever is applicable and go after the Supt. He needs a serious legal cluebat to get his priorities and responsibilities back into proper trim.
Posted by Alaska Paul 2004-3-3 8:15:39 PM||   2004-3-3 8:15:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 I'd suggest a comment to: gsims@khps.org

try and keep the profanity out
Posted by Frank G  2004-3-3 8:45:28 PM||   2004-3-3 8:45:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 I am getting seriously, seriously tired of this anti-American Leftist crap.

They flaunt their disobedience of the laws and don't even hide their sabotage of this country.
Posted by Laurence of the Rats  2004-3-3 8:46:22 PM||   2004-3-3 8:46:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 I am not trying to justify what has been presented.

But, what has been presented does not apear to make sense or be the whole story. This is the Associated Press regurgitating what was originally reported by one of the ace reporters at the Grand Rapids Press. Somehow, I expect there will be a folow up that reconciles the lead paragraph above with the folowing from the end of the story:

In the end, the teacher will receive $573 more than he would have after the two-week military leave, Gillette said. Bernhardt will give the district only six days' worth of his military pay, and he also will receive a military housing allowance.

When compared to employees of private companies, the district is doing what it should to protect Bernhardt's financial stability, Gillette said.

"It's a fact that he's not losing money, that he's making money. Whatever way you look at it, he's still making money," he said.
Posted by Mr. Davis  2004-3-3 9:07:22 PM||   2004-3-3 9:07:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 I personally think this is atrocious. I do, however, think it may be based on what his contract says. I teach at a community college and a few years ago when I was at a conference I had to have someone else come in to cover the class while gone. I paid the instructor the rate for an adjunct instructor for the days she taught. The school didn't pay anything as I'm contracted to teach those classes.

The part that upsets me and I wonder if it is legal is the part where he has to give them money from his reservist pay. If he were willing to pay for the substitute then what is the extra money about? He's not going to be away for the entire month so how can it be for benefits? And most insurance is covered by a monthly basis. So what exactly is the $78 based on?
Posted by AF Lady 2004-3-3 9:12:37 PM||   2004-3-3 9:12:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Mr. Davis -"Gray"? It's not the actual $ burden faced by the teacher, it's the attitude and lack of patriotic fervor (oooohhh McCarthyism!!!!) in the face of a known enemy that pisses us off. These people live free to be pinheads, by the actions...(insert Nicholson speech from A Few Good Men)
Posted by Frank G  2004-3-3 9:14:41 PM||   2004-3-3 9:14:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 I teach at a community college and a few years ago when I was at a conference I had to have someone else come in to cover the class while gone.

You can't tell the difference between going to a conference and military service?
Posted by Robert Crawford  2004-3-3 9:24:30 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/]  2004-3-3 9:24:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 There's probably some more to this story. This is like the big outrages when pay is deducted for meals eaten by wounded, hospitalized soldiers. I assume that this teacher's pay has been adjusted by a regulation and not by anybody's opinion about the Iraq war.
Posted by Mike Sylwester  2004-3-3 9:56:12 PM||   2004-3-3 9:56:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Well, folks, now that we have all been stirred up like hornets (myself included) we will just have to wait for the rest of the facts. *sigh*
Posted by Alaska Paul 2004-3-3 10:07:49 PM||   2004-3-3 10:07:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Frank G,

Please don't blow my cover. Thanks. My only point is that I doubt we have the whole story. Grand Rapids isn't Detroit or Ann Arbour. I doubt a pinhead like these folks appear to be would last very long there. Let's get the full story or recognize that our fulmination is for our own satisfaction only.
Posted by Mr. Davis  2004-3-3 10:09:06 PM||   2004-3-3 10:09:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Robert Crawford: You can't tell the difference between going to a conference and military service?

I imagine I would as I'm a veteran. I think the whole thing is atrocious but I was trying to explain why at least he might have to pay for a substitute and giving an example. If I were in the reserves today I would still have to pay for that substitute. I may not like it but if my contract indicated that then I'm stuck unless the school were willing to forego that requirement due to military service. I would also have to use any accumulated leave time for the days absent. I think the part that upsets me the most but would like to see an explanation is why he must pay them money from his reservist pay. That doesn't make any sense at all.
Posted by AF Lady 2004-3-3 10:25:47 PM||   2004-3-3 10:25:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Disgusting.
Robert Crawford-
AF Lady is right about the contracts. In our district, even when it is a supposed "school event" (such as Model UN, some band trips etc.) the teacher is required to pay for a sub themselves, which often raises the price of the extra curricular. Of course, this is never used on the sports teams...

-S-
Posted by Anonymous 2004-3-3 11:34:33 PM||   2004-3-3 11:34:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 I'm not an expert, but I WAS a reservist for four years, and I've never, ever heard anything like this. I think someone has a problem, and it needs to be taken up with the state Adjutant General. If this person is in the National Guard, as the article indicates, the Adjutant General is responsible for the "safety and well-being" of all Guard members. I was always paid the difference between my civilian pay and my military pay, never have I had to pay to pull an active duty tour.
Posted by Old Patriot  2004-3-3 11:47:41 PM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm]  2004-3-3 11:47:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Mr. Davis, it is indeed illegal by federal law namely the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act ("USERRA"), 38 U.S.C. § 4301. No employer may unnecessarily place fines, fees or dues or cause any retribution to fall upon employees called up for service.
Posted by Valentine 2004-3-4 12:08:19 AM||   2004-3-4 12:08:19 AM|| Front Page Top

05:37 Anonymous1424
09:45 rkb
09:25 .com
09:21 Anonymous5161
09:40 ClareLopez
22:17 Minutus
04:50 SON OF TOLUI
04:31 SON OF TOLUI
00:30 Classic_Liberal
00:08 Valentine
00:04 Old Patriot
00:03 Old Patriot
23:56 CrazyFool
23:56 Mike Kozlowski
23:51 CrazyFool
23:47 Old Patriot
23:47 Anonymous2U
23:43 Mr. Davis
23:41 Anonymous2U
23:34 Anonymous
23:32 Hyper
23:31 Old Patriot
23:26 Hyper
23:07 Super Hose









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com