In the employer/employee environment many things are possible under the guise of reorganization-- in both the public and private sectors. When jobs are redefined, as is often the case, it is very common that the person who previously held the position (prior to the redefined job description/ new responsibilities, etc) is required to reapply for 'their' position (remember, it's no longer the same position, and someone else may be better qualified). Seems appropriate, given the usual reason for a reorganization is to accomplish more with less-- and you naturally want the best qualified persons in any given position. In many cases, when employees are told to reapply for their 'old' position, the new position may even be posted for outside candidates-- it's opened up for all the world to apply for. Such tactics may also let employers legally get rid of some dead wood.
'Fire at will' is a bit of a misnomer. 'At will employment' is the correct term and means simply that- if an employee is not under contract, he or she is an at-will employee. An employer can dismiss an at-will employee hired for an indefinite term at any time for any non-discriminatory reason. Don't forget, there are many laws are on the books to protect citizens and employees against discrimination, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which provides constitutional guarantees, with particular emphasis on preventing employment discrimination based on race, gender, sex, religion, or age. It's important to note that the vast majority of people in this country work as 'at will employees.' It's nothing new. Every job I've ever held was an 'at will' position. Even as a self-employed person, I still basically work 'at will' since an unhappy client can always end the contract or dispute payment. Being self-employed, the client paying the bill is the boss, and I work for them 'at will.' Life is full of risk and there are few (if any) guarantees. I think what you're looking for is an employment guarantee law. Good luck. Mike Hohmann Linden Hills > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Pat Bohn > Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 3:12 PM > To: Dorie Rae Gallagher > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Mpls] Steve Belton v. Thandiwe Peebles > > > I have backed the superintendent through most of this fray > over her leadership, that is until the Tuesday board meeting. > I know some of the people who are on the "fire at will" list > and in one case have spent the last 5 years working closely with > that person. These are outstanding educators, willing to take on > tough positions at the district level to make a difference for > students. They don't deserve to be treated this way by the > superintendent or the board. Also, the superintendent didn't mention the > "fire at will" language in their contracts until after they > accepted the jobs at the 807, as Steve Belton pointed out on > Tuesday. I think it is unethical to have employees vacate their previous > MPS job, give up their seniority in some cases, move into their > office and then be told that they can be fired at the whim of the > superintendent. I'd also like to know who the handful of > administrators are who didn't get the "fire at will" clause" and why. > Considering all the talk about her "style", you wouldn't > think even Ms. Peebles would have balls enough to try this. > > Buzzy Bohn > Folwell > > > Dorie Rae Gallagher wrote: > > > > Doug.. > > > Regulating the authority of supervisors as described above is good for > > > morale > > > and the effectiveness of an organization. Moreover, an > employee who may be > > > "fired-at-will" is under greater pressure to please the boss > and to engage > > > in > > > unethical and illegal conduct toward that end. > > > > *If someone is going to break under greater pressure to please > a boss and > > engage > > in unethical and illegal conduct...who wants them as an > employee?! If they > > are going to lose their moral fiber and this bothers them..get > a different > > job...but > > why would anyone stoop to the low ground unless they are not competant > > to compete at a higher level? If an employer asks them to be > deceptive... > > and it goes against their beliefs...same thing...get a different job. > > > > Doug.. > > > Making top administrators "fire-at-will" employees isn't necessarily a > > > good > > > idea just because 'other school district's do it.' > > > > > > Granting Peebles "fire-at-will" is undoubtedly the easiest, > but not the > > > best > > > way to make administrators more accountable to the > superintendent, in my > > > opinion. A better way to make administrators more accountable > for their > > > job > > > performance, and not just to Dr. Peebles, would be for > Peebles to address > > > aspects of > > > her own job performance in need of improvement, by her own > admission, such > > > as, > > > interpersonal communications and delegation of authority... > > > > *We lost 70 top people during cuts a few years back...many with > exemplary > > reviews...do > > you really think any one of those people would have had the > right to say...I > > should not be > > going because you are the one in need of improvement. Yes, they > could have > > but it would have hurried them out the door a little quicker. > > No one should HAVE to make someone do a good job or be accountable > > at the level of an administrator....they are paid to do a great > job and be > > totally accountable. > > > > I do not know Dr. Peebles, she was hired by seemingly > intelligent people > > and > > she had proven success in the past. She did not create the 47% > figure of > > students not graduating, she did not create the exodus to private and > > charter; > > the system has been broken for some time and NO ONE did doddlie squat > > about it. Everyone would have sunk the boat to keep Johnson...for what > > reason? > > Our schools were failing .......where was the board and noise then?? > > > > Now, there is someone that has a different approach and is ruffling the > > feathers > > of the status quo which might be part of the problem. She was > barely off the > > train and rumors were being spred about painted windows etc. > > Give me some facts and figures that prove she is not doing her job.. > > and is ruining our school system beyond the spoils she stepped > > in on the first day of her positon. > > > > Dorie Gallagher/Nokomis > > > > -democracy.org/discuss.html > > > For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn > > > E-Democracy > > > Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] > > > Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls > > > > > > > REMINDERS: > > 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at > http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in > violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before > continuing it on the list. > > > > 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. > > > > For state and national discussions see: > http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html > > For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract > > ________________________________ > > > > Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic > Discussion - Mn E-Democracy > > Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] > > Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls > > REMINDERS: > 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at > http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in > violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before > continuing it on the list. > > 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. > > For state and national discussions see: > http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html > For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract > ________________________________ > > Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion > - Mn E-Democracy > Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] > Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
